HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 16 85 PC MinutesApril 16, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday, April 16, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr.
David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman;
Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Norma
Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr.Ronald
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; and Mr.
Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. Harry
Wilkerson and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio.
Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after
establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the April 2, 1985 meeting were approved as written.
Cronemeyer Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 20.4 acres into
4 lots with an average _+_5 acres. One lot to be served by in-
dividual entrances off the state road, and request a waiver of
Section 18-36f of the Subdivision Ordinance to do so. Three lots
to be served by proposed private road off an existing private
road. Property is located on the north side of Route 676 east,
approximately 0.2 mile east of its intersection with Route 614
at Owensville. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 43, parcel 6,
Jack Jouett Magisterial District. DEFERRED FROM APRIL 9, 1985.
Ms. Joseph gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He stated that lot 2 has been revised and is now five acres.
In order to address the Commission's previous desire that
all lots be served by one road, he explained that the applicant
had considered three alternatives for accomplishing this. Mr.
Gale explained these three alternatives. He stated the applicant
had concluded that none of these alternatives were feasible
because of problems of stream crossings, steep grades and gullies.
He stated he felt the proposed road location was preferable
since there would be no need to create an additional commercial
entrance onto State Route 676, and less area of the property would
be disturbed. He also stated the applicant's proposed location
of the road would afford the most privacy for all four lots.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Frank Shepard, the contract purchaser, addressed the Commission.
He stated he felt the current proposal is the best from a practical
standpoint, from a safety standpoint and from an environmental
standpoint. He said the road that is proposed for the two back
lots will be primed and double sealed
,S77
April 16, 1985 Page 2
Mr. Paul Vandenbough, an adjoining property owner, addressed the
Commission. He stated he was in favor of the proposal.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Joseph confirmed that staff has received letters from
adjoining property owners giving permission for the applicant
to use the existing private road. She also confirmed that
this would be made part of the maintenance agreement.
Ms. Joseph confirmed that a waiver is being sought to allow Lot 1
to use its existing entrance and not the proposed private road.
Mr. Skoved stated he had no objections to the proposal.
Ms. Diehl stated the current proposal is an improvement over
the original proposal.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Cronemeyer Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions, including the approval of
a waiver of Section 18-36f and granting staff administrative
approval of the final plat:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following
conditions of approval have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of proposed road and
drainage plans, and approval of revisions to
existing private roads.
b. Issuance of erosion control permit.
C. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement.
d. Approval of waiver request of Section 18-36f.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, but pointed out to staff that
Lot 2 may have difficulty getting 30,000 square foot building
site because of slopes.
The motion to approve the Cronemeyer Preliminary Plat was unanimously
approved.
SP-85-18 Laurentina A. & Nathaniel W. Goode - Request in accord-
ance with Section 10.2.2(10) and 5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to
locate a single wide mobile home on property described as County
Tax Map 94, parcel 35A. Rivanna Magisterial District. Property,
located on east side of Route 616, ±.2 mile north of its inter-
section with Route 250 East.
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff report.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt it would be necessary to attach a
time limitation to the construction of the single-family home. *00
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
April 16, 1985 Page 3
Ms. Goode, the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated
a permanent structure is planned for this site, but was unsure
as to the time frame anticipated. She stated that she hoped
construction could begin with two years. She emphasized that
the mobile home will be temporary. She offered to construct
a barrier fence to block the sight of the unit from neighboring
property owners.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Karen Wyant, an adjacent property owner, addressed the
Commission. She stated the mobile home would be in full view
of her property. She indicated she objected to the proposal;
however, she stated if the unit is to be temporary a time
limit should be imposed. She also expressed concern that it
might be the applicant's intention to use the driveway adjacent
to the property which is her driveway.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
The applicant confirmed that the mobile home has already been
purchased and is a previously owned unit.
It was determined the usual time limit for such applications
was 3-5 years, with extensions possible once construction on
the permanent structure has been started.
Mr. Cogan stated he was concerned aboutthe small size of the
lot in relation to future building possibilities. Therefore,
he felt the time limit imposed should be minimal.
It was pointed out to the applicant that the small size of
the lot may limit the possibilities for the septic field, and
thus restrict the size of dwelling that may be allowed.
Both Mr. Skove and Mr. Michel felt a three-year time limit would
be in order.
It was determined the following should be added to staff's
condition No. 3: "...dwelling, or at the end of three years,
whichever comes first."
Mr. Gould indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Skove and Mr.
Michel.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-85-18 for Laurentina A. & Nathaniel W.
Goode be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning ordinance.
2. The mobile home be located centrally within the property
as represented by the applicant and only those trees
and vegetation necessary for location of the mobile home
be removed.
April 16, 1985
Page 4
3. This special use permit and all authority granted here-
under shall expire upon the completion of a permanent
single-family dwelling, or at the end of three years,
whichever comes first.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors
on April 17, 1985.
ZMA-85-8 Riverbend Limited Partnership - Proposal to rezone
approximately .3374 acres from C-1, Commercial to PD-SC,
Planned Development Shopping Center. Tax Map 78, parcels 17D
(part of) and 17D1 (part of). Rivanna Magisterial District.
Property, located on the south side of Rt. 25OW just east of
South Pantops Drive.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report and stated that staff was
recommending deferral until the agreements of the original approval
have been executed.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Keeler read the
following from a memorandum from Lettie Neher to Robert Tucker,
dated June 16, 1983:
(1) The Planned Development -Shopping Center designation
should be expanded to incorporate additional developable
land.
(2) Strip commercial areas surrounding the shopping center
which cannot be reasonably developed without encroachment
into the floodplain should be designated as "open space".
(3) The 100-year floodplain adjacent to the proposed devel-
opment should be designated as "open space".
(4) For the purposes of this petition, the term "open
space" is intended as a non -developable area to be
maintained in a natural state. Required improvements
such as sewer lines, drainage facilities and the like
should be permitted in "open space" areas. Likewise,
provision should be made for the continuance of the
existing sand removal activity in this area.
Mr. Keeler indicated these are the rezoning actions outlined in
the Board's action on ZMA-83-2 which have not been undertaken.
He also indicated stormwater management facilities for Phase
I construction have not been completed as outlined in that
same action. He said it was his understanding that there is
the possibility the applicant does not intend to complete
the stormwater management facilities and is contemplating
seeking an amendment to that condition.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
April 16, 1985 Page 5
Mr. Chuck Rotgin, representing the applicant, addressed the Com-
mission. He gave a brief history of the situation and stated
this present application is a "housekeeping" request. He
indicated the property involved was the small section shown
in pink on the map and had been the old septic field that
went with First Virginia Bank. He stated the whole PD-SC
zoning (shown in yellow on the map) was requested by the
County staff and this small section was left out at that time
because it was not then aquirable due to some matters that
Dr. Hurt had not yet taken care of. He explained that those
matters have recently been taken care of (i.e. the access road).
Mr. Rotgin explained the map as follows: yellow is the PDSC;
blue is the flood plain; and parcels A, B and C were the parcels
that would have some potential use at sometime in the future.
