HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 26 1993 PC Minutes1-26-93
1
JANUARY 26, 1993
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, January 26, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr.
William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen
Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present
were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and
Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Grimm.
The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
December 15, 1992, December 22, 1992 and January 5, 1993
were approved as submitted.
Me. Cilimberg reviewed actions taken by the Board of
Supervisors at the January 6 and January 13 meetings.
ZMA-92-07 Luck Stone Corporation - Proposal to apply the N-R,
Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District to 107.54 acres
currently zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax
Map 79, Parcel 36D, is located on the north side of Milton
Road (Rt. 732) approximately 1/4 mile west of the
intersection of North Milton Road and Milton Road (Rt. 729
and Rt. 732). The northern border of this site is the
Rivanna River. This site is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District and is not within a designated growth
area (Rural Area IV). Deferred from the December 22, 1992
Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was
recommending approval subject to acceptance of the
applicant's proffers.
Regarding the disposal of waste material, Mr. Johnson asked
staff to comment on the "by -right uses" that the applicant
currently has under the existing zoning. Mr. Fritz
explained that there are some provisions for borrow and fill
within the RA District, but the Zoning Administrator has
determined that "the waste operation from the quarry did not
fit within the existing RA limits because of the nature."
Mr. Cilimberg added that a borrow area (borrow pit) not
exceeding an aggregate of 50,000 cubic yards is allowable.
Referring to the many letters of opposition which were
received, Mr. Johnson explained to a standing -room -only
crowd that the request before the Commission was in no way
03
1-2 6-9 3 2
related to the "existing performance or function, or moving
or modification thereof of the quarry or the asphalt system
that is there now." He explained the review would be
restricted to the current application and proffers.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Charles Luck (owner),
Mr. Joe Andrews (Vice President), and Mr. Matt Schefer
(mining engineer). Mr. Luck described the history of the
company which started in Shadwell in 1938. Mr. Andrews
pointed out the location of the property and described the
intended use of said property. Comments included:
--The property in question was purchased (10 years ago)
to act as a buffer and to serve as a fill site for the thick
layer of overburden on the deposit (approximately 1,200,000
cubic yards). (Overburden is the "earth or low-grade rock
which must be removed in order to get to the quality rock".)
--The application is "critical to the viability of the
operation of Shadwell for the future ... and not allowing the
use of this property will jeopardize the future of the
operation."
--The operation "impacts" 100 jobs for local people.
--Luck's payroll is $400,000/year and pays $40,000+ in
local taxes. Local purchase and hauling fees total
$1,000,000/year.
--Mr. Luck: "If approval is given I can assure you
that we will do a first-class job to see that it's done
properly."
--The applicant has proffered out all by -right uses in
the Natural Resource Overlay District except for the
stockpiling of fill.
--The applicant will see that the property reverts back
to RA after the proposed use is completed. Mr. Andrews was
uncertain as to how this could be accomplished. He
suggested possible deed restrictions. Mr. Andrews: "It is
our intent, if we can have 12 years to do what we want to do
on this property, then we could commit to converting it back
to the RA district without an overlay." "Ultimately the
project will end up being all reclaimed and permanently
seeded over and will be returned to an even more usable
piece of land."
--The subject property already adjoins NR land, but it
is separated from the existing operation where the source of
the overburden is located.
--Consideration was given to the construction of either
a bridge or a conveyor across the river to access the
subject property, but studies found those possibilities to
be environmentally unsound. Trucking the overburden was
found to be the only feasible option.
--An estimated ("top -side figure") of 150 trucks per
day has been requested, "but in no way do we anticipate that
there will be that many trips every day." (A "truckload" was
later defined as 8 cubic yards."
--100,000 cubic yards/year will be needed to "stay
ahead of operational needs."
CV617
1-26-93 3
--VDOT voiced no concerns about safety issues.
--The applicant has proffered not to transport past the
school during bus hours.
--The overburden cannot be moved to the existing "pit"
because 30% of the total reserves would be inaccessible.
--The maximum yield of the property will allow
approximately 40 more years of use.
--The property is steep and not good for agricultural
activities other than grazing.
--Though some of the alternatives suggested by the
public may be possible physically, they are not possible
from a business standpoint.
