HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 01 1998 PC Minutes9-1-98
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session and a public hearing on
Tuesday, September 1, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. Wlliar i �
Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lea -Washington Vice- Chairman; Mr. Wiliam Finley; Mr. Dennis
Rooker; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development,
Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner; Mr. Juan Wade, Transportation
Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
The work session began at F:00 p.m. ;Mr. Nitchmann was not present for the work session.
Some Commissioners arrived late.)
WORK SESSION: Six -Year Secondary Road Plan
Mr. Benish and Mr. Wade presented the staff report and the six -year priority list, which was
prepared based on VDOT's proposed construction program, the Planning Commission
comments at a previous work session, and public and staff input. Ms. Angela Tucker,
representing VDOT, was also present to answer Commission questions.
There was a discussion about hose,, VDOT tra,, c counts are taken. Mr. Loewenstein raised
questions about the scheduling of traffic count cycles for various VDOT districts. He asked if
the County relies totally on VDOT to " i i ionitor" whether the cycles are kept current as to
counts taken. He was concerned about the fact that counts on some county roads are as
old as 1992, though there should have been more recent counts available. Mr. Benish said it
is his understanding that "we rely on VDOT." He added that there will be more discussions
with VDOT about this topic. The County may need to make some "official request to
reconsider this policy or to, on certain high priority roads, think of a different cycle." Mr.
Loewenstein was concerned that "somewhere along the line there was a traffic count that we
didn't get into, or, if we did, we don't have any reported results." He suggested that if there
are roads with very out-of-date counts, a request could be made for updated counts prior to
the time the projects are going to be discussed at a work session. Mr. Loewenstein
suggested it would also be helpful to be able to compare current counts with previous counts
in order to get an idea of the rate of increase over a period of time. Mr. Rooker wondered if
counts include projections, or are they just actual counts. Mr. Benish said they are actual
counts. Mr. Rooker asked what procedure is followed when questions are raised about the
accuracy of counts, i.e. what happens before the data is released? Ms. Tucker described
the procedure which is followed for validating figures and situations which can cause
questionable counts. Sometimes a re-count is done. Mr. Rooker said it might be helpful
at times if the "raw figures" were made available to the county, before they are
"extrapolated."
Ms. Tucker and Mr. Benish answered Mr. Rooker's questions about how funding allocations are tied
in with the rankings of the county's priorities and how the funding for the Meadowcreek Parkway
impacts the rankings. Addressing funding for the Meadowcreek Parkway, Ms. Tucker said: "I would
say with certainty that with this Six -Year Plan funding alone, the Meadowcreek Parkway will not be
funded appropriately to go to construction in 2017. There has to be an additional funding source in
addition to what is shown on the Six-
152�3
9-1-98
2
Year plan, whether there is an allocation in each year or every couple of years...." Ms.
Tucker described other federal funding that may be available for secondary road projects.
There was a brief discussion about the pilot Traffic Management Program (priority 1-
$300,000).
On the additional 112 mile section of Catterton Road (Rt. 667) which Mr. Finley had
suggested be included, Mr. Benish said it has not been included in VDOT priority 33 (county
proposed ranking 57), because there is still debate about available construction easements.
Including the additional 1/2 mile could jeopardize the ranking of the one -mile section which
has been in the plan for a number of years.
Mr. Benish advised the Commission that the Town of Scottsville is holding a public hearing to
receive input on secondary road projects that they might like included in the Plan. He asked
if the Commission would like to see those priorities before taking action, or leave those to be
considered at the Board level. Mr. Loewenstein suggested that staff make Commissioner
Nitchmann aware of Scottsville's input, because that area is in his district. No
Commissioners expressed a desire to review Scottsville's projects prior to Commission
action.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved that the Six Year Secondary Road Plan for 1999 - 2005 be
passed on to the Board of Supervisors, as presented by staff in Attachment A of the staff
report dated September 1, 1998, with the understanding that Mr. Nitchmann will be given the
,. opportunity to provide written comment on Scottsville's projects and any comments he may
have will be forwarded to the Board along with the Commission's action.
Ms. Washington seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------
The work session ended at 6:45.