He said Dr. Hurt had agreed that at some time in the future he
would request that all of the area in blue and white be
zoned PD-SC and at that time the flood plain would be designated
as open space. He had requested that he not be required to
do it at that time, however, because he had no use for A, B and
C and the PD-SC is a very expensive process. He said the
Board had agreed with Dr. Hurt at that time. Mr. Rotgin
stated that the conditions that were in effect at that time
are still in effect and Dr. Hurt still does not know what he
wishes to do with parcels A, B and C. He indicated he had
been in touch with Dr. Hurt and Dr. Hurt feels it is premature
to ask him to file a PD-SC application at this time. Regarding
the stormwater detention issue, he stated the reason it has
' not been taken care of is because the applicant hopes it will
not be necessary since the applicant feels it is not a viable
system. He said it had been agreed to at the time because
of the desire to get started. He stated the Engineering Depart-
ment had been aware that the applicant had always intended to
offer another more workable plan. He explained this had been
delayed because the County had requested a grant to study the
use of grass filters and level spreaders. He said the County
has recently been awarded this grant so there is a good chance
those will be built. He stated that has been bonded for some
time, and will be done in one way or another. He asked that the
Commission recognize that fact and not let it hold up this
proposal.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to comment.
Mr. Keeler recalled that at the time the shopping center had
been reviewed there were definite plans on a part of it,
and the out parcels had some indication of types of possible
uses. He stated he felt an approach that would be similar to
the out parcel areas on these properties would be acceptable.
He stated staff already has the transportation analysis plan
that was done for the shopping center and he felt it would
not be difficult for the planning staff, since they had
suggested the addition, to use this analysis plan to work
up some figures for these two areas.
,:5�/
April 16, 1985 Page 6
Mr. Keeler stated the disposition of Newhouse Drive remains
unresolved. He felt this could potentially be a problem.
However, he felt the rest could be addressed in the same manner
as the original plan, i.e. a plan was available for the main
shopping center and indications as to how the other parcels
would develop. In short, Mr. Keeler stated he did not know
if Dr. Hurt needed to have a proposed use in order to comply
with the requirements.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Rotgin what motivation Dr. Hurt has to
come forward and complete the plan.
Mr. Rotgin stated he felt it was unfair to hold the applicant
hostage because of the issue with Dr. Hurt, particularly since
Dr. Hurt is on record as saying he will develop the land at
such time as he has a use.
Based on the applicant's comments, Mr. Michel asked Mr. Keeler
if staff was still recommending deferral.
Mr. Keeler stated he did not know how else this could ever be
achieved. He stated he was concerned because the site plan
which has been submitted has not been reviewed by the site
review committee. He stated he is also concerned about
obtaining access to Parcel B without going down into the flood
plain. He recalled that one of the major concerns had been
that the shopping center be accommodated without getting into
the floodplain. He said there was nothing to prevent Dr. Hurt
from applying to fill in that area except the letter from Dr.
Hurt. Mr. Keeler stated he understood Mr. Rotgin's position
with Dr. Hurt and that Dr. Hurt may not be as interested in
this petition at this time as is Mr. Rotgin. However, the
initial application had been for Riverbend Limited Partnership
(of which Dr. Hurt is a minor partner)and Mr. Keeler stated
he felt he must consider it in this way.
Mr. Cogan stated he was primarily concerned with the stormwater
management issue (B.3.c. of the Board's memo of June 16, 1983).
Mr. Keeler indicated the next phase of this development would
be reviewed by the Commission in the near future.
Regarding the stormwater issue, Mr. Keeler stated the bond
expires in June and if the work has not been done, the County
Engineer is going to take the bond and do the work.
Mr. Michel asked if this application were approved, would
staff have another chance to take care of their concerns
when the next phase comes up for review.
Mr. Cogan indicated he would not be in favor of this and stated
he was in favor of going along with staff's recommendation.
.,I yz
April 16, 1985
Page 7
Mr. Gould and Mr. Skove agreed.
Mr. Rotgin stated the applicant would prefer a denial rather
than a deferral so that the matter could proceed to the Board.
Mr. Keeler stated the matter was scheduled for the Board on
May 1, 1985.
Mr. Rotgin stated the stormwater improvements should not be an
issue since they are bonded and will be built.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that if the matter were deferred until
April 30, the Board date would remain May 1.
Mr. Bowerman stated it was the Commission's feelings that
the loose ends remaining from the original approval should be
taken care of.
Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-85-8 for Riverbend Limited Partnership
be deferred until April 30.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
ZMA-85-4 P.H. Faulconer Estate - Proposal to rezone 41.2 acres
from PRD, Planned Residential Development, and R-1 Residential
(density four units per acre) with proffer to R-3 (density
14° three units per acre). Tax Map 60, part of parcel 24. Jack
Jouett Magisterial District. Property, located north of the
bypass between Canterbury and St. Anne's Belfield School across
from St. Rt. 855, Faulconer Drive.
(Mr. Michel excused himself from the meeting due to a conflict
of interests.)
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report, and reviewed the proffer
offered by the applicant. In addition, Mr. Keeler stated he
had recently been made aware of a stormwater run-off problem
on a lot on Woodhurst Road. He stated he had discussed this
with the applicant and the applicant is agreeable to an
additional proffer which would insure that this problem would
not be aggrevated by the applicant's development. However, the
applicant has not had time to submit this additional proffer.
Mr. Keeler stated he had suggested part of the language for
(d) so that a row of three townhouses would not be interpreted
as a triplex.
It was determined the date of the last traffic survey was
August, 1984. Mr. Keeler stated other areas had shown
comparable increases at that time, but he did not know the
reason for the large increase.
cm
April 16, 1985
Page 8
It was determined most of the traffic would come out onto
Barracks Road. 1400
The Chairman asked for comments from the Highway Department.
Mr. Echols responded. He stated he did not know what caused
the termendous jump in the traffic count, but he said based
on the count and the width of the road, that section of
Barracks Road would now be considered nontolerable. He stated
the traffic count does not consider direction.
It was determined ZMA-85-6 was not being pursued at this time.
Mr. Keeler stated he felt this had caused part of the confusion
since one map had been sent out for both rezonings. He stated
a second notice had been sent to adjoining property owners for
this petition as well as including the first proffer letter,
when the problem with the map had been discovered.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He offered the following comments:
--The request does comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
--The property is not on the market for development.
--The request is an attempt by the owners to form some
sort of master plan for the estate prior to the
disposal or development of any part of it.
--The primary reason for the request is because the
Hunter Village PRD that has been approved does not
tie in well with the overall conceptual pattern of
the development of the 58 acres previously rezoned.
--In the event the family does not develop the property
themselves, then the proffers associated with this
application (and the two rezoning requests), accomplish
the same objectives as restrictive covenants which
could be placed on the property and will assure the
family that development will follow the general
scheme which they envisioned. He stated this was
the primary reason for the proffers being offered
and being as detailed as they are.
--Adequate sewer lines are available. If this property
is developed in time, the applicants will contribute
to the upgrading of the Canterbury Hills pumping station.
