Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-10-05580 October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 5, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 7:35 P.M.) and F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John; and County Planner, Mr. John T. P. Home. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Mr. Way recognized Ms. Sue Penner as an observer for the League of Women Voters. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve 4.1 and 4.2, and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. There was no further discussion. Moll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ Item 4.1. Street Name Sign Maintenance Resolution f6r Fieldbrook Subdivision, Phase 3. Request for street signs from the!~eveloper of Fieldbrook Subdivision was received. The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads in Fieldbrook Subdivision, Phase 3: Old Brook Road (State Route 652) and HearthgloWLane (State Route 1331) at its intersection. Lane (State Route 1331) and HearthKI0w Hearth~low Court (State Route 1332) at its intersection. WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Trans- portation be and the same hereby is requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. Request for street signs having been received from t~e developer of Mill Creek Subdivision, the following resolution was adopted b~ the vote shown above: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads in Mill Creek Subdivision, Phase!l: Avon Street Extended (State Route 742) and MilllCreek Drive (State Route 1150) at its intersection~ ~- Mill Creek Drive (State Route 1150) and Copperstone Drive (State Route 1151) at its intersection; October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 581 Copperstone Drive (State Route 1151) and Mill Creek Court (State Route 1152) at its intersection; Copperstone Drive (State Route 1151) and Stone Mill Court (State Route 1153) at its intersection. WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation be and the same hereby is requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. Request for street signs having been received from the developer of Lakeside Subdivision, the following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following road in Lakeside Subdivision: Brookhill Avenue (State Route 1137) and Willow Lake Drive (State Route 1135) at its intersection. WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation be and the same hereby is reques~ted to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. Item 4.2. Request to take Old Oaks Drive, Ivy Oaks Subdivision, into the State System of Secondary Highways. Request~.idated August 19, 1988, was received from Craig Builders of Albemarle, I~c. requesting that roads in Ivy Oaks Subdivision be taken into the State system. The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above: ' BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department df Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept in~!o the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Ivy Oaks Subdivision: Old Oaks Drive Beginning at Station 10+09, a point~ common to the centerline of Oak Oaks Drive and the edge of pave- ment of State Route 1647, thence iq a southwesterly direction 376.40 feet to Station 13+85.40, the end of the cul-de-sac. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaC~nteed a 40 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along this requested addition as recorded by plats ~n the Off~ce of the Glerk of the C~rcumt Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 838, page~!!720 through 723, Deed Book 885, pages 237, and Deed Book 975, page 131. Item 4.3. The following Notices from th~ State Corporation Commission were received as information: (1) ApplicatiOn of Virginia Electric & Power Company dated September 7, 1988, to revise it~ fuel factor pursuant to Vir- ginia Code Section 56-249.6; and (2) Application of Virginia Electric & Power Company dated September 19, 1988, to install ~ombustion turbine units on property adjacent to its Surry Power Station.~ 582 October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) Item 4.4. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly Bond Report for August, 1988, received as information. Item 4.5. Copies of the Planning Commission's Minutes for September 13 and September 20, 1988, were received as information. Item 4.6. Letter dated September 29, 1988, to Mr. Peter T. Way, Chair- man, from Mr. G. William Thomas, Jr., Manager, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, re: recent Award for National Excellence, given by HUD in recognition of outstanding public/ private partnership in community develop- ment, was received as follows: "You and the County of Albemarle have every reason to be proud of your recent Award for National Excellence. This prestigious award is given by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in recognition of your outstanding public/private partnership in commu- nity development. Outstanding projects such as yours make community development more effective by focusing available public and private resources on the needs of the county. I look forward to seeing you and other Board members at a formal award presentation ceremony in the near future." Agenda Item No. 5. SP-88-60. Dr. Martin Schulman. (The applicant was not present at this time, so the Board skipped this item temporarily.) Agenda Item No. 7. Appropriation: Telephone System Study. Mr. Agnor said that the request is for $25,000 to fund the County's shar~ of the Joint City/County Telephone Study. Funds will come from the unspent balance of the FY 1987-88 911 Emergency Dispatch Center Budget, funds which were allocated in order to add rescue square dispatching ko the Center's operations. Twenty-one proposals were reviewed. A commfttee chose the firm of Sachs/Freeman Associates, a telecommunications firm frbm Rockville, Mary- land, to perform the study which is to take four months, i The total contract cost is $44,900, with the cost being prorated to the two ~urisdictions based on the number of hours the consultant spends in each jurisdiction. The County's share is estimated at 55 percent of the total costs. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. ~ooke, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation: "Fiscal Year: 1988/89 Fund: General Purpose of Appropriation: Funding of Joint city/county Telephone Study Expenditure Cost Center CateKory 1100043200300420 Description Amount Joint City/County Telephonel Study $25,000.00 2100051000510100 Description Appropriation from Fund Balance There was no further discussion. Roll was called an~ by the following recorded vote: Amount $25,000.00 the motion carried AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way. None. October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 583 Not Docketed: Mr. Way said he had the staff prepare a calendar to be used for work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan. If work proceeds in a timely fashion, the public hearing will be scheduled for November 30, with adoption on December 14, 1988. Mr. Bowie said he could not attend the work session planned for Octo- ber 26, 1988. Mr. Bain said he has had several constituents ask if they could have a copy of the plan. Mrs. Cooke said she also had received requests for copies. Mr. Home said the Planning Department had only printed thirty copies of the draft of the plan and they have been dispersed. It was agreed that copies would be made available to the public, if requested. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-88-11. Heavenly Holding Corporation. To rezone 100 acres from RA to R-4. Property located on the west side of Route 742, approximately one-half mile west of its intersection with State Route 20, is known as Lake Reynovia. Tax Map 90, Parcel 36. Scottsville District. (As advertised in the Daily Progress on Septembe~ 20 and September 27, 1988.) Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows: "Character. of the. Area: This property ~epresents the remainder of the original Lake Reynovia recreationalI! development. Portions of Lake Reynovia to the north and south of~!this site have been rezoned as Mill Creek 1 and Mill Creek 2. Property across Route 742 (Avon Street Extended) is developed with various commercial and industrial uses and will be the site of the new southern area elementary schoOl. Applicant's Proffer: As part of this r~zoning to R-4, Residential, the applicant has proffered that: 1. Density would not exceed 1.98 dwelling units per acre (198 dwellings); 2. The development would be in genera~ accord with the Reynovia Residential Community preliminary p~lat (revised August 29, 1988); and 3. That a secondary means of access wduld be provided through the Mill Creek 1 project. Land Use Summary/Pro3ect Description: ~ot sizes comparable to those in Mill Creek 1 are proposed in the northern end of Reynovia adjacent to Mill Creek 1. Smaller single-family !lots would be located in the southern end of the project with an open space buffer to Mill Creek 2. Townhouse lots (40 units) would be Located centrally within the development adjacent to attendant open ~pace and recreational areas (open space is required only for the proposed townhouse units and therefore only that area need comply with section 4.7.3 which defines physical characteristics of open space)~ About eight acres west of the lake is reserved for future development. Reduction in lot size for some single family units is proposed under Section 15.4.1 for maintenance of wooded areas (15.24 acre~). Staff concurs that the plan satisfies the bonus provision. ~ Comprehensive Plan: Reynovia is located in Neighborhood Four of the Urban Area. The Comprehensive Plan currently shows the property as a public/semi-public area designated for ~ecreational usage. (This was done at the request of the prior property owner). The Planning Commission has endorsed a low-density residential designation for this property in the current Comprehensii~e Plan revision. Staff opinion is that the Comprehensive Plan need not be amended to extend low-density zoning to this property for ihe following reasons: 1. Some traditional recreational uses 6f this property have been overcome by surrounding urban develgpment; 2. Low-density residential surrounds the property, therefore, low-density would be a logical alternate usage. Proposed density is comparable to surrounding development. 584 October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) Some other properties designated for semi-public/public uses carry urban residential zoning, offering alternative usage. Site Characteristics: Several loam soils are present on this site with moderate to severe limitations to development. Shallowness to bedrock as well as erosion may be problems on steeper slopes. Some ridgelines on the site are relatively narrow with steep side slopes. Several proposed lots contain critical slope areas. Transportation External Roadways: The Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS) proposed no improvements to Avon Street (Route 742). As VDoT observed in 1987 during review of the Mill Creek PUD, traffic on Avon Street exceeded CATS projections for the year 2000. Staff at that time stated that 'the fact that current traffic levels exceed CATS projections for the year 2000 emphasizes the need for continued transportation planning and constant monitoring.' Recently during review of the Six Year Secondary Road Plan, VDoT recommended that attention be given to inclusion of Route 742 into the plan for improvement. Also, since that time, agreements have been finalized with the developer of Mill Creek PUD for a portion of an east-west connector road from AVon Street to Fifth Street Extended and engineering feasibility studies have been completed for the portion of the roadway west of the Mill Creek PUD. In addition, engineering studies are complete for an east-west connector roadway from Avon Street to Route 20 South. ,~ Mill Creek 1 and Mill Creek 2 were approved for more than 600 dwell- ings. This proposal is for a maximum of t98 dwellings. Staff anticipates submittal of the Hillcrest property as ~ planned develop- ment in the near future (prior Hillcrest proposal w~s for 720 dwell- ing units). Again, staff emphasizes the need for cqntinued transpor- tation planning in the southern urban area. Regarding access to Reynovia from Avon Street Extended, YDoT has stated that a right turn lane will be required. Construction will require easements from others. A left turn lane ma~ be recommended once the transportation study is reviewed. At this iwriting, VDoT has not completed review of the transportation study. Internal Roadways: Except within townhouse areas, 411 internal roads would be public roads. VDoT has recommended that p~blic roads be designed with curb and gutter due to lot size and t~Pe of develop- ment. As in both Mill Creek developments, staff opinion is that urban design has advantages of rural design. However, both Mill Creek rezonings were approved with rural roads. Frontages on some smaller lots are about 70 feet whJ 6h is less than those shown in Mill Creek 1 or 2. Frontages on most'! lots are, however, equal to or greater than those in Mill Cresk. To avoid on-street parking, side-by-side parking should be r~quired in lieu of urban design. One public road connection will be provided to Mill ~reek 1. Such connection should be bonded with approval of 50 lotsi' and constructed prior to occupancy of more than 50 units. Tow otheri~potential connections (Gray Stone Court; Mill Creek