Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 04 1997 PC MinutesM 3-4-97 MARCH 4, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 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, Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Acting County Engineer; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. (Note: Mr. Tice arrived at the meeting at 8:00 p.m.) The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of February 18, 1997, were unanimously approved as submitted. (Note: Mr. Tice missed the approval of minutes and made a correction at the end of the meeting.) SP 97-02 Mt. Ararat Lodge - Proposal to amend SP 95-39 to increase the size of a meeting hall for a Masonic lodge, on approximately 2.11 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2.21. Property, described as Tax Map 121, Parcel 32A, is located on the south side of Route 715 (Esmont Road) at the intersection with Route 714 (Riding Club Road), approximately 1 mile south of Keene, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located in a Development Area (RA 4). Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. The proposal is to increase the size of the building from 2,200 square feet to 3,000 square feet. Staffs review had identified no changes in circumstances which would alter the staffs original recommendation for approval. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Shepherd pointed out the only changes in proposed usage include the addition of picnics and a change in the membership (from 30 men/18 women to 40 men/ 20 women). The applicant was represented by Mr. Howard Key. He apologized for the delay in getting a building permit. He said this was his error. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said this was a straightforward request. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-02 for Mt. Ararat Lodge be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The building shall be limited in size to 3,000 square feet. 3-4-97 2. Maximum attendance at the meetings shall not exceed those limits as established by the Health Department. 3. Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or structure outlined in the July 20, 1993 staff report shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. The current activities of the Lodge are listed in a letter from Harold Key, dated February 18, 1997. (A copy attached to staff report.) 4. Compliance with Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 96-17 Mechums River Land Trust - Petition to rezone approximately 57 acres from RA, Rural Areas (and EC, Entrance Corridor) to R-4, Residential (and EC). Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 29 and Tax Map 57A, Parcel A (part) is located immediately east of the Highlands at Mechums River residential development along the south side of Route 240 in the Crozet area, in the White Hall Magisterial District. The property is on the edge of the Crozet Community, with designation as Development Area for the portion of the property which may be within the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin drainage area. Deferred from the February 25, 1997 Commission Meeting. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report and pointed out changes since the original staff report. Staff recommended denial of the petition for the following reasons: --The proposal is inconsistent with the boundaries of the Crozet development area as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. --The proposal is for urban density zoning which is inappropriate for rural area land, particularly within a water supply watershed, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. --The proposal conflicts with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which do not allow additional development rights for property zoned Rural Areas in water supply watersheds. --Approval of this request would be difficult to distinguish from other similar requests outside of development areas in water supply watersheds and could set a precedent for consideration of other such rezonings. Mr. Fritz, Mr. Hirschman, and Mr. Kelsey answered Commission questions related to the developer's proposal for an on -site detention basin. --The total acreage of the property is 169 acres, 87 of which is considered developable, i.e. "it is not in the flood plain." However, the term "developable" does not mean that the entire 87 acres is designated for development in the Comprehensive Plan. Of the 169 acres, everything which is designated for development in the Comp Plan has already been zoned for development. The section under review at this time (57 acres) is not designated for development in the Comp Plan; it is presently zoned RA and /�,7 3-4-97 3 designated for RA in the Comp Plan. (Of this 57 acres, approximately 30 is considered developable.) --The ridge line (drainage boundary) was the "determining mark" for the growth area on the eastern boundary; Rt. 250 is the line on the west. The ridge line was used in order to protect the reservoir. --This property is presently not in the jurisdictional area for water and sewer because it is not in the growth area. In order to develop as proposed, connection to water and sewer would be required. --The Lickinghole Basin was designed primarily to remove solids and nutrients. Some biological removal is also achieved through created wetlands. Mr. Hirschman felt the developer could provide for equivalent detention and water quality protection through an on -site basin, if the basin is properly constructed and maintained. The majority of the currently designated growth area in Crozet drains to the Lickinghole basin, with the exception of some very small areas on Rt. 250. RWSA is responsible for maintenance of the Lickinghole Basin. --A maintenance agreement is