Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 30 1997 PC Minutes9-30-97 SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 30, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner; Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering; Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was confirmed. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at their September 17th meeting. SP 97-03 Vir inia Land Trust - Proposal to establish a church on approximately 5.22 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2.35]. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 22K Lot A, is located on the east side of Route 29 North, approximately 1.5 miles north of Proffit Road, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a Development Area (Hollymead) and is designated Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre). Deferred from the September 16, 1997 Commission meeting. AND SP 97-46 Vir inia Land Trust Korean Community Church - Request for a special use permit for crossing of the floodplain [30.3.6] on Tax Map 32, Parcel 22K Lot A. This petition was filed concurrently with SP 97-03. Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of both requests, subject to conditions. Ms. Thomas read the following condition to be added to both proposals: The use, structure or activity for which this permit is issued shall commence within five years from the date this permit is issued. Mr. Tice asked if consideration was given to location of the access easement which would avoid the critical slopes. He suggested it appears as though, "after crossing the stream, continuing up the existing road bed, curving up higher on the slope where there is an existing old road, would allow the critical slopes to be avoided. This would also decrease tree removal. Ms. Thomas said staff required proof that the 9-30-97 2 applicant would provide a re -located access from Rt. 29, to be sure that it would match up," but staff did not review a specific access road alignment. The site plan phase will include that type of detail. Mr. Loewenstein asked if staff has discussed the future of the existing deteriorating corrugated pipe, specifically "what will happen to that stream if that crossing isn't removed?" Ms. Thomas said she had not discussed this with Engineering, but during a site visit with Mr. Brooks he said it is unlikely the pipe will be removed, because that would be a difficult undertaking. Mr. Kelsey said he did not anticipate any problems with this pipe, which is presently in good condition. If it ever does become a problem, whoever is responsible for the roadway at that point will have to replace the culvert. Mr. Cilimberg said that issue can be discussed with VDOT. Staff was not certain if the pipe is in the VDOT right-of-way. Ms. Huckle asked if the buildout of the entire Research Park development will raise the level of the floodplain in this area. Mr. Kelsey said staff has not looked at any impacts at this point. He said: "Typically, when we review design plans for developments, unless there is a specific reason for looking at 100-year storm impacts downstream, it is typically not part of the analysis. The only thing we typically look at is flow from a ten-year storm to see if detention is necessary, or the two-year storm to see if there is any impact to the immediate channels downstream. He confirmed, for ten year storms, developers are required to keep the runoff to pre -development levels. Ms. Huckle asked if any effort has been made to calculate impervious area. Mr. Kelsey said it may be possible to come up with rough estimates based on the application plans. (Some of Ms. Huckle's comments were inaudible.) Given the request for a five year permit, Mr. Dotson asked if other development takes place on surrounding parcels before the church is constructed, will those developers then be responsible for relocation of the access, filling in the floodplain, etc. Will this developer be relieved from those requirements. Staff said this applicant could benefit from other development because these conditions are required for the special permit to be exercised, but if somebody else (does what is required by a condition), then the condition is met." Staff answers to other Commission questions were as follows: --Condition No. 1 of SP 97-46 includes the Engineering Department's recommendations contained in Glenn Brooks memo of August 1, 1997. Later in the discussion, at Mr. Tice's recommendation, it was decided that the Engineering Department's condition No. 3 (The site construction is not to disturb the natural water quality buffer of stream and river valley wooded slopes.) would be added to both permits. --The Greenway along the river has been identified in the Open Space Plan. Ms. Thomas did not think any of the rest of the property is identified in the Open Space Plan. /9'l 9-30-97 3 --Referring to the statement in the staff report that the applicant will likely not remove the fill area when constructing the new access, Ms. Thomas said a steep bank would make removal of the fill area difficult. Staff did not require that the fill area be removed, but the applicant may choose to remove it. --The applicant is aware that sewer is not readily available to the site at this time. Given the topographic restraint of the site, staff has discussed in detail the future possibilities regarding the extension of water and sewer in this area. Ms. Thomas said she is not certain whether the pump station could accommodate this use at this time. The Health Department has confirmed that a septic system can be located on the site. Referring to condition No. 3, Mr. Tice asked if the applicant will be required to connect to water and sewer at some later time (after the issuance of the building permit), if it should become "reasonably" available. Mr. Cilimberg said there have been instances where applicants have been required to connect to public utilities "when" they become reasonably available. He said this type of condition is difficult to monitor. It has not been included in these conditions. --If the site plan is in the Entrance Corridor it will be subject to ARB approval. A church is not exempt from this requirement. --Mr. Brooks (during the site visit) said he believes there is a location for the building which will not be in 25% slopes, but it is a challenging site with a lot of critical slopes. (Mr. Dotson said the Commission should be very clear about what is or is not approved, "so this sketch plan does not become a factor which is a cloud over our actions later.") The applicant was represented by Mr. Yon Kim. He explained the Korean Community Church is a denomination of The Korean Presbyterian Church in America. He answered Ms. Huckle's questions about the composition of the congregation. Regarding Mr. Tice's earlier suggestion regarding a different alignment for the access road which may avoid critical slopes, he was very amenable to considering the suggestion which he felt could be of benefit to the church. Public comment was invited. Mr. Katurah Roel, representing the owner of the property, confirmed he was agreeable to considering a realignment of the access easement, "above the critical slopes." He explained that the alignment which is shown on this plan was just to satisfy the need to "put together something that would work, ... but it is not set in stone." Mr. Dotson asked if there will be a lot of site disturbance. Mr. Roel said there is a large plateau area where the building can be located. He confirmed that the contour lines on the plan show existing critical slopes, not areas to be disturbed. It is anticipated these areas will "be left alone." In answer to Ms. Huckle's question, he said the slope on the drainfield area is 10%. 'Sw There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. / VY cm 9-30-97 4 Regarding the issue of the access easement and avoiding critical slopes, Mr. Tice said: "I would think that we would want to try to avoid concentrating the stormwater runoff into a pipe which could become more of a point source. It would be better to disperse it, or better yet to look at permeable pavement, and (other such measures)." To ensure that these issues are addressed at the time of site plan review, Mr. Tice later suggested the addition of the following condition to SP 97-03: At the time of site plan submittal, the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department and the Water Resources Manager, to the extent practicable, to locate the road access out of the critical slopes and shall incorporate a stormwater management plan that addresses water quality issues as well as water quantity. Mr. Tice said that even though this is a verydifficult site in that it is on a very important area environmentally, he feels "this is one of the best uses we could see for a site like this, particularly since its primary use will take place only twice a week." He felt staff had done a good job addressing those concerns which can be addressed at this stage. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SP 97-03 for Virginia Land Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: (1) The Korean Community Church shall be operated in accordance with the description provided with the application submitted for SP 97-03, included herein as Attachment C. Changes to this plan of operation may require an amendment to this special use permit. [NOTE: It was discovered that the references to Attachments in the recommended conditions of approval were incorrect. Corrections were made during action on the items.] 