HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 12 84 PC MinutesJuly 12, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning. Commission held a public hearing on Thursday,
July 12, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman;
Mr. James Skove; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; and Ms. Norma Diehl. Others
present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Katherine Imhoff,
Chief of Community Development; and Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner.
Absent: Commissioners Bowerman and Gould.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present.
CPA-84-6 - The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution
of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to recommend low density residential
as opposed to industrial usage in an area commonly known as the Woolen
Mills area. Area under consideration is bounded by the C & 0 Railroad on
the south, the Rivanna River on the north and east and the City of Charlottesville
On the west.
Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Fran Lawrence, one of the applicants, addressed the Commission and offered
to answer questions. He asked that the Commission act favorably on the
request.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated: "Based on the staff report, the physical aspects of the area
and the current history where the residential revitalization has taken place,
I would be in favor of amending the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by
staff."
Mr. Skove moved that CPA-84--6 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to recommend
low density residential as opposed to industrial usage in an area commonly known
as Woolen Mills be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-84-17 Margaret & Michael Van Yahres,.Et a_1_ - Request to rezone the following
properties from LI Light Industrial to.R-2 Residential: Tax Map 77A, Parcel
77 (0.961 acres); Tax Map 78, parcel 21A (0.3 acres) Tax Map 77A, parcel
78 (lot); and to rezone Tax Map 78, parcel 21C (lot) from LI Light Industrial
to R-4 Residential. Properties are located on Market Street in the Woolen
Mills area. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval.
July 12, 1984 Page 2
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Peggy Van Yahres was present but offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan asked if the properties that were involved were contiguous.
Ms. Imhoff responded affirmatively and pointed the properties out on the
tax map.
Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-84-17 for Margaret & Michael Van Yahres, Et al, be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the :notion which passed unanimously.
SP-84-37 Warren E. Andrews (This item was listed as last on the agenda) -
Request in accordance with Section 30'.3.5.2.1 to construct, in conjunction
with development of a private golf course, a.water pump house and footbridge
in the floodplain of Ivy Creek. Property consisting of 200.645 acres, zoned
Rural Areas, is located on Routes 677 and 637 in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
M.r. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended deferral until several
issues had been addressed.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Jerry Dixon addressed the Commission. He explained that the golf course
would be a private one serving only the executives of the Seagrams Corporation.
In relation to staff's recommendation that only one bridge was needed, Mr.
Dixon explained that one bridge would be a temporary one for use during con-
struction of the golf course. Regarding road construction, he stressed that
this would be a private course and would not be .open to the public. He
stated the applicant had been working closely with staff and was very surprised
that staff was recommending deferral because: he was under the impression
all the issues had been resolved. (Mr. Keeler noted that Mr. Dixon was.
referring to the County Engineer's Department because he had had no contact
with Mr. Andrews.)
Since it was determined that the permanent bridge would not be large enough
to allow maintenance vehicles, Mr. Dixon stated if an additional bridge
was not allowed then the maintenance vehicles would have to use the highway
like all agricultural equipment.
Mr. Dixon confirmed the applicant's request was for one permanent bridge,
and one pump house. It was also determined the pump house had been moved
so that it was no longer in the floodplain.
Mr. Keeler confirmed if the pump house was no longer in the floodplain,
a special permit would not be required.
Mr. Keeler confirmed the Commission was to deal only with the issue of
the bridge. He confirmed that if more than 10,000 square feet of dirt
was to be moved a soil erosion permit would be needed.
'sir. Keeler confirmed that the staff was viewing the golf course as an
accessory use.
July 12, 1984
Page 3
Mr. Skove thought this was a peculiar way to view this use, i.e. as an
accessory use.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Joan Graves addressed the Commission. She pointed out that since this
item had originally been scheduled for 9:20 on the agenda (not 8:15), there
might be public comment which still had not arrived. She felt the Commission
should wait until later in the meeting to accept public comment.
Mr. Cogan stated he would not close the public hearing on this item so that
comment could be invited again at the originally scheduled time.
Mr. Michel stated that with -some conditions attached addressing watershed
management and county engineer concerns, he would be satisfied.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that he felt the bridge across the .stream should
be designed to handle all the necessary equipment.
Mr. Michel stated he was concerned about emergency vehicle access, e.g.
what if a person has a heart attack while on the course. He asked if the
applicant would be opposed to widening the permanent bridge.
The applicant replied that he felt the proposed location for the bridge
was not conducive to an agricultural -type bridge. He stated the applicant's
only use for the bridge was to serve the golf course.
Mr. Keeler confirmed the temporary bridge would require a special permit also
and it would be possible to place a time limit on the temporary bridge.
