HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 18 1998 PC Minutes8-18-98
AUGUST 18, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 18,
1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were:
Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice
Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr.
David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources
Manager; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA
Representative. Absent: Commissioner Finley.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of
the July 14, 1998 meeting were unanimously approved as amended, and the minutes of the
August 4, 1998 meeting were unanimously approved as submitted.
Mr. Benish summarized actions taken at the August 12, 1998, Board of Supervisors meeting.
SAP 98-34 Cismont Market & Deli - Petition to install a gas pump canopy at an existing
country store (Cismont Market and Deli) on approximately 7 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, in
accord with section 10.2.2.22 of the Zoning Ordinance. The existing country store pre -dates
the requirement for a Special Use Permit. In order to expand the use (canopy) a Special
Use Permit is required. The property, described as Tax Map 65, Parcel 12C, is located at
the intersection of Route 22 and Route 231 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The site is
not located within a designated Development Area.
Staff was requesting deferral to September 15, 1998.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 98-34 be deferred to
September 15, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-37 lyy Investment Ltd. Partnership - Petition to establish a golf course on
approximately 250 acres zoned RA,Rural Areas in accord with the provisions of section
10.2.2(4) of the Zoning Ordinance. Property described as Tax Map 73, Parcel 27G is
located on the south side of Route 637 (Dick Woods Rd.) opposite the Ivy Landfill in the
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated development
area.
Staff was requesting deferral to September 1, 1998.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Ms. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 98-37 be deferred to
September 1, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
8-18-98 2
ZMA 98-02 Airport Road Office Complex - Request to rezone 2.5 acres from RA, Rural
Areas to C-1,Commercial with proffers. A conceptual plan that accompanies the rezoning,
though not proffered, shows a construction of an office building. The property, described as
Tax Map 32, Parcel 41 B, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas and designated for Office Service in the Community of Hollymead in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant was requesting deferral to September 1, 1998.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that ZMA 98-02 be deferred to
September 1, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
ZTA 98-07 Stream Bank Restoration - To serve the public necessity, convenience, general
welfare, or good zoning practices the Planning Commission has adopted a Resolution of
Intent to consider an amendment to Sections 3.0 and 30.3.5.1.1 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance to define stream bank erosion structure and to allow certain uses by right
in the flood hazard overlay district.
Mr. Benish and Mr. Hirschman presented the staff report. Mr. Benish called attention to the
final draft of the amendment, dated August 17, 1998, which he described as being
"substantively the same" as an earlier version.
Mr. Benish pointed out that though the staff report seems to indicate that this amendment
applies solely to public projects, "the definition is such that projects reviewed by the
Engineering Department that otherwise meet the criteria would also qualify under this
definition." Mr. Kamptner said the August 17th draft answers this question more clearly.
Staff confirmed that items a. through d., under No. 7 of Sec. 30.3.05.1.1, define the criteria
which the Engineering Department will use to make this determination.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Hirschman to comment on a statement in the staff report that this
amendment would help to reduce staff hours. Mr. Hirschman said that though review time
for each project will probably be less, there are so many of these projects coming up that
staff time will not be reduced.
Mr. Rooker asked: "If these criteria are met (i.e. a. - d.), there can't be any environmental
degradation?" Mr. Hirschman replied: "Not necessarily. It means that the environmental
degradation is at least analyzed and reviewed. Some of these projects will require erosion
and sediment control plans. At a minimum they will have some kind of government agency
review, whether that's us or the soil and water conservation district." Mr. Rooker said: " I
guess my question is when you say it's a matter of right and then you list four criteria. If
they meet those four criteria, is there any discretion that can be exercised?" Mr. Kamptner
replied: "I would say it becomes a ministerial determination." Mr. Rooker said: "My question
is then whether or not we should have some type of catch-all that there is a determination by
the Department of Engineering and Public Works that there will not be environmental
,;73 /
8-18-98 3
degradation resulting from the project." After a brief discussion of Mr. Rooker's suggestion,
it was decided 7.a. would be amended as follows: The purpose which will be served by the
project, as determined by the engineering department, is either flood control or environmental
restoration.
Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to comment on some situations which might occur which would
require piping of a stream. Mr. Hirschman said piping a stream will still require a special use
permit because the fill would exceed the cut. He said: "It wouldn't meet any of these criteria
and would still require a special use permit, and, therefore, could be denied."
Mr. Nitchmann raised a question about No. 2, under Sec. 30.3.05.1.1. He said the way it is
written it seems as though recreational uses are allowed, "but it appears as though
everything is excluded" because of the phrase excluding structures of any kind and uses
involving human habitation.... Staff explained that "structures involving human habitation"
was meant to refer to cabins or camp lodges. There was some discussion about changing
the word "habitation" to "occupation" or "human activity," but no final decision was made to
change the word. Mr. Rooker suggested the sentence would be clearer if parentheses were
added around the phrase "excluding structures of any kind and uses involving human
habitation."
Mr. Nitchmann raised concerns about operations which extract sand and gravel from the
Rivanna. He said he cannot think of anything that is more detrimental to the quality of the
water downstream. He described one particular operation which impacts the stream which
runs through his property. Mr. Hirschman said this operation has been in existence for a
long time and he has dealt with some problems in the past.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that ZTA 98-07 Stream Bank
Restoration, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, as presented in the
August 17, 1998 draft, with the following amendments:
--Section 30.3.05.1.1 - Add parentheses to #2 as follows: "Recreational uses
(excluding structures of any kind and uses involving human habitation) such as parks,
swimming areas, golf courses and driving range; picnic grounds; ...(rest same)."
--Section 30.3.05.1.1 - Change 7a. as follows: "The purpose which will be served by
the project, as determined lithe Engineering_ Department, is either flood control or
environmental restoration."
The motion passed unanimously.
----------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Tower Applications - Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Kamptner if it is possible for the Board of
Supervisors to impose a moratorium on communication tower requests. Mr. Kamptner
responded: "Not under Virginia State Law." He went on to say in those few states which
are authorized to adopt zoning moratoriums, the FCC recently dropped a law suit and agreed
to a mediation process, when moratoriums are for greater than 180 days. Virginia is not one
8-18-98
4
of those states. Mr. Rooker said it is unfortunate that Virginia law does not have this
authority.
Mr. Kamptner briefly described some recent court cases which were related to the adoption
of the Federal Communications Act. Some states tried to adopt moratoriums after the Act
was adopted, but were unsuccessful when challenged in court. He said after he has read all
the cases he will put together "what all the courts have said."
Mr. Kamptner said the only flexibility the County has in dealing with tower requests is that the
Board is allowed up to twelve months, "or a reasonable period of time not to exceed twelve
months," to take action.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about the fact though a particular cellular provider may
have only 30% (for example) coverage for a certain area, that area may actually have 90%
coverage when other providers are taken into account. Mr. Kamptner said "coverage" is
really not defined in the FCA.
Mr. Rooker wondered if it is worth pursuing enabling legislation to allow moratoriums in
Virginia localities. Mr. Kamptner said "that is one way to deal with it," but the General
Assembly at the present time seems to be in a 'landowner rights mode."
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
M91.
09
-