The regular meeting reconvened at 7:00 p.m. A quorum was established. All
Commissioners were present.
The minutes of August 18, 1998 were unanimously approved as amended.
ZMA 98-02 Airport Road Office Com lex - Request to rezone 2.5 acres from RA, Rural
Areas to C-1, Commercial with proffers. A conceptual plan that accompanies the rezoning,
though not proffered, shows construction of an office building. The property, described as
Tax Map 32, Parcel 41 B, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas and is designated for Office Service in the Community of Hollymead. Deferred from
the August 18, 1998 Commission meeting.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Should the Planning
Commission and Board find the reservation of right-of-way for the Airport Road
improvements acceptable, staff recommends approval of this rezoning and of the proffers
dated August 25, 1998."
9SY
9-1-98
Regarding the "reservation" of right-of-way, the staff report explained:
The applicant has made some very strong proffers related to his property which
adjoins Airport Road. He has not proffered to dedicate right-of-way for the
Airport Road widening project; rather, he has offered to accommodate the
County and VDOT without, as he has stated to the staff, "concomitant release
of fee simple rights and without impeding access to the parcel." His proffers
say that he will establish a "no -build" zone on his property that will allow for
reconstruction of Airport Road provided he can be ensured access to his
property during and following reconstruction of the roadway."
Mr. Rooker asked if the exact plans for widening Airport Road have been determined.
Ms. Echols said the final full right-of-way amount has not been determined; the final
engineering design has not been done. She confirmed, however, that the amount of
right-of-way that would be needed from the applicant's property has been determined.
The entire parcel is 3 acres. The amount that would be needed for the right-of-way is
approximately .3 acre, i.e. that is the effective reservation." Mr. Rieley asked if this
approach --"reserving a no -build zone" --has been done before. Mr. Cilimberg said
there have been a variety of ways for accommodating future road construction, e.g.
areas can be shown as "not to be developed," or as actual dedication of right-of-way.
He said for a number of years the County, even in the site plan process, had
dedication of rights -of -way for future projects. A few years ago, however, a court
case (the Hilton case), determined that the County could not require dedications that
were not necessitated by the development itself. So, during the site plan process,
there is no longer a standard dedication of right-of-way across the frontage of a
property where widening may occur. In the rezoning process, if it is felt to be an
important aspect of the zoning action, then it could be considered. At a minimum,
staff felt reservation was necessary for proper development. Mr. Rooker asked where
the money will come from to eventually purchase this right-of-way. Mr. Cilimberg said
along this road (Airport Road), there are a variety of funding sources being used for
the project. He could not say for sure which source would be used for right-of-way
acquisition. The sources include VDOT secondary road funds, revenue sharing funds,
and airport access funds. Mr. Rooker said: "Will money that will ultimately be used to
acquire this right-of-way come out of some of the county's allocated funds and if not
used to acquire this right-of-way, it could be used for other purposes." Mr. Cilimberg
responded: "Theoretically, yes."
Mr. Finley asked if it is not likely that the property will increase in value during the next
few years. Mr. Cilimberg said he could not speculate on appraisals, "but it certainly
could (increase)."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Jones. He said he has been one of the
owners of this property for the last 20 years and the time has finally come, with the
projected growth in the 29 North area, for the development of the property. He noted
that the staff report agreed that this land is not appropriate as RA property. Regarding
the dedication of the right-of-way he said: 11We felt that because our development was
not creating the necessity for a school or apark or a road, that it really is not our
business to make that dedication that we ought to set aside this land. .3 of a acre
9-1-98 4
comprises not only road bed but a very large temporary easement, which is a grading
easement. In our opinion, we are talking about a parcel of land that somebody
--VDOT—may need to acquire that is possibly no more than .1 to .2 of an acre.... We
have agreed to tie up this reserved area for up to five years and to not put anything in
that no -build zone until the project is completed."