required for on -site detention basins. Responsibility for maintenance would be set forth in the dedication document and would normally be the developer, and ultimately, the homeowners' association. The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Craig. He explained how he had developed this plan. He said this plan for manor homes (2 single-family units, attached and separated by a common wall) provides for a 50-foot buffer area and walking and nature trails. He stressed this plan results in a "very affordable product," which he feels is one of the most important aspects of this rezoning. He said the homes would be priced in the low 90,000's. He stressed that on -site detention basins will result in tax savings because the maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners. He quoted from Mr. Hirschman's memo to Mr.Fritz (dated 1/22/97): "The argument can be made and supported technically that on -site stormwater practices can be built that will equal or surpass the treatment provided by the Lickinghole Basin." Mr. Tom Muncaster, Engineer for the project, described the advantages of an on -site detention basin. He said the applicant's proposed basin will achieve 65% phosphorous removal whereas the Lickinghole Basin was designed to remove only 45% (according to the County's 1993 study). He confirmed that the Runoff Control Ordinance requirements will insure that post -development runoff will not exceed pre -development runoff. It was Mr. Craig's opinion that the "net effect of the regional Lickinghole Basin is the water quality is worse, not better. He pointed out that there are many existing on -site detention basins in the County. He noted that the recently approved Blue Ridge Shopping Center on Rt. 250 in Crozet does not drain to the Lickinghole Basin. Ms. Huckle called attention to all the taxpayer expense which is the result of more and more development, such as more schools, utilities, etc. Mr. Finley responded by pointing out that if the development does not take place here, it could take place in the rural areas where the springs and creeks flow to the reservoir. ,200 3-4-97 4 Referring to comments about Best Management Practices (BMP's) which were referred to in the staff report and in Mr. Hirschman's comments, Mr. Loewenstein asked the developer how he envisioned a homeowners' association could reliably deal with the maintenance costs for an on -site basin for many years. Mr. Craig said the homeowners in Mill Creek have had no problems maintaining their basins. He noted that homeowners' associations have a lot of power, including the ability to place a lien on a home, so it is easy to "make something happen." He said not more than $1,000/year has been spent to maintain any basin (in Mill Creek). He guessed the County probably spends less. Mr. Nitchmann agreed with Mr. Craig's comments, saying there is a lot more awareness among homeowners than there was a few years ago. He said some homeowners' associations now create "sinking funds" in order to prepare for increased maintenance costs as basins get older. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Hirschman to comment on the County's existing on -site basins. Mr. Hirschman said the County performed an inventory of basins 2 years ago. There are 120 basins and very few of the basins are maintained properly. Both structural and performance problems were identified in at least 1 /2 the basins. The first formal inspection process began 2 years ago. Prior to that time County involvement in private, on -site basins was on a complaint basis. (Mr. Craig said it is not fair to compare the existing basins with what is being constructed today, because when those basins were built no maintenance agreement was required.) `"4W Public comment was invited. The following people addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the rezoning: Mr. Tom Loach, Crozet resident; Ms. Katie Hobbs, League of Women Voters, Scott Peyton, Greenwood resident; and Ms. Babette Thorpe, Piedmont Environmental Council (See Attachment A). Their reasons for opposition included the following; --There is already a sufficient (12 year) inventory of new homes in the Crozet growth area. Already being built are 277 homes in Western Ridge, 350 in Corey Farm, 50 on Jarman Gap Road. --The Crozet Elementary school is already very overcrowded. The already approved developments will overwhelm both Crozet and Brownsville elementary schools. --There are still 600 acres of undeveloped, residentially zoned, land available in the Crozet growth area. --The applicant's claim that he will build affordable housing is questionable. --The proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. --Protection of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. --The scale and growth in Crozet is occurring in such a fashion as to "transform Crozet as we know it forever." --Growth should be steered away from growth areas in order to provide schools, utilities and over services to county residents at the lowest possible cost. --This property is outside the Lickinghole growth area and outside the growth area. --Difficulty in providing adequate maintenance for on -site basins on a long-term basis. Even if well -designed, it will not function properly if it is not well maintained. --Approval of this request would make denial of similar requests difficult. 3-4-97 5 Mr. Craig was allowed final comments. He defended his record for providing affordable housing. He said county records will verify his record. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle commented: "While private owners could possibly build a detention basin --a good one --depending on the design of it and the execution of its construction, there is no guarantee that these things will be designed or built in that way --correctly. Maintenance, if not done correctly could cause the basin to wash out. This happens frequently. I've seen it happen. That means that maintenance is an even bigger problem. Properties change hands and new owners might not be aware of some of these things. I was interested to find in the staff report that some Northern Virginia counties are requiring only regional basins and that is due to the history of problems with on -site facilities. If a homeowners' agreement fails or people run out of money, the county then has an opportunity to take over the maintenance or put a lien on the property." She asked how the County would then recover this money. Mr. Kamptner said the County would get involved with basin problems if a determination was made that it was "in the public interest." He said the Engineering Department has some funds available to address these problems. Mr. Kelsey added that the maintenance agreement says the County can "step in and then seek reimbursement from the responsible party." He stressed that the responsible party (e.g. the developer or the homeowners' association) is required to maintain the facility. Mr. Kamptner confirmed that the maintenance agreement is a legal binding agreement between the County, the developer and his successors and it can, ultimately, be enforced in Court. Referring to Ms. Huckle's reference to some counties allowing only regional basins, Mr. Tice asked Mr. Kelsey to comment. Mr. Kelsey said this is an issue which is constantly being studied, re -studied, and changed. At one point, the trend was toward "all regional," but now it is moving to more "integrated (combination) approaches," i.e. both regional and on -site basins. Larger facilities pick up more non -point sources, but if a site is a considerable distance from the regional facility a long stretch of channel is required and degradation can result. Mr. Finley said it is sometimes better to capture runoff on site, before it travels to the regional channel. Mr. Kelsey said a disadvantage of small facilities is the inability to "time the releases." Mr. Dotson asked if the R-4 property "to the left of the blue line" on the applicant's plan, is developable on its own, without the rezoning of this property. Staff responded affirmatively. Referring to the applicant's statement that the approval of this rezoning would allow a second point of access for the already zoned R-4 property. Mr. Dotson asked if there was any other place were a second access could be located. Mr. Fritz did not know the answer to the question. Mr. Fritz added, however, that staffs review of this plan had identified "nothing that caused any development concerns." a019, 3-4-97 6 Staff confirmed that the land, as presently zoned, has 7 development rights and an RPD might be possible. The applicant could also get 7 lots from a conventional rural area development plan. Mr. Nitchmann listed the following aspects of the proposal which he viewed as favorable: --Infrastructure is available so there will be no taxpayer expense in that regard. --It will add to the inventory of affordable housing. (He commended the developer for his record in providing affordable housing.) --County requirements will ensure that an on -site detention basin will be properly constructed and maintained. --A second entrance will provide for a safer situation. He did not view this as an expansion of the growth area. He said: "if we can do just as good a job with private basins, and our own Engineering staff has indicated we can do that, and if we can assure that these basins, as well as regional basins, can be maintained, then I don't have a problem with that. This is a little piece of land that is just hanging there. I don't believe it sets a precedent because it is a unique piece of land at the very edge of a growth area." Ms. Huckle noted that the discussion had centered primarily on the issue of detention basins, but there are many other issues which were identified in the staff report. She called attention to those reasons, listed on page 5 of the staff report, (repeated in the beginning transcription of this item in these minutes). She supported staffs position. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that ZMA 96-17 for Mechums River Land Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial, based on those reasons listed in the staff report. Discussion: Mr. Loewenstein said he agreed that the discussion about detention basins had "clouded" some of the issues. He agreed that BMP's will address some of the issues, but maintenance is a key issue. He questioned whether anyone could guarantee that maintenance would be done properly over a prolonged period of time. He said he, too, is concerned about affordable housing, but he questioned whether "this is the only place we can put it." He felt an important issue is the current inventory of developable, already zoned land in the growth area. He feels the inventory is adequate at the present time. He said he supported staffs report and would support the motion for denial. Mr. Finley said he supported Mr. Nitchmann's comments and agreed with those favorable factors he had identified. He pointed out that this property has public water and sewer available, "but we are still saying you can't build on that land because of the reservoir." He understood the concern about precedent and "opening the floodgates" for similar proposals, but he agreed with Mr. Nitchmann's position that this is not the usual request. He did not think the reservoir was a concern in this case because the property will be served by public sewer. He said he could support the request. ao3 3-4-97 7 Mr. Tice said that though he had arrived late to the meeting, he had thoroughly reviewed the staff report prior to the meeting and had been present for all