--Adequate water is available, without any consequence to
any other property in the area.
--He stated there would be right and left turn lanes and a
decel lane headed from the west to east, for traffic
entering this property. He stated this would involve
widening of Rt. 654 (Barracks Road).
--The lake would be built on common open space on the
property and would serve as a primary stormwater
detention basin.
--The drawing used by Mr. Keeler is not a site plan but
merely a conceptual drawing. No site work has been done,
but the drawing illustrates what the proffers intend to do.
April 16, 1985
Page 9
--The purpose of the 50feet easement being proffered is
to guarantee that no existing vegetation will be removed
from that area. Additional landscaping can be provided
at time of site plan.
--The applicant has communicated with adjacent landowners
and as a result the proffers are designed to respond to
both the concerns of the neighbors and the planning
staff.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roudabush to respond to the stormwater runoff
problem on the lot on Woodhurst Road as mentioned earlier by Mr.
Keeler.
Mr. Roudabush stated he felt a stormwater runoff basin built
simultaneously with the development of this property would
relieve this problem.
Mr. Keeler offered copies of the most recent proffers to the
public.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bob Garland, a resident of Canterbury Hills, addressed the
Commission. He stated he was opposed to the rezoning and offered
the following comments:
--He felt it was not compatible with adjoining properties
since it is a higher density and a different type of
`%w dwelling, i.e. townhouses.
--He questioned whether it was the intent of the Compre-
hensive Plan to increase density further away from town.
--Disagreeing with the staff report, he stated the
original zoning application was from A-1 to PRD, a
great increase in density. While that application
was going one, the County Zoning Map was changed
to a new R-1, which allows 1 to 11-, units per acre.
--The applicant has been most cooperative in answering
the questions of neighboring property owners.
--He was concerned about the large increase of traffic
on Barracks Road.
--He felt staff had failed to study the impact of various
slopes and ravines draining toward Canterbury Hills.
--He felt the proffers did not offer protection of
compatible dwelling type and lot size.
--He stated the 75 feet setback includes the 50 feet
buffer, though staff's report had implied otherwise..
--He was in favor of the PRD as it had originally been
planned. He, and his neighbors, did not object to the
rezoning of the attached parcel, because the applicant
had represented there were no plans to change the PRD.
--He felt the developer should be allowed a density com-
parable to Canterbury Hills.
--He felt there were many errors in staff's report and
err► felt not enough time and effort had gone into what
should be an unbiased analysis.
335
April 16, 1985
Page 10
Mr. Evan Pancake, a resident of Canterbury Hills, stated he
was in agreement with Mr. Garland. lq,
Mr. Frank Blaisdell, a resident of Canterbury Hills, stated he
was in agreement with Mr. Garland. He also seemed to be unclear
about the proposed 50 feet buffer area. (It was determined
Mr. Blaisdell had a copy of an old proffer. Mr. Keeler gave
him a copy of the most recent proffer letter.) He was also
concerned about stormwater runoff problems.
Denny and Joyce Watson, residents of Canterbury Hills, stated
they were in agreement with Mr. Garland and opposed the rezoning.
Mr. Donald Kerwin, a resident of Canterbury Hills, stated
he supported Mr. Garland and was opposed to the rezoning.
Mr. John Fishback, a trustee of the Faulconer property, addressed
the Commission, and stated he felt it was in the best interests
of the County to approve this request. He stated he supported it
in his capacity as fiduciary.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
It was determined the rezoning on the 58 acre parcel had been
for R-4 with a density limitation of 3 units/acre.
Regarding the proffered 50 feet wooded buffer, Mr. Payne explained
that if utility lines were laid in this buffer necessitating
the removal of trees, then the wooded buffer would not be
preserved. He stated he did not think a major disturbance of
the buffer area would be allowed, such as would be caused by
laying of sewer lines.
Ms. Diehl asked why this was not presented as a PRD as the previous
section had been.
Mr. Roudabush explained the plans were not definite enough to
present it as such. In response to Mr. Skove's question, Mr.
Roudabush stated he did not think the applicant had had any
plans for what would go on this piece of property at the time
of the original rezoning.
It was determined the present density of Canterbury Hills is
2.3 units per acre and this request is for 2.5 units per acre.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there had been a mix of housing types
in the previous approval, off Barracks Road. Mr. Keeler stated
he did not think units had been at all restricted except within
that 200 feet. Mr. Keeler confirmed that he felt other than
single family dwelling units were contemplated.
April 16, 1985
Page 11
Mr. Skove stated he did not find the density increase to be a
very significant one.
Ms. Diehl asked if the proffers addressed the development of
the entire area as well as a PRD would.
Regarding the 50 foot wooded buffer and the 75 foot setback,
Mr. Keeler stated those could not be required under conventional
zoning. He stated the issue of buffers and setback, etc. between
residential areas has been addressed primarily through proffers
or, in the case of a PRD, through open space. He added that
a 75 foot building setback is greater than what would be
between residential and commercial. He stated it would be
difficult to justify staff requiring a 75 foot setback
for residential use, when if the property were zoned commercial
it would be possible to build 50 feet from the line. Mr.
Keeler stated a PRD would show a preliminary layout of the
lots and the roads, etc.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler stated he
felt the applicant has committed himself to single family
dwellings within 200 feet of these property lines. Other
than that, Mr. Keeler did not feel that the applicant was
restricting himself in other areas.
Mr. Roudabush stated that he had been authorized to change
the density in proffer (d) to 2.25 dwelling units/acre. He
added that a PRD had not been requested at this time because
the owners feel that this area requires some very detailed
planning that would not normally be done in a PRD.
Mr. Payne confirmed that the Commission could accept the stated
revision in the proffer.
Mr. Cogan stated that with the revision, this property would
be at about 1/3 dwelling unit/acre more than Canterbury Hills.
Ms. Diehl indicated this would make the proposal more acceptable
to her.
Mr. Cogan stated that at the time of site plan review, the
Commission would look very closely at surface water runoff
in terms of the protection of people downstream.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-85-4 for P.H. Faulconer Estate be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval with
the proffers of the applicant as stated in a letter dated
April 16, 1985 from Mr. Tim Michel to Mr. James R. Donnelly,
including the change in density in proffer (d) as stated
by Mr. Roudabush.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
13 ? /
April 16, 1985
Page 12
Mr. Skove stated he felt the people who had spoken against ,,O
the proffer had some valid points, particularly concerning
the traffic on Barracks Road; however, he stated he felt
the proffers do bring the proposal into compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan and therefore he could support the
motion.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he was in agreement with Ms. Diehl
and Mr. Skove, but he too was concerned about the runoff
control issue, particularly in regard to the one lot which
already has a serious problem. He stated he would like to
see a specific remedy for that problem presented at site
plan stage.
There being no further discussion, the previously stated motion
for approval was unanimously approved.
This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors
on May 1, 1985.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Echols to look at the August 1984 traffic
count to try to explain the tremendous increase.
The meeting recessed at 9:35; reconvened at 9:47 p.m.