Noting that the Comprehensive Plan recommends CO for this property, Mr. Rooker
asked why C-1 is being requested instead of CO. Mr. Jones said CO is intended to
be a buffer between residential and higher density commercial uses. Given the uses
that surround this property --adjoining property was rezoned to LI for the Postal Service
building and another parcel recently had a communications tower placed on it --limiting
the property to CO, mainly for the purpose of being a buffer from residential "no longer
made sense." The applicant has tried, in the proffers, to limit the uses to what the
County would like to have in CO uses, with the special use permit "that we would be
entitled to request."
In response to Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Jones confirmed that the applicant --with the
reservation of a no -build area as proposed --would be able to use whatever balance of
the .3 acre might remain after the road widening. He stressed that .3 acre is not a
significant amount of land.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker said he believes the request for the rezoning is reasonable and is in line
with the Comp Plan recommendation, though the use requested "is a little more
intense than what the Plan would indicate for the property." He said he would be
inclined to support the request but he feels there should be a dedication of the right-
of-way for the widening of Airport Road. He said he probably would not support the
rezoning if the widening of the road were not going to take place and the added traffic
from this project will contribute to the need for the widening. He said: "It is a small
piece of property so I don't think we are asking the applicant to give up a tremendous
amount of value. In fact, I think the rezoning will add substantial value to his property.
I don't think that is an unreasonable condition."
Mr. Rieley agreed with Mr. Rooker. He said he is mystified as to why dedication was
not made a part of the package. He acknowledged that the County cannot require
proffers, but "it seems to me this is a clear case where the applicant is going to benefit
so greatly from the widening of the road, and, as the applicant himself said, we are
not talking about a great deal of property." He said the no -build will function
effectively exactly as a temporary grading easement would --"it goes right back to the
owner anyway." He concluded: "It seems to me this is not a legitimate case for
taxpayer's to dig into their pockets when it is the applicant who is going to benefit the
most."
Mr. Finley said sometimes landowners on rural roads, in hopes of getting a paved
road, dedicate right-of-way which may not be used for many years, but "in this case
there do seem to be improvements that will benefit the business, so I tend to agree
with Commissioner Rooker that the right-of-way should be included as a proffer."
1;1_5�2
9-1-98 5
Noting that it appears the Commission could support the request if the dedication of
right-of-way were proffered, Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant would consider
amending his proffers to include the dedication. Mr. Jones said he and his partner
have given a lot of thought to this issue but he does not want to make this kind of
decision at this time. He asked if there is an option to come back to the Commission
with an amended proffer. The applicant was advised that he could request a deferral.
Addressing Commission comments about the benefits the widening of the road will
give to this property, Mr. Jones said: "The last thing I am looking at is a divided
median down the middle of that road as a benefit. It worries me. I am not selling this
property. We are long term owners and I have to lease this property and, to me, that
is extremely risky --to shut off access from (one direction). I'm not happy about that,
but I am a prudent person and I will take your suggestion under advisement and will
request a deferral." He said one -week would be enough time to consult with his
partner. Staff later confirmed that a median is part of the improvement plan, with the
crossover being at the location of the Research Park entrance onto Airport Road.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if Mr. Jones would be able to provide information about the
monetary value of the .3 acre when he comes back to the Commission. Mr. Jones
said he would not be able to provide that information. Mr. Nitchmann withdrew the
request.
Mr. Loewenstein said he agrees with Mr. Rooker's comments.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that ZMA 98-02 for Airport
Road Office Complex be deferred to September 8, 1998. The motion passed
unanimously.
--------------------------------
ZMA 98-19 Mitchell Matthews - Request to rezone a .45 acre parcel from R-1,
residential to CO, Commercial Office to establish an architect's office and residence
within an existing dwelling. The property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 36A, is
located on Stillfried Lane (behind Teague's Funeral Home), off of Route 250 East, in
the Jack Jouett Magisterial district. It is in Urban Neighborhood 6 and recommended
for Community Service use.
