Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA199800004 Executive Summary 1998-09-09 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE RECEIVED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY cz.? 0 -� tgg ) Planning Dent'.. AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: Hurt Investment and South Fork Land Trust Jurisdictional September 9, 1998 Boundary Request ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:. CONSENT AGENDA: Request to allow a proposed soccer field complex to ACTION: INFORMATION: connect to public sewer ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish, Fritz REVIEWED BY: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting that public sewer service be permitted for Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C. This site is located on the south side of Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd, approximately 1.1 miles east of Route 29. The property is bordered on the north by Route 643 and on the south by the South Fork Rivanna River. The purpose of the request is to provide sewer service for to a proposed soccer field complex. BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors approved water and sewer service for Parcel 22 on February 12, 1992. That approval was limited to service to only the church building (800 seat) approved under SP 90-35 for Covenant Church of God. Staff has attached the original staff report, action letter and Board minutes. DISCUSSION: This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that for the Hollymead Community"The area between the southern boundary of the Development Area and the South Fork of the Rivanna River is to remain in an open state as a buffer between the Urban Area and the Community of Hollymead. This boundary is critical as it preserves the distinct identity of the Community from the Urban Area and prevents continuous development from the City of Charlottesville to the North Fork of the Rivanna". The Comprehensive Plan recommendations for providing public water and sewer outside of the Development Areas are contained on Page 125. The recommendation states "Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Areas in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health and/or safety is in danger". A sewer line does cross the property. However,there is no current health or safety concern on the site. The request for public sewer for this site is made in order to alleviate the need to construct drainfields. It should be noted that, due to the topography of the site,the drainfields would need to be located at an elevation above the proposed building. This location for the drainfields will require pumping. Pumping of effluent is not a desirable design as it involves the use of pumps,which can fail. A gravity system is the preferred method for disposal of effluent. Therefore,while this proposal is not consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for providing service to the Rural Area in that there is no existing health or safety issue, approval of this request may be preferable from a public health perspective for the ultimate development of the site as a soccer complex. This request is for sewer service only to the proposed soccer fields. The Board has already determined that an 800 seat church connected to public water and sewer is appropriate on this property(Parcel 22). Staff opinion is that if the proposed soccer field use is approved and the church is not developed (the Board is reviewing two special use permits concurrently), it will create less sewer/septic use than the previously approved church. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 11, 1998, recommended denial of the two Special Use Permits required for the approval of the soccer complex. • RECOMMENDATION: Staff opinion is that should the Board choose to approve the soccer complex proposal,the Board will need to weigh the request's immediate inconsistency with the jurisdictional area policy against the possible future health and safety issues associated with a private septic system that requires pumping. Staff does not recommend amendment to the jurisdictional area for sewer service if the special use permits are denied. Should the Board approve this jurisdictional area request,staff recommends that the jurisdictional area be amended to provide sewer service only to the soccer complex as approved under SP 98-18 and SP 98-22. 98.184 V COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE .4 Ot ALlic•r C � 4V1601"?!. �'rrtClN�r MEMORANDUM TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FROM: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development DATE: December 4 , 1991 RE: Request for Inclusion in Service Authority Jurisdictional Area — Covenant Church of God On February 13 , 1991, the Board heard a request from the CovenantfChurch of God to include Tax Map 46 , Parcel 22 in the Jurisdictional Area of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service. Attached is the February 8 , 1991 staff report for that request (Attachment A) . The Board denied the request for a public hearing at that meeting. The Covenant Church has resubmitted the same request with supporting justification (See Attachment B) . In summary, Mr. Muncaster's reasoning on behalf of the church is that the parcel to be served is part of a very limited area that could be developed between Hollymead and the Urban Area due to the restrictions of floodplain and topography. He also argues that the reason this parcel is not included in the growth area is because it is part of an area with very limited development potential. Therefore, Mr. Muncaster feels that providing public water and sewer to this parcel would not undermine the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in this case. Staff recommendation remains as