Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-11-19November 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held November 19, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room %7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way (arrived at 7:34 P. M.) BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 by the Agenda item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Cooke offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve Item 4.1 on the consent agenda and to accept Item 4.2 as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item 4.1. The Statements of Expenses for the State Compensation Board for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, and Regional Jail for the month of October, 1986 were approved as presented. Item 4.2. The Planning Commission Minutes for October 28 and November 5, 1986 were received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. CPA 85-5. Southern Regional Park. To Amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002, Chapter 14: Community Facilities and Utilities Plan, with respect to a Southern Regional Park consisting of 530 acres with a proposed 46-acre lake. Located east of Rt. 631, south of its intersection with Rt. 708. Tax Map 100, Parcels 35, 37, 38 and 39. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress November 4 and November 11, 1986.) Mr. Horne read the staff's report, pertinent excerpts of which follow: "This application is a request to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 with respect to the location and development of a Southern Regional Park. Specifically, if approved, staff recommends this amendment consist of the following: 1. Amend Map 6: (p. 93); Community Facilities, to show location of new park Amend the text of the Plan to describe the development of the new park (p. 93); Amend Chapter 14: Community Facilities and Utilities Plan, to describe the new park (p. 247). PROPOSED SITE: This property is located east of Rt. 631, approximately one-half mile south of its intersection with Rt. 708. The site consists of 530 acres and is bisected by Walnut Branch, a tributary of the South Fork of the Hardware River. A 46-acre lake is proposed to be constructed on Walnut Branch. BACKGROUND: The need for the Park was identified by the County in 1974. The purpose of such a park is to provide lake swimming facilities and other outdoor recreational activities, similar to those offered at Mint Springs and Chris Greene Parks. The construction of a Southern Regional Park was first placed in the Capital Improvement Program in 1983. Since 1983, the County has investigated various sites for the park. A site selection committee (consisting of representatives of the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and various County Departments) reviewed twenty sites in detail. On November 6, 1985, upon the recommendation of this Committee, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intent to "amend the Comprehensive Plan to show an area near Walton Middle School for a Southern Regional Park." The site (known as the Dawson tract) was not selected. Although that site was not endorsed, the Resolution of Intent to amend the Plan with respect to a Southern Regional Park is still valid. THE. WALNUT BRANCH SITE The determination of the suitability of this site should be based on the following factors: 1. Sufficient access; 08. November 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) ( Page 2 ) 2. Appropriate regional location; 3. Feasibility of lake and park development; 4. Neighborhood compatibility." A summary ot these issues follows: "1. Access to Site: The proposed park property is planned to have a single access road off of Rt. 631. Near the entrance location, Rt. 631 carried an average of 476 daily vehicle trips in 1984. This segment of Old Lynchburg Road (Rt. 631), along with 58 percent of all the County's secondary roads is considered non-tolerable by the Highway Department, based on pavement width versus traffic load." "If the park were to be developed in this location, area roads would experience increased traffic during the summer swimming season." "Based on staff analysis, on any given day, Route 708 is expected to carry about 70 percent of the traffic to the park. Likewise, Route 631 is expected to carry roughly 30 percent of the traffic to the park on any given day." "The Parks and Recreation Department anticipates a park at Walnut Branch would have an average daily use of about 150 vehicles/375 persons and have a peak of 500 vehicles/1250 persons." "To accommodate increased traffic volumn and provide a safer roadway network, some improvements to the existing roads should be considered for inclusion in the Six Year Secondary Road Plan." "2. Regional Location of Site: A time and distance study conducted by the Parks and Recreation Department measured this location relative to eleven local settlements in Southern Albemarle County and found this site to be an average 7.8 roadway miles and 11 minutes from those locations." "The Site is also very close to ten roadway miles from Lake Reynovia." "3. Feasibility of Lake and Park Developement: The County has received three technical reports which support the feasibility of this proposed project: Se Dam Suitability Study by Gloeckner, Lincoln'and Osborne, Inc. states that a conventional S.C.S. earthen dam may be constructed on site for approximately $300,000. be Geology and Soil Study, by E. O. Gooch, determined that the underlying geology is sufficient to support a lake, that the rock seems to be fairly airtight and that grouting probably will not be necessary. Further, it appears there exists suitable impermeable soils on the park site to construct the core of the dam. Ce Tropic level assessment by Applied Technology and Engineering: This study examined the expected phosphorus and chlorophyll levels of the Walnut Branch Impoundment and determined the estimated tropic levels of the lake will be acceptable for the intended purposes of both swimming and fishing." "The projected water quality is quite good, similar to that of the Moormans River. To ensure quality water remains good, a monitoring station will be maintained at the lake." "The cost to develop the park site should also be examined in context of site feasibility." "Also the preliminary estimate of $1.8 million could be further reduced if road development can be minimized or if development is phased." Neighborhood Impact: All of the property proposed to be purchased for this park is under the Land Use System. Within the park site, 90% of this property is carried as forest land. Agricultural uses within the whole drainage area are located northwest of Old Lynchburg Road. There exists 15 homes within the drainage basin. The negative impacts of the park at this site would be minimized because of the existing undevel- oped rural character in the area. Also, the topography of the park site is a natural 'bowl' which provides a buffer to adjacent property." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends amending the Comprehensive Plan to designate the proposed Walnut Branch site as the location for a Southern Regional Park based on the following reasons: The site has reasonable and above average access via Routes 29 South, 20 South, 708 and 631. The topographic and geological settings are suitable for good quality lake and park development and may be developed at a reasonable cost. November 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) ( Page 3 ) The site is located conveniently within the region it is intended to serve. The site is not within an existing residential area and the lake would be developed well within the park boundaries to minimize any negative impacts on adjacent property. Mr. Horne stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this request to amend the Compre- hensive Plan on November 11, 1986, and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Way asked how frequently "peak traffic" might be expected. Mr. Horne said it would probably be reached not more than two days a year. Mr. Way asked about the inclusion of some sort of tenant house so there would be on-site supervision of the park. Mr. Horne replied that a residence for an on-site caretaker is part of the plan. Mr. Fisher asked if it will be possible to keep the estimated costs close to the amount already set aside in the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, responded that he feels the first phase of construction would indeed be very close to the amount anticipated. The first phase will include the entrance road, the boat ramp area, the swimming area, the parking lot and the development of the picnic shelters. Mr. Fisher stated that one of the reasons this site is considered a very good one is the excellent location for a dam. Mr. Mullaney said that Gloeckner, Lincoln and Osborne, Inc., feel a dam can be constructed for about $300,000 as compared to $1.2 million at the site considered last year. Mr. Mullaney added that other site attractions include the fact that the lake will sit well within the borders of the property, that there are consenting property owners, and that the site will have a minimum negative impact upon neighboring property because of the natural bowl shape of~the land. Mrs. Cooke questioned the figure of $100,000 shown in the cost estimates for the tenant house. Mr. Mullaney said the figure would probably include the construction of various equipment and storage buildings for the park. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer, if he would comment on any of the engineering aspects. Mr. Armm stated that this site is the most feasible from the aspects of hydraulics, water quality and dam construction. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Tom Ward came forward. He stated that he is a member of the family which operates Lake Reynovia. He stated that the planned park is actually four miles within the service radius of Lake Reynovia, although the Comprehensive Plan calls for a ten-mile service radius. He feels that a public body should not be in competition with private enterprise in fulfilling the needs of the public if free enterprise is able to fill those needs. Because the taxpayers pay the bills, the County is able to set its prices unreasonably low which forces private enterprise to keep its prices equally low. He feels this is unfair and that the new park will be devastating to Lake Reynovia. Mr. Randy Amiss introduced himself saying he lives within three miles of the proposed lake. He stated he is very glad the County is putting the lake at the Walnut Branch site. He said that the new facility will be a fine thing for people in the southern part of the County. Mrs. Katherine Burton spoke next. She said she had been a member of the Parks Commis- sion several years before. One of the goals of that commission was a park in the southern part of Albemarle County. She said she wants to commend the Park and Recreational staff for their hard work. She said that although the traffic will add a burden to the present road, perhaps ultimately that burden will be a cause for road improvement. Mr. Jim Heilman, who lives in the Chestnut Grove area, spoke to the Board. He said he is impressed with the time and care the County has spent in finding this location. He also hopes some road improvements come out of this proposal. Mr. Jim Murray, Jr., a resident of southern Albemarle County, then addressed the Board. He is opposed to the park project because of its large scope. As a taxpayer, he feels it is more than the County needs. He questions whether what started out as a $150,000 swimming pool for Scottsville ought to be converted into a $1.8 million park. He suggests that the County buy the land now but put the actual construction of a park into the long range plan. With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher commented the long range plans have never included swimming pools throughout the County, but the park has been in the plan for a number of years. Mr. Lindstrom stated he doesn't feel the acquisition of this property necessarily compels the immediate construction of the facility~ but feels the County should move forward. He stated that the two existing parks serve more than their immediate areas. People from all over the county use them. The new park will also serve the entire County. He stated he feels that Lake Reynovia will have a function in serving an expanding urban population. Mr. Way stated that this park has certainly been planned for a long time. He said he was probably the person who started the idea of the swimming pools. He said he had suggested when he first came on the Board that a swimming pool might be an alternative to a park. The Board of Supervisors looked into the idea and decided there was a