Drive) mayi be vacated. Public Utilities: At this writing, negotiations aret on-going between Reynovia and Mill Creek as to routing and other aspects of provision of public sewer to Reynovia. The Albemarle County S~rvice Authority will require gravity sewer for this project. Public water will be available from the new storage ~ank facility located to the north. The preliminary plat does not,show method of October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 585 service to the property. The applicant will need to provide calcu- lations to demonstrate that fire flows can be satisfied. Schools: Children from the development would attend Rose Hill Elementary, Walton Middle, and Albemarle High Schools. The School Board has selected a site in the southern Urban Area immediately across Avon Street for location of a new elementary school to serve the Rose Hill district. As stated under TRANSPORTATION, a total of about 1500 units could result from Mill Creek 1 and 2, Reynovia, and Hillcrest. Staff Recommendation: Heavenly Holding Corporation has requested that the rezoning petition and preliminary plat for Reynovia Residen- tial Community be reviewed simultaneously by the Planning Commission. Rezoning Petition: Staff opinion is that low-density residential zoning is appropriate to this site. The proposed density and scheme of development is comparable and compatible to the surrounding Mill Creek 1 and 2 developments. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a Planned Development approach for residential development of 75 dwelling units or greater. In this case, it was questionable as to whether or not the mandatory require- ments for open space in the PRD could be satisfied, therefore, the applicant pursued a proffered zoning approach to include a plan of development. Bonus provisions would allow for reduced lot size. R-4 is sought for dwelling unit variety. ~Staff has no objection to the proffered zoning approach provided such approach equally or better serves the intent of the Planned DeveiOpment approach. Under a PRD, a minimum of 17.5 acres of 'useable' open space would be required, and the Reynovia plan shows 14.7 acres of useable open space. Furthermore, Section 4.7.3 limits the amount of required open space which may consist of one hundred~year flood plain, lands in 25 percent or greater slope, public utility easements, stormwater detention/flood control devices and la~ds having permanent or season- ally high water tables. While staff o~pinion is that the lake is a viable open space amenity, it also serves as the stormwater detention facility and would be subject to interpretation. With the exception of lot design, staf~ opinion is that the appli- cant's proffers generally satisfy the intent of the PRD and are reflective of the public welfare. In ~eview of ZMA-87-22 Mill Creek, the staff recommended that: ~ Each lot shall contain a 5,000 square foot building site with a length to width ratio not to exceed 2.5:1. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet?ion slopes of 25 percent or greater. ~. Staff will recox~end deletion of ~dditional lots due to drainage concerns during final approval un]~ess adequate corrective measures are proposed by the applicant. The number of proposed single family detached units lost: as a result of slope, drain- age, or other design considerations (excluding the desire of the developer) may be added to the number of multi-family units. In that case, a modification to open space requirements was being requested. Since useable open space was to be less than ordinance requirements staff recommended that each lot contain a 5,000 square ! foot building site exclusive of critical slopes, intended to accom- modate buildings and provide some useable yard areas' As to Reynovia, the applicant has stated that: 'The minimum single family lot size is proposed to 7,900 square feet. On each lot within the proposed development, provision has been made for a buildable area of less than 25 percent slope to accommodate a single family residence. Given the small size of some of the lots, the applicant 586 October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) feels that it is unreasonable to require on each lot a minimum 5,000 square foot building area with 2.5:1 length to width ratio.' Section 4.2.2.2 of the CRITICAL SLOPES provisions states that 'for a use served by a central sewerage system, the applicant shall demon- strate that the building site is of adequate area for the proposed development.' While the burden of demonstration is on the applicant, staff opinion is that the 'proposed development' is a single-family residence which includes not only the building but attendant needs and uses normally associated with a single family dWelling (parking, recreation, gardening, etc). The recon~nendation for a 5,000 square foot usable area is based on a 1,000 square foot structure area (dwelling plus possible addition, deck) surrounded by minimum yard areas (to include parking). Also, it should be noted that staff is not proposing a flat area, but an area that drops less than one foot vertically in four horizontal feet. About ten lots would be affected by this proposal. By redesign or combination, about half of these lots could be salvaged. Additional units could be added to the townhouse area (Note: Single family lots 74 and 75 are adjacent to the townhoUses and separated from other single family lots). Staff can distinguish no circumstance to warrant a different lot design approach than was applied to Mill Creek 2. ~taff is also reluctant to endorse a rezoning where future dispute:has been estab- lished. Staff recommends denial of ZMA-88-11. ~ Preliminary Plat: The following conditions of approval for the preliminary plat have been provided should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of ZMA-88-11. Approval is subject to approval of ZMA-88-11 by!!the Board of Supervisors Commission site plan approval for townhouses prior to subdivi- sion plat approval for townhouses. Staff site lPlan approval for recreation center, tennis courts, clubhouse, and other such improvements in open space areas. No final subdivision plat shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission until the following conditions have been met: a. Obtain all necessary off-site easements; b. Recreation provisions shall comply with Section 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance; c. Albemarle County Service Authority final approval of water and sewer plans. Unless otherwise permitted by Albemarle County Service Authority, all service shal~ be gravity sewer; d. Virginia Department of Transportation appr6val in accordance with comments of August 10, 198~; provided that internal roads may be rural section if two,side-by-side parking spaces are provided on each