HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 22 89 PC MinutesAugust 22, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, August 22, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. -Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom
Jenkins; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner;
Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and
Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner
Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of August 8, 1989 were approved
as amended.
CONSENT AGENDA
Keatsway Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide two existing parcels into
eight lots ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 acres. The access to these lots is
to be from a proposed public road. Properties, described as Tax Map
19, Parcel 28A and Tax Map 20, Parcel 9E, is located on the south side
of Rt. 743 just east of its intersection with Rt. 664.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-88-20 David & Mary Spradlin - Request in accordance with Section
33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 7 acres from RA, Rural Areas to
HI, Heavy Industry. Property, described as Tax Map 104, Parcel 14F1,
is located on the east side of'St. Rt. 620, approximately 2.5 miles north
of Woodridge. Scottsville Magisterial District.
AND
SP-89-32 David L. & Mary Jean Spradlin - Request in accordance with
Section 28.2.2(8) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special
use permit to allow for a motor vehicle salvage yard on property zoned
RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 104, Parcel 14F1,
is located on the east side of St. Rt. 620, approximately 2.5 miles
north of Woodridge. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"In summary, staff opinion is that this location is inappropriate for a
motor vehicle salvage operation in terms of environmental concerns, rela-
tionship to adjoining properties, and adequacy of transportation facilities.
Staff thcreforc recommends denial of ZMA 88-20 and the accompanying
SP-89-32."
/D;2
August 22, 1989
Page 2
Though the staff report included conditions of approval in the event
the Commission determined that approval was appropriate, Mr. Keeler
explained: 'bur recommendation is that these types of uses are
not contemplated in the rural areas. We're not recommending approval
of this and, again, we don't believe that the conditions of approval
necessarily overcome all the objectionable aspects....."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Benjamin Dick. Mr. Dick's
comments included the following:
--The applicant will deal with the other alleged nonconformities
listed in the staff report through the usual County permit process.
--Regarding the stockpiling and burning of tires and disposal of
toxic materials, he explained the applicant plans to contract with a
professional disposal service to have these materials removed from the
site.
--The Tappin Water Company tests have.shown there is no existing
pollution of ground water after 11 years of operation and will be no
future pollution provided.wastes are disposed of properly.
--The Woodridge residents feel this business is beneficial to their
community.
--It is unrealistic to restrict a public garage to only two inoperative
vehicles.
--There are no plans for development in the Woodridge area and there
currently exists a "bodge-podge" of economic levels.
--The applicant had not been "invited" when County employees had
visited the property to take photographs of the property.
--He felt the staff report was too emotional and a common theme was
"We don't want to tolerate any more violations."
--The applicant is willing to construct screening around the property
to protect neighboring children.
--He was under the impression a commercial entrance already exists
for the site, though it is not entirely paved.
--He objected to only one of staff's recommendations, i.e. that
all livestock and poultry be removed from the site.
--In response to Ms. Diehl's question about how well testing had
been conducted, Mr. Dick was not certain as to whether or not any
downgrade. wells had been tested. (:sir. Tarbell later explained that
the letter which had been presented to staff had made no mention of
testing done on any well other than the applicant's.) 'Mr. Dick
added that the applicant would have no objection to downgradient
wells being tested.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons expressed their opposition to the request: Mr.
,lames Thacker and Ms. Athleen Harrup, both neighboring property owners.
Mr. Thacker was concerned about the fact that the applicant's property
drains onto his and also wanted to see the area retain argicul.tural
zoning. Ms. Harrup brought up the following issues:
--The business is an eyesore, especially in winter, and is devaluing
her property.
--She has discussed the possibility of an earth berm with the applicant
but nothing definitive has been decided.
103
August 22, 1989 Page 3
--No tests have been performed on her well which is located very
close to the automobiles.
--There has been an increased amount of noise recently.
--She expressed fear that her child may wander onto the property.
--None of the supporters present at the previous hearing were
neighboring property owners.
--It will be tremendously expensive for the applicant to comply
with the suggested conditions of approval and, considering his past
history, what guarantee is there that he will comply.