--All alternatives suggested would require that the
crushing and screening facility be moved to some other
location on the property and this would result in also
having to move the scales and office. (Estimated cost:
$10,000,000 vs. $100,000/yr to move the overburden for 10-12
years.)
--The applicant has met with neighbors and has
incorporated some of their suggestions.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Rae Ely, an attorney representing the Friends of
Historic Milton, initiated the public comment. The following
is a summary of Ms. Ely's position and the community's
opposition to the request:
--The application represents a "radical change" to this
"settled historic community."
--The proposal will result in increased traffic, noise,
and dust which will be an "intrusion in this settled
community from which it will never recover."
--The applicant should satisfy three hurdles: (1)
"What would the applicant do if they had not purchased the
125 acres?" ... "They would find an alternative." (2) What
will happen if Luck Stone, a family -held corporation, sells
out to a larger corporation? (3) Section 30.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance (dealing with the Natural Resource
Extraction Overlay District) places the burden of meeting a
number of tests on the applicant, and the applicant has not
met, nor made any attempt to meet, those tests. Those tests
are: (Quoting from Section 30.4.1 of the Ordinance) "The
Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District can only be
granted in a manner that is 'compatible with adjacent land
uses. ... The District may be established where deposits of
sand, gravel, stone or other minerals exist, where the uses
permitted hereunder are unlikely to create effects adverse
to public health, safety and welfare or to the value of
adjacent properties... and specifically, where existing roads
will not make it necessary to conduct trucking operations
through developed, residential areas or areas likely to be
developed for residents during the course of an extractive
use."
-, /0
1-26-93 4
Ms. Ely introduced the following persons who addressed
specific concerns of the surrounding neighborhood:
--Ms. Pat Sternheimer, an archeologist who discussed
the historical and archeological significance of the Milton
area.
--Mr. Robert Coles, a "master appraiser" with Roundtree
and Associates, who discussed the anticipated effect on
property values. Based on consideration of the following
factors --increased volume of traffic, industrial nature of
increased traffic, type of use, the duration of the use (a
use which is inconsistent with residential land uses),
potential use of the neighboring properties without the
presence of this use --he concluded: "With this potential
rezoning, these properties are very difficult to market,
there is a cloud on the marketability of the property until
this issue is resolved. During the operation there is a
problem because this use is inconsistent with residential
land uses. ... So we believe there is a very definite
possibility that this use can change the value of adjacent
property in this neighborhood."
--Dr. Nicholas Garver, a Professor of Civil Engineering
(WA) with an expertise in truck safety and highway design,
who discussed the impact of the additional truck traffic on
the roads. His research has determined the following to be
true: (1) Fatality rates are much higher when a large
truck is involved than when only passenger cars are
involved; (2) In multi -vehicle accidents where a large
truck is involved, the probability is much higher that the
other vehicles are not large trucks; (3) Fatalities which
result from multi -vehicle accidents involving large trucks
are seldom passengers in the truck, but rather passengers in
the passenger car; (4) Based on total vehicle miles, the
probability of large trucks being involved in accidents is
much higher than for passenger cars; (5) The risk of a
fatality resulting from a car -truck accident is much greater
on a two-lane, undivided highway; (6) Most car -truck
accidents occur on roads with curves or grades. It was his
feeling that though the lane width and shoulder width of the
roads in question are adequate, there are problems with the
horizontal and vertical alignment which cause concern. His
study for this particular issue was based on the vertical
and horizontal curvature of Rt. 729 and also on the
anticipated number of truck trips per day and the speed at
which those trucks will be expected to travel in relation to
the speed at which the cars will be travelling. He
discussed in some detail 2 horizontal curves on the section
of the road in question, and 4 vertical curves, (grades
ranging from a high of 7.6%, on three of these, to 2%). It
was his feeling, after considerable study of the situation
and after having personally measured distances, that there
was not sufficient room for a de-cel lane. A computer model
had.predicted 5 accidents per year on the road with a good
chance of a fatality occuring in car -truck accidents. He
concluded: "My conclusion is that allowing this type of
� 1/
1-26-93 5
truck traffic on this section of Rt. 729 has the potential
to create a hazardous situation on this road which will
result in a significant increase in truck -involved
accidents."