2. At the time of site development, the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation regarding relocation of the access road, furnishing signal components for the eastern side of the intersection shared by the research park, installation of a turn and taper lane along Route 29, and other requirements described in correspondence from VDOT dated August 1, 1997 and February 10, 1997, and included herein as Attachments E & F. 3. At the time of issuance of a building permit, determination of the availability of public water and sewer shall be made by the Director of Planning and Community Development. If water and sewer are determined to be reasonably available, the church shall be required to connect to these utilities. / IV 9 9-30-97 5 4. The final site plan shall include a greenway dedication of one hundred (100) feet minimum or that area necessary for the establishment of the trail. 5. The use, structure or activity for which this permit is issued shall commence within five years from the date of issuance of this permit. The term "commenced" shall mean commencement of any structure necessary for the use of the permit. 6. The site construction is not to disturb the natural water quality buffer of stream and river valley wooded slopes. (7) At the time of site plan submittal, the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department and the Water Resources Manager, to the extent practicable, to locate the road access off of the critical slopes and shall incorporate a stormwater management plan that addresses water quality issues as well as water quantity. [NOTE: This is the wording that was finally approved after Mr. Nitchmann raised the concern that the applicant might be "held hostage" by a condition which may be interpreted differently by a different Commission five years from now. See discussion below.] Discussion: Mr. Nitchmann was concerned about the last condition. He wanted to make sure the condition was not "setting a trap" for the applicant. Mr. Finley was not opposed to the condition but wondered if it was necessary. Mr. Tice said he hoped condition No. 7 would avoid "a common engineering approach of routing the runoff into a single or multiple pipes that then become more of a point source, rather than just dispersal through the filter of the slopes. Mr. Hirschman, the Water Resources Manager, said he agrees with the concept, but We will just have to see. This site has some slopes and other constraints and we will just have to work with the site." He agreed that concentrated rip -rap ditches often do damage to the slopes and the channels. The motion for approval passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SP 97-46 for Virginia Land Trust (Korean Community Church) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading within the floodplain shall occur only in association with relocation of the entrance road from Route 29, and such grading shall comply with all requirements set forth in the August 1, 1997, memorandum from the Department of Engineering, included with the staff report as Attachment I. 2. The use, structure or activity for which this permit is issued shall commence within five years from the date of issuance of this permit. The term "commenced" shall ,,,, mean commencement of any structure necessary for the use of the permit. 00 9-30-97 The motion passed unanimously. 0 ZMA 97-04 Daniel Bieker - Request for a change in zoning classification from RA Rural Areas to R-6 Residential with proffers. The property is located on a five -acre parcel known as TMP 79-25A, on Ashton Road in the Rivanna Village. RA zoning carries a density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed zoning classification allows 6 dwelling units per acre. The proffered rezoning would result in a density of 4.8 dwelling units per acre and the County's Land Use Plan shows a neighborhood residential density of 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre. Deferred from the August 19, 1997 Planning Commission. Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Referring to a statement in the staff report that the homes in this development will be of a quality consistent with those in the Glenmore development, Mr. Nitchmann asked if there is any legal document to ensure this. Mr. Bieker later explained he has a private agreement with the Glenmore developers. Ms. Echols confirmed that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the intent of Comprehensive Plan. Referring to Attachment F and the maximum grade on the roads, Ms. Huckle asked what the maximum grade is. Mr. Kelsey was not sure about the grades, but said they would be the same as for Glenmore. The applicant, Mr. Daniel Bieker, addressed the Commission. He confirmed that he has worked out a private agreement with the Glenmore developer which addresses housing types, colors, slope of roof, etc. Glenmore is satisfied with what is proposed. He confirmed that he has proffered that the "connection will continue on to the east, to the fire station." Mr. Bieker was not certain about how the fire station feels about this, but the connection will be made if everyone is agreeable. The allowance of pedestrian access through this development to the fire house (from Glenmore) has not been considered, but could possibly be made a part of the Homeowners' Association document. (Using the plan, Mr. Dotson pointed out a possible way to include a pedestrian path. Mr. Bieker said he would be agreeable to considering such a pathway. ) He said the homes will be priced under $200,000, which is more affordable than the Glenmore development. Mr. Tice asked about the location of the utility lines. He wondered if the installation of the lines will cause the removal of trees, and, if so, how does this effect the applicant's proffer No. 7. Mr. Bieker said he hopes to save as many trees as possible and it is , hoped the utility lines can be installed next to the road. Mr. Tice suggested the 9-30-97 7 ,,,,, applicant and County Attorney may want to clarify, prior to the Board hearing, that the potential removal of trees for the installation of utility lines will not conflict with the wording of proffer No. 7. Mr. Bieker was agreeable to this suggestion. There was a brief discussion about the width of the road and provisions for parking. The applicant said 2 parking bays will be provided on each lot. Mr. Kelsey said a rural cross section, 18 feet wide, is envisioned for this development. An urban cross section is 30 feet (reduced to 24 feet if no on -site parking). There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that ZMA 97-04 for Daniel Bieker, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Discussion: Mr. Dotson noted that the applicant has indicated a willingness for the pathway to "come to the frontage, near Glenmore Way, and to reach to the opposite side." He suggested that could be clarified in the proffers prior to the Board hearing. Mr. Cilimberg suggested a note added to the first proffer could address this. The motion passed unanimously. ------------------------------------- SP 97-11 Panorama Trails. Inc. - Request for a special use permit to establish and operate mountain bike trails and associated facilities as a club for use by members only [10.2.2(4)], on an 840 acre farm in Earlysville. The property, described as Tax Map 45, parcels 1, 1 A, and Tax Map 31, Parcel 23A, is located in the Rio Magisterial District. Access to the property is from route 661 (Reas Ford Lane). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. It lies within the Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District, and is not located within a development area. Deferred from the July 22, 1997 Commission meeting. Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request, "based on the findings of the A/F Committee and the potential for conflicts between the commercial use and existing by -right residential and agricultural uses in the area." The Chairman asked Ms. Scala to report on the findings of the A/F Committee. She said it was staffs recommendation to the Committee that the mountain -bike use is not compatible with the intent of an ag-forestal district. The Committee agreed and recommended (6:1:1) that bike trails be withdrawn from the district. The committee member who dissented had cited the dual purpose of the ag-forestal district, "that this use could protect the open space, even though it does not specifically promote �qo3z 4 on 9-30-97 8 agricultural production, and though it may not improve ag and forestal uses, it may help maintain the 800-acre farm. The Committee previously considered 20+ uses proposed in the rural area district and they identified issues related to these uses in the ag-forestal district or rural areas district. Issues discussed included- --importance of preservation of agricultural production. --Effects on land use taxation. --Is the use part-time or full time? --Does the use encourage or support agricultural land uses --not just co -exist. --Does the use open the door to other things, e.g. spectators, traffic, noise, effect on livestock, nutrient loading, "but balancing that against the need to do something profitable on a farm." She felt a significant factor in the Committee's decision was the consideration of previous A/F Advisory Committee actions. "Since 1988 there is a record of the Advisory Committee