Mr. Buford Castle expressed concerns about drainage because the
applicant's property drains into a lake on his property which
serves his livestock.
Mr. Steve Farmer expressed support for the proposal and stressed
Mr. Spradlin's willingness to pick up junk vehicles at no charge.
Mr. David Spradlin, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He
stated the business hasn't changed in ten years. In response to Ms.
Harrup's concern about screening,. he explained he was awaiting the
outcome of the Board's decision before installing screening, but indi-
cated he had no objection to constructing an earthen berm. He
als-o noted that Mr. Castle had never complained to him about any
health problems with his animals as a result of contaminated water.
It was determined the noise referred to by Ms. Harrup was possibly
the crushers which are present for approximately two weeks, three times
a year.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
There followed a discussion about the well -testing procedure. Though
Mr. Spradlin indicated that a well "below" his had been tested also,
staff could find no evidence in the materials submitted to them that any
well other than Mr. Spradlin's had been tested.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt there were two main issues: (1) Whether the operation
is appropriate in this location; and (2) Environmental impact. Regarding
the first, he stated that this is clearly a regional scale operation and
the Comprehensive Plan addresses regional scale uses and puts them in
well-defined areas where certain .criteria, such as transportation, can
be met and where potential degradation to the environment is minimized.
Regarding environmental impact, he was particularly concerned about
groundwater protection and expressed fear that if groundwater pollution
occurs, it is irreversible. He also expressed concern that approval of
this request could be precedent setting because there is a well-defined
area for this type of operation. lie continued that the issue of a
person pursuing his living was not an issue before the Commission, but
radar $e issue is where the business should be located.. He felt the proposal
was "at odds with the Comprehensive Plan" and this was reflected in the
applicant's proffer No. 10.
August 22, 1989 Page 4
Ms. Diehl stated she felt this would be spot zoning and any public
good which might be derived does not outweigh the fact that it is
located in a rural area and it not good zoning.practice to locate
outside the tenants of the Comprehensive Plan. She also stated she
could not approve industrial zoning in this location because it is a
rural area and the industrial facilities called for in the Comprehensive
Plan are not available to this location. She also stressed she was
greatly concerned about the protection of the groundwater and felt
it was the Commission's responsibility to protect it if at all possible.
She concluded she could not support the request.
Mr. Stark stated he was not persuaded by the applicant's argument for
long-standing tradition. He also stated that the past history
of this use must be considered and the fact that the applicant has
proffered many conditions which he has not been able to adhere to in
the past even though directed to by the courts. He concluded that
he agreed with Commissioners Diehl and Rittenhouse and that he
could not support the request.
M-s. Diehl moved that ZMA-88-20 for David & Mary Spradlin be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Bowerman stated: "In my mind, this is not an academic matter that's
before us because the decision before us will effect the livelihood of
a man and his family. Nonetheless ... 1 believe the nature of the request
that's before us is totally inconsistent with the goals and objectives
for the rural areas and the Comprehensive Plan, and I do believe this
represents spot zoning, and I don't believe I could support this appli-
cation under any circumstances."
The previously -stated motion for denial passed unanimously.
:1r. Jenkins moved that SP-89-32 for David L. & Mary Jean Spradlin be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial..
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Ednam - Section E, Preliminary Site Plan and Plat - Proposal to locate
12 residential duplex lots with an average of .21 acres per lot on 2.49
acres. Located west of the 29/250 Bypass on the south side of Route 250.
Zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development. Property, described as
Tax Map 59D(2), Parcel 06-1.' Smauel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell informed the Commission that the applicant had requested
indefinite deferral.
l65,
August 22, 1989
Page 5
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Ednam, Section E
Preliminary Site Plan and.Plat be indefinitely deferred. The motion
passed unanimously.