--Ms. Jeanine Wolanski, a Milton resident with an
advanced degree in Planning, discussed planning issues. It
was her feeling that the proposal was inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance in that it
disregards the following aspects of the plan related to the
four major elements of Rural Areas: (1) Preservation of
agricultural and forestal activities [the land was used as
pastureland for many years]; (2) Water supply protection
[erosion and runoff from the site has the potential to
contaminate the groundwater supply]; (3) Limited service
delivery to rural areas [VDOT has recommended the upgrading
of Rt. 729 to an "industrial strength" road in a rural
area]; and (4) Conservation of natural scenic and historic
resources [a state -designated scenic river runs the length
of the property and the site itself has considerable
historic significance]. Given the proposal's inconsistency
with these four aspects of the rural areas, she felt the
staff had "incorrectly concluded" that the proposal is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the
intent of the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District
in the Zoning Ordinance --"Uses such as the one proposed may
be permitted where they are 'unlikely to create effects
adverse to the public health, safety and welfare or to the
value of adjacent properties," it was her feeling that the
proposed trucking of 100-150 truckloads of dirt past Stone
Robinson Elementary School poses a serious threat to the
public health, safety and welfare. Regarding impact to
adjacent properties, she reminded the Commission of the
comments just presented by Mr. Coles. She called attention
to the fact that though the applicant has proffered out many
by -right uses, there remains the possibility of uses by
special permit such as asphalt mixing plants, mining and
processing operations. She suggested that if the applicant
has no other plans for the property, then these special
permit uses should also be proffered out. She pointed out
that though the proposed use is not considered in the Zoning
Ordinance to be an industrial use, "everything about the
proposed operation is industrial in nature --heavy traffic,
noisy operations, dust and other negative environmental
impacts are all impacts that you would expect to find in an
industrially zoned area, not in a rural area." She felt
allowing this use would set a precedent leading to further
industrialization and commercialization of the Milton area
and other rural areas as well.
--Dr. Fred Westervelt, a property owner sharing a
common boundary with the subject property (Milton Farm),
described his past use of the property as pastureland. He
expressed concern :bout the ultimate condition and use of
the property after the proposed used is complete. He
questioned whether alternatives had been explored in
1-26-93 6
sufficient detail to convince the neighbors that this is the
only option that will allow Luck Stone to continue its
business as long as it wishes to.
--Mr. Mitch Willey, owner of Clifton Inn (National
Register of Historic Places and a Virginia Historic
Landmark), described the anticipated impact on the Inn which
will be caused by the proposed use. He expressed concern
about the fact that he had not received notification of this
proposal. He felt the increased industrial traffic would
have a "devestating impact" on Clifton Inn and "would be the
end of our business." He felt that it had been amply
demonstrated that health, safety and welfare would be
adversely impacted by the proposed use.
--Mr. Pete Craddock, a resident of the Milton area, who
read a letter written by his son, a student at Stone
Robinson Elementary School. The letter expressed concern
about Luck Stone's effect on the Stone Robinson students,
particularly the loud blasts and dust from the trucks which
pass by the school. Mr. Craddock also spoke as a
representative of the Stone Robinson PTO and noted concerns
about blasting which frightens the children, dust
contamination and associated health problems, well water
contamination, and structural damage. He noted that the PTO
had recently passed a Resolution against further expansion
of the Luck Stone operations in an RA District.
--Ms. Jeanne Hammer, a resident of the Milton area,
described various alternatives which the citizens had
proposed to the applicant, but which the applicant had
determined were either "not economical" or "not practical."
It was the citizens' feeling that relocation of the existing
plant to another position on the site would allow the
applicant to operate for another 15-20 years without having
to move significant overburden.
--Ms. Ernestine Westervelt, who read a letter written
by Mrs. Robert Michie, whose residence is in close proximity
to the quarry. Ms. Michie described instances where Luck
Stone had failed to respond to neighbors' complaints about
damages to homes caused by blasting. (Ms. Andersen asked if
there was documentation of damages. Ms. Ely responded that
such documentation was available.)