greater need for a park. He also stated that this site is unique and although there is a road problem, if the County waits on solving that problem, the park will never be built. He is in favor of moving ahead with this. Mr. Henley said this is not the time for him to make his comments about the park, but he will support this change in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowie also stated that he supports the amendment. He said he has seen the "green area" disappear in too many areas where he has lived. It is good to have 500 acres owned by the County for the use of the people. Mrs. November 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Cooke said she has supported this concept from the beginning. good expenditure of the tax dollar. This type of facility is a Mr. Way then offered motion to approve CPA-85-5, by specifically: 1) Amend Map 6: Community Facilities, to show the location of the park (p. 93); 2) Amend the text of the Plan to describe the development of the park (p. 96); 3) Amend Chapter 14: Community Facilities and Utilities Plan to describe the park (p. 247). Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-86-67. Nettie Jones. To allow a vacant 86.39 acre parcel to be subdivided into four lots to range in size from two to seven acres with a res:Ldue of 73 acres, zoned RA. Located on eastern side of Rt. 677 near Candlewyck Subdivision. Tax Map 59, Parcels 7B1 (part of), 28 (part of) and 27A (part of). Samuel Miller District. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on November 4 and November 11, 1986.) Mr. Horne stated that the Commission has not acted on this petition and therefore it must be deferred. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to defer this petition until December 3. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-86-65. Arthur Carter. To locate single-wide mobile home on 14.536 acres, zoned RA. Located on east side of Rt. 691, about 0.1 mile south of its inter- section with Rt. 635. Tax Map 84, Parcel 66K1. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 4 and November 11, 1986.) Mr. Horne read the staff's report as follows: Character of the Area: The property is presently vacant, and consists of a rolling topography with moderate to steep slopes on portions of the property Residences in the immediate area consist primarily of single family homes. There are three mobile homes located within a one-mile radius of the site. Summary and Recommendations: The applicant is one of the owners of the property. It is the intent of the applicant to reside in the mobile home. The proposed location of the mobile home is towards the rear of the property; 90 feet from the rear property lines, 180 feet and 80 feet from the side property lines. Two objections to this petition have been received. One objection contends that this use is not consistent with the surrounding area and would nega- tively affect property values. The second objection is from an adjacent owner who is concerned that the proposed location of the mobile home would be visible from his property. The mobile home may also be visible from his house. The adjacent owner has suggested other locations to the applicant and staff which would better screen the mobile home from his property. It is staff's opinion that other building sites are available on the property to locate the mobile home, should the Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to require its relocation. Such locations may serve to better screen the mobile home from some of the adjacent properties. Should the Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Location of mobile home/or screening to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator so as to minimize visibility from Rt. 691 and adjacent landowners. If relocation of mobile home is required, the location shall be a minimum of 180 feet from northeastern boundary line. Mr. Horne stated that the Planning Commission heard this petition on November 11, 1986 and unanimously recommended approval with Condition 1 remaining the same and with Condition 2 now reading "Relocation of the mobile home so as to minimize visibility from Rt. 691 and adjacent landowners to the reasonable satisfaction of Zoning Administrator. Location shall be a minimum of 180 feet from the northeastern property line." Mr. Horne explained that subsequent to that action the property was remeasured. The Commission had wanted the home moved slightly off the edge of the knoll to the west down into a small plateau which would screen the mobile home more effectively. In order to put the home into the location desired by the Commission, it would have to be approximately 240 feet from the property line. Mr. Horne also pointed out that the applicant has not located a drainfield site as yet. The location suggested by the Commission will limit the possible location of a drainfield. November 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) The public hearing was opened. The applicant was not present nor was anyone representing him. Mr. Fisher stated that the record should show that neither the applicant nor the person opposing the petition was present at this time. Mr. Bowie moved that the petition be deferred until December 3, 1986. Mr. Lindstrom seconded. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-86-70. Delma R. Robertson. To locate single-wide mobile home on two acres, zoned RA. Located on north side of Rt. 605, about one mile northwest of its intersection with Rt. 743. Tax Map 20, Parcel 1D(L-1). White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress November 4 and November 11, 1986.) Mr. Horne read the staff's report. Location: Property described as Tax Map 20, Parcel 1D, is located on the north side of Route 605, about 1 mile northwest of its intersection with Route 743. Character of the Area: The property is presently vacant. The immediate area on this side of Route 605 is residential; the surrounding area is primarily large undeveloped tracts. Residences in the immediate area consist primarily of single family residences, with some mobile homes. Within one mile (not including Greene County), there are two mobile homes. Outside this radius to the west, several mobile homes are clustered. Staff Comments This applicant and his wife are contract purchasers from her father. the intent of the applicant to reside in the mobile home. It is The proposed location of the single-wide would be approximately 230 feet off the north side of Route 605, 60 feet from the front (old road), 230 feet and 215 feet from the sides, and 250 feet from the rear of the parcel. