HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 17 88 PC MinutesMay 17, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 17, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Ms.
Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr.
Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John
Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish,
Planner; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Mr. Steve Cresswell, County Engineer;
and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of May 3, 1988 were approved.as submitted.
SP-88-24 Mrs. Lewis Rosenstiel (Blandemar Farms Subdivision) - Mrs. Lewis .
Rosenstiel petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit
to allow 61 lots to be clustered on 1376.8 acres (Section 10.5.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance). This clustering of the lots on this property will
result in two large residue tracts, one of 315 acres and the other of
600 acres, which will remain in agricultural land use. The property is
located on the west side of Rt. 708, approximately 2 miles from its inter-
section with-Rt. 29 South. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, Tax Map 88, Parcel 1.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave a lengthy staff report. Staff recommended denial of the
petition for the following reasons:
"The present request does not meet all the technical criteria setforth
in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. In staff's opinion,
a development of this scale will significantly change the agricultural
character of the area. It is foreseeable that the approval of this
development would encourage similar requests on adjacent parcels,
further making the area susceptible to residential development. In
the opinion of staff, approval of this petition will only increase
conflicts caused by the spatial proximity of developed and
agricultural uses.
In staff's opinion, the request for a more uniform lot size is largely
for marketing purposes only, and serves to fulfill proprietary rather
than public interests."
Mr. Michel asked if the statement "lot sizes shall not exceed five acres"
in condition No..2 referred to the Blandemar farm tract. Mr. Pullen replied
affirmatively.
Mr. Lorne added that condition No. 1 [County Attorney approval of deed
restriction documents prohibiting further division of the Rosenstiel Tract]
is intended "not to allow any further division of the other tract."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
1W
May 17, 1988
Page 2
Mr. Mark Osborne, engineer for the applicant, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Osborne stated his qualifications. He also introduced Ms. Rosenstiel.,
owner of the property, who read a statement describing her background
and some of the history of the property, and also stating her desire to
preserve the rural and agricultural nature of the property. She stated
her neighbors have indicated that a cluster development is preferable
to by -right development. She stated she was disappointed by the position
of the staff report because she had made every.effort to address every
detail related to environmental and neighborhood concerns.
Mr. Osborne again addressed_ the Commission and gave a very lengthy
presentation. He reviewed the by -right plan which was previously
approved by the Commission and compared it to the current proposal.
Mr. Osborne asked for those members of the public who were present
in support of the proposed plan as opposed to the previous by -right plan
to stand. Eight persons stood in response to his request. Mr. Osborne
then proceeded to give an overview of the way the present plan meets
the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the goals
which pertain to this particular application were 1, 2, 7 and 10. In
this regard he made the following statements:
--Plan proposes to include 1,000 acres in an agricultural -forestal
district;
--Plan will help preserve the quality of the watershed;
--Plan will continue to preserve opeA scenic vistas by controlling
roadside development;
--This plan, which clusters residential uses into a more compact area,
does in fact alloy* a 600-acre part of Blandemar Farm to stay intact;
--History of the property can be preserved in the 600-acre faun setting;
--There will be only one entrance for the project, therefore the .
traffic on the state roads used by the general public will be Much
less impacted than with a by -right plan.
He felt the standards of the Comprehensive Plan gave the Commission the
latitude to determine the uniqueness of the property. In relation to
these standards, he made the following statements:
--Critical slopes of the property are located in the forestal area
and no roads or building will take place in these areas;
--90% of the proposed road system will drain through the existing
lake and all building sites will drain through that point also;.
--By consolidating development so that virtually all of the impervious
areas drain through the lake, there would be no impact on any
existing delineated flood hazard area;
--Wooded or partially wooded lots can be preserved by the homeowners'
association by prohibiting the wholesale clearance of trees in the
areas of the residential lots;
--The applicant is willing to line the state roads with indigenous
trees to help foster a woodlands appearance;
--The lake in the development will provide protection to streams in
the area.