(Mr. Michel returned to the meeting; Mr. Cogan did not return
after the recess.) vow
SP-85-14 Willis Estes - Request in accordance with Section 22.2.2.8
to use existing building and parking to rent Jartran trucks and
trailers Zoned C-1, Commercial. Tax Map 61Z, parcel 03-2. Char-
lottesville Magisterial District. Property, located on the east
side of Route 29 North about one-half mile north of the Char-
lottesville City Limits.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He added that this special use
permit had given the Highway Department the opportunity to
recommend that one of the entrances be closed. However, he
stated the applicant is a lessee in this case and could not
guarantee that the recommendation could be carried out.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Estes addressed the Commission. He stated this type of
business is currently creating an eyesore and a hazard at various
locations. He felt this proposal would help alleviate this
problem by providing a larger facility which might eventually
eliminate the need for several smaller locations.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Gould moved that SP-85-14 for Willis Estes be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
Y3
April 16, 1985
Page 13
1. Parking of vehicles/trailers in accordance with plans
marked "SP-85-14 Willis Estes" signed "R.S. Keeler,
April 9, 1985."
2. Not more than twenty (20) rental vehicles/trailers shall
be located on site without staff approval; provided
that in no case shall more than four (4) vehicles be
located so as to be visible from Rt. 29N.
3. Vehicles/trailers shall not be located anywhere else in
Albemarle County without appropriate approvals.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors
on May 1, 1985.
ZMA-85-7 Tri-Ton, Incorporated - Proposal to rezone 5.0 acres
from R-1 Residential to HC, Highway Commercial. Tax Map 32,
part of parcels 36 and 42. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Property, located on the east side of Route 29 North just
south of Rt. 649.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report and stated staff is
recommending denial of the request. He added that what staff
fir►, is looking for is an application that will address access to
Rt. 29 and Rt. 649, if desirable, for the entire 37 acres.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Bob Smith, representing Tri-Ton, a pretroleum retailer,
addressed the Commission. He disagreed with Mr. Keeler that
no changes have been made with this property since an approved
subdivision plat has been recorded, only 5 acres of land
are being dealt with, the applicant has changed,and the con-
templated use is different. He felt the application was proper
since the property is designated as Highway Commercial in the
Comprehensive Plan, the proposed use is a use permitted by
right in the HC zone, and the applicant realizes problems
of access will have to be addressed at the time of the site
plan review. He indicated he felt the question of access
should not be considered as a part of a rezoning, but should
be dealt with at a later date.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Mary Jo Lovelace addressed the Commission. She stated
she was opposed to the rezoning.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
cm
April 16, 1985
Page 14
Mr. Skove stated he was in agreement with staff. He was in
favor of seeing a traffic plan for the entire 37 acres as was
originally requested.
It was determined Tri-Ton is the owner of the property, not
the contract purchaser.
Regarding Mr. Smith's statement that a subdivision had been
approved and a plat signed by the staff, Mr. Keeler explained
that it was not a subdivision subject to their review, but was
an exempt subdivision. He stated the staff must sign all plats
now, but since this particular one had had more than 250 feet
of frontage and consisted of 5 acres, it was exempt from the
Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Smith confirmed that it is possible that a portion of this
property could be bought back from Tri-Ton.
Mr. Bowerman stated he endorsed the recommendations of staff
and he could not support the application. He stated many of
the problems that exist on Rt. 29N today are a result of
not limiting access onto Rt. 29.
Ms. Diehl agreed.
Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-85-7 for Tri-Ton, Incorporated be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on May 1, 1985.
Mr. Keeler emphasized that staff and the Commission are concerned
about access to the public roads. He added that he did not
think it would be difficult to present an application to show
points of access and internal road systems.
CPA-85-3 - Request for a Resolution of Intent to amend the Land
Use Plan of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 as
it relates to approximately 25 acres in Fontaine Avenue. A
plan amendment is sought in order to support a rezoning from
multi -family residential (R-10) to planned development shopping
center. (TM 76, parcel 17B)
Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report and reviewed the new process
of public submittal of Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Mr. Bowerman stated that though it had not been specified earlier,
staff comments should be included with these submittals.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
April 16, 1985 Page 15
Mr. Don Bent addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant
feels this proposal will have no adverse effects on any person
or interest. He stated the proposal would benefit the County
by the addition of many jobs and by adding to the tax base.
He also felt this type of development was needed in this area
of the County and would relieve congestion on Rt. 29N.
Regarding the zoning ordinance violations, he offered the
following comments:
--It was not the intent of the applicant to violate
any ordinances.
--The applicant has every intent to take whatever action
necessary to remedy any conditions that are supposedly
in violation.
--Selective cutting is not well defined in the ordinance.
Mr. Leonard Dykes, also an applicant, addressed the Commission.
He stated he was concerned about the implication that the
ordinance has been violated. He stated he felt they have been
in compliance with the intent of the ordinance which does allow
for the cutting of trees provided that the cutting is selective
and is designed to promote the welfare of the remaining trees.
He said the trees had been machine planted at a high density
for commercial purposes. He said the applicants had found the
trees to be diseased and beetle -ridden which had arisen from
the fact that the trees were not thinned 15 years ago. He said
this had been the basis for the applicants' thinking and they
felt they had handled the situation correctly in treating the
trees as they had originally been intended, i.e. a commercial
production. Regarding the County Engineer's request that the
area be reseeded, he stated he felt this was entirely in order,
but the replanting of trees could cause some serious problems,
including erosion problems. He said the trees had been removed
at ground level, with no stumps remaining. Mr. Dykes concluded
that the applicant had not damaged the area at all, but had
gotten the best use out of the trees.
In an effort to determine what had brought about the present
situation, Mr. Bowerman stated that this property had orig-
inally been A-1 and is now R-10. A permit is needed for this
in the R-10 zone but not in the rural areas. Mr. Payne
confirmed this was so.
Mr. Payne further explained that timber harvesting is contem-
plated as a form of agriculture which is appropriate in the
RA district. He stated the problem here is that the timber
should have been harvested when the property was zoned
agriculture. Mr. Payne further stated he felt the Zoning
Administrator and the County Engineer have the problem
under control and while staff was correct to bring the matter
up, the Commission should not concern itself with the issue.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the precedent of dealing with an
issue that is an open violation.
April 16, 1985
Page 16
Mr. Payne stated if this were a site plan amendment or a
zoning amendment, the matter would indeed need to be dealt
with; however a comprehensive plan amendment is different
because it is less site specific. He said it was his under-
standing from the Zoning Administrator that the issue is well
on the way to being resolved.
Dr. Hurt, also an applicant, addressed the Commission.
He offered the following comments:
--The site is unusually well served by highways.
--He felt it would remove some of the congestion
from Rt. 29N.
--Fontaine Avenue would be improved.
--Felt this would fulfill a need for this part of the
County.