--Ms. Robin Patton, a land use planner, addressed the
issue of the suitability of the property for
agricultural -forestal uses and the potential impact on the
Rivanna River. She disagreed with the staff report which
she felt "disregarded the agricultural importance of the
land." She presented a summary of the soils found on the
property and their suitability for cultivation, hay and
pasture, and potential tree production. (Data was taken
from the USDA, Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey for
Albemarle County.) The information indicated that the vast
majority of the soils were "suited for the activity" and
some were either "well suited for" or "extremely well suited
for," those activities.
, l3
Z-26-93 7
--Ms. James (Bunny) Murray, Co -Chair of the Rivanna
Scenic River Advisory Board, expressed the feeling that the
proposal violates the intent of the Scenic River Bill. She
expressed concern that the overburden material would be
washed into the river during heavy rains and also about the
adverse effects on the wildlife of the river and the
recreational activities that take place along the river.
Other residents of the area who reiterated the same concerns
included the following: Kathy Brown, a parent with a child
at Stone Robinson; Mr. Dennis Schauer, owner of Auburn Hill,
an adjoining property; Ms. Pat Napoleon, a teacher at Stone
Robinson; Ms. Judy Bowerly; Charlie Hodapp; Dawn Hayes; and
Jeff Kerwin. Additional concerns included:
--Citizens of the County look to the Comprehensive Plan
for protection of their property rights.
--Devaluation of surrounding properties will result in
a tax loss to the County.
--Though the applicant has proffered not to send trucks
past the school during bus hours, there are activities which
occur at the school year round (e.g. community activities
and sports).
--Increased danger to bikers on the road.
--The creation of a dangerous intersection at Rts. 729
and 732.
--Luck Stone did not make an effort to make neighbors
aware of this proposal.
It was Ms. Ely's conclusion that the proposal was one of
convenience and economics on the part of the applicant. She
stressed that the Zoning Ordinance requires that the
Commission and Board consider the impact of this proposal on
"future development." It was her feeling that "the law
requires you to deny this application."
Mr. Joe Andrews summarized the applicant's position. He
noted the good reputation of Luck Stone and pointed out that
it is a leader in the field. He stressed that all
environmental regulations will have to be met. Referring to
a comment made regarding contamination of the school's well,
he stressed that the problems had not been caused by Luck
Stone. He stressed that the only materials that will be
placed on the property are "the same dirt and rock that
already exist in this area." He stated the applicant was
willing to continue working with neighbors. He also noted
that Luck Stone was in existence in this location long
before the school was built. He indicated there was a
possibility that the school may eventually "end up with a
good portion" of the property in question.
Mr. Luck thanked the Commission for the opportunity to
present the proposal. Though he expressed respect for the
public conerns, he noted that he felt there were "two sides"
to many of the issues which had been raised.
a idl
1-26-93 8
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Andrews if he felt the engineer's
estimated difference in cost in storing the overburden in
the existing pit vs. trucking it to the proposed site was
realistic (i.e. would it be 10 times as costly to store it
in the existing pit?). Mr. Andrews believed the estimate
was reasonable. Mr. Andrews added that there currently
exists approximately 2 years' worth of storage space on the
site. He explained that the alternative to the present
proposal would be to look for another site (not owned by
Luck Stone) to store the waste fill. He noted that this
could be done by -right on other RA land.
Mr. Blue believed there were two main issues: (1) Effect
on neighbors; and (2) Truck traffic. He asked Mr. Andrews
if there were any room for compromise on the truck trips per
day. Mr. Andrews repeated that the 150 trucks/day was a
maximum estimate. He stated that the applicant would be
willing to consider suggestions from the public and could
accept a "reasonable" amount which would still make it
worthwhile.
Mr. Nitchmann asked the County Attorney to comment on the
Commission's authority in relation to proffers, deed
restrictions, deferral, etc. Mr. Bowling explained: "Under
Conditional Zoning in the Code of Virginia, it says that if
you proffer something of substantial value ... the
governmental body can't come back at some time in the future
and require that the land revert back to a lesser use." He
noted that proffers must be voluntarily offered by the
applicant; they cannot be required by the Commission or the
Board. Mr. Bowling noted, however, that he was not certain
about all the particulars of this issue because he was not
aware of the applicant's offer that the land would revert
back to RA after the use is complete. Regarding deed
restrictions, he stated that was a private matter, but he
stated that it is possible to include a restrictive covenant
in a deed, or chain of title, that could make it binding on
future owners. Regarding deferral, he confirmed the item
could be deferred for a reasonable period of time. (Action
must be taken within 90 days or the item is passed on to the
Board without Commission recommendation.)