Mr. Osborne pointed out that this proposal does not request more than
the 68 lots that would be allowed by right, thus the use is not being
intensified. He stated the traffic count would be no greater with the
proposed plan than it would be with by -right development. He stated
this proposal is "four times less dense than what the Comprehensive
Plan would allow."
May 17, 1988
P age 3
Mr. Fred Barnes, attorney for the applicant, made a brief statement to the
Commission. He felt this plan would promote the County's policy of
fostering truly agricultural land. He felt three factors would keep approval
of this plan from setting a precedent: (1) Immense size of the farm (no
other like it in the County); (2) TopographyMnique and lends itself to
this development; and (3) There will be no visual pollution as a result
of this plan.
There being no further applicant comment, the Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission and stated they were in
favor of the proposed plan: Ms. Jane Heyward; Mr. Fred Bartle; Mr. Bill
Stevens; and Ms. Norma Bartle. Their reasons were:
--Cluster development is favorable because it will preserve the
agricultural land.
--By-right development is not realistic because there is "no such thing
as sixty. -eight 21-acre farms."
--Will enhance the agricultural capability of the property for a long
time to come;
--If denied will remove over 900 acres of productive farm land from
the.County.
--The Comprehensive Plan is not written in stone and is meant to serve
only as a guideline.
--The majority of the neighbors are in favor of this plan.
--Will preserve a historical site.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition
to the plan: Mr. David Bass and Mr. Lewis Johnson. Their reasons were:
--This is a "win" situation for the developer and a "lose" situation
for the County.
--The 68 lots approved by -right would not necessarily be developed
with 68 dwellings.
--Approval would set a precedent.
--This is mainly a development for the profit of the developer.
There being no further public comment, the Chairman allowed the applicant
to make a final statement.
Ms. Rosenstiel stated she felt the opposition expressed was a "personal
vendetta."
Mr. Osborne stated that if it is the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to
preserve farmland, then "to preserve that 600-acre farm, intact, is the
way to go."
There being no further public or applicant comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Horne how he felt this proposal was different,from
the Panorama Farms request which the staff had recommended for approval.
127O
May 17, 1988.Page 4
Mr. Horne replied: "Panorama Farms was on the banks of the drinking water
reservoir and they were not only clustering... or reconfiguring their lots
that could have been developed on the banks of the reservoir, .they were
moving those far removed from the banks of the reservoir. They also took
the residue and applied a series of very stringent best management
practices to land that was not even involved in the special permit to
further restrict agricultural operations or build actual facilities that
were, in fact, going to protect the drinking water reservoir more than
was being done, not by by -right subdivision, but by current land use
activities. The distinguishing and unique fact was that it was on the
banks of the drinking water reservoir for.the general public and there
was a demonstrable problem with some activities on that property and
a demonstrable danger if they developed the lots on the banks of the
reservoir, which they had the right to do. Those are all unique factors
which are not applicable here."
Ms. Diehl stated that when the proposal for by -right development was
reviewed she had felt that anything might be better than having the farm
separated in that fashion. However, she said she was struck by the
statement in the staff report which said, "...identification of over-
riding public benefits to be gained from this special permit," and
using that as a criteria she had determined that the special permit
application would result in the same number of lots, the same amount of
traffic, and the same school impact. She stated there was a probability
there would be more effect on the water due to the smaller lot size
and, either way, there would be a change in the character of the area.
She felt that change would be accelerated due to the size of.the special
permit request and the increased density. She also expressed the feeling
that this special permit would have more effect on the Village of North
Garden which is already committed in the Comprehensive Plan as being a
village growth area. She felt the total effect on the area was more
important than the view or the visual impact. She concluded thatthough
there was some advantage to the special permit because it would maintain
some farmland, she felt the.negative factors which may accrue were more
important.
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Horne what deed restrictions were envisioned by
staff as referred to in the suggested conditions of approval.