In response to Mr. Skove's inquiry, Dr. Hurt explained that, generally,
approximately no more than 200 of a site is covered by building.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
In response to Mr. Skove's inquiry, Ms. Imhoff confirmed there
is already one similar size piece of property zoned commercial
in the vicinity (at the intersection if I64 and Rt. 29). She
stated development on the other piece of property has been
delayed because it is not served by water and sewer, and it
will be difficult to get utilities to the property.
It was determined there is no current commercial development
in that area. Mr. Skove said he had a problem with designating
two such areas on the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Diehl stated she was finding it difficult to deal with the
parcel specific concept and distinguish it from a rezoning.
She also stated she was unsure as to how much should be expected
from the applicant at this point.
Ms. Diehl stated her initial reaction to the proposal was that
it was much too intensive given the topography of the property.
Mr. Skove questioned if there was a need for commercial devel-
opment or if there was enough there already.
Regarding the criteria that has been established for determining
when a comprehensive plan amendment should be considered, Ms.
Imhoff stated that neither of the two currently proposed amendments
really meets any of those criteria.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that it would be a mistake to
view this type of application in the same manner as a site
plan or a rezoning. He said this calls for a much broader
type of review. He further stated that the Commission might
wish to request additional information from the applicant
or the staff as to how the proposal will tie into the surrounding
areas. He stated the Commission is much freer in this context
April 16, 1985
Page 17
than in a rezoning or a subdivision. He suggested that the
Commission be sure to (1) get a broad enough review to
put the entire proposal in context, and (2) remember that
the Commission is not limited to specifically what has been
requested.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was not opposed to having shopping
centers located around the city since he felt this would
reduce traffic through the city, but he agreed with Mr. Skove
that the entire picture should be looked at in terms of
what the Comprehensive Plan tries to accomplish. He indicated
he felt it was important to determine what additional information
was needed for this proposal.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt the traffic analysis was very
important and indicated she could not consider the proposal with-
out such an analysis.
Mr. Skove indicated he would be very interested in knowing if
the proposal would really pull any traffic off Rt. 29N.
Ms. Diehl indicated she felt it would no have any impact on
the Rt. 29N traffic.
Ms. Diehl indicated she felt this type of shopping center was
not needed in this area.
Mr. Keeler stated he felt the amount of impact this would have
would depend on the types of uses. He said a department store
in this area would draw a lot of traffic. Mr. Skove stated
he felt a use of this type were likely since that is usually
the case with a family -type shopping center.
Mr. Hurt stated that the owners of the Barracks Road Shopping
Center have paid for an option on the property and are very
interested in its possible development.
The Chairman asked what other information the Commission would
like to see prior to acting upon a resolution of intent.
Mr. Michel stated he would be interested in determining if
the University has any plans for that area and how they might
relate to this proposal.
Both Mr. Skove and Ms. Diehl indicated they did not see the need
for another such shopping center at this location.
Mr. Skove stated that if he were to support this application,
he would have to ask that the other commercially zoned property
in this area (as previously mentioned) be removed.
0
April 16, 1985
Page 18
Mr. Bowerman indicated he was willing to keep an open mind on
such proposals. He further stated that if such issues were
only dealt with every five years, when the Comprehensive Plan
is reviewed, the Commission would not be recognizing that
situations change.
Mr. Skove indicated that he agreed.
Ms. Diehl asked if this was the way this new process was
supposed to work.
Mr. Michel stated he was sorry to see this was the type of
proposal that would be seen, i.e. site specific.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt that the criteria that had been set
up had been broad enough to allow for that and therefore he
felt it was proper to require additional information from the
applicant.
It was the consensus of the Commission that additional information
on the following should be furnished by the applicant before
a resolution of intent could be considered:
--Traffic Analysis (particularly any impact on Rt. 29N)
--Housing needs in this quadrant
--How this would tie in with the already existing commercial
property in the vicinity
--UVA's plans for this area
--The need for a community shopping center in the area
Mr. Payne suggested that before the Commission hears this
application again, they should read the Interstate and Interchange
Development section of the Plan.
Mr. Skove moved that CPA-85-3 be deferred indefinitely to allow
time for the applicant to provide the above stated information.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
(Mr. Michel left the meeting at this point due to a conflict
of interests.)
CPA-85-4 - Request for a Resolution of Intent to amend the Land
Use Plan of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002
as it relates to approximately 9 acres of the Garlick Tract. A
plan amendment is sought in order to support a rezoning from
rural areas to multi -family development (R-10). (TM 45, parcels
19 and 21).
Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report, and stated staff does not
support a resolution of intent at this time.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
jq_1
April 16, 1985
Page 19
Mr. Ethan A. Miller, the applicant, addressed the Commission.
err,, He stated the history of the process connected with this
property goes back as far as 1980. He presented a copy of a
preliminary plan which Caleb Stowe and United Virginia Bank
had proposed in the early 80's. He indicated nothing had
happened with this plan though litigation had been involved.
He stated the average density had been 4.8 units/acre, for
76 acres, or approximately 320 units/acre. He said there
was an additional 13 acres with the parcel which Mr. Stowe
and UVB had not intended to use. He said Blue Ridge Land
Trust (whom he represents) got involved in 1983 and purchased
the parcel from UVB. He said that phase of the history of
the property seems to be over and the County seems to have
won rather soundly. Mr. Miller's presentation proceeded as
follows:
Now what we are looking at is, in point of fact in
terms of my interest and Blue Ridge Land Trust interests,
really all we were interested in in the first place.
We got trapped procedurally once before which is
unfortunate from our standpoint. We got trapped
procedurally in a lawsuit which we weren't really
that interested in. I am really hung up with process
at this point, as well, because originally we came
forward in December with a rezoning request because
that's what we thought we needed. The whole tract
is zoned RA. We were looking for a rezoning of 9
fir'` acres and that is about it. At the time --this is
our fault --we had some surveying done which we
thoughtat the time showed that all of the nine
acres that we have there in black, all of the nine
acres drain out of the reservoir. So that was the
basis upon which we went forward, and, obviously
we were sincere in our belief that .... We found out
later however, when the Engineering Department
got involved, that there was concern that some
of the property did not in fact drain out of the
reservoir, it drained into the reservoir. So we sent
the surveyors back out there --the engineers didn't
have a real specific view --we sent the surveyors
back out there and that's where this came from,
which is the result of the surveyor going out and
drawing in this line, which is in yellow. (On
the property) there is, in fact a ridge line, which
is what we had originally assumed was the drainage
cutoff to where they drain into the Meadowcreek
Basin vs. the Rivanna Reservoir. But, unfortunately
for us, it turns out that although the fall line
goes towards Hydraulic Road, there is sort of an
additional sloping this way so the water, in fact,
will all drain this way initially, and then come
back and drain sort of behind the hill and go back
down again. So, obviously, it misled some others,
including myself. But anyway, those appear to be
the facts at this point. I think the County is
satisfied that our picture as it is drawn now is
April 16, 1985
Page 20
accurate. Unfortunately, for us too, in the middle
of our property, as favorable drainage here, is
this 40 foot natural gas division line easement.
(Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Miller to point this out on
the drawing.) (Mr. Miller passed out more drawings.)