Mr. Blue asked if staff wished to respond to some of the
public criticism of the staff report. Mr. Fritz stated that
staff was prepared to comment on some issues, but would need
more time to address others.
Though Mr. Blue felt compromise on the part of the applicant
and the public ::as worthy of consideration, he questioned,
based on the public's presentation, whether there was room
for compromise.
�9/.:s--
1-26-93 9
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Bowling to comment on Section 34.2.1
which allows extraction of sand and gravel, and "accessory
uses... provided that such operations are located on the site
of the main use." She wondered if this applied in this
instance since it is an accessory use but would not be
located on the same site. Mr. Bowling stated that the
Zoning Administrator has determined that if the approval is
granted for the rezoning to the Natural Resource Extraction
Overlay, then the applicant can use the property to
stockpile fill. Ms. Huckle questioned the Zoning
Administrator's decision, since the proposed use is not on
the same site as the main use. Mr. Fritz did not know on
what grounds the Zoning Administrator had made her
determination; however, he noted that the Zoning
Administrator's decision had been appealed to the BZA and
that appeal is pending. That appeal, however, does not in
any way effect this rezoning. If the determination is
overturned and it is decided that a special permit is
required, then a request for said permit will be submitted
to the Commission. [Ms. Ely called attention to a letter
dated 12/22/92 from the Zoning Administrator which stated
that if the subject request is granted, then the property in
question will become a part of the main tract and what is
permitted there will be permitted here. Mr. Bowling added:
"Except that you have the proffer that is in existence which
pares the use down to a fill purpose."]
Mr. Nitchmann asked for a clarification of the appeal. Mr.
Fritz explained that the Zoning Administrator's decision
that no special permit is required for this use (if the
rezoning is approved) is being appealed.
Mr. Nitchmann summarized that many of the issues raised are
ones over which the Commission has no control. He noted
that the applicant has been in business here for many years
and provided a valuable service to the community. He
expressed concern for the economic well-being and quality of
life of the community. He felt there had not been a
definitive answer given to an earlier question regarding the
expected life of the business if this request is denied. He
noted that a closing of the business would result in jobs
being lost and an increase in the cost of housing related to
increased costs associated with having to go elsewhere to
get the same product which Luck Stone provides. However,
after listening to public comment, he noted the following
concerns: (1) Protection of the stream; (2) Is this
really in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan? and (3)
Potential for truck -related accidents and lack of comment
from VDOT regarding the truck safety issue. He questioned
whether a deferral would have any "ramification on the
outcome" because he did not know "if there was any room for
movement on the part of the public."
1-26-93
10
Responding to this last question, Ms. Ely indicated that the
primary concern is one of establishing this use on this
property, i.e. even if perhaps only 50% of what is being
requested were to be approved the precedent has been
established for the use. She concluded the primary concern
is "the fear that we commit ourselves to a path that we
cannot stop."
Mr. Johnson explained that the Commission attempts to look
at each request on its own merit and it is hoped that "the
precedent that we set is being reasonable and understanding
relative to each individual request." He noted that Luck
Stone is an established use and "isn't going to go away."
He added that if this overburden is not plased on this site,
it is going to eventually be placed someplace and that place
may involve trucking the material on public roads an even
farther distance. He stressed that the Commission could
only consider the health, safety and welfare of the this
specific request at this specific time.
Mr. Jenkins noted that Luck Stone has demonstrated that it
is a "good neighbor." However, based on the public's
presentation and opposition, Mr. Jenkins mvoed that
ZMA-92-07 for Luck Stone Corporation be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle stated she would support the motion for the
following reasons: (1) Concerns about the truck traffic in
consideration of the close proximity to the school; and (2)
The feeling that the proposal does not meet the intent of
the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District which says
"that the existing roads will not make it necessary to
conduct trucking operations through developed residential
areas or areas likely to be developed."