single !family lot. The Planning Commission may require installation of a left-turn lane on Route 742 at time of final review;! Department of Engineering approval of road~nd drainage plans and calculations; Department of Engineering approval of stor~water detention plans and calculations; Department of Engineering approval of an e~osion control permit; Approval by Deputy Director of Inspections ~f fireflow calculations as recommended in con~nents of ~uly 29, 1988. Optional i. Each lot shall contain a 5,000 square foot ~uilding site with a length to width ratio not to exceed ~.5:1. No f. g. h. October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 587 driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25 percent or greater." Mr. Horne also read the proffers of September 16 and September 26, 1988, as follows: "16 September 1988 Mr. Ron Keeler Chief of Planning County of Albemarle 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Lake Reynovia; Rezoning Application Dear Ron: I am writing in response to our conversation of September 13, 1988 in which we discussed certain rezoning proffers and approval conditions of the preliminary plat. The applicant, Heavenly Holding Corporation, will prffer the follow- ing conditions with regards to the rezohing of the Reynovis property. 1. If the rezoning application is apprgved, development will be undertaken in general conformance with ~he application plan (prelimi- nary plat) with the exception of future amendments as may later be provided for during the preliminary plat approval process. Such modifications to the plan may include, but not be limited to, (a) entrance relocation at Avon Street, (b)~.igreater overall density as a result of additional dwelling units planned for 'the ridge' located west of the lake and adjacent to Mill Creek Phase 2 (see item no. 2 below), (c) realignment of roadways as dictated by VDoT review, (d) reconfiguration of townhouse layout, and (e) other revisions as proposed by County staff and Planning CQ~mission and agreed to by the applicant, i~i 2. Development will not exceed the density as specified on the application plan plus additional units as may be planned for 'the ridge'. Buildable area on 'the ridge' ~omprises approximately 3.9 acres. Assuming a multifamily density df 8.0 DU/acre for this area (condominium townhomes), we can expect ~o more than 31 additional dwelling units, translating into a tota~ of 198 dwelling units or a gross project density of 1.98 DU/acre. ;We would propose access to this area be provided by private drive aS necessary for condominium development. General alignment of this ~access drive will be delin- eated when revisions to the application iplan are made. 3. Access to Reynovia shall be provided in two locations as delin- eated on the application plan. In response to your comments regarding the preliminary plat, we offer the following: 1. The small central open space area enclosed by lot numbers 118-126 will be dedicated to the owners of these lots. 2. The connection to Mill Creek (Reynovia Road "A" to Mill Creek Gristmill Drive) will be bonded or built.after homes have been constructed on 50 lots in Reynovia. 3. The minimum single family lot size is proposed to 7,900 square feet. On each lot within the proposed development, provisions have been made for a buildable area of less than 25 percent slope to accommodate a single-family residence. Given the small size of some of the lots, the applicant feels that it is unreasonable to require on each lot a minimum 5,000 square foot building area with 2.5:1 length to width ratio. 588 October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 4. The applicant is scheduled to meet with the Mill Creek developer on September 20th to discuss the sewer issue, access and off-site easements as they effect both developments. Should agreements be reached at that time, it is the applicant's desire to proceed with Planning Co~mission review of the preliminary plat on September 27th as scheduled. Since we will not have procured engineering department approval of the preliminary road plans by this date, it is understood that should the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat on the 27th, it will also be necessary for it to review the final plat. I trust this adequately addresses your questions at this time regard- ing the Reynovia project. If not, and should you have additional concerns, please call. With best regards, I am Sincerely yours, Robert B. McKee, P. E., ASLA" "26 September 1988 Mr. Ron Keeler Chief of Planning Department of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SMA-88-11~ Heavenly Holding Corporation~ Lake Reynovia Dear Ron: Pursuant to our conversation on Friday, September 23rd, I am writing to confirm the applicant's acceptance of the planning staff recommen- dation that all single family detached lots have a 5~000 square foot minimum building area. It is my understanding that with the applicant's acc&ptance of this condition, the staff will now recommend approval of ZMA-88-11 and that its report to the Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 27th will reflect this change. Additionally, it is our understanding that staff will recommend that the lot reconfiguration necessitated by this condition of approval and other necessary modifications to the preliminary plan be undertaken after review of the plan by the Commission and that the changes be subject to administrative approval by staff. ~ Please advise if my understanding of this matter is iincorrect. Thank you. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Robert B. McKee, P. E., ASLA" Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 27, 1988, unanimously recommended approval of the permit with. lthe proffers. Mr. Home said the staff had recommended that this a~plication be denied because staff believed that the lots should each contain ~ building site of 5,000 square feet, since the useable open space was to be iless than the ordinance requires. He said Mr. Ron Keeler received a second proffer from Mr. Robert B. McKee, dated 26 September, 1988. Based on the ~pplicant's agreement to meet Option (i) of the suggested requirements for the ~ots, Mr. t{orne said, the staff now recommends approval of ZMA-88-11. He added ithat Mr. St. John received a document today indicating that there may not b~ the need for off-site easements to build the right turn lane. % Mr. Bain referenced a letter, dated September 29, 19818, from Mr. George H. Gilliam, the attorney for Renovia Land Trust, which owqls the Mill Creek subdivision property adjoining the property owned by the applicant. In this letter, Mr. Gilliam objected to the lack of interconnection between the October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 589 internal roads of Phase 2 of the Mill Creek subdivision and the development proposed by the Heavenly Holding Company. According to Mr. Gilliam's letter, "it has been the policy of the County to require, for safety reasons, such interconnects wherever possible. However, the Planning Commission has indi- cated that this is no longer the County's policy". Mr. Home said that not requiring interconnections between the. two subdivisions is not evidence that the County has changed its policy. Where they are feasible, he said, interconnections foster orderly development and staff requires them for that reason. But in this case, the topography does not lend itself to interconnection between the Mill Creek 2 and the Heavenly Holding tracts. Mr. Bain asked how the condominiums west of the lake would be accessed. Mr. Home said connecting these condominiums to the rest of the development is a problem. He said the developer may present several options for such a roadway, but nothing has been decided yet. