Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 10 81 PC MinutesMarch 10, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, March 10, 1981, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Corwith Davis; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Allan Kindrick. Absent from the meeting was Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, Mr. Ron Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order. Mrs. Diehl announced that there would be a change in the order of the agenda and that the first item would be: ZMA-81-9 84 Lumber Company - Located on the east side of Route 29 North approximately 850 feet north of Route 649 (Proffit Road). Tax Map 32, Parcel 20 (part) and Parcel 68D(3) (part), Charlottesville Magisterial District. Proposal to rezone 2.4 acres from R-15 to 1.2 acres Commercial Office and 1.2 acres Highway Commercial. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report and told the Commission that it had already acted favorably on 0.3422 acre in an earlier rezoning from RA to Highway Commercial, submitted by Dr. Hurt. Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that due to Dr. Hurt's being unable to attend the Board of Supervisor's meeting, the Board had deferred action on his rezoning applications. Mr. Keeler explained that this application was being submitted by Mr. Darchuck of 84 Lumber Company in order to expedite his rezoning so that he could stay on his site plan schedule. Mr. Keeler said that staff recommended approval of the rezoning. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant, Mr. David Darchuck, or his attorney, Mr. Stuart Carwile, had any comments. They did not, and Mrs. Diehl opened the meeting to public comment. Since there was no public comment, Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Davis said that the rezoning was appropriate for this property and that the entire matter had been thoroughly reviewed previously. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of ZMA-81-9 and Mr. Skove seconded the motion. There was no further discussion, and the motion passed unanimously. ZMA-81-7 Malcolm J. Reid - Located on the north side of Georgetown Road (Route 656) at its intersection with Hydraulic Road (Route 743). Tax Map 60F, Parcel 3, Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Proposal to rezone 1.27 acres currently zoned RA Rural Areas to C-1. A5/ Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, adding that there had been an instance when a parked car had traveled down the steep grade beside the Hop -In, gone through a wooden fence, and ended up in the playground of Georgetown Green. Mr. Keeler said that this incident had been brought to his attention by the Homeowners Association. He added that this matter had been discussed with the Hop -In and a dumpster had been relocated to prevent any car from going through the fence and the site was restored to its condition as approved on the site plan. Mr. Keeler stated that the only problem with this arrangement was that the dumpster was occupying parking space and that it should not really be there. He said that an issue to be addressed was installation of a guard rail at the lower end of the site for safety purposes. Mr. Keeler went on to inform the Commission that the Board of Supervisors in its action last summer had amended the jurisdictional areas for the Albemarle County Service Authority and unless the property was already served by public sewer, it was eliminated from sewer service. Therefore, Mr. Keeler said, this property does riot have public sewer but is shown as being in a jurisdictional area as receiving public water. Mr. Keeler said that if the property were rezoned to be developed commercially, staff would recommend that the jurisdictional area be amended so that this site could be served by public sewer rather than by septic system. Mr. Keeler said that he believed that a member of the Board of Supervisors had requested the County Engineer to review drainage on the site. Mr. Keeler read Mr. J. Harvey Bailey's response, which was contained in a letter addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant whether he had any comments at this time. Mr. Dave Wood introduced himself as representing the Hop -In, which is the contract -purchaser of this property. Mr. Wood stated that both the Hop -In Store property and adjoining property owned by E)xon had been zoned business for many years. The Hop -In was built in 1974 and it was known that the Highway Department might widen and improve Hydraulic Road. When the Highway Department was contacted, Mr. Wood continued, information was not available as to where it might be widened. However, Mr. Wood stated, there was a proposed line of taking which since that time grew to include a great deal more land. Mr. Wood said that so much land would be taken by the Highway Department that even the gas pumps would have to go and the Hop -In could be forced out of business. He stated that when this became known last summer, the Hop -In approached Exon to explore the possibility of purchasing the adjoining property and entered into a contract with Eamon subsequently to buy this land. Mr. Wood said that at this time the property was zoned business and that to have gone ahead then would have presented no problem, a building permit could have been obtained and the property could have been developed commercially. Mr. Wood stated that the Hop - In did not proceed because they were waiting to see how much the Highway Department was going to pay for the land that it would take. He added that the Hop -In still did not know what this amount might be. Mr. Wood said that if the applicant had been aware of the pending rezoning in December, he would have moved forward for a closing. Mr. Wood explained that it