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed location would not be visible from Route 605; and would be partially visible to the two dwellings adjacent to the south. The subject property is presently wooded with a mixture of mature deciduous and evergreen trees, with the exception of a small clearing around the centralized house site. There does not appear to be another building location which could provide more effective screening. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Maintenance of the existing landscape buffer along the southern property line to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 11, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of SP 86-70 with the conditions in the staff's report. The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr. Robertson, came forward to address the Board. He told the Board that the planned site for the home is the least visible on the property. Mr. Fisher asked the applicant if he intended to reside in the mobile home. Mr. Robertson replied yes. With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve SP-86-70 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mrs. Cooke suggested that the Board add the condition that the mobile home cannot be rented, must be owner-occupied and must be removed upon completion of a permanent residence at the site. Mr. Lindstrom added that condition to the motion and the amended motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The conditions of approval read: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Maintenance of the existing landscape buffer along the southern property line to reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator; The mobile home must be owner occupied and cannot be rented and must be removed from the property at the time a permanent residence is built. November 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-86-07. Mary Doggett. Rezone 11.86 acres from R-1 to Planned District-Mixed Commercial. Located on east side of Avon Stree~ Extended about one mile south of 1-64. (Deferred from November 5, 1986.) Mr. Horne read the staff's report which is summarized as follows: "Petition: Mary V. Doggett petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 11.86 acres from R-l, Residential to PD-MC, Planned Development-Mixed Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 91, parcels 1, lA, lB and 1E, is located on the east side of Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended) south and adja- cent to Hillcrest in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: This property is undeveloped. The rezoning petition for Hillcrest PUD on the north is currently idle. Mill Creek PUD across Rt. 742 was recently approved. One property adjacent to the south is zoned LI, Light Industrial, while other surrounding properties are zoned R-l, Residen- tial. Public water is available about 1,200 feet to the north, however, fire flow is currently limited to about 500 GPM. Public sewer is currently remote from the site. Applicant's Proposal: The Application Plan proposes redivision of these various properties into five commercial sites, varying in size from 0.75 acres to 4.2 acres (Note: Acreage on rezoning petition is 11.86 acres compared to 13+ acres on Appli- cation Plan)'. Four lots would be served by an internal road while Lot 1 would have direct access to Avon Street Extended. Sites would be served by septic system and individual or central well system. (Note: The appli- cant's narrative (on file) proposes individual or .central well while the Application Plan proposes usage of public water.) While the PD-MC zone permits a broad range of uses (i.e., uses allowed in CO, C-1 and HC zones), possible uses indicated by the applicant are primarily warehousing/ distributing/contractor's office type of uses. The traffic study submitted by the applicant indicates potential generation of 2,715 vehicle trips per day. History: In November, 1985 the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors reviewed a rezoning petition requesting LI, Light Industrial, on this property. At that time, staff suggested simultaneous review with Mill Creek (Reynovia) PUD and Hillcrest PUD since both of those petitions proposed commericl areas not shown, or shown in different locations in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Section 8.5.4 of the Planned Development regulations requires the Commission to make certain findings in relations to its recommendation to the Board. The remainder of the staff report will address these issues. Comprehensive Plan: This property is in an area recommended for medium density residential usage. The applicant maintains that, given lack of public utilities, the property is unsuited to medium-density development or even low-density development under current R-1 zoning. The applicant also refers to the commercial area approved for the Mill Creek PUD across Rt. 742. Site Characteristics: This site has about 530 feet of frontage on Avon Street Extended and has a depth of about 1,380 feet. The property surrounds a 10,000 square foot residential lot at Avon Street Extended and has a common boundary of about 2,290 feet with residentially zoned land (property on the southeast is zoned LI, Light Industrial). Elevations range from 515 feet toward the rear of the property to 615 feet near Rt. 742. Areas of steep slope (25 percent or greater) are limited. Soils in this area consist of Rabun clay loam, Myersville silt loam and possibly Orange silt loam. Orange silt loam exhibits several problems to development including wetness, high-shrink swell, low strength and seasonal high water table. Special development techniques including sub-surface drainage facilities as well as special attention to surface drainage may be required if Orange silt loam soils are encountered. Rabun and Myersville soils are moderately deep and well-drained with rock at 40 to 60 inches. A soils study of this property has indicated severe restriction to septic field location which supports the applicant's contention that, lacking public utilities, uses involving comparatively high sewage demands such as dwellings should be avoided. The Health Department has commented that