The applicant was requesting deferral to September 29, 1998.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that ZMA 98-19 be deferred to
September 19, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-37 ,Iv�y,lnvestment Ltd. Partnership - Petition to establish a golf course on
approximately 250 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas in accord with the provisions of
section 10.2.2(4) of the Zoning Ordinance. Property described as Tax Map 73, Parcel
27G is located on the south side of Route 637 (Dick Woods Rd.) opposite the Ivy
9-1-98
9
Landfill in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a
designated development area. Deferred from the August 18, 1998 Commission
meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The staff report concluded:
Staff opinion is that with appropriate conditions the unfavorable factors can be
overcome. Therefore, staff is able to support this application. Again, all activity
on critical slopes will require a modification of Section 4.2 by the Planning
Commission. Approval of this special use permit in no way implies staff support
of or Planning Commission approval of a modification of Section 4.2. The
Planning Commission may impose additional conditions of approval should a
modification of Section 4.2 be approved. Any conditions imposed by the
Planning Commission would be in addition to those of the special use permit.
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Rooker asked what type of on -going water quality monitoring is envisioned if the
golf course is built on this property. Mr. Fritz said final water quality measures will be
determined after the final design of the golf course is prepared and the most
appropriate type of monitoring will be decided at that time. Mr. Rooker asked if it is
safe to assume that a regular program of water quality monitoring on the property will
take place. Mr. Fritz responded: "That is what the Engineering Department is
envisioning and they believe they are capable of doing that." Mr. Rooker assumed
regular reporting of the results would be included as part of that monitoring. Mr. Fritz
responded: "Typically, that is how that is done."
Mr. Finley asked if there are any County controls on the use of herbicides and
pesticides. Mr. Fritz responded: "No there aren't. What we're trying to do is work
with the applicant in developing the turf management systems in terms of how things
are going to be applied and at what rates. An effort will be made to select turf types
that will minimize the need for herbicides, pesticides and fungicides. The Water
Resources Manager, and the Chief of the Engineering Department both feel that can
be done fairly easily in terms of being able to address water quality issues adequately
in the reservoir watershed."
Mr. Rieley said it is clear that the applicant has worked closely with staff, particularly
the Water Resources Manager, in developing guidelines. He asked if staff is
comfortable that the conditions of approval will ensure that these mechanisms are
continued if the property should be sold at some future time. Mr. Fritz said he had
asked that question of the Water Resources Manager and "he believes they are
adequate to ensure that regardless of who the operator of the golf course is the
conditions are sufficient to ensure water quality is maintained."
Mr. Rooker said he believes it is not clear --in conditions 4, 5 and 6--that some type of
on -going monitoring program is envisioned. He suggested some additional language
" be added which would make it clear that it is not just a one-time approval. Later in
the meeting, it was decided the following language would be added:
1;1:5"'8
9-1-98 7
--To both conditions 4 and 5: "...including monitoring and reporting procedures
and approval of any changes in the systems."
--To condition 7: "...and reporting procedures."
(The wording was not added to condition 6 because Mr. Fritz explained later in the
meeting that any change would be a violation of the condition so they would
automatically have to come back to change the condition.")
Mr. Finley asked if considerations have been given to preserving natural habitats. Mr.
Fritz said there are no conditions which specifically address habitat, but "the idea is
that the conditions that we have, with the turf management system, and with the
design of the site with the site plan approval process, that we will be able to do that,
and that is something the applicant has indicated they want to do."
Mr. Fritz confirmed that critical slopes issues will be addressed through the site plan
approval process and staff has emphasized that "approval of the special use permit
does not guarantee in any way that any disturbance on critical slopes is going to be
approved by the Commission."
The applicant was represented by Mark Watson. He said this will be a very different
type of golf course than what is usually seen. The guiding principles which will be
followed in the construction of the golf course will be those that were developed in the
mid-1990's by representatives of golf and environmental organizations in an effort to
address concerns about the impact of golf courses on the environment. (Mr. Watson
distributed to the Commission a booklet entitled "Charting a Sustainable Future: Golf
& the Environment - Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States."
The booklet described the principles in detail.) He said the owners intend to apply to
the Audubon International Signature Program for endorsement of the course as one of
the leading environmentally sensitive courses in the nation. If accepted into the
program, Audubon will assist in the design of the course. Included in the materials
which Mr. Watson distributed was an explanation of how Audubon will be involved in
the process and what "signature status" means. He said the owners, Mr. and Mrs.
