Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 17 87 PC MinutesFebruary 17, 1987 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 17, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Mr. David Bowerman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the February 3, 1987 meeting were approved as submitted. SP-86-79 Phil and Mary Sheridan - The applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a golf course (Section 10.2.2.4) on 129.26 acres of land zoned RA, Rural Areas. The golf course would be an additional amenity added to the Montfair Campground (SP-76-86). The property is located on the north side of Route 673, approximately 1/4 mile west of its intersection with Route 810. Tax Map 26, Parcel 33A and 33B. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report included the following comments from County officials: County Engineer: "The use requested does not conform well with the existing topography. Unless the applicant can demonstrate the need for a facility of this nature, and show that the public benefit will outweigh the environmental degradation, then we recommend denial of the special use permit." Watershed Management Official: Because of the impact on numerous springs and streams on the site, and the stream crossings which will be required, it is "recommended that the concept of a golf course of this design and the proposed location be reconsidered and reevaluated as to its environmental impact." Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: "This request would make Routes 673 and 810 non -tolerable, therefore the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation does not support this request." The staff report stated staff was "concerned that the existing natural features of this site may not lend itself well to the development of a golf course as proposed on the plan submitted with this application. ... Most of the concerns raised pertaining to this use are related to the specific design and layout of the golf course." The report advised the Commission "that potential environmental impacts would, therefore, be better addressed as further engineering and design of the course is executed and developed." The staff report concluded: "The Commission and Board of Supervisors is advised that this request is not an endorsement or approval of the concept plan submitted with this application." There was some confusion on the part of the Commission as to the intent of condition No. 3 (Construction of golf course shall belimited to existing areas with slopes of less than 25%.). Mr. Benish explained: "Any areas that are 25% before construction should not be used as part of the golf course; if there are small parts of the fairway, given the resulting 57 February 17, 1987 age 2 design that come out to be in excess of 25%--that's just a matter of how the course is designed. We just don't want construction to occur in any areas where the slope is currently 25% in its natural state." Mr. Benish confirmed that areas of 25% slopes could be part of the golf course, but no construction activities (grading) would be allowed on those areas. Mr. Benish estimated that approximately 20 acres would be extensively cleared. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Sheridan addressed the Commission. He presented a "revised preliminary" drawing of the layout of the golf course. He explained that, due to financial obligations, he must sell the timber on the land, and he had arrived at the idea of a golf course as a way to make use of the land after it is cleared. He explained that only paths will be located in steep areas and the trees will not be cleared from those areas. He stated he was very conscious of the need to control erosion because he must keep his fishing and swimming lakes unpolluted. He felt the golf course would attract more tourists to the area, thereby producing more revenue for the County. He stated it was his intention to work with all the County agencies to insure that the golf course is built properly and maintained properly. Mr. Cogan asked how condition No. 2 (No areas of proposed greens, tees or fairways shall be allowed within 100 horizontal feet of any perennial or intermittent streams. These areas shall be maintained or reconstructed as filter and buffer areas.) would affect the applicant's plan. Mr. Cogan noted that the drawing showed a "fairway with a stream right on it" and that there seemed to be several similar situations. Mr. Sheridan stated that the drawing had been distorted when it had been blown up. He stated that all tees and greens were 100 feet from the streams. Regarding the fairways, Mr. Sheridan stated it was his understanding from staff that condition No. 2 did not mean that a fairway could not cross a stream. He explained that a grassy area would act as a barrier and filter alongside the streams. Mr. Benish added: "Mr. Norris' recommendation for the buffer area was not intended to be a natural buffer area. It could be graded -- become a part of the course, but become a natural area, almost a water and dead area hazard that would be in the middle of the fairway." Mr. Benish was unsure as to how this would fit in with the golf course. He added, "Essentially you would have a 100-foot strip of natural type of grass vegetation which wouldn't be seeded or fertilized." Mr. Benish confirmed this would be on either side of the stream. Mr. Cogan stated this would be a very unusual design. Mr. Benish added that the 100 feet would be 50 feet on each side. Mr. Cogan stated that was not the way the condition read. After checking, Mr. Benish agreed that it was indeed intended to mean 100 feet on either side. He also agreed that he could not foresee how the golf course would function with such a design though it was conceivable. 