Mr. Horne replied that the deed restrictions with the two residue
tracts, the Rosenstiel and the Blandemar tracts, were as follows:
--Rosenstiel: A set of deed restrictions that would prohibit
further development or division of that tract "period."
Mr. Horne confirmed that would be a permanent deed restriction
running with the land and not .depending on either the special
permit or any particular zoning law in effect at the time.
�Ir. St. John asked if the applicant had agreed to such a
restriction. Mr. Horne responded: "1o. That is not the
proposal of the applicant." He explained that the proposal
is for four development rights to go with the 315-acre
Rosenstiel tract. He stated that staff's recommended
condition envisions no further division. .
--Blandemar: Mr. Horne stated it was staff's suggestion that
the applicant retain at least 3 development .rights since
there are three structures existing presently.. He stated:
"But beyond.that, there would be no further division of
the property."
A 7/
May 17, 1988 Page 5
Mr. Michel felt it was helpful to understand that there was still some
disagreement between the applicant's suggestion (the agricultural district)
and staff's suggestion. Mr. Michel stated he was having a hard time
with this proposal because philosophically he was in agreement with this
approach to the land, "provided the residue tracts, the Rosenstiel tract
and the farm, can be truly restricted (and not just for a few years),
so that the effect is lost and has no real gain on the part of the
County." He stated the only way he could support the proposal was with
the conditions presented by staff. He stated that though this proposal
was more sensitive to the environment and agricultural, if the applicant
was not willing to restrict by -right development, then "I think to give
her the special permit would be a mistake."
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Barnes if his client (Ms. Rosenstiel) was willing
to live with staff's conditions of approval.
Ms. Rosenstiel replied to this question, but her meaning was unclear.
Mr. Michel stated that though he wanted to support the proposal, he had
to be able to feel that the County was not creating a precedent and
"destroying our own agricultural policy." He stated he had no objection
to the four development rights on the Rosenstiel tract, but he preferred
"that they were done as part of the cluster and that the remainder,
the residue, could be tied up."
Ms. Rosenstiel replied: "You're very welcome; I have no objection to
this."
Mr. Bowerman expressed his understanding of the issue Mr. Michel was
addressing: "In exchange for clustering, perhaps getting some additional
lots, future subdivision of the residue parcel will be restricted by
deed,not legislative action of this county, but by deed which will
run in perpituity." Mr. Michel confirmed this was accurate and stated
this was what staff was recommending.
Mr. St. John stated the question was whether or not the applicant
agrees, which can be answered "yes" or "no."
Mr. Barnes asked for time to confer with his client.
The meeting recessed from 9:15 to 9:25.
The Chairman invited Mr. Barnes to comment.
Mr. Barnes stated: "Assuming Mr. St. John and I can get together and prepare
the type of language that I hear Mr. Michel asking for, Ms. Rosenstiel is
perfectly willing to give up the division tights on the 315-acre upper
tract and have it just be one tract and, in effect, draw down three of
those rights into the clustering which is below."
Mr. Michel asked if the applicant was agreeable to staff's conditions
related to both tracts.
a ra
May 17, 1988 Page b
Mr. Barnes replied: "Yes. One tract, upper, drawn down three rights into
the cluster area and then have the Blandemar Farm tract retain three
division rights."
Mr. St. John asked if the applicant was willing to put this into deed
restrictions..
Mr. Barnes replied: "Yes because I understand what the concerns of
the Commission are about this type of restriction continuing on long
past the expiration of any ag-forestal district. The answer to that
question is 'yes."'
Mr. Barnes confirmed he was referring to both tracts.
Mr. Michel stated it was.his understanding that the applicant was now
accepting staff's suggested conditions.