was for this reason that the applicant was requesting a return to the original zoning. He added that the Highway Department was going to take 15,000 square feet, leaving less than an acre. Mr. Wood said that this would leave the existing Hop -In Store inoperable and that the plan /5Z of the applicant was to reconstruct a Hop -In Store on the E)gon property and convert the existing Hop -In to office use. He pointed out that this property is appraised for tax purposes at $84,800, or about $2 a foot and that for agricultural or residential use it was practically impossible to justify that figure. Mr. Wood added that the proposed use was a light use for the general neighborhood and that he did not believe that it would disturb the area at all and that it could render a service or convenience to the neighborhood. He stated in addition that the applicant had no problem with the conditions and would comply fully to any restrictions the Commission or Board wished to place on him. Mr. Wood went on to say that he had also understood from staff that no conditions could be placed on a rezoning and that he thought the two opinions conflicted. Mrs. Diehl explained that she thought that staff was saying that there could be no conditions attached to a rezoning unless it was offered as a proffered rezoning. Mr. Payne explained that the proffer would have to be made in writing before the Board of Supervisors held its public hearing. He added that the proffer must be completely voluntarily but that concerns can be discussed and addressed by the applicant and the Commission. Mr. Wood again expressed the applicant's willingness to proffer this development in any manner requested. Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Wood and asked Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department whether he had any remarks to make before the meeting was opened to public comment. Mr. Roosevelt offered to answer any questions. Mr. Keeler asked him to elaborate on the Highway Department's concerns about access to the property, as expressed in its letter of February 19, 1981. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the intersection of Georgetown Road and Hydraulic Road was busy and any entrance would cause additional congestion in the area. He stated that there could be one entrance and one entrance only and that would have to be located on Hydraulic Road and could not be on Georgetown Road. Mr. Roosevelt also said that the entrance would be as far from the intersection as possible on the property. He added that previous potential purchasers of this property had contacted the Highway Department and been consistently informed that any entrance would have to be as far north as possible on the property. Mr. Wood remarked that he thought that the Highway Department had approved the plan he was exhibiting, but that the applicant was perfectly willing to change it. Mrs. Diehl thanked him and opened the meeting to public comment. Mrs. Gay Johnson Blair stated that her property consisting of 30 acres zoned RA Rural Areas abuts the property of the applicant on one of five sides. She also stated that one side of her property is on Georgetown Road. She also asked the Commission to consider whether this rezoning request was consistent with the new Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Blair said that the Georgetown Road area was residential in character. She read from several paragraphs of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to C-1 regulations and stated her concerns about hook-up to public sewer, drainage, litter and traffic. f�3 Mr. Wood responded that the applicant was doing his best to comply with the C-1 restrictions: a 50-foot buffer, the setback off Georgetown Road, the screening and an offer to remove the entrance. Mr. Wood said that he hoped this would satisfy Mrs. Johnson's concerns. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. There was not, and the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Skove remarked that this property did not seem appropriate for agricultural use. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler whether when the staff report was written staff expected to see a site plan showing another building or whether additional parking was being addressed for the current building. Mr. Keeler answered that he had spoken with another representative of the applicant, not with Mr. Wood. Mr. Keeler stated that the representative had been advised that a proffered application might be more supportable if it was the applicant's intention to use this property for replacement facilities. Mr. Keeler added that there was some discussion of reloction of Hop -In Store, but that since the representative was not willing to proceed with a proffered rezoning application, staff simply reviewed this as conventional rezoning. He added that he had never seen the plan exhibited by Mr. Wood before. Mr. Skove remarked that it seemed to be as much a site plan problem as a rezoning problem He suggested that perhaps the applicant could proffer this site plan as part of the rezoning. l Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne whether the Commission could do so, if the site plan had not been reviewed. Mr. Payne answered that if the Commission chose to do so, that care should be taken to qualify any acceptance of a proffer of that plan as being conceptual in nature only to allow for flexibility in moving around parking, the building, etc. He said that basically the intent in this plan was to show the elimination of one entrance and the location of another and the general boundaries of the property. Mr. Payne said that it was pretty clear that this plan was not intended to be a site plan and should not be treated as such. Mr. Davis said that like it or