Foster, are also dedicated to creating a public golf course that is affordable and to
offering the opportunity for junior golf. The course will be available for all area high
school teams. The owners are aware that critical slopes and water quality are main
concerns. Many routing plans have been considered "to attempt to minimize the
impact on critical slopes." The routing plan on display before the Commission is the
most recent, which was done after the critical slope analysis was complete. Water
quality concerns will be addressed with such measures as riparian buffer zones and
minimal stream and ravine crossings.
Applicant answers to specific Commission questions were as follows:
--Mr. Foster, owner of Foster Well Drilling, has studied the site and believes
there is adequate water available on the site to serve the needs of the course. Four
ponds are planned on site --one will be a main irrigation pond and three will be
sedimentation and aesthetic ponds. Two wells are envisioned --one for the clubhouse
,,: and one for the maintenance facility. A third well may be needed for some type of
shelter facility. No wells are planned to meet irrigation needs.
46Y
9-1-98 8
--Other potential activities on the property include environmental education
programs one half day per week. Environmentally sensitive areas will be mapped. An
effort will be made to keep as much of the habitat block in tact as possible. The
routing intends to keep larger buffer areas between the holes.
--The applicant is comfortable with condition No. 10 (No residential development
shall be permitted) at this time. At some future time the Fosters may want to put three
home sites (for family) on the site, but that is a distant possibility and it would be
difficult to pin down potential building sites at this time. The applicant understands
that an amendment to the special permit will be required if they should ever desire to
build on the property.
--Water quality measures envisioned include, but are not limited to, engineered
wetlands, grassed buffer zones and an injection irrigation system. He confirmed that
monitoring devices will be located at the two places where the site drains into Broad
Axe Creek and at the location where a small portion of the site drains into Pounding
Branch.
--The owners will actively pursue placing that part of the property above the
900-foot elevation mark into a conservation easement. Discussions with the Nature
Conservancy are still pending.
--Discussions with the owners of adjoining property (the Helvins) have taken
place. Unfortunately, the proposed routing impacts their property. Efforts were made
to stay away from the Helvins property but only 15 holes could be achieved "without
causing major disruption to the site characteristics." Mr. Foster has offered to
purchase the Helvin property at market value. Six holes come close to the Helvin
property and a portion of the main irrigation pond would "inundate a portion of the
property." Mr. Watson said this pond does not currently exist. The driving range and
the parking area will also impact the Helvin property. "it will basically be completely
surrounded at this point."
--Traffic and turn lane issues were discussed with VDOT. The applicant will
request that "the lanes be shared on both the Pounding Brook side as well as on the
landfill side of Rt. 637 to make sure the alignment stays as straight as possible."
About 400 vehicle trips/day are anticipated on the busiest day. VDOT's numbers were
related to acreage and were therefore greater --in the 600-700 range.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Michael Webber, a neighboring property owner speaking for himself and his
brother and mother, addressed the Commission and expressed support for the
proposal. He did not think concerns about conflicts with landfill traffic were important
because the landfill is to be closed within five years. When considering potential
impacts to water quality, he asked that the Commission consider "whether there will
be realistic impacts on water quality as opposed to imposing restrictions which are in
theory appropriate, but, in reality, have very minimal or no impact on water quality in
the County."
Mr. David Booth, a close neighbor to the property and a member of the Ivy Steering
Committee, addressed the Commission. He expressed support for the proposal which
he described as a good thing for this neighborhood." He hoped the deer paths would
be preserved.
VO
9
9-1-98
Mr. Jimmy Helvin, whose property is "surrounded" by the proposed golf course,
addressed the Commission. He confirmed Mr. Foster offered to buy his property. He
said he believes the design of the plan which is on display is a response to the fact
that he told Mr. Foster he was not in a position to sell at this time. He said he
believes "the design is an effort to force us to sell." The plan will totally compromise
his family's privacy. He described how various parts of the course directly impact his
dwelling, on all sides, including the construction of a pond on 1 /4 of his property. He
said his intentions were stated incorrectly on the special permit application because it
said a selling price for his property was being negotiated. "That is false and
misleading." He said he wanted his position to be clear, i.e. that he has no intention
of selling his home and he is opposed to the approval of a special permit for the golf
course.
