HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 07 85 PC MinutesNovember 7, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Thursday, November 7, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice
Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy
County Attorney. Absent were: Mr. James Skove, Mr. Richard
Gould, Mr. Harry Wilkerson, and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after
establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the October 15, 1985 and October 22, 1985
meetings were approved as written.
ZMA-85-25 Hydraulic Associates - Request to rezone 5.5 acres
from R-10, Residential to R-15 Residential. Property, described
as Tax Map 61W, parcel 03-22 is located on the northwest side of
Commonwealth Drive at its intersection with Northwest Drive.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. In addition, he submitted
two additional letters from surrounding property owners:
one from the Oak Forest Neighborhood Association expressing
their support for the rezoning; and one from several property
owners who expressed their opposition to any further development
along Commonwealth Drive until the road has been accepted into
the State system.
Mr. Keeler's report stated that "staff opinion is that R-15
zoning would permit the applicant to complete the final phase
of Turtle Creek consistent with prior development and that
R-15 zoning would be in general accord with other zoning and
development in the area." Staff recommended approval of the
petition.
Mr. Keeler added that the County Engineer is in the process
of preparing the documents to have Commonwealth Drive accepted
into the State system (construction on the road is complete)
and, hopefully, this will be completed within the next couple
of months.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Rick White, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He made the following comments:
--It was originally planned that the development would
be completed in the same design as the rest of
Turtle Creek, i.e. one -bedroom units. It was later
decided that a site plan for 55 four -bedroom units
would be submitted, but this was withdrawn after
an agreement was reached with the Oak Forest Neighborhood
November 7, 1985 Page 2
Association in which the applicant determined that
the association was more agreeable to the original
plan for one -bedroom units.
--The project has been successful and has been well -
received by the community.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. White stated that
if the R-15 zoning is granted, the applicant will be entitled
to up to 83 units. He stated the applicant is "really
looking at between 79-83 one -bedroom units." He further
explained that currently in Turtle Creek there is a total
of 288 units of which 36 are one -bedroom units. He further
explained that these are condominium units of which approximately
20o have been sold and are owner -occupied.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Robert Walters, a resident of Oak Circle, addressed the
Commission. His concerns were as follows:
--The area is being developed too densely which is
having a negative effect on property values.
--The agreement that was reached with the property
owners was unfair because the property owners
were "strongarmed" into supporting this request
in exchange for the withdrawal of the 55 unit
four -bedroom proposal.
--There is some question that the agreement reached
between the homeowners and the applicant is
legally binding. If the agreement is binding, it
would be binding between Heischman Associates
and Oak Forest and not on any subsequent owner.
He pointed out that Heischman Associates do not
own the property.
--If the zoning is granted, that agreement should
be made binding on all subsequent owners.
--The security of the neighborhood is being negatively
effected by the dense development.
Ms. Karen Brazell addressed the Commission. She questioned
the statement that the road (Commonwealth Drive) was about
to be taken into the State system. She said that has been
the promise for at least five years. She stressed that
the road should be taken into the State system before any
further development takes place so that the speed limit,
etc. on the road can be enforced.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
9
9
In reponse to Ms. Diehl's request, Mr. Keeler pointed out
the different properties and zonings on the map. It was
estimated that a total of 7 acres is currently zoned R-15 (undeveloped,
(of which 5 acres has physical problems which would
hamper development).
21
November 7, 1985
Page 3
Mr. Michel asked why the agreement between the applicant and
the homeowners had not been offered as a proffer.
Mr. Keeler stated that a proffer would have to be offered
by the applicant voluntarily; he cautioned the Commission
about "including in zoning, agreements between individuals"
because the Zoning Administrator would be the one who would
have to enforce it. He added that if the Commission feels
there is something of public benefit to the proffer, "that
is another matter."
Regarding Commonwealth Drive, Mr. Keeler stated that the
County Engineer does intend to have the road accepted into
the State system, and if it is not ready, he is going to call
the bond. He added that the County Engineer is concerned that
if the road goes through another winter the fabric may not
be in a suitable condition for acceptance next season and the
bond would then not cover any type of re -surfacing that might
be necessary. Mr. Keeler added that he could not speak
for the Highway Department.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was skeptical until the road has
actually been accepted and he was reluctant to increase the
zoning density on a private road.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt the present zoning is appropriate
for current conditions. She stated there had been statements
to the effect that the development would be consistent with
Turtle Creek which is zoned R-10. She questioned whether the
applicant would be able to preserve the buffer areas if
the re -zoning were granted.