taking firm stands on applications for more intensive uses, and withdrawals from districts." The Committee felt there would be more impact than just the trail surface. There were concerns that there are many other farms that may need "companion" uses. Ms. Scala noted that the Panorama A/F District comes up for review in April 1998 and the applicant may withdraw at that time, or can request withdrawal now. It was the Committee's finding that the use would compromise the intent of the A/F District. She noted that the Committee did not consider traffic impact. Referring to the legislative purpose of Ag/Forestal Districts, Mr Tice said it appears the Committee looked at the first objective [It is the policy of the Commonwealth to conserve and protect and to encourage development and improvement of the Commonwealth's agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural products], but ignored the second [It is also the policy of the Commonwealth to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open space for clean airsheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes]. He asked if this second objective had been discussed by the Committee. Ms. Scala said: "The person who voted against the motion, brought that up, and there was a little discussion. Certainly, that is a legitimate purpose in the State law." Mr. Tice said he also understood it was the Committee's recommendation, in the event the request is approved, that the trails be surveyed and removed from the A/F District. Ms. Scala said that was correct, but she noted that staff had not supported that recommendation. The Committee voted to recommend that the trails be withdrawn (against staffs recommendation). Staff felt it would be very difficult to survey and would look odd on the map. She noted that there had been discussion about the fact that the impact of the trails goes beyond the trails themselves. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that when property is placed in an ag/forestal district the exercise of development rights is suspended during the life of the district. If property is withdrawn from a district, development rights may then be exercised, by -right. ,�63 9-30-97 9 Ms. Huckle, who serves on the Ag/Forestal Advisory Committee agreed with Ms. Scala's summary. She added that the Committee felt the integrity of the concept of the ag-forestal districts have been protected thus far from arbitrary changes. She noted that the State does give ag/forestal landowners some protection, "if you agree not to develop, and you get something back, so it probably isn't fair to take the benefits and then turn around and not do your share." Referring to the staffs statement on page 8 that "large events would conflict with the farm use, at least for the duration of the event and perhaps permanently, in terms of impacts to the land," Mr. Tice asked if staff feels the same way about events such as the County Fair and Foxfield. Ms. Thomas said Foxfield is not an active farm and exists primarily for the two steeple chase races yearly. She called this a "very limited mission," and said it probably does not matter if there are damages from parking as it would if active farming were taking place. Though she was not able to acquire attendance figures for the Fair, it was her feeling that a successful NORBA (National Off Road Bicycle Association) event "would generate far more people, in a shorter time, in a concentrated way, than at the County Fair." She said part of the problem is not being able to conclusively determine the size of a NORBA event. Mr. Tice asked if staffs recommendation for denial was based primarily on the Advisory Committee's report. Ms. Thomas said that while it is possible for staff to disagree with a finding of the Committee, in this case, the staffs recommendation to the Committee was for denial based on the finding that the use "is overly intensive for the District." Mr. Tice asked if there is a proposed condition which addresses hours of operation for the trails. Ms. Thomas said staff, in past requests, has required that "it conform to the proposed plan the applicant has submitted, and he has given us some detailed information about hours." Mr. Tice asked if there is room, in the current easement of Rt. 661, to construct the proposed improvements. Ms. Thomas said Rt. 661 has a prescriptive easement of 30 feet, which would be available to the applicant for improvement of the road. Staff will be doing an informal field review of the road later in the week, at the request of an adjacent owner and a Supervisor. VDOT feels it would be very difficult to construct all the improvements exclusively within that 30 feet right-of-way. At a minimum, grading easements and utility re -locations will be needed, and additional right-of-way may be needed to improve the road to a 3R standard (a minimal standard). Referring to page 10, paragraph (b) of the staff report, Ms. Huckle asked why staff is not recommending fencing. Ms. Thomas said fencing may require "some rethinking," but the applicant has made a real effort to keep the trails out of sight of adjacent properties and off the property line. Ms. Huckle thought the parking area would be visible to adjacent properties, but Ms. Thomas said the parking area is in a low area 9-30-97 10 with some dense vegetation adjacent to the road. She said the parking area will be easier to camouflage than some of the trails. Staff noted that a site plan will be required for the parking area. Noting that "one of the ways this project is presented to us is as an alternative to subdivision and residential development of the property," Mr. Dotson asked what will happen to the 58 development rights if this request is approved. Mr. Kamptner said he does not believe the development rights will be effected. He explained: "I think what is implied is that if it's approved, there won't be the incentive to develop. I think that's all that exists." Mr. Cilimberg said there have been past instances where special permit applicants in the rural areas have indicated they will not exercise development rights while the special permit is being exercised." He said: "Based on that precedent, I guess it could be a condition, but I would not suggest you do that" until the County Attorney has considered the question. Mr. Dotson concluded: "But it is conceivable we could end up with both...." Mr. Cilimberg explained further: "One thing that does happen in exercising development rights, under the County's subdivision requirements, you have to show that you can do those five lots. The 2- acre kernel rule is in effect where the 2 acres have to be on the tract that carries the development rights. So, depending on where they might locate, they may, in effect, remove the chance of utilizing the development rights there and they can't go and take them somewhere else on another track and use them. They could come back in and propose a Rural Preservation Development and combine tracts of land when proposing that --you might see an attempt to exercise in another way." Mr. Dotson asked if a RPD were to be proposed, could the trail area meet the criteria of the preservation tract? Mr. Cilimberg replied: "I don't think so. The Ordinance actually goes back to the rural area purpose in citing what a preservation tract should do, i.e. preserve ag/forestal activity, preserve open space/natural resources, and water resource protection. The argument might be made that it is preserving open space, so it could, theoretically I guess, fit within that." Mr. Cilimberg also noted that the preservation tract is normally conveyed to the County and he questioned whether the County would want to be party to a easement where a commercial activity is occurring. Ms. Huckle asked if there is a limit to the number of non-agricultural, commercial ventures which the applicant can request. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "There is no limit as long as they are within the allowed special use permit uses in the rural area." Ms. Huckle asked if vendors which may be present at large events would be considered ancillary to the bike trail use. Ms. Thomas, who had discussed this with the Zoning Administrator, responded: "I think if the special events were approved, that would include those associated activities." Ms. Huckle asked: "Is there any guarantee that if this commercial project doesn't bring enough proffit, the owners of this property won't return again with development plans any way?" Mr. Cilimberg replied: "Anything they can do by right. The special 9-30-97 11 use permit doesn't remove by -right uses." Ms. Huckle asked if the special use permit could remain? Mr. Cilimberg replied: "If they proposed a development that didn't require other special use permits that could effect this special use permit --if they were exercising their by -right allowances, then the special use permit would still exist, but its opportunity to be used would be diminished, or certainly complicated. Just because you develop land under its by -right allowance doesn't mean the special use permit goes away. It's a question of whether it can actually be utilized." Ms. Huckle asked: "But there is no legal reason why they can't if they can accommodate it on the land --is that what you think?" Mr. Cilimberg replied: "I can't say that there is any legal reason why they wouldn't be able to." Noting that the conditions of approval require a concept plan and a site development plan, Mr. Tice