additional soils studies and description of soils are warranted. Relation to Surrounding Area: Property across Avon Street has been approved for single-family,.multi- family, commercial, and industrial development. Property adjacent to the November 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 093. southeast is zoned industrial. Other adjacent properties are residentially zoned. Special consideration should be given to buffering from residential properties in the area. Transportation: Avon Street Extended is currently experiencing greater traffic volume than was anticipated for the year 2000 in the CATS Study. Development of pro- perties along Avon Street as currently zoned would result in a non-tolerable status requiring improvements not contained in the CATS Study. The fact that current traffic levels exceed CATS projections for the year 2000 emphasizes the need for continued transportation planning and constant monitoring. Staff Recommendation: In the report for the prior Light Industrial rezoning petition, staff stated "at this time, staff cannot recommend favorably on any zoning other than residential, based on the Comprehensive Plan." Therefore, staff cannot recommend favorably on this current petition. Should the Commission and Board in view of zoning action for Mill Creek PUD, the applicant's current proposal and argument, or for other reason, determine that PD-MC zoning is appropriate, staff recommends in accordance with Section 8.5.4, the following modifications and conditions intended to address matters of public concern: Lot 1 shall remain zoned R-I, Residential. Lot 2 shall be zoned PD-MC, Planned Development-Mixed Commercial with uses limited to CO, Commer- cial Office, uses as permitted in that zoning district. Lot 3, 4 and 5 shall be zoned PD-MC and shall enjoy all uses as permitted in the PD-MC zoning district except that no retail uses shall be permitted. Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall not have access directly to Rt. 742, but shall be served by an internal public or private road, whichever shall be permitted by the Planning Commission at time of subdivision approval. Access shall be provided to such internal road for adjoining property. Not more than one use shall be located on any lot and not more than four commercial lots shall be permitted. No development shall occur until subdivision approval has been obtained. In addition to requirements of Section 25A and other applicable provi- sions of the Zoning Ordinance, a 50 foot undisturbed buffer shall be maintained along all residential zoning boundaries. The Planning Commission reserves the right to require connection to public water and/or sewer if deemed reasonably available at time of site plan approval. Traffic generation from Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall not exceed 830 vehicle trips per day. The applicant shall allot traffic generation to lots at time of subdivision approval provided that generation limitations may be reallocated at future time upon consent of the Planning Commission. NOTE: Albemarle County Service Authority commented that "This property has been identified by Albemarle County Service Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as the prospective site for future water storage reservoir." Mr. Horne noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 21, 1986, by a vote of 4 to 3, recommended approval of this petition subject to the following conditions in the staff's report, adding the words: "(Tax Map 91, Parcel 1D; zoned LI)" at the end of Condition $2, and changing "830" in Condition $6 to "500." Mr. Fisher asked how a proffer on traffic generation count can work. Mr. Horne answered that the control used is through the site plan process. When a site plan is submitted, there are various methods used by the Institute of Traffic Engineers and the Federal Highway Administration to project the amount of traffic generation based upon square footage or employees by separate uses. All this data is studied at the time of site plan approval and an attempt made to project the amount of traffic that will be generated from that use and then that is matched against the limitation in the proffer. If that use exceeds the proffered limit, the site plan would not be approved. The concern is valid because there could be a change in the character of the use a few years into the future, and the staff would not necessarily know about that change. Mr. Fisher asked about the availability of public utilities. Mr. Horne replied that the waterline will be brought into the Mill Creek PUD, which is to the north of this property, but the pressure on that line is very restricted. At best it could provide a domestic level fire flow. Even if connections are made, that line would not provide fire protection. The sewer line will be brought to the Mill Creek PUD from the Biscuit Run side and will still be very remote from this site and probably not financially feasible for this owner to bring that line to this property. Mr. Way asked about the waterline into the Mill Creek PUD. Mr. Horne said that the current water going into Mill Creek PUD is only 500 gallons per minute. That is only adequate for a very limited number of single family residences. Any future development requires additional flows. To obtain the additional flow, a waterline needs to be looped down Biscuit Run and up through the Mill Creek site from the west. That would upgrade the water pressure in the entire southern network. Mr. Way asked if there were not something that requires the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority to provide water into that area once it is developed. Mr. St. John stated that there was a transaction the City entered into November 19, 1986 (Regular Night ~eeting) (Page 8) with the then owners of the tract where the City/County Jail is located. When the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was formed, the Albemarle County Service Authority took over the City's facilities located in the County, and also took over the City's obligations. That agreement called for the construction of a 12-inch waterline to the south end of the National Guard Armory property'(not the Jail property) with the owners of this land having the right to hook into that line. That has been done. That is the pipe that Mr. Horne has been saying is inadequate. At present the A.C.S.A. is negotiating