Mr. Michel stated he was not opposed to the rezoning but he
wanted to see "something that talks about one -bedrooms.
Mr. Keeler stated there can be no conditions on a rezoning
but that an applicant can offer restrictions which address
the Commission's concerns. Mr. Keeler stated that the
question of Commonwealth Drive was "very simple" since
the rezoning would not result in any more traffic on the
road, and no more site plans could be approved until the
road is in the State system. The other issues, however, would
have to be addressed by the applicant.
Mr. White stated the applicant would be willing to "go ahead
and offer the provision that it would be only one -bedroom
units."
Mr. Bowerman stated the Commission could deny the rezoning,
but make a statement to the Board that if the applicant
would choose to do certain things, the Commission could have
looked on the application more favorably. This would allow
the applicant the opportunity to deal with the concerns of
the Commission before going before the Board. This puts the
burden on the applicant.
Mr. Michel agreed.
7
November 7, 1985 Page 4
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Payne confirmed the
Commission could deny a site plan if the road is not a public
road.
The Chairman asked Ms. Diehl to re -state her concerns.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt the current R-10 zoning is a transitional
zone between the R-10 that is across the road, the Elder Care
Gardens and the R-4 that is adjacent on the northwest, and
therefore is appropriate at that place. Her other concern was
that by increasing to R-15, it would be very difficult for the
applicant to address those items stated in his letter to the
homeowners. Those items were not presented in proper form to
the Commission. She also confirmed that even if these items
had been submitted in a proffer, she still might not have
supported the rezoning.
Mr. Michel stated he was in favor of denial but pointed out that
he could have supported the application if it had been limited
to one -bedroom units.
Mr. Cogan emphasized that the Commission could not get involved
in agreements between homeowners' associations and developers.
Mr. Michel moved that ZMA-85-25 for Hydraulic Associates be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the applicant had heard the
concerns of the Commission and, if they so choose, they
may be able to change the status of the request before the
Board.
The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on November 20,
1985.
ZMA-85-27 & SP-85-77 S.L. Williamson - Request to rezone ±5 acres
from R-4 Residential to R-4 Residential with NR, Natural
Resource Overlay District; and to obtain special use permit
approval in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1(3) to allow a
sand and gravel removal operation in the floodway of the South
Fork Rivanna River. Property, described as Tax Map 62, parcel
16 (part) is a portion of the Dunlora Estate located on the east
side of Rio Road (Rte. 631) across from the VOTEC Center.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant had requested deferral
until January 21, 1986. It was determined that since there
were members of the public present in relation to this
application, the Commission would hear their comments.
The Chairman invited public comment.
//
November 7, 1985 Page 5
Mr. Kent Sinclair, a resident of Key West, addressed the
Commission. Mr. Sinclair's primary concern was the
excessive noise that is generated by the use. His
other concerns were as follows:
--Harmful effects of noise pollution.
--The use is not consistent with the surrounding area.
--Have the owners of the property actually given
permission for this use?
--The operation has not stayed within the area that
was originally approved.
--The operation has crossed the center line of the
river and has changed the course of the river.
--No benefit to the County.
--Negative environmental impact.
Mr. Jack Schwabb addressed the Commission. His concerns were
the same as Mr. Sinclair's. He also asked the Commission to
consider the magnitude of the operation before making a
decision. He felt the applicant should have to show that
the operation is not causing damage to the area.
Ms. Pat Keats and Ms. Nan Baldwin addressed the Commission.
Their properties are directly above the operation. They
stressed that the noise level was so high that it prevented
them from being able to use their yards or from being able
to open their windows. Ms. Baldwin stated that the distance
between the homes and the operation should not be a
determining factor because the noise is magnified as it rises.
The applicant's representative pointed out to the Commission
that both sides of the issue had not been heard.
Mr. Bowerman explained that the applicant's case was not preju-
diced, but hearing the public comments would allow staff to
address their concerns before the matter is heard in January.
The applicant pointed out the proposal is not to increase
the size of the operation, but rather to allow other sites
for operation so that the sites that are currently being
used can have time to "rest."