said if development were to occur on land where the bike trails exist, there would be a conflict. Mr. Cilimberg said there is the issue of what can be done theoretically vs. what can be done practically. He felt there are practical effects of this special permit being exercised which will limit what can be done by right. Citing the guidelines for Conflict of Interest, Mr. Finley noted that he would not participate in the discussion of, or action on, this request. An error in condition No. 5 was noted. Ms. Thomas said the word following should be deleted, or sections (a), (b), and (c) of Section 5.1.16 should be referenced. " Applicant comment was invited. The applicant was represented by Andrew Murray and Steve Murray. Steve Murray's comments were related to the great financial difficulty many rural landowners in this region are experiencing in their "efforts to find a viable means of keeping rural land in open space when development is not necessarily the best option." He said in this community there are virtually no farms which are not subsidized either by independent income or by two working -parents with agriculture being the second occupation. The fact that the younger generation is reluctant to continue the farming operation raises the question of what will happen to these farms in the coming years. He said: Diversity today is generally thought of, in agriculture, as fruit, livestock, hay, grain and a second job, and if landowners are allowed to look at their land as a resource, where agriculture is a portion of the resource, then maybe that diversity becomes livestock, hay, summer camps, and an archery range. This could create a stream of revenue which would, in fact, constitute a living where the next generation could actually have a desire to keep that land in open space because of that revenue stream." Mr. Murray said he sees inconsistencies in a Zoning Ordinance which only allows two options --an option to farm or an option to subdivide or to sell --and a Zoning Ordinance with a lot of criteria on how to develop land. "But there is no criteria in the Zoning Ordinance that helps a landowner save open space in COL 9-30-97 12 an economic climate starved for options." He doubted that there have been many applicants before the Commission asking for assistance in saving 850 acres of open space. Most requests are for permanent land use changes. There has never been an instance in Albemarle County where a subdivision has converted to farm land. "Our request is a request for preservation --to allow low -impact, agriculturally compatible commercial uses within the rural area. These uses would have little or no impact on existing infrastructure. Maybe as we look at the pressures on rural land in this county we are looking at it from the wrong angle. Instead of dealing with land use problems after you get a subdivision plan, maybe, in fact, we need to study why land is being developed. Is it, in fact, the last choice? Think about it." Regarding the Panorama Farms Ag/Forestal District, Mr. Murray said his family fully intends to renew the district in April, 1998. He said: "We only hope that benign activities such as mountain bike trails and other activities (described in your packets) would be allowed in an ag/forestal district as well." Regarding the number of special permits which Panorama farms has had over the years, he explained that a review of those permits will show they were predicated on a need to raise operating capital...." Mr. Murray noted that he was appointed to a prestigious committee --The Venture Group --by the Board of Supervisors. One of the missions of that committee was to study the strengths and weaknesses of the region. Identified as the number one strength of the region is its beauty; the number one weakness is sprawl. Several solutions were suggested to "throttle sprawl and preserve the beauty", e.g. concentrate development, the concentration rather than the elongation of commercial development, and establishing and funding PDR's, the purchase of development rights. The number one suggestion that applies here was "to allow greater flexibility of by -right, low impact uses of rural land, such as mountain bike trails, affordable housing rentals, athletic activities, camps, composting, and produce sales to protect such land by making them economically viable businesses while maintaining their use in agriculture." He said the Board of Supervisors, by resolution, adopted the Venture's strategic plan. He concluded: "Our request, micro -regionally, contains sprawl, retains the extraordinary beauty of Panorama Farms, not only for us, but for numerous people in this community as well." Mr. Andrew Murray described the sport of bicycling and the mountain bike trails. His comments included the following: --Mountain bikes are non -motorized, produce no pollution and no noise. --Staff has been provided with information which shows that a person riding a mountain bike on a trail impacts the environment no more than a hiker, and much less than horses. --The trails are dirt trails approximately 2 feet wide and will basically follow existing cow paths. They will be primarily in woodland. Trees will be cleared "back about 4 feet, up 8 feet" for the safety of the rider. Very few trees will have to be cut. If a tree cannot be cut with a "hand saw, a pocket saw," the trail will be routed around it. The trails will all be built to IMBA (International Mountain Biking Association) standards. The trails will be professionally built and maintained. Every effort will be 9-30-97 13 made to minimize any impact to the environment. [Later in the meeting Ms. Huckle raised a question about a statement in the staff report which said the trails will be maintained by teenage family members. Mr. Murray said the teenagers will be helping him in the summer months, but he will be primarily responsibility for the trail maintenance.] --The trails will cross streams usually in shallow places where there is a rocky bottom. Where that is not the case, the stream bottom will be reinforced with "native indigenous materials." --Even with a well -maintained trail, there will be some erosion. The major portion of the trails are within the watershed of two existing lakes on the property. "Any erosion that occurs will be our problem, not necessarily the problem of the reservoir." --All national parks and forests, state parks and forests, wildlife refuges, and Bureau of Land Management lands allow mountain bike trails within their boundaries. --The Murrays have been good stewards of this land for 45 years. That stewardship will not be lost as a result of this initiative. --Mountain biking is enjoyed by people of all ages. --The applicant is requesting the opportunity to attract a national mountain bike race. That process may take as long as five years. Bike races are festive events and complete families attend. Crowds will be dispersed over a five or ten mile track, so there will be little crowd noise. Most events are exclusively spectator events. Mr. Murray asked that the Commission discuss the following issues: --With the County's stated goals to protect the rural area, farmland, forests and watersheds, "how can we allow the County to create a 500+ acre park (Walnut Creek) in one of the most rural parts of the County?" The park has paved roads, guard rails, acres of parking lot, a large man-made lake and beach, a concession stand, and a gated entrance which charges admission. Walnut Creek Park also has mountain bike trails and hosts occasional events which are conducted by people outside of our area. Participants come from other parts of the state also. The trails were built by volunteers, and there is no County staff involved in the trails in any way. No habitat survey was required when this park was built. _ --Given the County's stated goals, "how can we, for 20 years, have endorsed the Foxfield Races --a National Champion Steeple Chase Race?" This is a periodic event held in the rural area and thousands of people attend, with thousands of people parking in a field. Thousands of police officers and safety personnel are required. These people are also using alcohol and gambling. "How can this happen in the rural area?" — With the County Fair, in the heart of the rural area, we are asking people, at night, for a week's time, to come, park in a field, with lights, noise, music, and everybody and his brother selling something." Isn't this a double standard? --"At no time during my discussions (with County staff) have I been able to get anyone to discuss the economic development of this particular race (NORBA) event." The applicant is requesting approval for only one weekend a year for a NORBA race. Vic; S� 9-30-97 14 The other two races will be smaller events (state and regional), with much less impact and many fewer participants. Mr. Murray said his family is very excited about this proposal and feels it "fits" on Panorama Farms and it fits in the community. "It is a good idea because it meets a multitude of community objectives at little or no cost to this community. It meets Panorama'a sustainability goals --or it has the potential to. It is also a good idea because it gives landowners in the rural area hope that as a community we are willing to embrace and nurture creative solutions such as this to combat urban sprawl. This is something we all agree needs immediate attention." The applicants' answers to specific Commission questions were as follows: --The