Mr. Blue stated he would support the motion. He felt safety
was the predominant issue. He also asked that staff request
that VDOT provide a more comprehensive study in the future.
He noted that in the absence of more detailed comments from
VDOT, he was going to assume the opposition's representative
who had addressed the traffic issue was correct.
Ms. Andersen stated she would not support the motion because
she felt staff should have the opportunity to address some
of the issues which had been raised by the public.
Mr. Johnson stated his primary concern
frequency of trucking along the road.
would be a truck every 5 - 10 minutes.)
was with the
(die computed there
o�, 17
1-26-93 11
The motion for denial passed (5:0:1) with Commissioner
Andersen abstaining.
The meeting recessed from 10:55 to 11:00.
SP-93-01 Trinity Presbyterian Church - Proposal to amend a
condition of SP-91-16 to allow additional grading to occur
on -site. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 17C and
17C1 is located on the south side of Reservoir Road (Rt.
702) approximately 3/10 mile west of its intersection with
the Route 29/Route 250 Bypass in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This site consists of 17.54 acres
zoned R-1, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. This site is located in a designated growth area
(N6) and is recommended for Low Density Residential (1-4
dwelling units per acre).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Regarding the possible future use of this area for parking,
Mr. Fritz "put the applicant on notice" that such use would
require further site plan reviews and approval and possible
additional amendment to the special use permits and this
approval does not imply that future expansions will be
authorized.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He
offered to answer questions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-92-01
for Trinity Presbyterian Church be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval is for two modular classrooms, each of which
shall not be larger than approximately 28 x 60 feet.
2. The modular classrooms shall be located as shown on
Attachment C initialed WDF and dated May 6, 1991.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until
connection to public sewer has been completed.
4. Clearing of trees shall be limited to that shown on a
site plan titled Trinity Presbyterian Church revised 1/7/93
and initialed WDF 1/14/93.
The motion passed unanimously.
1-26-93 12
SP-92-28 Boxwood Lane Farmowners Association - Petition to
permit a cemetery [10.2.2(32)] on 22.43 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 85, Parcel 78,
is located on the east side of a private road approximately
0.87 miles south of Plank Road (Rt. 692) in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated growth area (Rural Area III).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Blue expressed some concern about the steepness of the
site and its location in a ravine. He expressed the
possibility that a severe storm could possibly cause the
cemetery to be washed into the pond. He also wondered why
the road was blocked on the "other side" making it necessary
to come through the subdivision to get to the cemetery.
(Though he mentioned this, he noted that it was irrelevant
to the request.)
It was noted that regulations related to cemeteries are
contained in the Code of Virginia and there are no special
considerations contained in local ordinances.
Mr. Johnson questioned the necessity of condition No. 1
[Cemetery is for Miran Forest homeowners only.] He felt
this was unnecessary given this is private property. Mr.
Fritz explained this condition was related to staff's
concern about lack of parking.
The applicant was represented by John Cogan. In answer to
Ms. Huckle's question about whether a hearse would be able
to reach the cemetery, Mr. Cogan explained that coffins will
be carried from the parking lot.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that SP-92-28 for
Boxwood Lane Farmowners Association be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Cemetery is to be located as shown on the attached plat
showing "A" Pond parcel and initialed WDF 1/7/93.
2. Staff approval of access easement to cemetery.
[NOTE: Both Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Huckle agreed to amend the
motion to delete the original condition No. 1 which would
have limited the cemetery's use to Miran Forest homeowners
only. That deletion is reflected in the motion stated
above.]
419
1-26-93
13
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-92-65 Dr. & Mrs. John K. Youel - Proposal to create a
27-lot rural preservation development [10.3.3.3(b)] on
approximately 333 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 31, parcels 16A, 22, 22A, and 23F is
located at the end of Loftlands Drive in the Charlottesville
Magisterial District [Loftlands Drive is located on the
south side of Rea's Ford Road (Rt. 660) approximately 0.3
miles west of Earlysville Road (Rt. 743)]. This site is not
located in a designated growth area (Rural Area I).