Mr. Barnes stated his understanding was.as follows: "My understanding of
what we could propose, and.I believe it tracks with what staff is
recommending, is that what is known as the Rosenstiel tract, the 315-acre
tract on the ridge, would be one tract ; two, that instead of applying
four division rights there, that would remain as one tract and the three
division rights out of the sixty-eight that we already have, would draw
down into the cluster area and create more lots there. I don't believe
that would alter the density appreciably. And then.the.Blandemar tract
would have three, and only three, division rights." In response to
Mr. St. John's question, Mr. Barnes confirmed that all this would be
put into deed restrictions on both the Rosenstiel and Blandemar tracts.
In light of this, Mr. Bowerman asked staff to comment on the posture of
the proposal as a result.
Mr. Horne replied: "It improves the posture that the application before
you is in. It does not, however, change the staff recommendation in
that we are unable to recommend approval and do not see enough of an
offsetting benefit here, through these measures, to offset the scale of
the proposal and its location in this particular agricultural -forestal
area.'t Regarding the precedent question, Air. F.orne stated: "It is
not the staff's opinion that you should feel that the precedent set
by this approval, if it should be approved, would only be limited to
large single tracts. At the planning staff level, we think the precedent
would be set for multiple tracts coming in (which) want to recombine and
do a cluster subdivision. While this is somewhat unique in that it is
one tract and it is therefore, relatively severely limited in its by -right
division rights, I feel that the precedent would be set for combined
parcels also. So that is a considerable point in staff's mind, because
clearly if we are correct in our opinion as to what the precedent would
say, that there are unlimited possibilities for re -combining tracts and
coming in for a cluster subdivision. The final thing, I want to set
the focus on the two basic issues that the staff sees involved here:
One is an internal site design issue and I think the staff clearly
feels, as an internal site design, this second proposal is preferable
to what could be done by right but we don't want to get into the
posture of comparing them; we don't know what would happen by right ---there's
an approved plat, but we don't know if it would be developed or not. But the
'y'3
May 17, 1988
Page 7
larger issue which we feel is the overriding issue, is the off -site effects
of placing a development of this scale in an agricultural -forestal area,
and no matter .how good the site design is, you cannot totally negate that
factor. So no matter how hard an applicant works, there's no way to
offset completely this scale -question and the transitional character
that is set into an area that has previously shown an extremely low
level of residential development, even compared to other rural areas.
And to place this large a scale development, no matter how good the
site design is, we think that will, in fact, at that point, begin to
change the character of that area. That is the larger issue to the
staff than the internal site design issue."
Referring to the precedent question, Mr. Michel asked Mr. Horne if
staff felt there was any other aspect of this proposal which was
unique other than size. Mr. Horne stated, "No, honestly I don't feel
there is anything else unique about this proposal. Virtually any
tract in this particular county you can find a site design in a way
that moves your developed area away from sensitive areas into less
sensitive areas. Therefore, I don't think that's unique at all. It
may be beneficial on any particular tract to do that in terms of
internal site design, but it's not unique, and therefore, that is
one of the larger concerns of the staff in this particular case.
How are we going to distinguish this from other requests that would
most likely come in in a very similar nature?"
Mr. Bowerman stated: "I think I feel that we recommended clustering
for by -right development as a Comprehensive Plan recommendation...
because it was a package that had the overall effect of
reducing rural subdivisions and the clustering was an incentive
to help expedite that to happen as well as beinVoplanning for pre-
servation of land in the rural areas. I think it is important
to distinguish that from the proposal which is before us tonight which
doesn't accomplish all of the aspects of what we were trying to
accomplish in dealing with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations --
it doesn't really reduce the number of lots and it is an interior
design question which I think staff has correctly pointed out -
which if you don't keep those items separate you tend to lose sight
of what's really before us in the policy considerations. In my
mind, I do agree with the staff's report and their conclusions
and I don't think ... I can say there is any demonstrable public
benefit to be derived from the granting of this special permit
that is clearly separate, distinct and identifiable."
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was fearful of setting a precedent.