Mr. Ken Boyd, President of Key West Club, stated he concurred
with what had already been said by the residents of Key West.
Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-85-27 & SP-85-77 be deferred until
January 21, 1986. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was
unanimously approved.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the staff had not been aware of the
complaints of the public.
It was determined the Commission is interested in knowing the
hours and days of operation and also the decibel level connected
with the operation at the time the matter is heard again.
4 "
November 7, 1985
Page 6
ZMA-85-28 and SP-85-78 W.S. Figgatt - Request to rezone approximately
50 acres of a 541.448 acre parcel from RA, Rural Areas to RA,
Rural Areas with NR, Natural Resource Overlay District; and to
obtain special use permit in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1(3)
to allow sand removal within the floodway of the Rivanna River.
Property, described as Tax Map 94, parcel 17 (part of) is
located on the east side of St. Rt. 53, approximately 1 mile
from the intersection of Rt. 729. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He also referred to a letter
from the County Engineer, dated November 7, 1985, which stated
that, in accordance with Section 5.1.28, the applicants will
be required to submit a detailed plan which will be very similar
to an erosion control plan and will include critical erosion areas,
hours of operation, and maintenance of the site. A second
letter from the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries (Mr.
Price Smith), dated October 30, 1985, was also read which
recommended that dredging be prohibited during the months of
March through June, and that during normal operations, holding
lagoons should be constructed that would act as settling ponds
for dredged material and runoff.
Mr. Keeler stated that, in view of the letters from the County
Engineer and the Game Commission, the Commission might wish
to add further conditions to the special use permit. He
suggested that the following be added:
Compliance with Section 5.1.28 as outlined in County
Engineer's memo of November 7, 1985.
Mr. Keeler stated the applicant was not aware of the recommenda-
tion that recommended that operation be suspended March through
June.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Figgatt addressed the Commission. (Mr. Keeler confirmed
that the reference to "both of these applicants" in the
memo from the County Engineer referred to both Mr. Williamson
and himself). He indicated he did not think it would be
a problem to submit a detailed plan since such a plan is
required for the State Environmental Reclamation Permit under
which he operates. He felt the same plan could be used to
staisfy the County Engineer's requirement.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel asked the applicant if he was agreeable to the
8 conditions suggested by staff, and also to the recommendation
by the Game Commission that operation be suspended March through
June.
November 7, 1985
Page 7
Mr. Figgatt replied
suggested by staff.
that Mr. Williamson
that operations be
that he had no problems with the 8 conditions
He also stated he was under the impression
had been advised that it was not necessary
suspended.
Mr. Keeler pointed out to Mr. Figgatt what he was referring
to was in connection to sediment curtains which the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission had not required, but
he emphasized that is a different agency from the Commission
of Game and Inland Fisheries who are recommending that
operations be restricted from March through June.
Mr. Figgatt indicated did not like this restriction, but since
he had another location he could work at that time, he
"could live with it." In response to Mr. Cogan's question,
Mr. Figgatt stated it would be difficult to do any stockpiling
since it is very low ground and would be hard to find a safe
place to stockpile.
Ms. Diehl stated she did not feel there was sufficient information
to determine whether or not this was an acceptable use, par-
ticularly since it is so conditional on several other permits.
She was concerned about rezoning so large an area (50 acres) to
a natural resource overlay district. She explained that
though this application was for a crane and drag -line
bucket operation, the rezoning would open it up to any type
of sand removal operation. She felt it would be very detri-
mental to allow a large operation to develop in the area.
She added that she felt the recommendation that operations
be suspended between March and June was very important.
Mr. Bowerman stated the permit "goes with the land and not the
applicant,but any applicant would have to live with the same
criteria."
Mr. Cogan indicated he understood Ms. Diehl's concern.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the permit could be limited to
the estimated tonage that was outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Keeler stated this would be difficult to enforce and
suggested that, instead, the operation could be limited to
one crane and drag line, and that other dregging equipment
could be excluded.
Mr. Payne suggested the following wording:
The extraction operation is limited to crane and drag -line
bucket operation. Not more than one crane and drag -line bucket
assembly shall be located on the property at any given time.
Mr. Payne also explained that the permit to which Mr. Figgatt
had referred is one that is required by the mining statutes.