Westridge - Phase I Sovran.Branch Bank Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal
to locate a 2,129 square foot bank on 3.70 acres. Seventeen parking spaces
are proposed and access is to be from Route 250. Situated between the
north side of Route 250 and the C & 0 Railroad, just west of Ednam Forest
Subdivision. Zoned CO, Commercial Office. Property, described as
Tax Map 59, Parcel 23C. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Denise Etheridge. She offered no
significant additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel stated the proposal was in order and moved that the Westridge,
Phase I Sovran Branch Bank Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements to include a 200' x 200' right turn and taper lane
and closure of existing entrance;
b. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans
and calculations;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans and easements;
f. Planning staff approval of the landscaping plan;
g. Administrative approval of the final plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Fire Official approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
106
August 22, 1989
Page 6
Cooper Industries Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a waste
treatment building of 3,600 square feet, a surge tank, and two storage
tanks on 152 acres. Zoned LI, Light Industrial. Property, described
as Tax M-ap 31, Parcel 21A. Located on the south side of Route 660,
approximately one mile west of the intersection of Route 660 and Route
743. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by ifs. Marsha Joseph. She stated the
applicant had no objections to the suggested conditions of approval.
Mr. Fred Russell gave a brief explanation of the process, which will
result in a reduction of the quantity of effluent which is released
downstream, and will also result in an improvement in the quality of
the discharge. Mr. Chuck Champion assisted Mr. Russell with his
explanation of the process.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
:Ir. Stark moved that the Cooper Industries Preliminary Site Plan
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan will not besigned until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit;
d. Department of Engineering approval of certified engineer's report;
e. Staff approval of spill containment plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
3. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which.passed unanimously.
Ivy Creek Phase III Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to divide 137.8
acres into 18 lots for single family residential use. These lots are
to be served by proposed private roads. Lots are to be served by individual
septic fields and public water. Property described as Tax Map 59A1,
Parcels Al, B, C, and 9 through 23, is located off Broomley Road
approximately one mile north of U.S. Rt. 250W. Zoned PRD, Planned
Residential Development. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
1017
August 22., 1989
Page 7
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob McKee. He offered no significant
additional comment.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Barbara DeSenza addressed the Commission. She asked if there would
be an access onto Barracks Road when theproject is complete, and, if so,
will the public have the opportunity to object to such a connection at
some future time? She also expressed interest in the status of the
C & O Bridge. Mr. Fritz explained it was his understanding that the
bridge will be maintained for the 8 ton limit and that will not be
increased.
Mr. McKee stated he was not aware of any plans to connect to Barracks
Road.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Regarding the access issue, Mr. Keeler pointed out that a condition of
approval is that access is limited to Broomley Road only.
Mr. Jenkins seemed confused about additional development. Mr. McKee
pointed out that this is 'pus: a re -submittal of a plan that was approved
about nine years ago for 33 lots and all we're doing here.is simply
re -configuring several of those lots and asking for an additional phase
within the rights of those 33 development rights. We're not asking
for any more lots; the lots are substantially in the same location as
they were on that original application plan with some minor modifications...."
Mr. Michel moved that the Ivy Creek Phase III Preliminary Site Plan
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final subdivision shall not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and cal-
culations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
C. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
e. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreement to include
maintenance of roads, open space, lakes, drainage and appurtenant
structures and the use of open space for septic drainfields if
necessary and where permitted;
f. Fire Official approval of dry hydrant.
2. Administrative approval of final subdivision plat.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Highlands Preliminary PlaL - Proposal Lo subdivide Lwo existing parcels
into 5 lots with an average lot size of 2.4 acres. Development is to
169
August 22, 1989
Page 8
have access over a proposed public road. Property, described as Tax Map
60, Parcels 69A and 69A1 is located on the north side of Rt. 654 (Barracks
Road) approximately 9/10 mile west of Georgetown Road. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
(Note: Mr. Michel left the meeting before this item was presented.)
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale. He had no significant
additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MY. Stark moved that the Highlands Preliminary Plat be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The final subdivision plat will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans
and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations to include a 100-foot long right
taper lane;
e. Staff approval of road name;
f. :Note 75' setback from western property line for lots 1, 2 and 3.
2. Planning Commission review of the final plat.
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
DS
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
109