trails will be two feet wide. With the handlebars on bikes being 2-feet wide, passing is achieved by one person stopping, pulling over, and allowing the other person to pass. (Ms. Huckle deduced from this explanation that all activity will not take place on the trail.) --The state and national races are essential to make this a viable venture. There is a significant capital expense "to get the project off the ground." It is not known how much of the income will be generated by these events. --Regional events are smaller than state events. --There are presently no easements on the land. --It is in the applicant's best interest to maintain trails and minimize damage to the environment. The trails will be monitored daily and problems will be addressed much more quickly than would be the case on public land. --Access is proposed from Reas Ford Lane instead of Panorama Road because of cost. The existing road into the farm is a one -lane dirt road which crosses a creek with a one -lane bridge, and traverses a steep hill. Also, using Panorama Road would impact many more neighbors. Also, the intersection of Panorama Road and Rt. 743 has inadequate sight distance. A turn lane would be required on Rt. 743, which would be difficult to achieve because of the existence of two dwellings and a cemetery on the corners. --There is the possibility that some bikers may ride bikes to the farm (rather than bringing their bikes by car). Mr. Tice wondered if an entrance from Panorama Road would be better for those who will be biking to the facility because they would not have to ride all the way to Earlysville (on Rt. 743) and then go down Rt. 660. The applicant said that possibility has not been considered and he would have to confer with his family before giving an answer, but his first reaction would be to "discourage" an access from Panorama Road. --The applicant plans to keep the parking area below the sight line of adjacent properties (approximately 150-200 yards from the property line). --The applicant does not feel the number of riders at any one time should be limited. He asked: "Who is controlling them at Walnut Creek?" He estimated a potential for 300 Club members. He asked how, if he is allowed 50 people on the trail, can he turn the 51 st person away if they have paid their club fees. �=y 9-30-97 15 --The Club will have a maximum of 300 members. Each individual riding on the track will have to be a member. There will be no family memberships or guests. --The membership fee has not yet been decided. Fees will be determined, to a great extent, by the cost of the project. --The applicant plans to request a gravel parking lot that is reversible and does less damage to the environment. --Alternatives previously considered by the applicant include soccer fields, hunting sports (trap and skeet shooting), horseback riding, and an executive education center. The present proposal has the least impact both to the neighborhood and to the Murray family. This same part of the property has been involved in all the alternatives. Addressing the applicant's comments about Foxfield and the County Fair, Ms. Huckle said those events are "very, very limited in the time they function," whereas this use will be open year-round and all week." The applicant said his comparison had been to the racing events. She also pointed out that Foxfield is a flat, grassy field and there is time for the grass to grow back between events. She did not think the applicant was "comparing apples to apples." The applicant said the parking for the races will be in a flat field. Mr. Dotson tried to ascertain if the applicant has defined how many acres and how many miles are "essential" for the success of the project. The applicant did not give a definite answer to this question but said "to make it worth a member's fee, the more length the better. I'm not sure where that line is." Public comment was invited. The following persons spoke in support of the request: Ms. Terry Webber, President of the Earlysville Area Residents' League; Ms. Katie Hobbs, League of Women Voters (Statement made a part of these minutes as Attachment A); Chris Trevillian; William Preston; Joseph Millbank; Gary Owens; Peter Chandler; Kathy Good; David Sloan; John Scrivanni (forester); Frank Conley; Minger Ramsey; Eric Fletcher; and Alice Fletcher. Their reasons for support were as follows: -- In a time where it has become increasingly difficult for agriculture to provide a reasonable livelihood for the farmers of this area, the proposal suggests an economically viable alternative to the subdivision and residential development of this agricultural land. (Webber) --The preservation of the County's rural character and the avoidance of sprawl is the top priority of Earlysville's residents (as documented in a residents' survey). (Webber) --Panorama Farms is one of the last large undeveloped areas bordering the Rivanna Watershed. Based on the National Park Service Survey, which found the environmental impact of mountain biking is comparable to hiking, "it is reasonable to conclude that this proposal represents a relatively environmentally low impact use of 9-30-97 16 land vs. a relatively high impact use either as residential development or farming." (Webber) --"The participants and spectators coming from the national and state events will generate considerable revenue for area businesses. With a gloomy County budget forecast, this could be a welcome source of revenue." (Webber) --"It is imperative that we find creative and economically feasible ways to protect our remaining open lands. If we fail to find ways to save these open lands we are doomed to live amid the relentless spread of creeping sprawl." (Webber) --"County residents have agreed that of the four elements that form the basis of the rural areas, the 'preservation of agricultural and forestal activities has the highest priority."' (Hobbs) --"The County should do as much to preserve farms and forests as it does to channel development into Growth Areas." (Hobbs) --There are presently few mountain biking opportunities in the area. This is a healthy activity which will draw families together. --This proposal will benefit the residents of the County by offering needed recreational facilities and will have a minimum impact to the environment and the neighbors. Mountain biking is a non -intrusive activity and will be almost "invisible." --The occasional inconvenience caused by the special events is preferable to the daily inconvenience which residential development of the property would cause. --The-State considers mountain biking to be compatible with forestal uses. (Scrivanni) The following concerns were raised by those who supported the proposal: --Several times a year the small community of Earlysville would experience an influx of visitors. --It would be in the best interests of the Earlysville community to continue the suspension of development rights during the life of the special permit. --No large events should be permitted. (Hobbs) --Heritage resources must be identified for the area occupied by the trails. (Hobbs) The following persons expressed opposition to the proposal: Ed Price (residence approximately 200 yards from the intersection of Reas Ford Lane and Reas Ford Road); and Grover Morris (owner of 4,000 feet along Rt. 661). Their reasons for opposition were as follows: --Negative impact to what is currently a quiet community in terms of increased traffic and pollution. --The applicant should be required to use Rt. 844 for the entrance. --Mr. Morris said he has been asked by the applicant to "give 15 feet" of land along Rt. 661. He said he will have to build 4,000 feet of woven, wire fencing and dig a new well. --Bikers are causing accidents along Rt. 743. In a-gin-47 17 hIVr. Peter 111lallock, representing Piedmont Environmental Vduw'il1, (o+ta+e Ct made e a part of these minutes as Attachment B), expressed neither support for nor opposition to the proposal. He said this proposal raises the important issue of "the need for rural lan%AWVVnerc7 to find vv/ays to J4ppl%ermVnt farm income t^ .e7tay vn the fund InJt�aU of being forced to sell to developers." Me . L-dUie Cis vae-.,iund, u I %, ;,dent of Rt. 661 , vxprci..c7jed nt�.,ILI ier Supper t fvr nvr opposition to the proposal. He invited Commissioners to drive on Rt. 661 before I.:nr. .J +h:n .ter+ u., rl 'F+hr + nrr.. O+ L`G-1 koul,1 manll ItJ. a deci sioi 1 of 1 this r eq uest. I e said it ale request is approved, IXt. vd I SI Idulu be improved in its entirety, with "no turnarounds at the end, except on private property." There being no further colllment, the matter as placed before the CVI I It I IIJJIVl 11. /(�nmmiSeinner IAhehinn+nn InO +he mco+inn 1 `V VI111111 �71V1IVI V WCAJ1 III lytVl 11V14 UIV 111V VUI/y./ vllWIe l .LVevYelJte111 lmnhcommission If thf11Vlg bIUGUelUGUte during discussion: --is this a reasonable and appropriate way to protect farmland _-The hest means ^f continuing t^ limit grotr:th in the rural areas. --The need to protect the important provisions of an ag/forestal district. Referring t^ a .eitatemeni made by a member of the public that U ie naU%.01 I i V V Vnt may only occur every three years, Mr. Nitchmann asked if it is an annual event. Mr. lv"urray JaiU it i$ ti is appii :antra iivpa to attra A an annual event as JIatGU in iI OU application. He said the possibility of every three years was something he has not heard before. There v.as discussion about the proposed location of the 2nirancc (off Rt. 661), a^U whether or not it might be better to enter from Panorama Farms Road (Rt. 844). Ms. T homas said an entrance from 844 had not been discussed with VDOT so staff was "reluctantly" 11 '+h +h 1'....r.