not, the application before the Commission was not proffered and could not be considered as such. He added that a denial seemed to be the only possiblity, but that the Board could change that action if a proffer were before them at the time of the Board's hearing. Mr. Payne said that if the Commission chose to deny the application, it could qualify that denial with its concerns, saying that it could be approved if the following issues were addressed. Mr. Payne said that he saw no legal impediment to handling the matter this way. Mr. Gloeckner said that he agreed with Mr. Skove that this property was not rural agricultural, nor he added did he believe that it was residential in nature, since it was located at a major intersection. Mr. Gloeckner said that Commercial Office seemed appropriate to him and that he would recommend approval, subject to the verbal proffer, and with the exceptions that Mr. Payne made. Mr. Bowerman said that he agreed with Mr. Davis and that the Commission had taken similar action on a couple of other applications in the fall of 1980, that was, denying the applications but stating that favorable action could have been taken if certain conditions had been met. Mr. Bowerman continued, saying that proffers then were made when the applications went before the Board and they had been approved. Mr. Davis asked whether this would appear to put pressure on the applicant to proffer, if the Commission approved the application subject to a written proffer. Mr. Payne answered that the applicant should never be made to feel under any compulsion to proffer, that it must be clear that the applicant is under no obligation to proffer. Mr. Gloeckner remarked that in this case the applicant had offered to proffer before any mention had been made of doing so. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler whether the current Hop -In Store property was zoned RA Rural Areas also. Mr. Keeler replied no, that it was zoned C-1. Mr. Bowerman asked if the current Hop -In building were converted to office use, whether a site plan would come before the Commission. Mr. Keeler replied that it would depend on the parking situation and added that he doubted that sufficient parking existed for office usage. Mr. Bowerman stated that what he really wished to see was both properties reviewed together, since they were so interconnected in uses. Mrs. Diehl said that she doubted that this could be insisted upon and that it would depend on the willingness of the applicant. Mr. Skove asked Mr. Keeler about the sewer at the Hop -In, whether there had been a problem there. Mr. Keeler answered that about a year before the Service Authority had replaced a pumping station and that the district would have to be amended but that he knew of no problem. Mr. Bowerman made a motion for denial, saying that approval could have been given had the applicant proffered that the property be served exclusively by one entrance, entering only on Hydraulic Road, that entrance to be located at the extreme northwesterly corner of the property and that use of the property be limited to what the applicant has stated here tonight, which is essentially that the Hop -In be relocated and be limited to its current retail use. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. Mr. Wood objected that the extreme northwestern corner of the property would put the entrance practically on the building. Mr. Roosevelt said that the entrance would have to be right on the line, but that it depended on seeing the site plan and that if it involved both properties, the entrance could possibly be moved a few feet one way or the other. /1<4� Mrs. Diehl repeated the motion and asked whether there was further discussion. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he would still prefer to set a precedent and address the situation in a more positive manner, approving the request with the verbal proffer and allowing the applicant time before the Board hearing to make it a written proffer. He added that he was not certain that the applicant knew exactly what to proffer. There was no further discussion and a vote was taken. The motion passed 5 to 1 with Mr. Gloec:kner dissenting. Mr. Keeler said that the petition would be heard by the Board of Supervisors on March 18, 1-981. ZMA-81-8 River. Heights Associates - Located on the west side of Route 29 North, south and adjacent to the South Rivanna River. Tax Map 45, Parcels 68D(1) (part) and 68D(3) (part), Charlottesville Magisterial District. Proposal to rezone 2.4 acres from R-15 to 1.2 acres Commercial Office and 1.2 acres Highway Commercial. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report and added that for the sake of consistency and clarity staff would recommend that the earlier proffers of the applicant on the previous rezoning request apply also to this rezoning and that the two be considered or treated as one. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, whether he wished to comment at this time. Mr. Wood offered to answer any questions but stated that he did not believe any explanation was necessary, that the Commissioners were all aware of why he was making this application. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Wood whether he was in accord with Mr. Keeler's recommendation concerning the proffers. Mr. Wood replied that he agreed. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the site plan exhibited was the original one, seen by the Commission two or three weeks previously, showing the extended depth. Mr. Wood answered that it was. Mr. Bowerman asked what the problems had been originally. Mr. Wood replied t le, -s�wimm .ng--pool, and also the building would have had to be moved about sixty feet closer to the highway. He stated that this application was for the purposes of clarifying their zoning. Mr. Wood said that he had originally asked for 650 feet from the existing right-of-way or that was interpreted by the Zoning Administrator as what had been requested by the applicant. Mr. Wood stated that this was later changed to be 65 feet from the old right-of-way or 67 feet. Mr. Wood said that this plan showed where he thought their zoning had been approved to. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment. There was no public comment, and Mrs. Diehl announced that the matter was then before the Commission. Mr. Skove stated that this was a straight -forward request and that he would move for approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. There was no further discussion, and a vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Diehl stated that this petition would be heard by the Board on March 18, 1981. SP-81-2 Richard E. Muller - Located on the east side of Route 20 North at the intersection of Route 20 with Route 649. Tax Map 47 and 63, Parcel 16, Rivanna Magisterial District. Proposal to subdivide 70.65 acres into 27 lots with an average lot size of 2.6 acres. Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Keeler ascertained that neither the applicant nor his representative was present. A decision was made, consequently, to proceed to OLD BUSINESS. Draft Building Company - Request to amend condition on Mountain Hollow Subdivision concerning lot access. Mr. Keeler stated that he did not have a staff report to present on this request, but that it was very straight forward and that the applicant, Mr. Tiffany, could address the Commission. Mr. Tiffany explained that the original master plan of Mountain Hollow Subdivision called for lots along the road exhibited on the plan. Mr. Tiffany said that Dr. Middleton bought thirty acres on the front of the property and subsequently bought an additional twenty-five acres in the back, which included the 50-foot strip that would have been a road for the subdivided lots. Mr. Tiffany further explained that since the Planning Commission had wanted any entrances from these subdivision lots to be along that road, there was a notation made on the original plat to that effect. He said that he was requesting the Commission to amend the earlier condition to simply require Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion approval of entrances. Mr. Tiffany said that he already had Highway Department approval of this change. Mr. Bowerman remarked that additional clarification would be helpful. Mr. Tiffany said that the request was to rescind one of the six or seven conditions, the condition that required that the entrances to these two lots be on the private road (which was now the property of Dr. Middleton), making the entrances subject to Highway Department approval. Mr. Bowerman said that he was concerned that conceivably those 25 acres could be developed later, then there could be two private entrances, plus the private road. Mr. Tiffany pointed out that these 25 acres were now part of Dr. Middleton total 58 acres and that it was unlikely that he would ever build that private road. 16 7 Mr. Skove moved to delete the original condition. Mr. Davis then seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the motion passed unanimously. SP-81-2 Richard E. Muller - Located on the east side of Route 20 North, at its intersection with Route 649. Tax Map 47 and 63, Parcel 16, Rivanna Magisterial District. Proposal to subdivide 70.65 acres into 27 lots with an average lot size of 2.6 acres. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant had any comments. Mr. Robert McKee, representing the applicant, explained that this plan had been submitted under what the applicant had thought was the old Zoning Ordinance and that it had been heard about six days after the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Mr. McKee stated that the applicant had met all the conditions under the old Ordinance: Health Department approval, open areas preserved in the flood plain in the conservation easement, Highway Department approval of the entrance, sight distance, etc. Mr. McKee said that the applicant had expressed his complete willingness to make adjustments to Route 20 as required, to provide the deceleration lane. Mr. McKee remarked that if he so chose he could go through the staff report and contest it point by point. He added, however, that he would limit his comments to just: a few points. Mr. McKee stated that Mr. Muller's son-in-law had resided on the property for about six years and could attest to the fact that he was not a farmer. He added that this property was not purchased to be farmed, that there were no viable crops, and that only some grazing was going on presently on the land. Mr. McKee read from a soils report which bases commercial farming on the yield per acre; he stated that this property represented an investment and was diminishing in value. Mr. McKee asked whether there were four subdivisions out Route 20 North. Mr. Keeler said that the subdivisions he had sited consisted of those with 10 lots or more, defined as major: Key West, Redbud and Franklin. Mr. McKee said that there were many statements in the staff report that he would like to take issue with. He said that if this was prime agricultural land, it was certainly being underused. He added that point six stated that this property was remote from Stony Point; Mr. McKee stated that it was 2.8 miles from Stony Point and that he would not call that remote. Mr. McKee went on to say that when the plan was first submitted, the only issue raised concerned the road, whether it would be private or State maintained. He said that the applicant argued for private because it would make less of an impact on the land. Mr. McKee