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the lake would be considered a common area and maintained by a homeowners' association. Mr~ Home said, "yes"; the lake is open space dedicated to the townhouse development and will be maintained by the townhouses' homeowners' association. Mr~ Home said he thinks residents from the rest of the development will also have access to the lake. Mr..Lindstrom said it would be have been very helpful to have had the minutes for the September 27 meeting of the Planning Commission. In the future, he said, he would like to see copieSof minutes from the Planning Commission whenever an application is discussed upon which the Planning Commission and the staff disagree. Mr. Bowie said he does not understand how the staff can use topography as a reason not to require interconnections betWeen the Mill Creek 2 subdivision and this proposed development. He said the roadway to reach the townhouses will have to built either through the flood plain or over steep slopes. Those are the only two ways to reach the proposed ~ownhouses, he said. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Robert McKee if he wished to address the Board on behalf of the applicant. Mr. McKee said he is happy to answer any questions members of the Board ~may have. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the applicant intended to incorporate into the site plan the requirements of Condition 3(i),! marked "Optional" in the staff's report, which states that each lot shall contain a building site of 5,000 square feet, with a length to width ratio nog to exceed 2.5:1 and with no driveways encroaching more than 50 feet on slopes of 25 percent or greater. Mr. McKee said "yes". Mr. Bain asked Mr. McKee what kind of road he planned to build to reach the tOwnhouses west of the lake. Mr. McKee Said this issue is unresolved. He said building a road from Reynovia to that arima could necessitate 35 to 40 feet of fill-in, which would have a great impact on the already eutrophying lake. He said another option would involve ~uilding the road across the dam, which is frowned upon by the VDoT. Another option is to build a private drive to reach the townhouses, which could be steeper than %/DOT allows for public roads. The fourth option would be to connect~ the townhouses to the Mill Creek II subdivision, which he thinks would affect ~he environment the least. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the most raLional approach would be to leave this area west of the lake undeveloped. Unle something with the owners of Mill Creek 2, he townhouses will be expensive and destructive, tage enjoyed by other residents in the area. ic characteristics of this property is the wo Mr. McKee agreed with Mr. Lindstrom, but he s~ is the applicant works out said, building a road to the mitigating the aesthetic advan- He said one of the most aesthet- ~ded hillside across the lake. lid he cannot commit the appli- cant to not developing this part of the property. If the applicantdecides to develop this eight acres, Mr. Bowie asked, would he have to submit a new application? M~. Home said the development of this area could be treated either as an amendment to this proffered plan or as a site plan issue. 590 October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Mr. Bain said the applicant is asking the Board to rezone the entire property. If the Board approves this request, he asked Mr. St. John, is it not approving the number of dwelling units requested by the applicant for this eight acres west of the lake? Mr. St. John said ".yes". He said the applicant will still have to meet environmental standards when he submits a site plan, but Mr. St. John does not think the Board can approve this proposed zoning map amendment and then tell the applicant when he submits the site plan that this eight acres must be left undeveloped. Mr. Rick Richmond, the attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board. He offered to answer any questions members of the Board may have. Mr. St. John said he would like to discuss the letter he received today (dated October 5, 1989) from Mr. Richmond concerning easements for the right turn lane from Avon Street Extended to Reynovia. He said the Planning Co~is- sion was concerned about acquiring the right-of-way for the turn lane and the sight distance. In his judgment, Mr. St. John said, the document Mr. Richmond gave him constitutes a colorable legal right to dedicate.the right-of-way needed for the easement. If the Board wishes to approve this application, Mr. St. John said, he thinks a condition should be added staving that the easement for the right turn lane be dedicated, rather than have the Board determine the legality of this document for itself. Since no one else wished to speak to this applicatiOn, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he is still confused about what density the applicant will be able to show on a site plan for the eight-acre area west of the lake, if the Board approves this application. Mr. Home said the Board would be approving a total density if it approved this applicatio~ As long as the applicant does not exceed this density and turns in a site plan that meets the requirements of the ordinance, Mr. Horne said, he thinks ~the applicant would have the right to have that plan approved. Mr. Way said he supports the request and thinks the ~evelopment will be a good addition to the Mill Creek area. Mr. Lindstrom asked for the density on the part of t~e Mill Creek subdi- vision that adjoins the 3.9 developable acres of the eigh~-acre area west of the lake. Mr. Horne said about three units per acre, consisting of single- family, detached dwellings. Mr. Lindstrom asked what kin~~*' of buffer or setback is required between this part of Mill Creek and t~e townhouse develop- ment of eight units per acre the applicant may build. MrS!