19 GO February 17, 1987 Page 3 on Mr. Sheridan stated he did not feel Mr. Norris had intended that a fairway could not cross a stream. Mr. Benish stressed that the comments of staff and the County agencies was "clearly not an endorsement of the plan" before the Commission. He added that there is a lot of "practical engineering" which just would not work with this plan. It was determined that the streams which must be crossed are quite narrow and could be "jumped over." The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Sheridan estimated that 10,000 to 15,000 people would use the course during the first year. Mr. Sheridan stated that he had not had a marketing survey done because his plans had been delayed for a while. In response to Mr. Stark's question, Mr. Sheridan confirmed that he would be cutting the timber on the land regardless of the outcome of this proposal. It was determined Mr. Sheridan would need no special permission to cut the timber. Ms.Diehl expressed concern about the proximity of the course to other "people -intensive uses," (group picnic areas, family camping areas, pastureland, horseback riding). She questioned the compatibility of the golf course with these uses. Mr. Benish responded that staff was concerned about the proximity to bridle paths. He stated that the golf course, in most cases, would be below the camping areas. He stated staff was also concerned about adjacent properties and would recommend that buffers be provided. It was determined adjacent properties are undeveloped with the applicant owning the property "to the bottom of the plan." Mr. Benish stated staff was also concerned about the proximity to the state road. Mr. Horne pointed out that the distances are not unusual for a golf course. Mr. Benish again stressed that staff was not endorsing the plan being presented. He added, "In order for them to meet the conditions that we propose, there would be a number of changes that would have to occur." Ms. Diehl stated that it appeared that the horses would have to be relocated. Mr. Stark pointed out that it might be possible to move the horses to the applicant's property which is "below" this proposal. Mr. Sheridan stated that the bridle path would be re-routed. Commissioners Wilkerson and Cogan expressed lingering confusion about condition No. 2. Mr. Benish explained, "Condition 2 doesn't contemplate this plan as it's before you. It is a condition that must be met on the resulting and ultimate design that comes before you. So it may or may not be practical for a plan as he has submitted to us, but we are not endorsing this plan. We are saying it may be more practical that he dog -leg around or completely avoid streams and areas where there is surface water, but that at a minimum there should be a 100-foot 61 February 17, 1987 Page 4 buffer and that all tees and fairways should not be within that buffer." Mr. Cogan commented, "But the point is, this isn't the way golf courses are built." (Mr. Stark indicated agreement stating, "You put hazards in them in the first place.") Mr. Benish pointed out that Mr. Norris' comments were based on the fact that this proposal is in the watershed and "the idea was to avoid excess fertilizers, etc. that go into the watershed." In response to Mr. Michel's request, Mr. Benish quoted the following existing traffic figures for Routes 810 and 673: "Section of Rt. 673 from Rt. 810 (the paved portion near Montfair) carries 202 vehicle trips/day; beyond that point it drops to 98 vtpd up to Rt. 672, and beyond that to 40 vtpd." Mr. Cogan stated he still had a problem with condition No. 2, noting that "if this were simply nothing more than pastureland, there would be no such restriction." He noted, however, that he understood Mr. Norris' reasons for his comments. He felt. that condition No. 2 would "make the whole thing unworkable." Mr. Horne stated that the impractical portion of condition No. 2 related to fairways. He added, "If you were to choose to approve this and were to remove fairways, (that would not be an insurmountable problem)." Mr. Horne stressed that staff was not endorsing the plan, but added, "When we get a site plan in with accurate topographic information so that we know what we are dealing with, I think there will be ways to adequately address that issue." Ms. Diehl stated it was difficult to understand how the traffic increase would not be significant (as indicated by staff), if there were 10,000 persons using the course each year, as indicated by the applicant. Mr. Benish stated that the Highway Department had not supplied any information regarding traffic generation. However, vehicle trips per day from a golf course aim measured in three ways: (1) Based on the number of employees = 34 vtpd (impractical in this case since these figures are based on a private golf course); (2) Based on the number of parking spaces provided = 41 parking spaces; or (3) Based on the acreage of the golf course = 187 vtpd. He stated that somewhere between 41 and 187 is thought to be realistic. Mr. Benish stated that the Highway Department feels that this golf course would make all the roads involved non -tolerable. Mr. Bowerman stated, "Based on the staff report, I can't find a single reason that would make me inclinded to approve this request for a special permit." He stated he was especially mindful of the County Engineer's comments regarding the topography of the property and the fact that it lies in the watershed. Mr. Bowerman felt that if this special permit were approved, the problems which would arise later with the site plan would be insurmountable. Mr. Michel stated that while he had some "sympathy" with Mr. Bowerman's position, he was, however, more inclined to defer the matter. He stated he did not have a clear idea of the vehicle trips/day and 19 6a February 17, 1987 Page 5 he felt the conditions