with the owners of properties in that area for the loop. There are two routes that loop can take. The location of the loop and the financial arrangements for building the loop waterline are nearing the end of negotiations. Mr. St. John added that the agreement is with the parties on the west side where Lake Reynovia lies, not on the east side of Avon Street where this property lies. At this time the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Buck, representing the applicant, came forward. He stated that last year whet a proposal was submitted for rezoning this property to light industrial, .there were different concerns raised. The main concern was how this fit in with the Mill Creek PUD. That PUD provides for a fairly large commercial area directly across the street from this property. Mr. Buck pointed out that on Avon Street there are patches of commercial develop- ment. Mr. Buck showed some pictures of the area which reflect the mixed use character of Avon Street. Demand on services was another concern expressed. Mrs. Doggett has worked with the staff in trying to work out those concerns. That is how the PD-Mixed Commercial use came about. The present petition provides for screening, a 50-foot buffer zone to screen this property from the surrounding properties. The soil has been studied indicating that it is adequate for a septic drainfield area to serve the commercial areas. As far as water is concerned, the consultants have indicated that there would be no problem with a central well system or with individual systems. He spoke of the traffic count. The traffic count of about 2,000 is somewhat misleading as it is based on an acreage count. The type of density anticipated in the study will not exist on these lots. Therefore the proffer limit of 500 vehicle trips was made with some consideration of what impact this would have in terms of the use of the property. The buyers of these properties will be concerned that these properties, even with the limitations imposed, will meet their needs. Mr. Buck said he believes this development will serve some real needs in the southern part of the County. He believes this is the sort of development that makes good use of the property, but does not put demands on the road systems or the natural systems that exist there. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher stated that the commercial area granted by the Board on the property across the road from this property was oversized with the justification that it would serve a much greater area than just the development on that property. That was used as a justification for a spot zoning of commercial which was not shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Now this petitioner is claiming that the existence of that spot zoning justifies more spot zoning in violation of the Comprehensive Plan just because it exists. He said the Board should have learned a lesson from Route 29 North. On the matter of mixed uses, he stated he feels granting this petition would be a serious mistake. He pointed out that the staff recommended against~ this petition and the Planning Commission recommended approval by only a 4 to 3 vote. Mr. Lindstrom stated he feels by granting this petition, the Board would be converting land shown in the Comprehensive Plan for medium density residential into commercial. If the Board wants to redistribute some of the potential growth to this area, the Board will not be preserving areas that are reasonably accessible to utilities and are suitable for residential use. The County, he feels, already has an overabundance of the kind of commercial this petition would offer. Mr. Way said the Board delayed action on a similar request for this property last year in order to see what would happen with the Avon Street area. He stated that he realizes that right now Avon Street is cut up into all kinds of uses. The decision on the zoning along this roadway will be made when the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed by this Board in October of 1988. He said he agrees with Mr. Lindstrom that planning is needed for Avon Street. The Board must not permit just any use to be built on that roadway. Mrs. Cooke stated that the problems in the northern part of the urban area and the overcrowding of that area cause her to be concerned over the elimination of a possible outlet for that kind of development until the Comprehensive Plan can be properly reviewed. She arees with Mr. Way. Mr. Way offered motion that ZMA-86-07, Mary B. Doggett, be denied. Mr. Lindstrom seconded. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The Board took a short recess at 9:20 P.M. and returned at 9:26 P.M. Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-86-08. Dr. & Mrs. Bruce Campbell. To rezone a 5.5 acre parcel from RA, Rural Areas to CO, Commercial Office. Located at northwest corner of the intersection of State Routes 676 and 678, adjacent to Meriwether Lewis School. Tax Map 58, Parcel 68. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 4 and November 11, 1986.) Mr..Horne read the staff's report, making one correction. In the paragraph titled: Staff Comment, Paragraph 1., the second sentence should be changed from: "Since adoption of the 1980 zoning ordinance and detailed Land Use Plan amendments, no rezoning from RA to another zoning category has been approved outside of a designated growth area within the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir watershed." to "no rezoning from RA, to another category for a new use not already in place" has been approved .... " November 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) "Character of the Area: Two vacant dwellings are located on the property. Route 678 physically separates the property. Meriwether Lewis School is to the northeast. Ivy Oaks Subdivision is to the east across Rt. 676. Resi- dential lots are on the west while properties to the south are larger acreages. Applicant's Proffer: The applicant has proffered to limit usage of the property to professional offices with a maximum floor area of 3,000 square feet. Staff Comment: In 1982, staff recommended that 3.75 acres in Free Union be rezoned in order for Dr. Campbell to establish practice in that area. Since that time, Dr. Campbell has established a clientele in the northwestern area of the County including the area north of Ivy. The purpose of this petition is to estab- lish a second (satellite) office. Staff recommends denial of this rezoning petition for the following reasons: The property is located outside of a designated growth area and there- fore, the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Since adoption of the 1980 zoning ordinance and detailed Land Use Plan amendments, no rezoning from RA to another zoning category has been approved outside of a designated growth area within the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir watershed. (CORRECTION: "To another category for a new use not already in place has been approved .... ") e The area north of Ivy is not remote from medical services available in the urban Charlottesville area. If the immediate Ivy area were to be shown to be in need of medical services, those services could be provided by a facility within the designated Village of Ivy. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that 'both Rts. 676 and 678 are currently non-tolerable. The Commercial Office zoning generates more traffic than the Rural Area zoning. The Department is against the rezoning if it would generate more traffic than is allowed by right under the Rural Area zoning.'" Mr. Horne stated that the Planning Commission heard this petition on November 6, 1986, and unanimously recommended denial. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Wendell Winn came forward stating he was present to speak for Dr. Campbell. He told the Board a little of the history of this petition. Dr. Campbell some time ago took a survey in the Ivy area which was apparently well received. At the time he did not have a specific site in mind. Since there seemed to be support for a second medical office, when this property became available, he felt it would be appropriate for a second office. Since filing this application, it has come to his attention that the neighborhood is not enthusiastic about having a physician on this particular site. Dr. Campbell does not wish to press the application because of the opposition. He seeks a ruling from the Board because of his obligations to the seller. Mrs. Elsie Simonds came forward to speak. She stated she is an adjacent property owner. She told the Board that there are 140 signatures on petitions opposing this rezoning request. She stated that the neighborhood feels that this rezoning could set a precedent for other changes in zoning. The roads leading to the property are very narrow and could not handle the additional traffic. They live in this area because it is rural. A better place for an office would be in "downtown" Ivy. With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie offered motion that ZMA-86-8 be denied. Mrs. Cooke seconded. and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Roll was called AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Report: S. L. Williamson, Inc., Dredging Operation. Mr. St. John said the Board had been furnished a copy of a report on this matter from Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, attached to a letter addressed to the clerk dated November 13, 1986. County staff members, the Planning Commission and attorneys for both Mr. Williamson and the Dunlora Estate also received copies. Mr. St. John stated he would not read the report, but the report consists of several parts, the first of which contains some "Findings of Fact." The findings of fact state that there have been violations by S. L. Williamson, Inc. of the conditions of the Special Use Permit issued by the County and also of State and Federal regulations. The State agency and the Corps of Engineers are aware of these violations and of the material in this report and have communicated with S. L. Williamson, Inc. on this report. There are some procedural violations as well as violations of substance, but they are moot now, inasmuch as S. L. Williamson has elected to abandon this operation immediately. The recommendations include one that State and Federal Agencies be furnished copies of this report. The County Attorney's office is neutral on that since the agencies already have O96 November 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) access to the material contained in this report. Mr. St. John offered to go into detail if the Board wished, but said that would require going into Executive Session. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. St. John give the Board his recommendation. Mr, St. John recommended that the Board adopt a resolution of intent to revoke the Zoning and the Special Use Permits which were issued for both of these sites, especially with respect to the Zoning Map Amendments which were enacted by this Board. To revoke these permits will require going back to the staff and the Planning Commission. At the previous meeting the Board granted a request from S. L. Williamson to withdraw his application for new sites. S. L. Williamson also stated he was abandoning the present sites, the subject of this report. That is a part of the Board's records. However, it does not negate either the special use permit or the zoning. Mr. Bowie asked if this is a procedural question. The Zoning requires going back through the whole process after a resolution is adopted by this Board. Mr. St. John said that is correct. Mr. Bowie asked if the special permit can be revoked by the Board without referral back to the Planning Commission though he realizes there must be a public hearing so that the people involved may speak. Mr. St. John stated that in this case he feels it should go through the same process as the rezoning. Mr. St. John recommended that both the zoning and special use permits should go back through the entire process before the staff and Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie expressed appreciation for an excellent analysis. He stated that he agreed with Mr. St. John's recommendation Number (2) that the Board resolve, on its own motion, to repeal both ZMA-81-12 and SP-81-10, and to take action to do so; and Number (3) that the abandonment of the use be noted and accepted. He said he wants to defer the possibility of any legal action until the Board has a chance to read the new documents just received. Mr. Bowie said he supports sending copies of the report to the appropriate agencies. Mr. Bowie stated for the record that the Board has already accepted the withdrawal of ZMA-85-27 and SP-85-77. He offered motion that: The Board resolve to repeal both ZMA-81-12 and SP-81-10 with the appropriate action through the Planning Commission; That the abandonment offered by S. L. Williamson and Co. of its present site and present activities be noted and accepted by the Board; That copies of the County Attorney's report be forwarded to the appropriate State and Federal agencies as outlined in the County Attorney's letter; and That a decision or any further action be deferred until the Board has a chance to look at the additional materials received. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the abandonment will leave any work that needs to be done to straighten up the site. Mr. Horne responded that there are some improvements on the site, basically graveled areas used on the site. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a bond posted. Mr. Horne said he believes there is. Mr. St. John said that is the reason that it is not recommended to abandon the special use permit at this point and why this question needs to go back for a staff report and Planning Commission action. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that before the Board takes final action, it needs to be sure that the site is brought back to a proper condition. Mr. Bowie stated that he would amend his motion to state that the repeal of ZMA-81-12 and SP-81-10 and the acceptance of the abandonment should go through the process and a Planning Commission hearing before coming back to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with the clarification. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that there were two other recommendations in Mr. Payne's report, one dealing with a study by the Planning Commission of the NR (Natural Resources) overlay district and the other regarding the Zoning Administrator's activities with regard to permits for NR activities. Mr. St. John explained that these recommendations were directed to the Planning Commission as it had requested this report in the first place. Mr. Lindstrom asked staff to proceed with the study. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: October 2 (afternoon), November 21 and December 11, 1985; and August 20 (afternoon) and October 15, 1986. Mr. Lindstrom had read August 20(A) and suggested the following change on Page 9: "Mr. Lindstrom said he received a registered letter from a constituent who resides on Ingleside Drive concerning a drainage problem .... " Mr. Way had read November 21 and found them acceptable. Mr. Henley had read October 2(A) and reported no errors. Mrs. Cooke had read the first eight pages of October 15 and found them to be in order. Mr. Fisher had read Pages 1-14 of December 11 and reported no errors. 097 November 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the above-mentioned minutes with the one correction. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:- AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the Public and Board Members. There were no matters presented. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session. Mr. Fisher explained that an Executive Session is necessary only if the Board members need to know details of the status of the estate settlement of the Barksdale property in connection with the purchase of property for the Southern Regional Park. The County Attorney has indicated a willingness to relate those matters, if necessary, but he is willing to summarize the status in open session. Mr. St. John stated that in summary the acquisition of the Barksdale tract is proceeding There is nothing that will cause any real problem in acquiring the property. He said that there are a number of heirs involved. Since the County is acting in a persuasive capacity, it is not possible to move things along any faster. He stated that the Board had hoped to acquire both tracts in the same timeframe, but this is not possible. He said he feels the Board should not delay the acquisition of the Coleman tract because of this delay. Mr. Bowie asked what the deadline is for the option on the Coleman tract. Mr. Agnor replied December 10. Agenda Item No. 15. Option - Coleman Property. Mr. Fisher said the next item is a discussion of the question of exercising the option on the Coleman property. Mr. Agnor said the Board needs to notify the sellers that it will exercise that option. The Board paid an option price of $10,000. A closing date must be set and the necessary paperwork completed. Mr. Way asked the total purchase price. Mr. Agnor responded $293,000 of which the County has paid $10,000. Mr. Way offered motion to authorize the staff to exercise the option to purchase the Coleman property for the proposed Southern Regional Park. Mr. Lindstrom seconded. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher said he wanted to commend Mr. Mullaney and his staff on the timely analysis made. Mr. Mullaney said a lot of credit goes to the Engineering Department, the Planning Department and the County Attorney's office. Not Docketed: Mr. Bowie reminded the Board that tomorrow is the Great American Smoke Out. He said he had consumed 500 packs of cigarettes less than a year before. He said he would quit again tomorrow and hopefully would consume 500 packs less next year. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if there is any indication that the City Council will meet with the Board sometime soon. Mr. Agnor replied he had not heard anything from Council. Mr. Fisher said the Board had scheduled a meeting for December 3 Afternoon with the Planning Commission, but he had heard that the Planning Commission would like to postpone until January. He asked if the Board wants one more meeting on the subject of highways before December 3. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board meet on December 3 at the regular time. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board set 4:00 P.M. on December 3 to meet, whether it be with the Planning Commission or to talk about roads. Mr. Bowie stated he is willing to meet with the City at any time. Mr. Fisher said that any two members can call a special meeting if something is worked out. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be out of town for the week over Thanksgiving. Mr. Bowie offered motion to adjourn this meeting until 4:00 P.M., December 3, 1986. Mrs. Cooke seconded. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The meeting adjourned at 9:58 P.M. CHAIRMAN