+ +h..+ '+ unlabile to comment. Mr. Tice said he 1 eluctantly agrees wiu l tl le applicant that it would be difficult to use Rt. 844 given the problems with the intersection at Rt. 743 and the stream crossing. He said he does have concerns about the Rt. 661 situation. i-ie SI in�tjgeS+ed +N.hat oe%me prnViSione migh+ be made t^ aile% at Ran, th^se persone arriving by bike to use the Panorama Farms road. Mr. Tice asked if the applicant VV%JW U be r�'quir ed tv upgr due U ie I vc�d�u 11 U ie pr opeity v�/era ici ba developed, by -right, as a residential development. Mr. Cilimberg said the County cannot require off -site roaa improvements in a subdivision approval. ibis. irluckle described Rt. 661 as a 14�;r1n r♦:+r.h ll n +h.. F n+ +hn+ +h rr� 'n .+ r111r,n+'r.n nn +i+ hn+hr,r r nn+ r.nnn�r! wide dltlrll. VIVGII LIIV lath that thelG IJ a HUVOtIdI1 aJ td VVIIGUIGI Or IFdt pIuWV d improvements to Rt. 661 can be accomplished in the existing right-of-way, Mr. Tice said the applicant's offer to improve the road may be negated if additional right-of-way cannot (lot be acquired. Mr. l^iilil I Iber g pointed out that a recommended t 11I (ended condition I of approval requires that improvements to 661 (per VDOT standards) must be done ,:�/N:;k 9-30-97 18 "prior to commencement" of the use, so if those improvements cannot be done, the special permit could not be exercised. Ms. Huckle said she was upset by Mr. Morris' comments that he has been asked to give up land and will have to drill another well. Steve Murray addressed this issue and explained that widening the road would impact approximately 900 feet of Mr. Morris' 4,000 feet frontage. He stressed that he has never told Mr. Morris, nor would he ever tell him, that the applicant is going to "take his land." That would never be possible because the applicant does not have the power of eminent domain. He said he had explained to Mr. Morris that most of the road improvements will be on the opposite side of the road. He also said there would not be any impact to Mr. Morris' well. Mr. Tice identified three major issues: Compatibility of the proposal with the A/F District and the rural areas part of the Comp Plan; Roads; and Major Events. He said he feels the A/F Advisory. Committee "missed the boat" and "could not see the forest for the trees." He said: "For that committee, and for us, to decide that this recreational use of the forest is not compatible with the intent of the agricultural and forestal districts we have to take a very narrow view of the intent of the districts. The legislative purpose clearly gives a second purpose. Beyond the purpose of promoting the production of food and other agricultural products, it goes on to talk about the conservation of natural and ecological resources, whether air quality, watershed protection, or wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes. Virtually every survey of landowners, particularly forest landowners, in every state of the country, gives very high value to the aesthetic, recreational --the non -timber purposes of owning land. Not that timber isn't an important use, but I think it is a serious error to assume that only those economic values that are significant are those that involve the extraction and the export of products and resources. The role of natural resources, whether it is forestry or agriculture, in our local economy is changing. It's far different today than it was 20 years ago. We should recognize that they are the source of increasingly valuable flows of environmental goods and services in addition to the traditional kinds of products. I think, in most cases, those alternative uses of the forests are of higher value --those for clean air and water, for scenic beauty and for recreation. It's true the National Forests, the State Forests and the National and State Parks all allow mountain biking. They have found it to be compatible with the forest uses of the property. Almost all the trails on this property are in the forest. I think the A/F Committee made a mistake and I would like for us to agree that this is a compatible use. The issue was also raised about a 'double standard.' Mr. Nitchmann and I both raised this question a couple of weeks ago on another request before us. If this property was a public park we wouldn't be sitting here discussing it. If the County wanted to do mountain bike trails on the mountain park land they would be doing it and we probably wouldn't be considering it, or, if we were, we would not be looking at it in the same light." On the issue of roads, he said he has serious concerns about Rt. 661 and he is glad staff will be having a meeting to look at the question this week. He Ji3 9-30-97 19 hoped there would be consideration of a way for a bike access via Panorama Farms Road which could relieve some of the pressure from Rt. 661. He concluded: "I can't say I am thrilled about Rt. 661 being used, but, given the circumstances, I can support that." On the issue of the events, he said he is concerned about the lack of information. He wondered if at least some of the access for the infrequent special events could be through Panorama Farms Road. He wondered if the special events could be handled with temporary permits. This would give the applicant the opportunity to try out one of the events and then come back and formally ask for an amendment to this special permit after more is known as to how they will work. He agreed that the special events are probably critical to the economic success of the plan and said he would like to be able to find a way to support them. He concluded: "I guess at this time my feeling on that issue is that I need information and I am compelled to support the condition staff has proposed, and suggest to the applicant that they may want to try a temporary permit and come back to us for an amendment when we have more information." Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kamptner to comment on uses allowed in A/F Districts by State Code. Mr. Kamptner replied: "Certainly agricultural and forestal uses are the primary uses, but both the Code and our Ordinance allow more intensive uses to be authorized by the governing body, in this case the Board. ... In this case, this special use permit is a more intensive use, but it can be authorized by the Board of Supervisors. Another thing to consider --when land is considered for being included in an Ag/Forestal District the Advisory Committee and Planning Commission look at several factors, one of which is the nature of the extent of land uses other than active farming or forestry within the district and areas adjacent thereto. Another factor is the agricultural and forestal significance of land within the district or addition, and areas adjacent thereto. In elaborating on what agricultural and forestal significance of land is the Statute says (among other things) ... the present status of agriculture and forestry, anticipated trends in agricultural economic conditions and such other factors as may be relevant. Looking at those two factors that I highlighted, one is a recognition that there may be uses other than pure ag and forestal uses which exist within the district and the other is that there is a flexibility in looking at trends and economic conditions related to ag and forestry." Mr. Tice suggested the following addition to condition No. 2: The entrance building and parking lot shall be at least 300 feet from adjoining properties; the entrance building and parking lot will be removed if the mountain bike club ceases operation; and any exterior lighting be shielded to direct the light downward. Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Tice how he feels about the limitation of 50 bikers at one time. Mr. Tice said he did not feel strongly. He said he could either support leaving the condition as is with the understanding the applicant can request an amendment after having gained some experience with the use which would show that an increase would not cause a significant impact or he could be persuaded to increase it, 9-30-97 20 depending on the feelings of the other Commissioners. Mr. Nitchmann said he would consider an increase. Mr. Nitchmann said he feels the county, the state and the nation are.at a crossroads regarding agricultural land and the use of it. We want to preserve it but recognize that the present farmers are an aging population and the younger generation realizes they cannot support their families by farming. When the aging farmer dies the land often must be divided and sold in order to pay the estate taxes, and then "the only other alternative for people who own these tracts is to do what we don't want, and that is to promote the sprawl of more housing in the rural area." He said he is also concerned about the road issue but he can support the proposal, along with Mr. Tice's proposed changes to the conditions, with the understanding that before the Board hearing there will be more information about which entrance is best. He concluded: "If this proposal gives us an opportunity to preserve 300+ acres in the rural area, and keep the balance of the land in farming and open space, then I've got to be all for it." On the issue of comparison of this use to Foxfield