the public comment and, therefore, he felt he could participate in the action fairly and objectively. He agreed with Commissioners Finley and Nitchmann about the many favorable aspects of this proposal and he felt on -site detention basins can be very effective. He said he could support an on -site basin if the proffers could be perfected prior to the Board hearing. However, he said the main issue for him is that of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the proper procedure would be to first amend the Comp Plan. He concluded: "I would be willing to look at it in those terms, but as it is presented now, I am afraid I will have to recommend denial." Mr. Dotson stressed that both the R-4 land and the RA land are developable without the rezoning. There was a discussion as to why a Comp Plan Amendment had not been proposed. Mr. Fritz said staff typically does encourage this type of request to begin with a Comp Plan Amendment. However, because of the recent work on the Land Use component of the Comp Plan, that was not done for this request. Mr. Fritz quoted from the staff report: "Staff opinion is that with the recent re -adoption of the Land Use component of the Comprehensive Plan without extension of the Crozet Community, nothing is to be gained by a delay of action on this request until a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is pursued. Staff opinion is that this rezoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Cilimberg asked if the applicant had proposed a Comp Plan Amendment. Mr. Fritz responded: "He and I discussed it and it appeared, based on passed actions, that it wasn't appropriate. The applicant did state that he was willing to do a Comp Plan if that was the best route." Mr. Cilimberg added that the recent land use discussions were very thorough in the consideration of the expansion of growth area in Crozet and staff saw nothing to be gained by a Comp Plan amendment. He also pointed out that the staff report would have been very much the same, even if this had been a Comp Plan amendment request, because the analysis and the information is very much the same. [NOTE: See additional statement under Old Business at the end of these minutes.] Mr. Tice said, even if the difference in the review had been subtle, he still would have been more comfortable approving this request if the Comp Plan was also being amended, because without that amendment, "this is clearly inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan" and, therefore "I feel very compelled to have to recommended denial." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that if a rezoning is approved without a Comp Plan Amendment, the "Comp Plan is, in effect, amended." Even though Comp Plan amendments are often a part of rezonings, they are not required in Virginia in order for a rezoning to be approved. Mr. Cilimberg concluded: "In this case, it was evident to staff that we were looking at, basically, the same thing in a lot of ways." Mr. Nitchmann responded: "Except we have just wasted the applicant's time because had he known that Mr. Tice was going to do this, he probably would have pursued a Comp Plan amendment. But, because of discussions with the staff, the decision was made that that was not necessary." cm cm M 3-4-97 8 Referring to the history of this area and decisions of previous Boards of Supervisors, Ms. Huckie said she did not think "this shouid come as a surprise to anybody." Mr. Craig said he had sought advice from the staff on how to proceed and had offered to rue a Cornp rran Hmendrnent. He Bald he was turd rlut td file an arnerlurnent request. He concluded: "So please don't vote against this because I did not file a Comp Plan amendment. i did everything that was asked of me." Noting that it appeared the approval or disapproval of this request was dependent on Mr. Tice's vote, Ms. Washington asked if the applicant could withdraw his request, so that he could file a Comp Plan Amendment. Mr. Cilimberg said Comp Plan Amendment requests are accepted by the County twice yearly. "Mr. Craig was probably not encouraged to take that approach because it would have meant waiting for the application date to apply for something that seemed to be pretty clear, based on history." Though the application date for amendments was "yesterday" (Rvira__l_r 31 _uJ), AroAr_. C:u1t-_tLuerg coi In: rr_ed that the Co -tr_niss:dn could "accept a Comp Plan Amendment based on the applicant's request tonight. I don't know what else we will find, but it gives the applicant the chance to put any other information on the table he may want to beyond what the rezoning report says. 1 think the reasoning you see in the report is very Comprehensive Plan based and it is basically policy of in -the -watershed vs. out -of -the -watershed and a defined boundary that you settled on over a year ago that you said that is what you wanted to stick with. The Board confirmed it and didn't even go with the expansion areas you recommended." Ms. Huckle called the question. The motion for denial of ZMA 96-17 passed (4:3) with Commissioners Huckle, Dotson, Tice and Loewenstein supporting the motion, and Commissioners Nitchmann, Finley and Washington opposing the motion. SDP 97-003 Albemarle - Charlottesville Regional Jail Major Site Plan Amendment/Waiver Request - Proposal to construct an addition to the existing facility of approximately 71,577 square feet with a critical slope waiver request and associated parking, on approximately 8.249 acres zoned R-1, Residential. This site is located on the west side of Route 742 and the south side of interstate 64. This site, described as Tax Map 77, Parcel `i 1A is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This property is located within the Urban Area 4 and is designated for Industrial Service. Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary site plan with the critical slopes waiver and the internal circulation waiver, subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Larry Strollo, architect for the project. He described the plan and explained how the decision had been Made to remove and aoS 3-4-97 9 dispose of the contents of the fill area prior to construction. Regarding the composition of the fill, he said test borings done over the years have revealed the presence of wood and metal. There has been no evidence of toxic materials in the fill. Recently bulk samples have been taken and those also revealed the presence of woods and metals. Those materials will be "screened and hauled off -site, to a dump site." Other, "suitable, compactable types of materials," can be disposed of on site. In answer to Mr. Nitchmann's question as to whether a Phase I Environmental Study has been performed on the site, Mr. Strollo said such a study has not been done because the Department of Environmental Quality has not required a Phase I assessment. Given the age of the fill area and the fact that it was in use during a period when the use of lead -based paints and asbestos was common, Mr. Nitchmann could not understand why a Phase I Study is not needed. He felt strongly a Phase I study should be performed, by a certified lab, prior to the beginning of construction. Mr. Nitchmann wondered if the Study had not been required because this facility is a government project and not a private sector project. Mr. Strollo said he would be happy to double check with DEQ, and if such a study is required, it will be performed. Mr. Nitchmann said even if DEQ does not require the study, it would be required by a lending institution for any private individual who would plan to build on a fill area. Mr. Strollo said the content of the fill area, and its proper disposal, is very important, and "if there is some comfort (in having a Phase I study performed), I think we could very easily have PSI or one of the labs conduct a Phase I Environmental Study." Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the narrow width of the road. Mr. Stollo said that is the reason one-way circulation is proposed. He said there is not sufficient land to develop a wider travelway and still maintain the 10-foot setbacks required by the Ordinance. Mr. Tice wondered if it would be better, safety -wise, to waive the setback requirement and build a wider road. Ms. Huckle said she was concerned about emergency vehicle access. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this property is zoned R1, and it is the zoning which determines the setback requirements, not the use. To allow a reduced setback, the applicant would either have to apply for a rezoning, or get a variance approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such an approach would probably add another month to the approval process. Public comment was invited. None was offered and the item was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said he could support the request, but he wanted to see a Phase I Environmental Study performed. He said: "I'd like to see us all playing on a level playing field." Mr. Tice agreed. Mr. Nitchmann later said he was not proposing an additional condition. He said: "I think they're going to do the right thing, and (my concern) is recorded in the minutes. If, six months from now, something shows up during the construction process, I would hope they would do a Phase I Environmental on this by a certified laboratory." 3-4-97 10 Mr. Tice said his only other concern was with the one-way road, and he would like staff to see if there is "another alternative which would make more sense for public safety." Mr. Cilimberg said this would add time to the process. He noted that one-way circulation has "been thoroughly reviewed for the purpose and found to be acceptable by the Site Review Committee." Mr. Dotson said the road could be widened at a later time, after the project is built. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed such a change would be a minor amendment to the plan, provided the BZA approved the variance in the setback. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr.Tice seconded, that the Albemarle - Charlottesville Regional Jail Major Site Plan Amendment/Waiver Request be approved, subject to the following conditions, and including the approval of a waiver for critical slopes and one-way circulation: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Planning Department approval of Landscape Plan. b. Engineering Department approval to include: 1. Erosion control plan; 2. Stormwater detention plans and computations; 3. Retaining wall plans and computations; 4. Final grading and drainage plans and computations; 5. Virginia Department of Transportation approval in accordance with the letter dated January 21, 1997. c. Albemarle County Building Code and Zoning Services approval to include: 1. Architectural Review Board approval; 2. Submittal of more off-street parking information. The motion passed unanimously. WORK SESSION Water Conservation - Discussion with Art Petrini and Bill Brent Ms. Scala introduced the topic. Mr. Bill Brent, Director of Albemarle County Service Authority and Mr. Art Petrini, Director of Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, addressed the Commission. Mr. Brent explained the history and the functions of the ACSA and RWSA. Information offered by Mr. Brent and Petrini, and answers to Commission questions, included the following: --it is projected that there will be the need for an additional water supply in this community by the year 2015. There is an on -going engineering study to determine the best alternative for providing that water. Presently, consultants are in the "fact-finding and data -gathering stage of the work." a-o% 3-4-97 11 1440.