said that two months ago it had been a good plan and now it was not. He added that according to the Comprehensive Plan this land was not part of the prime agricultural soil area. `IVA Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Allen Lundgren, the applicant's son-in-law, whether he had any comments that he wished to make. /`, Mr. Lundgren stated that he would like to address the economic feasibility of making a profit on these 70 acres. He stated that on two occasions an attempt had been made to raise cattle and a lot of money had been lost. Mr. Lundgren said that he knew of no way that crops could be raised to offset mortgages, maintenance of equipment, fertilizers, etc. There are too many slopes and too much wash land, he added. Mr. Lundgren said that the expense would be prohibitive to bring much of the soil up to the quality level necessary. Mr. Benjamin Dick, representing the applicant Richard E. Muller, as his attorney, remarked that Mr. McKee was discouraged and lacked his initial enthusiasm for the plan, due to the fact that the current staff report made a 1800 turn from the original staff report which was one page in length and recommended approval. Mr. Dick stated that the request had been made when the plan was first submitted that it be approved under the old subdivision ordinance, which is still in effect. He added that this application had been caughtin between the old and new ordinance. Mr. Dick stated that Mr. Muller had a vested interest in this property which the Commission could not abridge. He added that although the planning staff was a well - respected, good staff, the Commission was an independent body that should make its decision independently, based on all facts and circumstances, not just to support staff. Mr. Dick said that if the line of thinking was followed that no new subdivisions should be developed in the eastern part of the County, but only west of 29 and 250 West, where there is already incredible congestion, then nobody need apply. Mr. Dick questioned why the area east of 250 to Orange County could not support more subdivisions, especially of the character of this application, than the three mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Dick further stated that there are many steep slopes on this land that make it limited as far as agricultural use is concerned. He contested that the soils are prime or that preservation of farmland was an issue, citing the fact that this property had not been an active farm for fifteen years. Mr. Dick said that there were many acres of active farmland in the neighborhood, but that this property was similar to the Franklin Subdivision, land with swells and drainage easements that are really wetlands that are not usable, that would be designated conservation easements. Mr. Dick went over the Highway Department comments and cited the issue of distance from village services, giving as an example that it was 2.4 miles from Court Square to the University of Virginia and over 3 miles to the Albemarle County line from Court Square, and therefore 2.8 miles from Stony Point did not seem very distant. Mr. Dick stated that the Commission could not deny this petition on the basis of aesthetics, not wanting homes built on the slopes off of Route 20. He further remarked that there were very few five -acre lots available at affordable prices for young people. Mr. Dick said that productive use of this land would be to have homes and gardens on this land that had been idle for fifteen years. Mr. Dick said that his preference on the matter of roads was the charm of a small private road, as opposed to fifty or sixty feet of pavement in a rural setting. He referred to Woodbrook Subdivision and Route 29 North, in opposition to a State - maintained road for the proposed subdivision. On the matter of screening, Mr. Dick stated that pines and cedars already lined the slopes and gave protection to all but one or two houses. In addition, he stated that the character of this proposed development was desirable and would not involve unsightly housing. Mr. Dick in conclusion once again pointed out that since this property does not have any farm productivity, the proposed subdivision would give the land the best aesthetic use. He said that Mr. Muller and his sons had lived on the land and been unable to farm it; in addition he sited a U.S. Soil Conservation Study that does not support the theory that this is prime agricultural land. Mr. Dick said that the owner is allowed reasonable use of his property and that there could be no justification in a denial of this petition and the financial hardship it would represent to the applicant. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time. Mr. William Gale Pickford stated that he was representing the adjacent owners Mr. and Mrs. Paul Hoffman who object to this request. They do not believe that this proposed use of the land is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Pickford said. Mr. Pickford remarked that if the hills on the land were too steep for tractors, how much grading would be necessary so that cars could maneuver the slopes, much less constructing houses. Mr. Pickford said that the objections of Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman are set forth in great detail in the staff report and that he would only ask in their behalf that the Commission be guided by it and act accordingly. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. Mr. McKee asked whether the Commission had the Health Department report= and the soil study for the record. Copies were accepted. Mr. Dick stated that he also wished for the record to make it clear that the applicant, although before the Commission to request a special use permit, wished to preserve any right to subdivision under the old Zoning Ordinance and subdivision ordinance. Mr. McKee said that the septic fields had been located and approved by the Health Department, that the roads, as contained in the profile he offered to show the Commission, conform within three or four feet. Mrs. Diehl stated that if there was no further public comment, the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Keeler asked to clarify a point that Mr. Dick had raised concerning Highway Department comments. Mr. Keeler said that the Highway Department had not said that increased traffic on this road would aggravate the need for safety improve- ments. He added that he had nothing from the Highway Department that indicated that an access entrance had been approved. Mr. Gloeckner asked whether this application would be reviewed under the same criteria if it were submitted as a PRD, rather than as a special use permit. Mr. Keeler answered that although there was no such requirement in the Ordinance, he believed that the Board wanted any rezonings in the Rural Areas, any residential development in the Rural Areas, based on the last couple of years of discussions, reviewed under these same six criteria. /6 0 M Mr. Gloeckner remarked that he was bothered by the fact that the Commission had sent to the Board a different set of criteria for review of special use permits. He remarked that this was his first experience with the special use permit review and that he now believed that he would advise clients to pursue a PRD and hope that it would be addressed in a different manner. Mr. Gloeckner added that the staff's presentation was almost a cut and dried case for denial. Mr. Keeler stated that staff comments would remain about the same in reviewing certain of the criteria anywhere in the Rural Areas. Mr. Skove stated that he did not find the report cut and dried but almost overwhelming in length. He added that he thought that there was room for disputing or considering the points raised in the staff report. Mrs. Diehl commented that much of the criteria had been discussed earlier and remained basically the same except for perhaps more precise language. Mr. Keeler pointed out that staff had addressed the matter of developing criteria in what it deemed the most objective manner possible with explicit definitions and percentages, so that there was a minimum of subjective evaluation in determining how an application met the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Davis asked whether adjacent properties were engaged in agricultural acitivity and how much of Mr. Muller's land was opne. Mr. Keeler answered that based on the information provided by property owners to the County, adjoining properties were engaged in agricultural activities and were so taxed. He added that the majority of Mr. Muller's land was open space. Mr. Davis commented that although he sympathized with Mr. Lundgren's plight and the area -wide difficulty of getting a return from the land from crops, he would have to say that this particular property met all available criteria for being agricultural. Mrs. Diehl added that although the clay lo:ams were not considered prime, they were among the best for this area and as such had to be preserved. Mr. Keeler took this opportunity to point out that the comments in the staff report were based on a meeting he had had with Gordon Yager concerning a new survey by the Soil Conservation Service, not from a 1933 or 1935 survey mentioned by Mr. McKee. Mrs. Diehl remarked that cattle -raising and production of timber were two very important agricultural uses. She added also, in response to an earlier remark by Mr. Dick, that she did not believe that the intent of the ordinance was to preserve the life style of the farmers, but to preserve the land, the farm land in Albemarle County. Mr. Gloeckner asked how staff would feel about five -acre lots, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, one dwelling per five acres. He asked, since the applicant wants to develop his land, what density would be appropriate. /6/ Mr. Davis answered that the Comprehensive Plan recommended one dwelling per ten acres. Mr. Keeler said that the Commission would have to make a determination, based on the descriptions of steep terraine, land in active agricultural use, mountainous areas and prime agricultural areas. Mr. Gloeckner said that he wanted some guidelines on how to answer questions from clients who want to develop their land but do not want to farm or give it to their neighbors. He added that he would like to help the applicant and if two -acre lot sizes were not appropriate, what would the Commission deem acceptable. Mrs. Diehl asked about Mr. Dick's reference to the earlier staff report that recommended approval, whether that was under the old Ordinance. Mr. Keeler answered that this approval was the result of a simple subdivision review request under the old Ordinance. He pointed out that zoning is the law and the Comprehensive Plan a guide. Mr. Keeler continued, saying that the new Zoning Ordinance was written with direct relation to the Comprehensive Plan and therefore accounts for the changes in staff review of the petition. Mr. Gloeckner again asked what the Commission would recommend that the applicant do. Mrs. Diehl wondered whether the Commission was in the position to make any such recommendation. Mr. Payne counseled against any such recommendation as being inadvisable to prejudge anything the applicant might do. Mr. Dick asked to make a statement. He stated that the applicant would be willing to ask for a deferral so that a PRD application could be submitted along with this special use permit. Mr. Dick said that if a PRD complied with the Comprehensive Plan in a more satisfactory manner, the applicant would certainly consider this avenue. Mr. Dick said that the applicant had no choice but to proceed in any manner possible to convince the County that he had land rights there other than agricultural. Mr. Dick went on to say that there are cluster concepts in PRD's that protect more open land and would at the same time give the applicant an opportunity to use his vested interests. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant was, in fact, asking for a deferral. Mr. Dick replied that he was and that the applicant would like to submit a PRD along side this application. He stated that the applicant did not wish to withdraw the special use permit application. Mr. Dick further stated that although he understood how the new Zoning Ordinance incorporated points from the Comprehensive Plan, he would like still to point out that this subdivision plan had been drawn up and submitted under the old ordinance and the still existing subdivision ordinance. Mr. Dick said that by coming back before the Commission with a PRD, but not withdrawing the special use request, a choice could be made between the two alternatives: the PRD or the special use permit. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne whether this procedure was possible. Mr. Payne said that he had never heard of such an instance but that he believed the Commission was under no obligation to agree to it and could consider the petition before it now and then consider another application at a later date. �Z Mr. Davis said that he would prefer not to confuse the issues, and act on what was before the Commission at present, rather than deal with the prospect of another plan being submitted. Mrs. Diehl asked whether some action must be taken on the request for deferral. Mr. Payne replied that no action need be taken unless a motion to that effect was made, requesting deferral; he added that the Commission could proceed and act on the application before it. Mr. Keeler remarked that he had never been able to answer Mr. Gloeckner's question concerning 5-acre density. Mr. Keeler said that after consulting the various maps in the Comprehensive Plan, this property is shown as having best agricultural soils, on page 8, and on page 29. In addition, Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Yager's remarks confirm that these are important agricultural soils. Mr. Keeler said that he was uncertain that making the subdivision a cluster development would change the situation. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to point out the importance of the fourth criteria, which deals with adjoining properties as well. Mr. Bowerman said that studies have shown that any development in an agricultural area will begin to encroach on the surrounding agricultural area and have a detrimental effect on these adjoining lands. He said that this fourth criteria was particularly appropriate in this case and would be the reason for his not being able to support this special use application. Mr. Gloeckner said that his questions had been educational in intent and that it seemed to him that in this case about the only development the applicant could pursue was that allowed him by right. Mr. Bowerman said for his own information he would like to know the difference in value between what the developed lots would be sold for and what could be sold by right. It was determined that $675,000 was the approximate worth of the land if subdivided as requested, compared to $260,000 if developed by right. Mr. Skove asked to have clarified why a deferral would be of benefit. Mr. Dick replied that it would give the Commission as a planning body time to weigh different options and see more than one way to use this land, but that he was certain that ultimately the Commission would see that the applicant's proposed use of this land was the best alternative. Mr. Gloeckner remarked that it appeared to him that in effect, development by right was the only sort of development possible in agricultural areas. Mr. Davis moved for denial of SP-81-2, and Mr. Skove seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 - 1 with Mr. Gloeckner dissenting. Mr. Keeler said that the application would be heard by the Board on March 18, 1981. Since there was no further OLD BUSINESS, Mr. Keeler brought up under NEW BUSINESS that the planning staff would attempt to pass on to the Commission documentation, materials of interest, to aid in the Commission's review of the more subjective criteria. Mr. Keeler passed out copies of Farming in the Shadow of Suburbia (case AV 3 studies in agricultural land use conflict), National Association of Counties Research Foundation. Mr. Keeler also said that the Soil Conservation Service had just about completed mapping the County and so new soils maps will soon be available. Mr. Keeler said in addition the County is having aerial maps made of the County and soon there will be a set of 140 600-feet scale maps covering the entire County. Mr. Keeler said the State Water Control Board had completed a study recently on the County and that he believed the matter was presently before the Board. The title of this study is Ground Water Resources of Albemarle County, Virginia. Mr. Keeler said that this tool would also be helpful in reviewing development anywhere in the County. Mr. Keeler said that if the Commission had any suggestions on how to improve the reviewing process, items to include in addition or to delete, that he would be most receptive to any comments. There was some discussion on certain conflicting information in the latest study by the State Water Control Board. Mr. Keeler said that this was precisely why he had suggested that it might be appropriate for the Commission to ask Gordon Yager to come before it to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. a /�q