Mr. Cogan ended the discussion of this item at this time. He stated he
would repoen the public hearing later in the meeting. In the meantime, he
asked Mr. Keeler if he would compose some conditions of approval that
could be attached this permit.
SP-84-39 Harry B. & Helen K. Thornley - Request in accordance with 10.2.2.28
to subdivide 46 acres into 12 lots with an average lot size of 3.8 acres.
Property, described as Tax Map 93, parcel 58 (part), Route 729 about 0.7
mile north of Route 53. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff could not recommend approval of the
petition.. Ms. Scala added that if the Commission chose to approve the
petition, staff recommended a five acre density to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Thornley addressed the Commission. He felt the staff's negative points
were overdone. He stated the development could not be seen from the road..
He felt the subdivision would be very attractive.
Mr. Bill Clover, representing Clover Realty and the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He gave a brief history of the ownership of the property and
spoke in favor of the proposal.
At-
July 12, 1984 Page 4
Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, addressed the issue of the entrance.
He felt that it would be very difficult to locate an entrance on this
roadway which would meet the required 550 feet of sight distance in both
directions. He felt there was only one possible location. He felt this
was a major concern in considering development along this road and
pointed out that the single location he referred to was on this property.
He also pointed out that the land had recently been clear cut and he felt
it would be beneficial to subdivide the land since it would make it more
attractive than it presently is.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Dixon, a resident of Milton Hills, stated he had no objection to the proposed
subdivision.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the main point of the staff report was that the
objective of the Comprehensive Plan was to direct growth to the growth areas
and this is not considered a growth area.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he .lived inthis area and he was not aware.of any
problem with the road.
In response to Mr. Skove's question, Ms. Scala confirmed that approximately
50% to 60% of the land was in forestry and agricultural uses. Mr. Skove
pointed out that the purpose of land use taxation was to preserve land
in agricultural use. He questioned what the public benefit would be if the
land was changed. He felt this should be considered when dealing with
special use permits.
Mr. Michel stated he had no real objections, though he wasn't sure about
the five -acre density.
Mr. Cogan agreed. He added that if he were to be in favor of this application
he would suggest that rather than a five -acre density, it be restricted to
no more than 10 lots. He explained that the reason for this suggestion was
because a five -acre density might result in a private road.
Mr..Skove indicated he had no objection to the five -acre density and preferred
that to Mr. Cogan's suggestion. Mr. Cogan felt it was a question of a
trade-off with,the issue being a public vs. a private road.
(Ms. Diehl stated she would not take part in the action on this.item because
she had not been present for much of the discussion.)
There was a brief discussion about conditions of approval to attach to the
permit. Ms. Scala pointed out that the concerns of the Commission
could be addressed at the time of thepreliminary plat. She stated that
the Commission could make the applicant aware at this time that they
would have a say as to the arrangement of the lots, etc.
Ms. Scala confirmed that the special permit itself was for the creation of
12 lots. She also confirmed that the Commission could change that.
July 12, 1984
Page 5
Ms. Scala felt the Commission could specify the number of lots, the density
and the minimum lot size.
Mr. Skove moved that SP-84-39 for Harry B. and Helene K. Thornley be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition:
1. No lot to be smaller than five acres.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed (4:0:1) with Ms. Diehl abstaining.
SP-84-38 E.I. Design Associates - Request in accordance with 10.2.2.28 to subdivide
110.4 acres into 9 lots with an average lot size of 4.1 acres, leaving 69
acres in residue. Property, described as Tax Map 47, Parcel 8, zoned Rural
Areas, is located on the east side of Route 649 about 0.8 mile southeast of
Route 743. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the petition.
(At this point in the meeting Mr. Cogan announced that the George Bowles
application, next on the agenda, would be deferred.)
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant, Mr. Johnston, addressed the Commission. He explained that there
was some mix-up about who the applicant actually was. He explained that he had
signed the application and paid the fees. He indicated he had been unaware
of staff's recommended denial of the application. He was very surprised
about staff's position. He read a lengthy statement which explained his
background and the reason for the proposal. He felt the proposal was superior to
by -right development and was fulfilling the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
He debated the staff's reasons for recommending denial of the application.
He stated: "In this instance it seems'actually to pervert the land use
tax provision for the planning board to use it as a means to penalize a farmer
whose life circumstances have changed and it is especially ironic for
them to apply it against a land use request designed specifically to save
a farm." He said his options were simple, i.e. "to develop part of the
farm or to sell it all." He stated he would be forced to proceed with
by -right development if this application was not approved, though he felt
that would not be in the best interests of the County or the neighbors.