Our feeling was, if you look at that piece, it would
have been, in terms of the amount of acreage, 3.8
acres, we might well have been able to do a project
that we felt was economically viable in that much
acreage, but the topography is rather peculiar.
Most of the property is very close to the road,
it is long and skinny, and we had come up with a
proposal which was in the original packet ( he put
up a drawing showing this original proposal). Of
course then we could have got 62 units in there.
I think it is a good project and is going to be
very esthetically pleasing. The plan was to build
these 62 solar townhouses similar to the ones
that the architect built elsewhere in the County.
But that's just in the way of background. My comment
is that we got caught in the process, more than
anything else, because after we came to the conclusion
with the update in data, that, in fact, some of the
tract 9 acres that we were seeking to rezone in fact
drained into the Rivanna Watershed, then we were
back to the issue of whether or not we needed a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Now, I think that
moo
everyone agrees, it seems like everyone agrees, though
perhaps we need to go back in the history and find out
exactly where the Board of Supervisors said this, but
I think everybody agrees that as to that area in yellow
which drains out of the watershed, that, in fact, is
in the urban area. We don't need to amend the Com-
prehensive Plan with respect to that 3.846 acres
because the Board, at some meeting or other back at
that time period, said that, to the extent that they
were using Hydraulic Road as a kind of easy way to
decide where this ... without actually surveying the
property. There was an easy way to define this boundary
line to an urban area. This was medium density area.
Interestingly enough, I dug out, in the process of
preparing for tonight, some colloquy in the litigation
with United Virginia Bank between Bob Tucker and Mr.
St. John which I will read as supporting my point on
this if anyone has a question with that point. (The
Commission did not indicate they wished to hear this.)
But everybody seems to agree ... good. At least we
agree on something. So, anyway, in point of fact,
although I think as I've gone through this procedure
as it develops, and as I point out more correctly in
this distribution that I gave tonight vs. what was
submitted in early April, that we are not asking for
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for 9 acres,
we are asking for an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan for about 5.146 acres. In other words, the
`(�
April 16, 1985
Page 21
two areas in blue. That's all we're asking for
because we don't need to ask for what we already
have. As far as listening tonight to the new
* procedure and listening to the response to Dr.
Hurt and his project, interested to hear comments
from the Planning Staff as well --"Well, this is
very site specific." There's no question about
that. This is site specific. I am really just
concerned with my 5 acres. We'll call it a
minor amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, it's
not a major amendment, it's not adding another
square mile to residential, to urban out of the
rural area. It's pretty minor, it's 5 acres.
Again, it's your procedure, with respect to
you adopted this thing and perhaps when you did
it you had in mind you were only going to look
for the southeast quadrant, but I think it applies
equally to minor amendments to the plan. It
seems to me that there ought to be some procedure
by which there are minor amendments considered;
otherwise, the way I see this is I am going to
be stuck in a situation where if I come back
you say -."This is an improper procedure; you
shouldn't be before us asking for an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan." I'll say: "Fine, if I've
got the wrong procedure it's because as I went
through the process of rezoning I was kind of
led to believe maybe this was a good thing to do."
° So if it was wrong and it wasn't a good think to
do, then I'll come back and I'll talk to you about
rezoning. But my feeling is, if I come to you for
rezoning and you say to me: "It's a nice rezoning
project but it doesn't fit within the Comprehensive
Plan because it is not urban area, therefore we
can't rezone it for you." Then I'm kind of stuck
with I have no procedure for amending that plan
because it is site specific and I have no way of
rezoning because I can't amend the Comprehensive
Plan which means I'm sort of stuck. Now, you may
come to the conclusion that I'm stuck and I have
no procedure. That's up to you. You can turn me
down for any reason that's not arbitrary and
capricious, obviously. So, anyway, here I am.
There have been others before me, and, I hope there
won't be others after me, but I think the reason
obviously that this piece of property generated
such interest before and why it continues to generate
interest is because if you're looking at the stated
procedures here for amendment, this really fits
exactly within it. What you're really looking at
is, if you are trying to enlarge the urban area
to a contiguous --this is a contiguous parcel --
I'm not just talking about pieces across the street,
I've got urban area on my parcel. So it is not as
though I have picked this piece of rural land out
of the expanse of Albemarle County and said: "Here's
a good spot; I'd like some urban area here." Not
,S q 7
April 16, 1985
Page 22
only do I have urban area on my property, but this
piece of property is about ? mile from the high
school, it's across the street from Townwood, Birnam
Wood; all those other Woods over there have been
very intensly developed. It's not suitable for
agriculture. We had some cattle on the property
and the problem was that the cattle got out and they
got in the way of the traffic. There's a lot of
traffic there. Obviously it's not a very big
parcel. There's not much of a way you're going to
make any money running 50 head of cattle on a piece
of property which is in the midst of this develop-
ment area. It's a piece of property which has all
the utilities --it's got sewer and water right there.
It's not even under the road any more as far as I
understand it, it's right there. We've got a gas
line right through the property. We've got electric
lines clearly, we've got telephone lines, we've got
everything you need. I am constantly barraged by
requests from the telephone company and from the
electric utility to give them more easements because
it's more convenient to come across my property
than to go across everything else. So they are
constantly wanting to put another line in here
or a line across the street. That's not a problem.
In terms of, is this a natural extension, there's
a quote in the Plan "is this to promote effecient
expansion of land to the growth area without
undue expense of public utilities." Sure, there
isn't any expense. All the expenses are going to
be ours; we're only going to have to tap into these
lines. It's not a question of going to Crozet
with a sewer or going to Earlysville with a sewer,
we're right there. So it seems to me, but for the
watershed issue which I admit is a very difficult
issue which I want to address in a minute, but
for that issue if, in fact, and I think we all agree,
if all that property drains into the Meadowcreek
Basin, as I originally assumed, I wouldn't be here
asking you for an amendment for the Plan. I already
have the urban area; I would be back in my rezoning
process where I would be asking for a rezoning.
But, O.K., I've got the watershed issue to deal with.
In a minute I want to address some of the specifics
of that issue which is a very complicated issue, and
when I first got into the watershed issue I was dealing
with arguments by the County in the litigation of the
concern that had been raised earlier over the quality
of the watershed and, in fact, in a subsidy hearing
that we had before Judge Trembley a great deal of time
was spent on that issue. I have said that a great deal of time
was spent on that issue in the Federal Court case ;
I've got the transcript to prove it. So we dealt a
great deal with the quality. So I thought to myself:
"Well, I'm going to come before the Planning Commission
April 16, 1985
Page 23
and talk about the watershed issue. I'm going to
have to deal with the quality issue." So I
attempted to deal with that and attempted to
say, "Let's look at this in a big picture." I'd
like to figure out a way that we won't compare
the watershed quality. So I made the decision
what we would try to do, if the issue was improper
drainage from this blue area --it's going to go
into the watershed which was a bad thing from
the standpoint of development --then I better
correct it. So I better correct it. So I talked
to the engineers and they said "Well, you can
correct that; you can put in a culvert on the
western part of the property, right here, and,
in fact, without too much problems, because of
the fact that there is a fall line this way
as well as this way, basically just kind of tilt
the property up like that and get the stuff,
instead of draining back this way, to drain back
this way." It seemed to me that was a reasonable
compromise. (Change of tape.) "We are also inter-
ested in quantity of water, -and if we permit you
to take your four or five acres here and to divert
the stormwater somewhere else, we are going to
diminish the quantity of water in that reservoir."