In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question about the size of his property, Mr. Helvin
said it is just over five acres.
Mr. Ed Bain, attorney for Jim and Louise Helvin, addressed the Commission. He
called the Commission's attention to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which
says that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties. He said:
"I think there is no clearer case than what you've got before you tonight. I don't think
you have to look any further." He said the Fosters had early in the process told the
Helvin's that they "would be concerned about their property and would stay away from
it as much as possible," but this plan shows a substantial detriment to the Helvin
property. Mr. Bain said he has seen no evidence there is a "substantial need for
another golf course in this area. Mr. Mulaney (Director of Parks and Recreation)
commented that "it would be nice" to have another golf course. He said he is
concerned about the way the Helvin's were approached and the lack of "good faith"
that was demonstrated by the applicant.
Mr. Donny Foster, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He said he had offered
to purchase the Helvin's property at fair market value, but they were not interested in
selling. Twelve or thirteen different routings for the course were considered, trying to
give the Helvins as much privacy as possible. The only way to get 18 holes of golf on
the site, given the large amount of mountain land that cannot be used, was to "utilize
the land that we had around his house." He has offered to buy the house and still
allow the Helvin's to live in the house, for two years, rent free. He said Mr. Helvin's
comment to him had been that "he had felt like he has owned 330 acres for 229 years,
he
but that he knew at some point in time someone would buy the property..He
does not want the Helvin's to feel he is trying to force them out, but "at the same time
we are trying to build a public facility."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to the pond which is proposed to flood 1/4 of the Helvin property, Mr.
Nitchmann said: 'They can't just flood someone else's property. " Mr. Fritz said:
"They would have to have an easement." Mr. Nitchmann said: "All (the Helvins) have
to do is say 'no."'
10
9-1-98
Mr. Nitchmann asked where'landscaping comes into the process to protect the use
' from neighboring properties. Mr. Fritz said conditions could be attached to the special
use permit or through the site plan review process. Buffers may also be set at the
time of the special use permit --certain types of activity can be prohibited within a given
distance from the property line --and that buffer could be increased during the site plan
review process.
Staff confirmed that approval of a design for the golf course was not before 'the
Commission at this time.
Regarding the location of the irrigation pond, Mr. Watson confirmed that it would be
possible to use two smaller ponds that would not impact the Helvin property. The
dam would probably have to be moved closer to the property line.
Regarding the impact of the entrance road on the Helvin property, Mr. Watson
confirmed that the road location was determined by VDOT and would be the same if
the property were to be developed residentially.
Mr. Rieley said: "if I saw this plan, with water on my property, a driving range right
beside my property, and three greens surrounding it, I can see how Mr. Helvin arrived
at the conclusion that he did, and I do think there is a substantial amount of room for
adjusting this if the given is the Helvin's stay there. It looks as 'it if were designed as if
the Helvin's were not going to be there." Mr. Watson responded: "Actually, we are
trying to keep the course as intact as an entity as possible, without compromising the
integrity of the golf course." He described how some things might be changed to
lessen the impact to the Helvin property. He said: "There are adjustments we can
make."
Staff confirmed the adjustments suggested by Mr. Watson are the type of things that
will be considered during the site plan review process.
Mr. Nitchmann said if there is agreement that the golf course can go here, then during
the site plan process it is a matter of seeing how well they can design this around the
property owner that is in the center of the property.
There was discussion about whether to address setbacks and buffers with the special
permit or to do that during the site plan process. Mr. Fritz suggested: "It would
probably be best to establish some sort of minimum with a condition of the special use
permit." Mr. Rooker was concerned that setting a minimum at this time might not give
the applicant "a reasonable opportunity to respond with respect to the course design,
whereas at the site plan he is going to have to re -configure some of this anyway." Mr.
Rooker continued: We would be asking him to accept a condition tonight that has
limits with respect to setbacks that he would have no idea about the effect on his
ability to design the course." Mr. Loewenstein said setting a minimum now "would
establish a parameter for him to use in whatever adjustment is going to have to be
done and that would give him some concrete guidance."