He stated that our ordinance is specifically written to require
a certain sort of plan and it expressly permits the applicant
to show and keep in force his state permit rather than doing
two which would have the same substance. I.e., if the
07
November 7, 1985 Page 8
state statute applies then you can satisfy the county require-
ments by satisfying the state requirements.
Mr. Michel stated that the county requirements seem to be
a little stronger than the states. Mr. Payne responded, "In some
respects they are and in this one, since it involves a flood
hazard district, it probably has other things that the state
permit doesn't require."
Mr. Michel asked if the Commission could put a time limit on
a permit of this nature. He stated there seem to be a lot of
unanswered questions.
Mr. Payne stated this was possible, depending on the reason
for setting a time limit. He asked Mr. Michel to explain
what purpose the time limit would serve.
Mr. Michel stated it would give the Commission a chance to
re-evaluate the situation.
Mr. Payne interpreted that while conditions now may allow this
use, those conditions may have changed in five years.
Mr. Michel confirmed this was his concern and further stated
that conditions along the river may have changed or that the
river may eventually be designated a scenic river.
Mr. Payne replied, "I think you might be able to do that."
Mr. Keeler added that though staff has recommended against
this approach in the past, this case is different in that the
applicant's operation is a portable one.
Mr. Michel indicated he was in favor of the application but
he was in favor of it being limited to a certain period of time,
preferably five years.
Ms. Diehl stated the Commission has no indication of the
environmental impact of the operation.
Mr. Figgatt pointed out that the State Environmental Reclaimation
Permit requires that a state inspection be done every three months,
and if the plan is not being complied with a citation will be issued
or the operation can be closed down.
Ms. Diehl asked how the conditions placed on the special use
permit are inspected. She also asked Mr. Figgatt to explain
how the operation works.
Mr. Figgatt explained that, because the banks are high, the
operation sits upon the bank and the bucket is cast out
over the river.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ron to explain the mechanism for getting
complaints corrected.
rj
November 7, 1985
Page 9
Mr. Keeler explained that it depends on the agency, but
the Ordinance envisions that the applicant must maintain
a valid approval which the Zoning Administrator can review
on an annual basis.
Mr. Payne added that the idea is that if one permit satisfies
both the State statute and the County ordinance, then either
body can enforce violations of that permit.
Mr. Bowerman asked who would be doing the review. Mr. Payne
stated there is a state inspector (as mentioned by Mr. Figgatt)
and he has the authority to issue citations for violations
of the statutes. He confirmed that the state inspector
is enforcing the State permit.
Mr. Diehl pointed out that, in some respects, there is quite
a wide discrepancy between the state and county requirements.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that staff's condition No. 7 requires
the County Engineer to make periodic inspections.
It was determined that condition No. 7 would be amended to
require that the County Engineer make semi-annual inspections
of the sites.
Mr. Michel stated that the added conditions and the amendment
to condition No. 7 would address his concerns. He added that
' he hoped the plan required by the County Engineer would
show specific sites to be used and would be very clear.
Mr. Michel moved that ZMA-85-28 and SP-85-78 for W.S. Figgatt
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval with
SP-85-78 subject to the following conditions:
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;
November 7, 1985
Page 10
7. The County Engineer shall make semi-annual inspection
of the sites to ensure compliance with conditions 1
through 6 of this special use permit. The County Engineer
may require such corrective measures as deemed necessary
to ensure compliance with these conditions;
8. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval
of commercial entrance;
9. No operation shall occur between March 1 and June 30.
10. Compliance with Section 5.1.28 as outlined in County
Engineer's memo of November 7, 1985;
11. The extraction operation is limited to crane and drag -
line bucket operation. Not more than one crane and
drag -line bucket assembly shall be located on the
property at any given time.
12. Special use permit shall expire at the end of five
years.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was approved (3:1) with
Messrs. Cogan, Bowerman and Michel voting in favor and Ms. Diehl
voting against.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on November 20, 1985.
Mr. Keeler added that this falls under three different sections
of the Ordinance (Flood Plan, Natural Resource, Borrow Areas).