and the County Fair, Mr. Dotson pointed out the obvious difference is that this property is on the shore of the reservoir and the others are not. He asked Mr. Hirschman "to what extent do you feel the placement of the trails makes a difference in terms of the impact to the reservoir?" Mr. Dotson said it appears the trails come very close to the reservoir. He asked if moving them back would benefit the reservoir, or would it be insignificant. Mr. Hirschman responded: "They would have to be located in the most reasonable place. The immediate reservoir area is fenced off along all or most of that area. They would have to, obviously, be beyond the fence. There is a little flat land and then it starts to rise. The question is whether you want the trails on the flat land or do you want a side slope trail with more construction required. We would do what we did at Ragged Mountain --walk along and pick the best location for the lowest impact for the trails." (Mr. Tice pointed out that a condition of approval gives Mr. Hirschman the responsibility to review and approve trail layout within the Resource Protection Areas buffer --along Naked Creek and along the reservoir.) Mr. Dotson asked if the conditions give Mr. Hirschman "adequate teeth" to require a realignment of the trails if he feels there is a better alignment to protect the water quality. Mr. Hirschman responded: "I think the condition is that I would approve the trails within the buffer area, so I think so. They are easy enough to relocate in the layout stage." Mr. Dotson asked if Mr. Hirschman would be making visits to the site (if approved) to make sure everything is "working as intended." Mr. Hirschman responded: "I don't see us going out there on a regular schedule, but we would respond to complaints or requests from the owner to try to fix a problem." Mr. Hirschman said he does not know, at this time, whether any of the trails will be within the 100-foot buffer. He said he would prefer to keep them out of the buffer as much as possible, but if it is a choice of being on flat, stable land (within the buffer) vs. slope land outside the buffer which would create more disturbance --"those are the type of site specific adjustments to be made as we get close to the shoreline, with an eye to reducing potential � �S 9-30-97 21 erosion." Mr. Dotson thought there should be considerable latitude to move trails around, given the amount of land involved. Mr. Hirschman thought preventative - maintenance would be the most important issue. Mr. Dotson described his concerns. He said it is "up hill and on the edge of the reservoir and is a use, by its nature, which will have some tendency to disturb the ground, to leave it bare, to create mud." He said his inclination is to be very careful in considering this request. He said no alternative designs have been presented and a habitat � 1 � 1 L � � 1 been - .- there L: - .- ' L - ..1 the � 11 I Iabitat inventory I ias not beet I done and a here are still questions about a Ie road. o if we go forward, it seems to me it is, to some degree, an act of faith that it will be done well and will be handled well. it leaves me very uneasy going forward with that sense. It is a little telling that if this were handled as an RPD, this probably couldn't be the preservation parcel. That starts to signal to me a little about the nature and intent of the use. It doesn't help me to look at the state and national forests and say 'they allow it,' because they allow clear -cutting and other things too. They are not necessarily the model. I understand the issue and the pressures on the owner. I think PEC is correct when they say we need to consider the larger issues and work with citizens. I would be interested in knowing more about the 20 or so uses that were looked at (by the Advisory Committee). It is time for us to get into some study sessions and crank up more on the rural component as we are looking at the urban area infill. I am personally not convinced this is ripe and all the avenues to minimize the impacts have been explored, including the access impacts. It may be in a week we will have more information, on that one aspect, perhaps." Ms. Huckle was worried that approval would undermine the Ag Forestal concept which everyone, including PEC, has been trying to promote for many years. She suggested the addition of the following conditions: (1) Removal of this acreage from the A/F District; and (2) No residential development shall take place while the special permit is being exercised. She said: "Otherwise, if they don't make enough money with the bike trails they would want to develop anyway and we would have the worst of both worlds." Mr. Loewenstein said he shared some of Mr. Dotson's concerns, particularly about those items about which more information is needed. He said he has special concerns about the road and about "the potential magnitude of impacts which might occur at this location during larger events." He said he was not as concerned about the daily operation. He, too, expressed concern about the integrity of the A/F districts and whether this use is compatible or not. If not, as is staffs position, then "I think that statement has to be considered on its own merit." He said some of the proposed conditions go a long way towards helping this proposal. He concluded: "I think, in any case, no matter what we do tonight, it's quite clear the County needs to take a much more active role in considering the larger issues that this type of application and recent ones we have had like it, raise. I do think we need to find additional ways to %sw, protect family farmland. We do need to find ways to protect the rural areas from over- M in 9-30-97 22 development and, at the same time, we need to find ways to protect the provisions of ag-forestal districts. We need to strike a balance and that is a very difficult thing to do. On the issue of special events, Mr. Tice said he supports leaving in the condition which disallows state, regional or national/level special events, "giving the applicant the opportunity to come back with more information and address that issue later on." Mr. Tice asked if Commissioners Dotson and Loewenstein would be more comfortable if the Commission were to review the site plan. Mr. Dotson responded: "There is some value to that." Mr. Loewenstein agreed. The possibility of a deferral was discussed briefly, but staff said "we are probably up against the clock" unless the applicant were to agree to another deferral. Mr. Cilimberg did not know whether a week's deferral would be of any benefit. On the issue of the road, Mr. Tice noted that the minutes will reflect the Commission's concerns, and if issues come up after staffs meeting on Friday, or after, the Board will consider those issues in its review. Ms. Thomas pointed out that much is dependent upon the adjacent owner's willingness to cooperate. Mr. Tice said condition No. 6 addresses the concerns because "if improvements can't be made, this can't happen." MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the mountain bike use be found to be consistent with the intent of an A\F District , the rural areas, the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, and that SP 97-11 Panorama Trails be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Panorama Trails, Inc. is to be operated in accord with the project descriptions dated April 21, 1997, and June 23, 1997. Maximum club membership shall not exceed three hundred (300) members at any one time. Riders present on club trails at any one time shall not exceed fifty (50), except during events. Increased membership, significant changes to club hours, operation, or facilities (including extension of the trail system to additional portions of the farm) shall require amendment to the special permit and further review. No state, regional, and/or national level events are permitted under this special use permit. The club race series shall be limited to members only. Club races and/or other events shall not exceed one per 14 calendar days in frequency. Bicycle repairs, maintenance and part sales shall be limited to special events, and shall be limited to club members or those participating in special events. (The last sentence was proposed as a 9th condition by Mr. Dotson. Mr. Tice was agreeable to such a condition, but it was decided it would best be added to No. 1. Mr. Cilimberg said it would be difficult to enforce such a condition.) ,::�-17 9-30-97 23 2. A site development plan as required by Section 32.0 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for the entrance building, parking lot, and access road shall be submitted. The entrance building, parking lot and access road shall be located at least 300 feet from adjoining property lines. The entrance building and parking lot shall be removed if use ceases. Any exterior lighting shall be shielded to direct light downward. 3. A site plan for all proposed trails shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the commencement of mountain bike club activity. The plan shall contain the following information: a. All trails shall be shown on a USGS Quadrangle map. b. Natural heritage resources shall be identified and located through a general survey (as described in the 6/11/97 letter from the Department of Conservation and Recreation) on that portion of the farm acreage to be occupied by mountain bike trails, excluding existing cultivated areas. This survey shall be submitted for review and comment to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and/or the Virginia Department of Forestry. c. Natural heritage resources information shall be delineated on the above - cited USGS map which shall also include proposed trails. d. Trails shall be routed and designed to avoid areas with identified resources. e. All impacts to wetlands, streams, springs, and other water resources shall be reviewed and approved by the Albemarle County Water Resources Manager. 