So now we are faced with the decision, well, you can't
put the water in the reservoir because you're going
fir+` to hurt the quality and you can't take it because
you're going to dimish the quantity. The watershed
issue is an issue, I guess, which is so complicated
it doesn't have any solution at all, because when
you are looking at the dual issue of quality and
quantity, it seems as if there is no solution whatso-
ever. It seems to me there are several ways to
address the watershed issue. One is talk about
technical specifics of what's it going to do to the
quality, what's it going to do to the quantity and
I am willing, tonight, to have my expert come and
talk to you a little bit about that issue from a
technical standpoint because he is more qualified
than I am, Mark Osborne,to talk about it. What
I did was, in trying to look at this logically
and rationally, if the issue here is watershed
and that's what I'm led to believe because, as I
said earlier, if my tract drained out, the whole
thing drained out, then I'd get my urban zoning,
my urban area. So the issue must be watershed.
If the issue is watershed, I said, well, look I've
got an 88 acre tract, and if the issue is watershed
quality, then what if I look at this thing as a
whole and say what's the comparison to the effect
on the quality to what I propose vs. something
else, such as, what I could do by right. And so
I set forth in the first submission three or
four possibles, each of which has a varying
,399
April 16, 1985 Page 24
effect on the watershed. There are four alternatives
that I originally came up with, three of which I
can do of right. They are, these are on page 3 of
the submission that I made in an April 2 letter
to Mr. Bowerman; I tried to set forth things that
I could think of that would be economically viable
with respect to this property. They are: harvesting
of timber and reforesting --Remember this is not the
same issue that we had with Dr. Hurt because this is
a rural area and at least before I cut any trees I
am here before you, although I don't know any of the
details, it just seemed like it was apropos, interesting
that he would come before me on a similar type of issue --
we can harvest the timber. I sent a forestry person
out there, Larry Cabell, back in August of '83 to find
out what we had on the property. He went out and
looked at it and said, he gave me an estimate of
maybe $60,000 to $70,000 marketable timber on my 88
acre tract. And when he was walking the property with
me he said: "You got to harvest this stuff because
if you let it go you are going to lose it because the
stuff is mature; you are going to lose it to insects;
you could lose it to fire." So I said to myself: "I'll
go insure." I find out you can't insure timberland
because there are no improvements on it. So I'm stuck
there with if it burns down, that'll be tough, but that'd
be that. There is a tremendous amount of vandalism on
this property; it is used as dumping ground; it is used
as motorcycle tract; it's used for God knows what else.
Obviously, there's not much I can do to keep track of
this thing. It's not as if this is a piece of woodland
out in the middle of Albemarle County; it is right in
the urban area, near Albemarle High School. I've had
some problems with respect to this property; with
respect to trespassers which I
have had to get the County police force involved with,
but, hopefully, they have abated, at least temporarily.
I am faced with that. I had a meeting with the people
from the Mormon Church and they supported this thing
if for no other reason than they were sick of vandalism
too. The other things we can do is, obviously, we've
got some development rights here; we've got 10 lots;
we've got two tracts of more than 10 acres which would
give us the rights to 10 lots and I could have a little
subdivision there coming off Lambs Road, perhaps a
subdivision coming off of Hydraulic Road. I suppose
I could put 9 or 10 units there of right although it
doesn't seem to me that's a very useful thing to do with
this. On the other hand, I can come before you either
in this process or the rezoning process, or some process,
and try to figure out an overall view of what to do with
the property. What I came up with was the theory if I
could get the economic use that I needed of the front
9 acres, then I would be willing to, in some proper
procedure which I am not sure I know yet, or maybe
you can help me with the proper procedure, do we need
�G O
April 16, 1985 Page 25
to amend the application to put the whole tract in here,
or whatever would be needed in the planned unit process.
I'm not that strong on these procedures, but really I
think that it's the substance that I'm after. Whatever
procedure you think is appropriate, I think I will do.
I'd like to take the remaining 79 acres and put it into
some sort of conservation management. Now if that means
restrictive zoning, if that means turning it over to the
Virginia Department of Forestry to manage for me, I am
perfectly willing to do that. I am willing to do any-
thing reasonable. I want to find a solution to the
use of this property. In that respect, when we go to
paragraph (e) of your proposals saying, well, the
applicant has got to come before us and convince us that
there is some reason to change the plan. I think that my
answer to that really goes to the purpose of the Planning
Commission and the planning process itself. We can get
hung up with details here, but if we can look at the
big picture, we've got 88 acres, we've got to figure out
something to do with it. We need perhaps to look at it
in a different way than we look at every other piece of
property. We need, perhaps, some sort of flexibility
to an obvious problem, that we can't seem to get our-
selves within technical details of anything at this
point, and maybe that's what the Planning Commission is
here to do, to say: "This is a peculiar problem; we
don't see this everywhere else." Obviously, I'm sincerely
trying to work it out. I've got 84 acres now that
drain into the watershed. I'm saying I would be willing
to part with the use of 79 of them from a standpoint
of economic use. That's more than 900 of it, with the
idea that maybe that's a reasonable tradeoff as the
Comprehensive Plan says, compromise, reasoned approach.
Maybe it would be an exercise of wisdom to look at this
thing and recognize that we've got to solve the problem
of the use of this property. I think if terms of
process, again, here I am at the point of asking you
to adopt a resolution of intent. My sense was when I
cam here, if you didn't adopt a resolution of intent,
it would mean that you would simply reject it out of
hand and that would be the end of this. Judging from
your action in the first case, maybe that is not what
you intend to do; there's another approach, you can
defer it and ask for more information. That certainly
seems reasonable because the time frame involved here
is such that we certainly haven't been able to put
together the most comprehensive and exhaustive
proposal, but we were under the stress of having to
come before you now or not being able to come before
you until October. And the economics of this
property are that we have held on to it now for 18
months and I have real intense pressure to get something
done, to get some money here to either get started on
the process or abandon it and try something else. We
have interest charges and all those other... It's just
simply a vacant piece of property which however we
)6I
April 16, 1985
Page 26
would like, perhaps, will not stay vacant forever. I'm
not sure that the world just continues to spin. I would
like to have Mark Osbornetalk a little about the water-
shed issue. It has gotten very late and I will stop
at this point, but if you want to come back later and
continue, that's fine with me, but, obviously, I've
got a lot to say and I would have liked to have been
first on the agenda, not last, if I had had my choice.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. Miller had made his point very
clearly. He stated further that the Commission was interested
in Mr. Osborne's approach to the runoff from these 6 acres,
especially in light of the watershed management official
and the County Engineer.
Mr. Keeler stated he would like to comment on some of Mr.