Mr. Cogan pointed out to Mr. Johnston that the application had not been
rejected at this point, but rather the staff was recommending that it be
rejected. He also clarified that it was understood that Mr. Johnston
was the owner of the property and E.Z. Design Associates was his agent.
Mr. Keeler explained that the.staff report was a mechanical application of the
rules and that was what was intended when the ordinance was drafted, i.e.
that the criteria be stated as objectively as possibly and be basically a
technical analysis. He added that it was then up to the Commission to decide
if the application served the public interest.
AW
July 12, 1984
Page 6
Mr. Roy Parks, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He explained it was the applicant's desire to get a return on the land and at the
same time protect the farm. Mr. Parks gave a lengthy presentation. He
addressed each negative point listed in the staff report. He explained
different possibilities for the development of the property but concluded
that the applicant felt the proposal was the best for the property, the County
and the applicant.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Parks if he was aware that no lot less than 5 acres was
permitted on a private road. Mr. Parks indicated he was aware of this and
stated the applicant would request a waiver.
Mr. Parks stated the applicant had "used up .all.his development rights on
this whole fart, so he cannot develop any of the farm at all."
Mr. Skove stated: "I'm curious why he used up any of his development rights.
Could it not be theoretically possible for him to come in with that balance
with a plat of 2-acre lots by right and 21 acres?" Mr. Cogan responded:
"We would have to condition against that. We would have to say that this
constitutes the use of all the development rights on this piece of
property."
The Chairman invited public comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the CoFr;n.ission.
Mr. Johnston, the applicant, expressed the fear that Rt. 649 was going to
be "strip developed."
Mr. Michel stated he was sympathetic to the applicant and felt the proposal was
better than what the Ordinance would allow.
Mr. Skove felt the applicant's proposal was a "sensitive design."
(Some of Mr. Skove's comments were inaudible.)
Ms. Diehl stated she supported staff's position. She felt it was remote from
growth area, was located in the :riddle of agriculture anal forestal land
and she also felt that by -right development offered acceptable alternatives.
She also stated she would not be in favor of granting a waiver for the
public road vs. the area requirements.
Mr. ~Michel indicated he too was concerned about the road issue. He asked
if the applicant "Fright be able to take those last three or four lots and deal
with them in a slightly different manner." Mr. Parks responded to this
question and explained some possibilities.
Mr. Cogan stated he could not support anything less than 5 acres for any lot,
which would restrict the development to 7 parcels.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP 84-38 for E.I. Design Associates be recommended to the
Board.of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
:0
July 12, 1984
Page 7
There was a brief discussion. Mr. Cogan stated that in respect to good
planning, and in consideration of the alternatives, he felt this particular
layout was reasonably acceptable "if done under the parameters I.suggested
before."
The motion for denial failed to pass (2:3) with Commissioners Skove and Diehl
voting for denial and Commissioners Cogan, Michel and Wilkerson voting against
denial.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-84-38 for E.I. Designs be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subject.to the following conditions:
1. Approval is for 7 lots of not less than 5 acres.
2. Granting of this special permit will preclude any further subdivision of
the land without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed (3:2) with Commissioners Skove
and Diehl casting the dissenting votes.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on August 1, 1984.
SP-84-41 - George A. Bowles, III - Request in accordance with Section 24.2.2.1
to locate a raquetball/tennis club and skating rink on a 9-acre portion of a
14.2 acre tract zoned Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 45,
Parcel 93A (part), is located on the west side of U.S. Route 29 North,
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
This item was deferred to July 24. (No action to make this deferral was
recorded on the tape.) Note: Action for deferral was taken at the end of
the meeting.
Continuation of SP-84-37 Warren E. Andrews, SLDC Architects
The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler called the Commission's attention to a memo from the Watershed
Management Official related to withdrawal of water from streams and a
golf course use. Mr. Keeler responded to a request made earlier in the
meeting that he suggest some conditions of approval for the application.
He referred to a previous approval for Lewis Eaden and indicated some
of those same conditions would apply in this case.
Ms. Diehl expressed concern about removal of vegetation as a result of grading.
She asked if the applicant had submitted a plan to the County Engineer, which
deft with erosion control after grading. Mr. Keeler stated the County
Engineer had approved the grading plan but he did not know if this plan.
addressed watershed issues.
Ms. Diehl asked if the applicant would be drawing water directly from
the stream to water the golf course and, if so, have any estimates been made
on the "drawdown?"
July 12, 1984
Page 8
Mr. Dixon indicated he was not too familiar with this issue though he could
recall there had been discussions about drawdown.
The Commission asked for Mr. Bill Norris, Watershed Management Official, to
comment.