AND
SUB-92-168 - Loftlands Farm Preliminary Plat - Proposal to
create 23 clustered development lots, averaging 2.87 acres,
three additional development lots averaging 6.1 acres around
three existing houses, and one rural preservation tract of
221.85 acres from four parcels totalling approximately 333
acres. The lots are proposed to be accessed through the
existing Loftlands subdivision by a private road extension
off Loftlands Drive (Route 1555). Property described as Tax
Map 31 Parcels 16A, 22 22A, and 23F, is located on the south
side of Rea's Ford Road (Route 660) approximately 0.3 mile
west of Earlysville Road (Route 743). Zoned RA, Rural Areas
in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This property
is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area I).
Staff was recommending approval of both requests subject to
conditions.
Staff offered the following information in answer to Mr.
Johnson's questions:
--The rural preservation tract will be private property
and will not be available for the use of the public.
--The acreage noted in the staff report--333
acres --should have been 345 acres.
Mr. Johnson felt there were discrepancies and
incompatibilities between the proposal and the Zoning
Ordinance in the following respects:
--This proposal has not only development lots and a
rural preservation tract (as mentioned in the Ordinance) but
also has open space. Mr. Fritz stated that open space had
been approved in at least two other RPD's. Mr. Johnson did
not think that was justification for not following the
Ordinance, or at least reasons should be identified why the
Ordinance is not being followed. Mr. Fritz explained: "We
treated the open space as if these lots were bigger and all
the acreage in the open space was part of the development
lots. We used that as the calculation of acreage that's
devoted to development. They can take these lots and show
��d
1-26-93 14
them as being bigger and gobble up all the open space and
they are still going to meet the requirements of the
Ordinance." Mr. Cilimberg added: "The Ordinance
establishes a maximum area of subdivsion. In lieu of them
subdividing that maximum area, they are showing smaller lots
with open space within that maximum area of subdivision.
There is nothing inconsistent in our Ordinance in doing
that. That is the intent of the entire Ordinance, is that
whenever you have the opportunity to provide open space
within your development area...." Mr. Johnson continued to
argue: "In the definition of this kind of a development,
there's only two things identified, a lot and a tract. It's
fine if they want to do it, if we want that, but I think we
should recognize that that's being done. Mr. Cilimberg
continued: "Open space is allowable within the area of
subdivision that would be devoted to lots."
--The Ordinance says there will be "no intrusion of RPD
between the lots." Mr. Johnson pointed out four areas where
there appeared to be intrusion.
--The Ordinance says that all lots shall be accessed by
streets yet there are two in this proposal which are not.
Though Mr. Johnson recognized staff's explanations for the
issues identified, he asked: "Why do we accept this
flexibility? What is the rationale behind that?" Mr. Fritz
explained that the applicant could still meet the intent of
the Ordinance, even if this request for an RPD is denied,
but staff felt that approval of this special provision
"would not in any way violate the intent of the Rural
Preservation Development as stated in the Zoning Ordinance,
nor will it violate the integrity of this development."
Mr. Cilimberg interpreted Mr. Johnson's question as being
"Why does the applicant need to have this alternative?" He
explained: "We felt that what the applicant was asking for
was reasonable and did not take from the intent of the
Rural Preservation Approach."
Mr. Johnson concluded: "We sit here and --intent be
damned --we have to look at the Ordinance and follow that.
Well, the Ordinance doesn't say this. We don't want to set
a precedent. That's my point."
Mr. Johnson noted that there was no emergency access, with
the only access being across the dam. He questioned if this
was acceptable for the 23 lots with only one access. Mr.
Cilimberg stated that this was acceptable because the
requirement for two accesses starts with 50 lots.
Mr. Johnson asked if maintenance of the ponds could be made
a requirement. Mr. Fritz stated there are already
agreements which cover maintenance of the pond and these
lots will be participants in those same agreements.
1-26-93
15
Regarding the roads, Mr. Fritz stated that Loftlands Drive
will have to be upgraded, but the existing entrance already
meets VDOT requirements.