Miller's statements. Regarding Mr. Miller's statement that
for "this area" he does not need a Comprehensive Plan
amendment, Mr. Keeler stated he was not so sure about that
and he had not been sure about it when Mr. Miller had first
approached him with 9 acres. He had told Mr. Miller that he
would need to do certc-fin things: (1) Apply for a zoning
amendment, for sure; (2) Need to amend the jurisdictional
area, for sure. He stated that it could be argued from what
is written in the Plan that this is part of the growth area,
but nothing is shown on this plan that indicates how this is
to be developed. Mr. Keeler stated he did not want anybody
to have the idea that no Comprehensive Plan amendment is
required for that "yellow area". He stated he had told Mr.
Miller that he was not sure and if he wished to move
through with a rezoning, he should ask for all these things.
Mr. Miller agreed that this was so. He added that this was a
question of history and felt the record would speak for itself.
At this point Mr. Miller quoted from a transcript from the
Federal District Court, Western District of Charlottesville,
dated April 30, 1982, a cross-examination by Mr. St. John of
Mr. Robert Tucker.
Mr. Bowerman stopped Mr. Miller and stated that he felt this
was a mute point since the question before the Commission at
this time is just 9 acres.
Again Mr. Keeler emphasized that he had advised Mr. Miller,
because he was in a hurry, to ask for all these things and if
he did not need them, they would not hurt him. He added that
the way he reads the Plan, the boundary is the watershed,
but he stated he could not speak for the Board of Supervisors
or the Planning Commission.
Mr. Payne pointed out that Mr. Miller
as to how he is to proceed, and he is
on Mr. Keeler's advice to him, one way
makes his own decision
not entitled to rely
or the other.
April 16, 1985 Page 27
Mr. Keeler also stated that as he recalled the court issue,
a%w the comments had dealt with that portion of the property that
naturally drains away from the reservoir. He said, as he
understood it, none of the previous litigation had dealt with
this 9 acres.
Mr. Miller agreed that he had made all his own decisions, but
he still did not know what to do.
Mr. Mark Osborne addressed the Commission. He stated there
is some difficulty with the topography of the parcel.
Using the drawing, Mr. Osborne pointed out some of the
features of the property. He stated when the survey was
done to try to determine where the water was going into
the watershed and out of the watershed, the instruction
was to locate a ridge line. He stated he had established
a different line, which had originally worked against the
applicant. However, he said it has now been found that
this is an advantage since it gives the choice of whether
to keep the water going to the reservoir or to divert
it and run it back across the road. He explained that as
far as the amount of water that would be going through
Townwood and the regional dentention basins, the applicant
would be able to establish his own detention basin, and
would be required to, to limit the flow that would be
going through those areas. If the applicant should choose
to send the water down through the reservoir, there is
another possibility which is similar to what was done
with Riverbend Shopping Center, i.e. to take the first flush
of water that comes off the parking lots and allow it to
drop into a basin and then divert it to a grassy area that
was satisfactory to the County Engineer which would soak up
all the sediment, heavy metals, etc. After the first flush
of stormwater flow increases, the diversion box would allow
the water to jump over it and be diverted down to the Rivanna
River. He explained this technique separates the first portion
of a rainfall from the subsequent portions of a rainfall.
He indicated these types of methods would be used to meet
the County Engineer and the Watershed Management requirements.
Mr. Fred Landess addressed the Commission. Regarding Mr.
Miller's offer to put most of the acreage into conservation,
Mr. Landess felt this would be in the best interests of
the County and the reservoir.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated his immediate reaction to the proposal had
been negative; however, he felt this could be dealt with
without setting a precedent because of the public interest
that could be gained. He indicated he was in favor of the
prospect of adding 79 acres that drains into the watershed,
and permanently eliminating future problems. In light of
that, he stated he felt the problem with other 6 acres is
minimal.
,v43
April 16, 1985
Page 28
He felt this would not set a precedent because of the unique
benefits of the other 79 acres. He indicated he would be
in favor of a resolution of intent to see what the applicant
could bring forward in terms of proffers. He stated he
agreed that it was parcel specific, but he felt that a
substantial change (criteria (e)1) had been met, i.e. the
willingness of the applicant to do something significant
with the vast bulk of the property.
Mr. Skove stated a main issue of this applicant is how to
define the edge of the urban area, and it was long ago
decided that Hydraulic Road would be the line. He stated
he could not see any particular benefit to the County to
change this 9 acres. He felt a change to include this in
the urban area would be a step backwards.
Ms. Diehl indicated she agreed with staff that the drainage
issue should be addressed in greater detail, though she could
understand the public interest that Mr. Bowerman had spoken of.
She indicated she was concerned with the precedent that would
be set with diverting drainage from the reservoir.
Mr. Bowerman stated he would be willing to get that information
at the next stage. Mr. Skove stated he did not see a need for
a next stage since he felt the matter was very clear cut.
Mr. Bowerman stated he could see long-term benefits with very
little sacrifice on the part of policies or procedures because
it is such a unique situation.
Ms. Diehl indicated she could understand both arguments.
Regarding staff's comment that diverting the drainage may
cause a great deal of impact on downstream developments
which may alter the current stormwater management plan for
that area, Ms. Diehl stated she felt that should be addressed
before the adoption of a resolution of intent. She stated
staff had also suggested a possible violation of the
stormwater detention ordinance relating to diversion of
water. She stated she did not want to be put into a position
of adopting a resolution of intent that will be contrary to
at least two established ordinances that are in place.
Mr. Keeler stated that Section 4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance
deals with diverting drainage. He stated no one should have
the idea that a conceptual endorsement of diverting this water
is going to become a reality. He stated that Mr. Elrod had
indicated to him there are many problems associated with
diverting water from one drainage area to another.
Ms. Diehl moved that CPA 85-4 be deferred indefinitely to
allow the applicant time to provide more information on
drainage concerns, particularly the issue of diversion of
drainage and the impact on the reservoir.
April 16, 1985
Page 29
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
In answer to Mr. Keeler's inquiry, Mr. Bowerman explained the
Commission was interested in knowing more about the watershed
issue not only for this property, but also the implications
and whether or not it would set a precedent.
Mr. Payne stated that it would most assuredly set a precedent.
He indicated it was up to the Commission to decide if they
felt the benefit would outweigh the detriment, the detriment
being that a precedent would be set.
The previously stated motion for deferral was approved with
Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Gould and Ms. Diehl voting in favor, and Mr.
Skove voting against.
Mr. Keeler stated that this application and one other that has
been filed has raised this issue between Mr. Keeler and the
Watershed Management Official, i.e. that there is no clear
policy about alterations to the reservoir watershed. He
distributed an outline of a procedure that is proposed to
deal with this issue separately from these applications.
Mr. Osborne once again addressed the Commission and indicated it
would not be difficult to control the diversion of the water.
NEW BUSINESS
The Chairman reminded the Commissioners of the CIP work
session scheduled for 4:00 p.m. Thursday, April 18.
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at
12:35 a.m., April 17.
DS
James R. Donnel C
cretary