Mr. Norris stated his report was very generalized. He explained there is
no Virginia statutory law governing water withdrawal from a stream --
that all falls under the Riparian Rights Document. Mr. Norris explained
that it falls on downstream users and other users of the stream to identify
that their use of the stream has been imparied by the upstream users. He
stated the State Water Control Board had no control until a problem had
been identified. He explained that no permits are required from the
State Water Control Board or the Army Corps of Engineers unless an impoundment
is constructed across a stream.. He further explained that it is not required
to report withdrawal from a stream unless the withdrawal exceeds 10,000 gallons
for any given day. He stated that it was necessary to keep very accurate
records. He stated he had no knowledge of -,,?hat the.estimated water use is .
for this proposed golf course. Mr. Norris stated his main concern was related
to problems which might occur during periods.of little rainfall when water
conservation measures might be enforced. Mr. Norris explained that it would
be the responsibility of the user to accurately track his use by means of a
meter..
Ms. Diehl indicated she was extremely concerned about this issue because
Ivy Creek is an important:ag.ricultural water source down stream as well as
being in the watershed. She was concerned because the figures presented
indicated that a 9-hole golf course would use many more than 10,000 gallons
of water per day. She stated she would be extremely reluctant to consider
the application further without more information about the drawdown from the
creek.
Mr. Cogan suggested that the State Water Control Board be advised of the
use and asked to.monitor it. However, Mr. Cogan pointed out that the
present issue before the Commission was the bridge, the stream crossing.
He noted that the golf course was a by -right use, as was the pump station
since it was removed from the floodplain.
Ms. Diehl felt the application should be deferred to obtain more information.
Mr. Cogan felt monitoring by the State Water Control Board would address
Ms. Diehl's concern. his. Diehl disagreed because she stated they would
not become involved until a problem had already arisen. She stated she
was interested .in knowing the process which would be used for monitoring.
Ms. Diehl asked if she understood that even though the Commission had concerns
about severe implications for the watershed protection, the Commission could
still not act negatively or defer the application until more information could
be obtained. Mr. Cogan responded: "We can refer to the particular agencies
who are probably in a better position to handle it than we are." Mr. Cogan
felt the bridge could be deferred.
-01
July 12, 1984
Page 9
In answer to Mr. Norris' question, Mr. Dixon stated the applicant would
be pumping directly from the stream, not from the pond.
Mr. Keeler stated he was uncertain as to whether or not pumping stations
were permitted by right. He -quoted from the Zoning Ordinance and stated
that "public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk line treatment
facilities and pumping stations are permitted by right." He listed
the following as being permitted by special permit: "Electrical power
sub -stations, transmission lines, related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances."
Mr. Michel asked the applicant what his immediate plans were. The
applicant responded.
Mr. Cogan advised the applicant that there was very little chance the
bridge was going to receive -approval at this meeting. Mr. Dixon
then asked -if it would make any difference if the bridge were changed
to a 10 foot structure. Mr. Cogan responded that the Commission needed
to see some definite planning.
Ms. Diehl stated she would like to see a definitive plan for the pumping
station and she would also like to have an official interpretation from
the Zoning Administrator. She also asked for more information on the
access.
Mr. Cogan wondered if it would be possible to go ahead and act on the
permit for the permanent and temporary bridge with the information requested
by Ms. Diehl coming later. He felt it would be possible to issue the
permit for the temporary bridge but defer action on the permanent one until
more information has been received.
It was determined would have use for the temporary bridge for approximately
6 months.
The Commission advised the staff to request that the Zoning Administrator
make a ruling on whether or not the pumping station was a use by right.
Mr. Wilkerson moved for approval of the temporary bridge for a time period
of 6 months, and he also moved that action on the permanent bridge be deferred.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that this was one special use permit and he did not
feel it could be passed on to the Board in "parts."
There was a brief discussion about the implications of the motion.
Mr. Wilkerson withdrew the motion.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-84-37 for Warren E. Andrews, SLDC Architects
be deferred until July 24, 1984.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
July 12, 1984
Page 10
It was determined the Commission wished for the following issues to be
addressed before the application was heard again:
(1) The five concerns listed in the staff report.
(2) A determination by the Zoning Administator.as to whether or not
the pumping station is a use by right.
(3) A proposal from the applicant that the permanent use bridge be
multi --purpose to serve all the needs.
(4) :More information about the pond.
(5) Is a private golf course actually an accessory use and therefore a
use by right?
(6) More information from County Engineer on erosion control.
SP-84-41 George Bowles - Since the Commission had failed to take action to
defer this item earlier in the meeting, action was taken at this time.
Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-84-41 for George Bowles
be deferred to August 14, 1988. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
( - � / ,7 P. 4t ', -,- -?-I
John Horne, Secretary
Recorded by: Janice Wills U
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, September, 1988
o