Mr. Horne pointed out that all he was stating was staff's opinion
as to what the precedent would be. He stressed he was not absolutely
positive that that was a legally correct analysis.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the issue was. "Is the special permit
application standing on its own merits in review of the criteria
as outlined in the special permit process for the granting of this2
I think staff is clear on reviewing this application in terms of
that criteria process and their conclusion is, and the recommendation
they've made is that it does not meet the criteria and therefore in
order to grant it we would have to come up with the clear, and I
don't think we've done that."
�h�
May 17, 1988
Page 8
Mr. Bowerman did not think it was proper to compare this application with
the by -right development already approved because that is not the purpose
of the special permit criteria.
Mr. Stark stated he felt it had not been proven that the proposal would
be a benefit to the county.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-88-24 for Mrs. Lewis Rosenstiel (Blandemar farms
Subdivision) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject•
to the following conditions:
1. County Attorney approval of deed restriction documents prohibiting
further division of the Rosenstiel Tract.
2. Division rights attributed to the Blandemar Tract shall be utilized for
existing dwelling only; lot sizes shall not exceed five acres; County
Attorney approval of deed restrictions on Blandemar Tract after use
of division rights.
3. A subdivision plat submitted for approval shall be in general accordance
with the plat by Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc., titled "Blandemar Farm and
Residential Community," dated March.28, 1988 (revisions on March 29
and May 2).
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
The motion failed to pass due to a tie vote. Commissioners Jenkins,
Wilkerson and Michel voted in favor; Commissioners Stark, Bowerman and Diehl
voted against.
:pis. Diehl moved that SP-88--24 for firs. Lewis Rosenstiel (Blandemar Farms
Subdivision) be recommended to the Board cf Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
The motion failed to pass due to a tie vote. Commissioners Stark, Bowerman
and Diehl voted in favor; Commissioners Jenkins, Wilkerson and Michel voted
against.
The petition was passed to the Board of Supervisors with no.recommendation
due to a tie vote. The Board was to hear the matter on June 1, 1988.
SP-88-21 Earline Wyant - Request in accordance with Sections 10.2.2.28
and 10.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit
to transfer development rights from Parcel 42 to Parcel 41B to allow for a
family division. Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcel 41B and 42 is
located on Rt. 673, .65 miles north of Rt. 674 and 1.4 miles south of
Rt. 672. White Hall Magisterial District.
Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the petition be
withdrawn.
May 17, 1988
Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-88-21 for Earline
Wyant be withdrawn.
The motion passed unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA
Easton's Furniture Warehouse Plan Amendment — Proposal to locate a two-story
warehouse (7,680 square feet) for furniture storage. The existing plan
provided for a 7,670 square foot building served by 20 parking spaces on
1.72 acres. Property, is located in Royal Acres Subdivision on the north
side of Rt. 250E, approximately one mile east of I-64. Zoned C-1, Commercial.
Tax Map 79A1, Parcel 13. Rivanna Magisterial District.
The staff reported this matter had been appealed and had therefore been
placed on the Commission's May 31, 1988 agenda.
OLD BUSINESS
Rosemont Subdivision -- Mr. Benish stated that before staff signed the final
plat, they wished to advise the Commission that the applicant was requesting
a change in one of the conditions noted on the plat which limited the use of
a 30-foot access easement to lots 7 and 8. He stated the applicant is
requesting that lot 6 also be allowed to use this access easement. Mr. .
Benish explained this would have tomeet the private road requirements of
the Ordinance and would have to be approved as a private road serving three
lots, and would require a commercial entrance. He stated the applicant
had given the following three reasons for the request: (1) Consolidation
of entrances; (2) The advantage of having 3 users participate in the
maintenance agreement; and (3) Three users will allow the road to be
named.
Mr. Bowerman stated this did not seem inconsistent with Commission policy
in terms of "what we would be forced to do in another location."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that staff be granted permission to sign the Rosemont
plat with the change described by Mr. Benish, provided the approval of
the County Engineer and the Virginia Department of Transportation can
be obtained.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
DS
Jahn Horne, Secretary
41i