He quoted the following from a section relating to borrow
areas: "Provisions shall be made for site reclamation including
but not limited to restoration approximating natural contours
and establishment of permanent vegetative ground cover. Such
reclamation shall commence within fifteen days of completion
of borrowed fill or waste activities provided reclamation
activities of a seasonal nature shall be completed by a date
to be established by the County Engineer." He stated he felt
that section gives the County Engineer the authority not only
to limit the area to be worked, but also to require that it
be stabalized and reclaimed before the applicant "moves on."
Regarding the Williamson application, which was deferred until
January 21st, the Chairman advised the staff to address these
concerns as recommended conditions approval (if approval is
recommended) before the item is heard by the Commission.
ZMA-85-26 Mary Doggett - Request to rezone 11.86 acres of a
vacant parcel from R-1, Residential to LI, Light Industrial.
Property, described as Tax Map 91, parcels 1, 1A, 1B, lE are
located off the east side of Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended)
approximately 1,000 feet north of the entrance to Lake Reynovia.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
November 7, 1985 Page 11
Mr. Keeler's report stated that "at this time, staff cannot
recommend favorably on any zoning other than residential, based
on the Comprehensive Plan." He also pointed out that there
are many rezoning requests pending in the area, and that a
simultaneous review would appear prudent.
It was determined a comprehensive review of the Comprehensive
Plan was scheduled to begin in 2-3 months.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Frank Buck, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He made the following comments:
--The applicant feels the proposed rezoning is
appropriate given the existing uses on Avon Street
Extended and given the fact that it has access to
the heavy commercial area in the city.
--The property is surrounded, in different areas, by
Light Industrial.
--A 3.58 acre tract immediately adjacent to this property
is currently zoned LI.
--There is a need for LI property in this area as is
evidenced by the marketing of the property.
--There is a contract of sale on the property which is
subject to this rezoning being approved.
--This parcel is large enough to accommodate some uses
which some of the other LI parcels cannot.
r --The types of uses that this parcel will attract (lo-tech)
do not really need road frontage.
--The applicant is seeking to sell the property at this
time due to economic hardship.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
It was determined the frontage on the property was 500-600 feet.
It was determined that the parcel is approximately 1,200 feet
to public water, and that sewer is extremely remote (across
164) .
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to review, in a general fashion,
the current Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the area.
Mr. Keeler complied using the map. He explained that Ms.
Doggett's property is in the area recommended for medium
density and low density residential. The property to the
north is recommended for low density with commercial in
"this" area. Dr. Hurt has not requested any commercial in
this area but has requested a small amount of commercial
over on Rt. 20. (That plan was never actually discussed because
the road issue had come up.) The properties across the road
are shown for medium density residential and industrial.
There is other industrial on the north side of Interstate.
He stated that "basically the Comp Plan recognizes some
November 7, 1985
Page 12
existing zoning and some existing development and generally
shows low density residential in remaining areas."
It was determined the property is approximately 1/2 mile from
the existing Snow's Nursery.
Ms. Diehl indicated that she was not in favor of rezoning to LI
property that did not have water and sewer available, though
she was sympathetic to the applicant's need to sell the property.
She added this is one of the few places left where the total
area can still be looked at.
Mr. Cogan agreed and stated he could not see any justification
for the rezoning at the present time. He added he felt that
type of zoning, at this time, is "ahead of its time." He
added that in the future, as development takes place adjacent
to and around the property, and as the Comp Plan review is
done, a higher and better use zoning might be indicated
in conjunction with an overall plan. Ms. Diehl added that
this might make water and sewer available from another direction.
Mr. Buck asked the Commission to consider making this area (Avon St. Ext.)
a top priority when reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and perhaps
if the matter is deferred, the staff might be in a position to
make a different recommendation within 2-3 months.
The Chairman stated this was not possible given the current
staff workload and added that it would be unrealistic for the i
Commission to make such a commitment. He explained that
the applicant could request deferral if she so desired, but
if the Commission goes ahead and acts on the application, the
applicant will have a chance to go before the Board.
Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-85-26 for Mary Doggett be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on
November 20, 1985.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Commission asked staff to:
--Check on the status of the left turn lane that was to
have been installed for the residue acreage at Waverly.
--Look into how the current bike routes had been established
since some of them are on the most dangerous roads in the
County.
Mr. Bowerman also reported that there are signs of activity
on the decel lane at Boar's Head.
There being no further business, the me ng f�djourn d 9:45.
Lj