Regarding possible impact on the schools, Mr. Bowling
explained that this a by -right subdivision and there is no
increase of the density that is already allowed.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob McKee. In reply to
Ms. Huckle's earlier question about distance to the
reservoir, he noted the distance is approximately 5,300
feet. He explained that typical planning methodology had
been followed in the development of this plan, i.e. the lots
have been located as far from the reservoir as possible and
concentrated in a wooded area to minimize the visual impact.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Andersen moved that SP-92-65 for Dr. and Mrs. John Youel
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Development shall be in general accord with the plat
titled "Loftlands Farm" revised January 4, 1993 an initialed
WDF 1/11/93.
2. The following revision to the development may be
permitted by the Recreational Facilities Authority:
a. Not more than 33.02 acres may be deducted from the
Preservation Tract. Deducted acreage may be added to Lots
25, 26 and/or 27.
b. The building site shown on the Preservation Tract
may be allowed as a development lot provided that the
balance of the Preservation Tract is added to Lot 25, 26 or
27 resulting in a Preservation Tract with a minimum acreage
of 188.83 acres. This provision allows for transfer of the
RPT acreage to only one of the aforementioned lots.
3. Upgrading of Loftlands Drive (Route 1555) to a Class III
road as specified in the Virginia Department of
Transportation Subdivision Manual.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he would support the motion, but he asked
that the record show that he felt the proposal satisfies the
intent of the RPD, but "the specifics are not completely
compatible with that as defined in the Zoning Ordinance."
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
a? _� 10A
1-26-93
16
Loftlands Farm Preliminary Plat
Mr. Fritz reported that the plat had been through site
review and had been revised in accordance with the comments
of the site review committee.
Mr. Johnson wondered if some entity other than the
Recreational Facilities Authority would be more
appropriately involved in the easement. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that the enabling legislation refers specifically
to the RFA.
Mr. Blue moved that the Loftlands Farm Preliminary Plat be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor
shall it be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations.
b. Department of Engineering approval of roads and
associated drainage plans and calculations.
c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan.
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff
control permit.
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
road and associated drainage plans and calculations for the
upgrading of Loftlands Drive (Route 1555) to a Class III
road as specified in the Virginia Department of
Transportayion Subdivision Manual.
f. Health Department approval.
g. Staff and Recreation Facilities Authority approval
of a Rural Preservation Easement to include standard water
supply protection language. In addition approval will be
required for the revisions to the Rural Preservation
Easement as permitted by condition #2 of SP-62-65.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Old Ivv Road Ivv Road Office Buildina Preliminary Site Plan
- Modifications - Mr. Fritz explained that the site did not
have enough handicapped parking spaces and a request was
being made to consider this site and the adjacent site as
one in determining the number of required handicapped
spaces. The two sites together will meet the requirements.
The deletion of one of the loading docks is also being
requested. He explained that a parking easement would
ensure the continued sharing of the parking spaces even if
one business should be sold at some future time.
Staff explained that though the Commission had granted staff
administrative approval of this site plan, it was being
1-25-93
17
brought to the Commission because of the modification in
parking. (Mr. Cilimberg explained that modifications such
as this would be discussed with the Commission at a later
date.)
Mr. Don Wagner, representing the applicant, explained that
the number of required handicapped spaces is based on the
total parking spaces and because there are more parking
spaces than required, the required number of handicapped
spaces is increased. He also explained that because of the
nature of the use the extra loading dock is not needed.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the
Modification of the old Ivy Road Office Building Preliminary
Site Plan be approved as requested. The motion passed
unanimously.
Ms. Huckle asked that SDP 93-004, 002, and 003 (Rivanna
Ridge) be reviewed by the Commission. She expressed concern
about drainage into the reservoir.
Referring to minutes from the January 5 meeting, Mr. Bowling
asked that the record show that when he said that any member
of the public could appeal a decision of the Zoning
Administrator, it had been his intent to say that any
"aggrieved party" can make such an appeal. An aggrieved
party is defined as "a person who can demonstrate that they
have a direct, immediate and pecuniary and substantial
interest in the decision."
Mr. Johnson quoted from a report issued by HUD related to
affordable housing which stated that every month of
administrative processing delay of applications "by a
conservative estimate, adds 2% to the purchase price of a
new home."
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
12:05 a.m.
U
4
V. Wayne C' imberg, S�Cx
DB