~ Horne said he would have to check the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that two very dif~Mrent densities and types of development may lie too close together. As they~='i~eview the site plan, Mr. Horne said, members of the staff will look for 9~portunities to place open space between the two developments. Mr. Bowie said this concern of Mr. Lindstrom's troubiss him as well. He said most of the plan for the development is very detailed~ except for this area west of the lake, which is almost blank on the plat. ,~Once the Board approves this application, he said, it will be too late for the Board to have any control of how this area is to be developed. ~ Mr. Home said he should point out that the staff is not interpreting this plan to limit itself to the numbers of townhouses versus single-family lots. This plan shows 40 townhouses and 127 single-famil~i~lots, for a total of 198 dwelling units on 100.2 acres. Mr. McKee said thatli3.9 acres of the area west of the lake are developable. At eight units per!~acre, there could be 31 townhouses possible in this area. Mr. McKee said this figure of 31 townhouses is a limit and not necessarily what the applicagt plans to build there. ~ Unless the owner of Mill Creek grants the applicant a6cess to the town- houses, Mr. Lindstrom said, building a roadway to this are~ is going to be so expensive that the applicant will have to build as many to~nhouses as he can to offset the cost of the road. ~i October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 591 Mr. Perkins said he thinks allowing 31 development rights on this piece of the property insures that it will be developed to capacity regardless of the impact to the environment. He said he thinks it would be better to limit the development rights on this area west of the lake to something like 12 single-family units and move the rights for the 19 townhouses elsewhere on the property. Mr. Home said the Board must either accept or deny the plan before it tonight. He said the Board cannot place conditions on the rezoning, but the applicant can make a specific proffer addressing the concern. Mr. Richmond said the applicant would be willing to proffer that single- family dwellings will be built along the ridge, instead of townhouses. Mr. McKee asked if the proffer could be worded to allow only single-family dwell- ings in that area, unless the applicant brings another application to the Board. Mr. Home asked if the proffer means that only single-family, detached dwelling units would be placed in the areas shown for future development on the west side of the lake. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the density for this area would remain the same as the net density, around three dwelling units per acre. If the roadway can be built from the cul-de-sac in Mill Creek 2 to access this area, Mr. McKee said, the applicant believes that an additional 14 to 15 single-family lots, comparable in size to th~ Mill Creek lots, could be placed in this area. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that~the townhouses that will not be built west of the lake will be placed somewhere else. Where these townhouses will be placed is another uncertainty, he sa~d. Mr. Bain said Mr. McKee said the townhouses would be placed in the same ggneral area as the rest of the townhouses. Mr. McKee agreed. ~ Mr. Home asked if the applicant intend~ to proffer that the area on the west side of the lake shown for future development would be developed with single-family, detached units, at lot sizes Toughly equivalent to those on the adjacent property, and any density removed f~om that area and used as town- houses would be placed within the area shown~Ifor townhouses development. Mr. Richmond said this is a fair assessment of t~e proffer. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, segonded by Mr. Bowie, to approve ZMA-88-11, with the four following proffers;~the fourth being the letter of September 26 and which was stated in the record to include option (i), and amendment of #2 just discussed to define the ~ensity and development design on property shown on the plat for "future development", and allowing a realloca- tion to the property shown for townhouses, a~d any excess density to make up the 1.98 du/acre as the gross density for th~ whole tract. If the rezoning application is approved, development will be undertaken in general conformance with the application plan (preliminary plat) with the exception of future amenclments as may later be provided for during thee preliminary plat approval process. Such modifications to the~plan may include, but not be limited to, (a) entrance relocation,~at Avon Street, (b) addi- tional dwelling units planned for ".~he ridge" located west of the lake and adjacent to Mill Creek, IPhase 2 (see item no. 2 below), (c) realignment of roadwaysiias dictated by VDoT review, (d) reconfiguration of townhouse la~out, and (e) other revisions as proposed by County staff and Plahning Con~nission and agreed to by the applicant. Gross density of the total tract wi units or 1.98 dwelling units/acre. "the ridge" shown on the Applicatio] shall be developed only with single! units on lots of roughly equivalent cent areas of the Mill Creek PRD. [1 not exceed 198 dwelling The area west of the lake on . Plan (preliminary plat) family, detached dwelling size to those in the adja- ny remaining allowable dwelling units, up to 198 total dwelling units, which are intended as townhouse units, may beiplaced only within the area 592 October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) shown for townhouse units on the Application Plan. Additional single-family dwelling units may be placed within the other areas shown on the Application Plan. Access to Reynovia shall be provided in two locations as delin- eated on the application plan. Each single-family, detached lot shall contain a 5,000 square foot building site with a length to width ratio not to exceed 2.5:1. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25 percent or greater. Lot reconfiguration necessitated by this condition of approval and other necessary modifications to the preliminary plan will be undertaken after review of the plan by the Commission, and the changes will be subject to administrative approval by staff. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. . Mr. Home agreed to ask the applicant to sign a copYlof the above prof- fers. ~': Agenda Item No. 5. SP-88-60. Dr. Martin Schulman. ~ilTo· allow for veteri- nary clinic on a 21.523 acre parcel zoned 1~. Property -1:~Scated on the north ! side of Route 240 (Three Notch d Road) across from Acme ¥iisible Records. Tax Map 56, Parcel 67. White Hall District. (Advertised in !~he Daily Progress on September 20 and September 27, 1988.) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "Character of the Area: The subject property is vacmnt, rolling, open meadow. The existing clinic and a cottage zoned Rural Areas are located to the north. A single-family dwelling is l~cated approxi- mately 600 feet to the east. Properties to the sout~ and west are zoned LI, Light Industrial, while properties to the ~orth and east are zoned RA, Rural Areas. Comprehensive Plan: This property is located acrossiRoute 240 from the Community of Crozet, within Rural Area III. The applicant has requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service areas to ~xtend public water and sewer to the site. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to reldcate the Crozet Veterinary Clinic in new, expanded facilities. The ~resent struc- ture, less than 800 square feet in area, has been found to be struc- turally unsound for expansion. The vast majority (9? percent) of veterinary care is for small animals. The new Virginia Health Regulations require an isolation area (by July 1989){ which cannot be met in the present structure. The applicant propose~ construction of a 3,000 square foot building, with 12 to 16 runs. I~ addition to boarding sick or recovering animals, they will boardithe occasional animal that is healthy, but requires observation due!to a previous medical condition. Section 5.1.11, Commercial Kennel, Veterinary, Anima!~ Hospital, specifies a 200-foot building setback from a soundproofed building occupied by animals to any agricultural or residential lot line. The applicant requests in accordance with Section 5.1, t~at the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors vary this setback to a distance of 100 feet from the proposed property linei~o the east. The applicant proposes to add a portion of this parcgl to the agri- cultural parcel to theeast. October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 593 Staff Comment: While this site is outside the designated Crozet growth area, this is a request for slight relocation of an estab- lished use. Also, since veterinary clinics and kennels are by special use permit in the RA, Rural Areas, district, they need not be restricted to growth area locations. Staff supports the applicant's request for a reduced building setback from 200 to 100 feet. The relevant property owners have written that they do not object. The applicant's architect has calculated that the maximum noise level will be maintained with the reduced setback, based on the proposed construction materials. Therefore, the intent of this setback will be met with the reduced setback. The applicant proposed access from a new entrance on Route 240, instead of the internal road, Parkview Drive. The applicant's justification is that grading will be minimized and the need to cross a main gas line will be eliminated. The Virginia Department of Transportation, County Engineering and Planning staff do not support the request for an additional entrance 9n Route 240. Parkview Drive, which presently serves the Crozet VeterSnary Clinic, also serves several residences. A right turn lane exists at the entrance. Minor trimming of vegetation across this property's western frontage is necessary to obtain sight distance. Route 240 is a main thoroughfare within the Community of Crozet and will,serve additional traffic with future growth. Access directly to Route 240 would increase the amount of side friction and congestion while providing no particular public benefit. The Health Department has granted preliminary approval based on a Soil Scientist's report. Only domestic Isewage would discharge to the septic field. Animal wash-up area's and the kennel's discharge would be to a storage tank to be disposed of 6ff-site. Staff has viewed this petition as an expansion of an existing use. Staff recommends approval subject to th~following conditions: Building area limited to 3,000 square feet; Planning Commission approval of si~ plan; Compliance with Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, except that the minimum building setback to the eastern agricultural property line shall be reduced to 100 feet. Engineer's report addressing performance standards ofii Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance to be submitted with site' plan." Mr. Horne said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Septem- ber 27, 1988, unanimously recommended approva~ of the petition with the conditions recommended in the staff report, a~d a fourth condition reading: "The kennel use is approved in conjunction wi~h the veterinary use and shall not be operated independently." il Mr. Home said the applicant has also requested that the Board extend the service area of the Albennarle County Service Authority to make it possible for this site to receive both public water and se~er service. He said this request for water and sewer service engendered a lot of discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, but the Board could not decide this request tonight because a legal advertisement had not yet run in the Daily Progress. He added that the applicant would be able to use this site for the uses requested in the special use permit regardless of whether water and sewer service were extended to the site. Mr. Way asked Mr. Home to brief members the applicant's request to extend the boundarJ Home said the request for public water and sl are two separate requests and the applicant c~ and kennel without public water and sewerage. Planning Commission spent a lot of time discu: service boundaries. Mr. Home said he sent a of the Board on the status of es of the Service Authority. Mr. ~er and the special use permit ~ operate the veterinary clinic Nevertheless, he said, the sing the request to extend the memorandum to the Planning 594 October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) Commission, dated September 20, 1988, stating that the Board wanted to know whether an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be necessary in order to approve extending public water and sewerage to this property. Since this property is outside the growth area of Crozet and within the watershed of the drinking water supply for Crozet and the water and sewerage would service new development, not existing structures, members of the Planning Commission felt it would be a major policy decision to extend the service boundaries, necessi- tating an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Home noted that water is provided to the existing clinic, even though the property is not shown on the service areas map. Mr. Home said the staff believes this to be a mapping error. Mr. Home then iterated that the request for water and sewerage is not the request that is before the Board tonight. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the Board. Dr. Martin Schulman said adjoining landowners and other residents of western Albemarle County support his request for a special use permit to operate a veterinary clinic and kennel. He said he has incorporated into the design for the site the recommendations of the Planning Commission concerning noise and waste control. He said his new clinic will meet the community's need for an expanded facility and the new guidelines established by the Virginia State Health Regulatory Board. These guidelines~require that all veterinary hospitals in the State have an isolation wardlfor infectious diseases by July, 1989. Mr. Bowie asked how far the new structure would be from the existing structure. Dr. Schulman said, "about 500 feet". Since no one else wished to speak to this special uS~ permit, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before t~ Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by M~i Lindstrom to approve SP-88-60 with the four conditions recommended by ,~he Planning Commis- sion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called ~and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. LindstZom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. (Note: Conditions of approval are set out below.) Building area limited to 3,000 square feet; Planning Commission approval of site plan~ ~. Compliance with Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, except that the minimum building setback to the easter~ agricultural property line shall be reduced to 100 feet. Engineer's report addressing performance standards of Section 4.1~ of the Zoning Ordinance to be submitted with site plan; The kennel use is approved in conjunction with the veterinary use and shall not be operated independently. Agenda Item No. 8. February 10, 1988. Approval of Minutes: March 20 (afternoon), 1985, and Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of February 10, 1988,~ page 1 to page 11, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. ~Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the minutes which had been read. T~here was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Llndstmom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. !i October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 595 Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public and Board Members. Mr. Agnor provided a status report on the volunteer firemen and rescue squad study. He said Dr. Perkins will finish the study by the end of October and will present it to the Board sometime during the first of November. Mr. Agnor said he received a letter from the Jefferson Country Fire- fighters' Association concerning the dedication of the fire training center on October 13, 1988. Mr. Bain asked when the Solid Waste Disposal Committee will finish its report. Mr. Agnor said the Committee would present its report in November to a joint meeting of the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bain asked when the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Neighbor- hood Study will be available. Mr. Agnor said the study has been forwarded to the planning commissions for the City, County and the University of Virginia. Mr. Home offered to forward copies of the r~port to members of the Board to consider while the Planning Commission is discussing the study. Mr. Home said the MPO is also conducting a study on rgads in the southeastern part of the City/County area, which includes Avon Street and Route 20 South. Mr. Bowie presented Mr. Agnor with a copy of a letter from Mr. Charles Burgess, Zoning Administrator, to a resident ~:in the Rivanna District. Judging from this letter, Mr. Bowie said, he thinks ~he wording of the mobile home ordinance should be improved. He asked the ~ounty Executive to take care of this. Mr. Lindstrom said he attended the Governor's Conference on Housing with Mr. Horne. He said Mr. Home admirably represented the County's interests and thanked him for his efforts. Mr. Lindstrom S~id the Conference identified and described the problem of the high cost of hou~sing in the State. He said he would have preferred some detailed ideas on ~Ow to solve the problem, because he thinks the County is going to face even more of a shortage in moderate- and low-income housing in the years to come, with the expansion of the University. He said he believes there should be a joint effort by the City, the County and the University to address this problem. Mr. Bowie suggested that Mr. I{orne meet with builders and developers in the area to see what they can do to meet the need for moderate- and low-income housing. Mr. Home agreed. Mr. Lindstrom asked what staff has done about starting a low- to moder- ate-income housing project similar to the one Nelson County. Mr. Home said he is visiting the development in Nelson County tomorrow. He said he would present a report by the end of October. i. Mr. Way said Mr. Gary Grant, of WINA, sp~ke to him about a program WINA plans to air concerning the meals tax, at 6:14 P.M. on November 1. Mr. Way asked if any members of the Board would care to participate in the program, an open forum between two representatives of theii~County and two members of the Restaurateurs' Association. Mr. Bowie, Mr. L~ndstrom and Mr. Agnor agreed to decide among themselves which two of them wou!d represent the County. Mr. Bowie added that he is speaking in support off?the meals tax to the Parent Teacher Organization in every school in his d~strict. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that discussion of the meals tax be put on a ~uture agenda. He said he is not opposed to putting something in the newspapap~r. ~ discussion by VDoT in Mr. Bain said he attended the Round Tabl held Culpeper. Mr. Bain said he thinks the representatives of the County, the most metropolitan County in the district, should meet with representatvies of VDoT 596 October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) on a one-to-one basis. Mr. Agnor said the District Engineer for VDoT has expressed interest in attending such a meeting. Agenda Item No. 10. Executive Session: Property Acquisition and Person- nel. At 9:29 P.M., a motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adjourn into executive session to discuss property acquisition and personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 10:05 P.M~ Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to authori the Chairman to accept a deed for the Barksdale property, and the County Attorney to record the deed, with an expenditure of $185,000 from the Capital Improvement Fund appropriation for the Southern Regional :Park being authorized for the purchase. Roll was called and the motion carrie~ by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Linds~rom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. ~