of approval needed to be "cleaned up." There was some discussion about the many variables associated with the traffic figures and Mr. Horne stated there was no way to determine accurate vehicle trips for this type of use. Ms. Diehl stated she agreed with Mr. Bowerman. In addition, she was concerned about the proximity to existing uses. The Chairman allowed the applicant to comment once again. Mr. Sheridan explained that there was 40 feet between the contour intervals, rather than 20 feet. He was under the impression this meant that the property was less steep than suggested. However, Mr. Bowerman explained to Mr. Sheridan that this discrepancy would mean that the property was steeper, not less steep. He explained that he had not sought to expand the camping facilities because he felt that increased automobile traffic was preferable to increased traffic from recreational vehicles. Mr. Sheridan stated that most of the area was relatively flat. Mr. Stark stated he could not envision how the proposal could develop with condition No. 2 as stated. Mr. Michel and Mr. Wilkerson stated they were in favor of deferral to allow the applicant time to obtain more concrete information. Mr. Michel pointed out to the applicant that if the permit were approved with the suggested conditions, "it would be virtually impossible to build your golf course." Mr. Stark moved that SP-86-79 for Phil and Mary Sheridan be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Discussion by the Zoning Administrator of Enforcement Mechanisms - Mr. Horne introduced Mr. Charley Burgess, the County Zoning Administrator, who presented a brief report on the enforcement mechanisms for site plans, subdivisions, special use permits and proffered rezonings. Significant comments included the following: --Zoning cannot waive Commission -imposed requirements, i.e. requirements above and beyond what the Ordinance requires. --When new tenants move into an existing facility a new permit must be issued and at that time all the records pertaining to that particular piece of property (special permits, rezonings, etc.) are checked with particular attention being paid to parking requirements and loading space requirements. (Mr. Burgess stated that, until recently, notes on site plans have not been looked at closely when a change in tenants has occurred. He explained that is currently being corrected.) --He stated he is currently working on a mechanism which will aid in the enforcement of on -going uses so that checks will be made on a periodic basis. 43 February 17, 1987 Page 6 --Zoning views conditions imposed by the Commission as an extension of the Ordinance. --Past problems have arisen because follow-up checks have not been made. --He asked Commission to be mindful of the fact that Zoning does not have the staff to enforce some "unusual" conditions. In those cases they must rely on public complaints to bring problems to their attention. --Zoning is currently experiencing a transition period as new procedures take the place of former practices. --When a public complaint is received, an inspection is made within 72 hours and appropriate measures are taken. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that Commission -imposed conditions are often the result of public concern. He also stressed that it is the Commission's position that all conditions should be met before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Mr. Burgess felt that there were some sections of the Ordinance which needed to be re -written. His top priority was signage requirements. Mr. Payne agreed that currently that section of the Ordinance is "unmanageable." Mr. Cogan suggested that Mr. Burgess might work with staff to ensure that conditions of approval are worded in such a way so as to make them more easily enforceable. Meriwether Lewis Alternative Plan - Mr. Horne informally presented an alternative proposal for access to the school which had been made known to him by the School Board staff. He asked the Commission for "any preliminary indication you feel comfortable giving the staff as to the general acceptability of an idea." He also called the Commission's attention to a memorandum from Mr. Keeler which presented the pros and cons of the proposal as viewed by staff. (He did not go into this memorandum in detail.) Mr. Horne explained that the alternative proposal is to incorporate an improvement to Rt. 678 (to realign it and bring it into an intersection across from Old Oak Drive at a 90' angle ) and then bring a separate entrance off Rt. 678. So while the proposal remains for two entrances, one is proposed off Rt. 678 and one off Rt. 676, rather than both off Rt. 676 as originally proposed. Mr. Bowerman interpreted this "is not really a change but rather a movement forward of an idea." Mr. Horne replied, "To a certain extent, yes. This is an acceleration of what may have been the ultimate design if the County had chosen to approve the original plan and then at a later date realign 678." It was determined the improvement to Rt. 678 is not currently in any Six -Year Plan. It was felt that not only did the proposal not address the concerns of the Commission, it would also cost more money. /W February 17, 1987 Page 7 Mr. Michel asked if, as a result of the problems with this proposal, the Commission would see other school projects "earlier" in the process. Mr. Horne replied that staff has requested that any future site plans be provided to the Planning staff long before the final design is completed. Mr. Gould reinforced the importance of this issue so that this type of problem does not occur again. The Commission was not receptive to the alternative plan and their position favoring one entrance remained unchanged. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. DS John Horne,`Secretary r G5