4. Trail construction and maintenance specifications shall be submitted to the Albemarle County Engineering Department for review and approval. All trails shall be constructed and maintained according to these specifications. 5. The mountain bike club shall comply with provisions (a), (b), and (c) of Section 5.1.16 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. 6. Improvements to Reas Ford Lane (State Route 661) per Virginia Department of Transportation 3-R standards shall be completed prior to commencement of mountain bike club activity. 7. No motorized vehicles other than farm equipment or equipment needed for construction, maintenance or emergency purposes shall be permitted on the trails. 8. During the life of this special permit, should the property be withdrawn from an ag- forestal district, the respective development rights for the portion of the property occupied by these trails cannot be utilized for the development of the remainder of the property. [The wording of this condition to be reviewed and finalized by the County Attorney prior to the Board hearing.] Discussion: '�_/V 9-30-97 24 Though requested by Ms. Huckle to include a condition requiring the removal of the 300+ acres from the A/F district, Mr. Tice declined to add such a requirement to his motion. He said he does not feel the trails will be incompatible with the A/F district. Ms. Huckle asked if Mr. Tice would consider adding a condition which would not allow further development while the special permit is in place. Mr. Tice said that though he is sympathetic to such a condition, he said he could not envision, "from a practical standpoint," any development which would not, by its nature, violate the terms of this special permit and require the special use permit to be void." Mr. Dotson asked: "Wouldn't a RPD, though, where you would transfer the density off the site?" Mr. Dotson said he thinks Ms. Huckle is suggesting that whatever density is derived from this part of the property be "frozen" for the duration of the special use permit so it could not be transferred off as an RPD. After hearing Mr. Dotson's added comments, Mr. Tice said he was agreeable to adding such a condition and, after some further comments from the County Attorney, condition No. 8 was added to the motion (with the understanding that the wording will need to be finalized before the Board hearing). Mr. Kamptner pointed out that as long as the property is in an A/F district any development could only be that which is related to people working the farm. The applicants felt the best way to approach the development rights issue is through the A/F District. Ms. Huckle said she is concerned about what could happen if the property is withdrawn from the A/F District in April, 1998. Mr. Steve Murray assured the Commission that the applicant has every intent of keeping the property in an A/F District. Ms. Huckle asked if there was a way to limit the number of projects that can be occurring simultaneously. She said there is already a composting business taking place on the property. Mr. Nitchmann said all by -right uses would have to be related to the A/F district or the rural areas. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the composting business is a by -right use. The bike trail use is being decided through the present special permit application process. Regarding the discussion about a temporary event permit for special events, Mr. Cilimberg noted that the temporary event section of the ordinance applies to non-profit organizations. He said: "So I don't want it to be thought that this is a wide-open other route to go. You have to qualify as a non-profit to get that kind of temporary event authorization." The motion for approval passed (4:1:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote and Mr. Finley abstaining. Mr. Loewenstein said he voted in favor of the motion "reluctantly." Ms. Huckle explained her vote was to be consistent with the findings of the A/F Advisory Committee. 9-30-97 25 Barclay Place Apartments Expansion Final Site Plan - Proposal to construct 12 additional apartment units on 0.56 acres zoned R-15, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 60A1, Parcel 35 is located on the south side of Georgetown Road approximately 0.25 miles west of Hydraulic Road in the Jack Jouett Magisterial district. This site is located in Neighborhood 1 and is recommended for Urban density (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre). The preliminary site plan for this site was approved on November 14, 1995. The approval has expired. Mr. Morrisette presented a brief staff report. Staff recommended approval. Ms. Huckle asked about the off -site parking. Staff explained that an off -site parking easement will have to be secured. The applicant also is the owner of the adjoining property where the off -site parking is proposed. Mr. Loewenstein suggested the applicant might want to choose a plant other than photenia. He said he has had problems with this plant. The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Wagner. He offered no significant comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SDP 97-98, Barclay Place Apartments Expansion Final Site Plan be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SDP 97-111 Forest Lakes North Car Wash Final Site Plan - Proposal to construct a two -bay automated car wash of approximately 1,500 square feet on a 0.512 acre parcel zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property, described as a portion of Tax Map 46134, Parcel 1, is located on the south side of Timberwood Parkway (St. Rt. 1720), between the Timberwood Parkway/Worth Crossing intersection and Route 29 North. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is recommended for Community Service in the Hollymead Community. The item was before the Commission at its request. Ms. Huckle asked if there were any changes to the plan since the preliminary approval. Mr. Cilimberg replied: "There can't be any changes that do not comply to the conditions that you put on the site plan. This is the site plan that abides by the conditions that you placed on it. It has received all tentative approvals and is ready to be signed." ;? 20 9-30-97 26 Mr. Morrisette recalled the Commission had asked the final plan to come back to give the public the opportunity to see that all condition have been met. The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Franco. He offered no comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SDP 97-111, Forest Lakes North Car Wash Final Site Plan, be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SDP 97-109 First Citizens Bank Final Site Plan - Proposal to construct a bank with drive thru windows and an automated teller machine of approximately 3,800 square feet on 2,387 acres zoned C-1, Commercial Property. Described as a portion of Tax Map 61 M, Block 12, Parcels 1 and 1 H is located on the southwest corner of the Dominion Drive (Route 851) Rt. 29 North intersection. This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District and is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 1. Mr. Morrisette briefly reminded the Commission of its recommendations on the preliminary site plan. All conditions have been met and approvals granted. The applicant's representative offered no comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SDP 97-109, First Citizens Bank Final Site Plan, be approved. The motion passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: Mr. Nitchmann questioned why the last three items had come back to the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicants for two of the items were not happy about the need to come back to the Commission. They lost time and money as a result. He suggested to the Commission: Whenever you feel you need to see some aspect of a final site plan, you identify the specific aspect you want to see and we will bring that element back to you when the tentative approval is ready to be given from the appropriate agency. Staff will see that a representative of the agency is present at the meeting. (Another fee would not have to be charged with such an approach.) Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission that it was the intent of the LURC Committee that �z/ 9-30-97 27 once a preliminary approval is given, it is giving the applicant the understanding that once the conditions are met and the requirements of the technical reviewers have been satisfied, the final plan will be approved." Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the last three applicants had endured a very long meeting and not a single question was asked about any of their proposals. Mr. Cilimberg reported staff has met with the developers of Forest Lakes to discuss the issues of sidewalks. The area of Fortune Park may provide the opportunity for sidewalks and staff will be looking at this more closely. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. M Cm M ,:? :?A