, �;?, 6 ,-�
9-1-98 11
Mr. Nitchmann shared Mr. Rooker's concern. He did not know how a minimum
setback could be determined at this point. He asked if adjustments to a minimum
setback could be made later if needed. Mr. Fritz said any adjustment would require
an amendment to the special use permit. Mr. Kamptner said: "it would be helpful to
establish the parameters at the special permit stage because when you get to the site
plan stage, to a certain extent, it is a mechanical application of the standards that are
in the ordinance. A golf course is kind of unique. The standards that are in the Site
Plan Ordinance may not fully address the issues that need to be addressed."
Mr. Rooker said when considering how to protect someone's property, things to be
considered include a combination of setback and buffers. A heavy buffer may
eliminate some of the need for setback. Trying to design the golf course at this point
by fiating setbacks may eliminate" some creative design possibilities. He pointed out
that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and a lot of people pay extra money to be
surrounded by a golf course. "We have to recognize that the owners of the golf
course property have a right to a reasonable use of that property and I think they have
proposed a reasonable use of the property."
Mr. Kamptner suggested the following additional "middle ground" condition to address
the concerns of the Commission: Planning Department approval, in conjunction with
site plan review, of minimum setbacks, landscaped and earthen buffers, and similar
improvements designed to address visual and noise impacts of the golf course on TM
73, Parcel 27." This was agreeable to the Commission.
Mr. Rieley said he hopes the fact that this is really an excellent plan does not get lost
in the concerns about the impact to the internal parcel, though those are significant
concerns. He noted that this plan tries to reconcile environmental concerns with
recreational uses. He said he hopes the plan is done in a way that addresses Mr.
Helvin's concerns and rights. He said he believes there are two different possible
plans --one if the Helvin property remains as an out parcel, and the other if the
Helvin's no longer own the parcel. He concluded: "I think the site plan needs to
recognize that."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-37 for Ivy
Investment Ltd Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Engineering Department of approval of:
a. Phasing plan to insure adequate erosion control.
b. Drought and disease tolerant turf materials.
c. Stream buffer areas including all activity within stream buffers such as but
not limited to enhanced plantings, fairway/path crossings.
2. Engineering Department approval of runoff treatment systems including monitoring
and reporting procedures and approval of any changes in the systems.
3. Engineering Department approval of turf management systems including monitoring
and reporting procedures and approval of any changes in the systems.
&3
C
9-1-98 12
4. Engineering Department approval of storage and spill containment systems for all
```� hazardous materials including but not limited to fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides,
fungicides, and fuel.
5. Engineering Department approval of water quality monitoring program and
reporting procedures.
6. The serving of food and refreshments shall be limited to those individuals utilizing
the golf course or driving range.
7. No grading/clearing or other land disturbing activity above the 900 foot elevation.
8. No residential development shall be permitted.
9. Planning Department approval, in conjunction with site plan review, of minimum
setbacks, landscaped and earthen buffers, and similar improvements designed to
address visual and noise impacts of the golf course on TM 73, Parcel 27.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Nitchmann advised the applicant's designers to "take to heart" the discussion that
they just heard regarding the adjacent property owner's rights to enjoy peaceful co-
existence because the Commission "will be looking at the site plan very closely."
MISCELLANEOUS
Natural Environment Section of the Comp Plan - Mr. Cilimberg asked if there any
objections to setting a public hearing date for this section of the Camp Plan. No
objections were raised.
Resolution of Appreciation for Commissioner Tice -
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that the following Resolution of
Appreciation be adopted:
WHEREAS David A. Tice did serve as a member of the Albemarle County
Planning Commission from January 3, 1996 to July 31, 1998, and WHEREAS
Mr. Tice served in that capacity with honor, integrity and wisdom and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Planning Commission did rely on Mr. Tice's
judgement and advice on numerous important matters and wishes to express
deep appreciation to Mr. Tice for 2 years of valuable service to the citizens of
Albemarle County. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle
County Planning Commission does hereby express its appreciation to David A.
Tice for a job well done.
There being no further business, the meeting t
med at 8N.m
Dg V. Waynb Cilimberg, a retary
65?6