- An reviewing the Water Resources section of the Comp Plan, Mr. Brent recommended that the Buck Mt. Reservoir not be considered as "entrenched" as he read it to be. He said that recommendation was made in the early 80's, based on the best information available at that time. "The rules have changed in the ensuing years and the regulatory agencies will require that all available alternatives be considered and that those alternatives be evaluated and ranked. (Based on current regulations) it appears that Buck Mt. may, or may not, be the best option." Later in the presentation, Mr. Petrini said the Plan should just refer to planning for a "future public water source," with no references to specific sites. --It is the charge of the ACSA and the City of Charlottesville Public Works Department to develop a Water Conservation Program (with the RWSA offering support). There may be different recommendations for the city and the county. No specific measures have yet been identified, though there is a "generic list" of ways to extract water from the customer base. An the past year the ACSA has initiated a water -leakage survey and has covered 25% of the system thus far. --There is a water conservation program in the City and County public schools and more money is put towards that program each year. --The ACSA has strengthened its Customer Education Program by distributing flyers along with water bills. There was a discussion about Chris Green Lake. Ms. Huckle referred to what she described as a "very strong statement" in Mr. Brent's letter about the importance of designating Chris Green as a water supply source. She asked staff about the status of this designation. Mr. Hirschman responded: "In the new (water resources) ordinance, it is included as a public water supply. So the adoption of that ordinance would automatically include Chris Green Lake as a public water impoundment." Mr. Hirschman anticipated the Ordinance would be ready for public hearing within 6 months. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that Chris Green has already been identified and designated, through the Comp Plan process, as a water supply. Mr. Benish said the Water Resources Ordinance, when it is adopted, will allow for the protection of the Chris Green watershed. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Kamptner confirmed that "if it is shown in the Comp Plan as a public facility, than it's legal as a public water supply." Mr. Kamptner added: "it has the same import as any other public facility shown in the Comp Plan." Ms. Huckle concluded by saying: "Chris Green Lake is designated as a public recreational facility, so I just want to make sure it is designated as a public water supply." Staff confirmed that it is. Referring to the strategy "to coordinate efforts with ACSA, RWSA, and the City to develop a water efficiency program," Mr. Nitchmann suggested the addition of other groups such as the University, ConAgra, etc. Mr. Brent agreed that once a program is developed, it will require the involvement of all ACSA customers --institutional, commercial, industrial, and residential. Public comment was invited. aog 3-4-97 12 4,: Mr. Jim Bennett, representing Friends of the Moormans River and the Sugar Hollow Neighborhood, read a prepared statement. (Attachment B to these minutes.) He asked that "the Moormans River be given minimum in -stream flow protection within the framework of the Comprehensive Plan." He asked that the following be considered: (1) Construction of the spillway recommended during the inspection of the Sugar Hollow Dam after the summer 1995 Flood; [Mr. Brent said the spillway is under design.] (2) Repair and open the valve at the base of the Sugar Hollow Dam; [ Mr. Brent later said it is feared once this valve is opened it cannot be closed.] and (3) Use the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir during summer months instead of the Sugar Hollow Reservoir. M om Mr. John Hermsmier, Director of the Environmental Education Center, stressed the importance of educating the public about water protection and conservation. Mr. Mack Woodward, representing the Izaak Walton League, addressed the Commission. He distributed several brochures to the Commission about water protection and conservation. Mr. Tice said one important point to emphasize in the redrafting of this section is that "the Water Efficiency section should not only be county policy for meeting future demands but should also say that we have existing goals which might include restoration of an in - stream flow on the Moormans River, that demand -side management of water should be a priority for the community." Ms. Huckle added that in -stream flow is very important for private wells because ground and surface water systems balance each other. Mr. Tice said the Water Efficiency section should include both public and private water systems. The Work Session on the Greenways Section of the Natural Environment Section of the Comp Plan was deferred until later in March. OLD BUSINESS The Mechums River Land Trust proposal was discussed again briefly. Mr. Cilimberg further explained the basis for staffs position that a Comp Plan Amendment approach would not have helped the applicant. He referred to a document entitled "Principles Governing Land Use in Designated Land Use Areas" which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors June 5, 1996. He said: The fourth principle states Development areas shall not encroachinto water supply watersheds except for the Crozet community which shall not be expanded beyond the watershed boundary of the Licking Hole Creek detention basin."' There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10.15 p.m. .W V. Way6e Cilim�retary DB gOV