presented in its February 8 staff report. While development potential may be limited in this area, it was purposlly not included in the growth area due to the decision to retain the area between Route 643 and the South Fork Rivanna as a buffer. Consistently, staff has recommended that any area not in the growth area not be included in the jurisdictional area, particularly because public utility capacities should be reserved to support development of designated growth areas. VWC/mem cc: Tom Muncaster Bill Brent �H! IPL.r1MtrII Al A/N., I gy m J 'f• • COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 MEMORANDUM • TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FROM: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and WWe, Community Development DATE: February 8 , 1991 RE: Request To Amend ACSA Service Areas To Provide Public Water and Sewer To The Covenant Church of God (Tax Map 46, Parcel 22) In June, . 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-90-35 Covenant Church of God to allow construction of an 800 seat church on this property. At this time, the Board is being requested to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service areas to allow public water and sewer service to this site without restriction (request attached) . COMPREHENSIVE PLANT As was noted in the special use permit report, this site is in the Rural Areas as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding provision of public utilities, the Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in objective and strategies as to where and under what circumstances public utilities should be made available (p. 146) : OBJECTIVE: Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban Area and Communities. STRATEGIES: o Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas. • Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Page 2 February 8 , 1991 o Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Growth Area boundaries in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health or safety is endangered. This request is inconsistent with both the objective and applicable strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. There are no identified quality or quantity problems with water on this property that staff is aware of. Further, the Comprehensive Plan warns that "such utilities are not to be extended to the Rural Areas as these services can increase development, pressures" (p. 146) . In the special use permit report, staff suggested that- this project was of an urban scale and orientation and would be more appropriately located in a designated growth area. Currently, the Board is being requested to provide urban , ' utilities to the site. It should be noted that the applicant has stated that "approval of this petition would also - preserve acreage for much more practical uses than drainfield" as well as their position that "the governmental disposition towards this parcel is commercial . " Should the Board provide this site with public utilities it could enhance argument for further development in the future. RECOMMENDATION This request is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan objective and applicable strategies for provision of public water and sewer service. Public utility capacities should be reserved to support development of designated growth areas. Allowance for water and/or sewer services to this property would be inconsistent with past actions by the Board to limit utility service outside the designated growth areas. Staff recommends that public water and sewer service not be made available to this property. Should the Board choose to approve the applicant' s request, service should be limited to the 10. 3 acres to occupied by the church and further limited to only the church building as approved under SP-90-35 Covenant Church of God. VWC/j cw ATTACHMENT .S LISItD BELL..ARE l� PURSUANT TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE IN EFFECT THIS DATE AND ARf SHOWN FOR INFORMATION THE IAVOERSI�NED OWNER,PROPERTIES ANO TRUSTEES. AN TO FU TIARE POTENTIAL I VELOPWENT IS TO BE S� RPOSES ONLY. THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS DEEMED AS THEORETICAL ONLY Ar ITEMENTS AFFIXEI �` NNING WITH THE LAND AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON IRIS TO THIS PLAT ARE TRUE AND CORK 0 THE BEST OF MY 4tF T.M. 46 - 23E NUT IS HOT INTENDED !O IMPOSE THEM AS SUCH KNOWLEDGE. PETER G. HALLOCK D.B. 916 - 306 A PARCEL A MAY NOT BE FURTHER DIVIDED. D.B. 596 71 PLAT B. THE RESIDUE MAY BE FURTHER DIVIDED INTO • 4 LOTS OF AREAS LESS THAN 21 ACRES EACH, 8. 1 1 . , ^�_ PROVIDED THEY DO NOT AGGREGATE MORE THAN -�w4 ft1.714':' it T.M. 46.- 26C 20.70 ACRES, AND AS MANY LOTS OVER 21 (�,R - JOHN H. CLARK ACRES EACH AS THE RESIDUE WILL ALLOW. 24- WALNUT D.B. 352-216,217 PLAT N. BANKNOTES : STREAM • / I. PARCEL A L THE RESIDUE EACH HAVE A MINIMUM • - S84.4113"E 99.00 OF 30,000 S.F. OF AREA WITH SLOPES LESS 696.12 O ION FOUND THAN 25%. IRON N21•02'50"E SET COS N51'46'37"E 116.13 2. PARCEL A DOES NOT LIE WITHIN THE 100 OA., tANs,-IRON SET YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD S75'13'34"E 19.78 INSURANCE RATE MAPS. ROq. S79'41'11'E 57.91 3 PARCEL A io S82'48'47"E 138.57 m m 10.30 AC. p\ m • D.B. 231 - 45 o M O.B. 639 544 S8019'39"E 75.86 a W\ APPROVED FOR RECORDATION , FRAME DRIVEWAY \ S77.40'46"E 126.04 IRON SET S36.32.26"yy 10.5HE�� 10.3 --- - .IRON SET it G 'J 9p 64g.63 O. _i�r O. S79'05'41"E 51.85 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING - IRON S83.42'25"E 70.36 SET S22'4519"W J L� p 400.00 p Q "f s89.20'45"E 66.80 2 , N84'IVSI'E 93.34 41 °.y\,-N80•32'01"E 66.23 • ' T.M. 46 - 22 4.10 1 v FREDERICK L GENEVIEVE MORSE MON PLAT SHOWING D.B. 231 - 45 49 PLAT ba FOUND SURVEY OF PARCEL A , CONTAINING 10.30 ACRES D.B. 639 - 544 HWY. TAKE ,- S08•12'24"E A PORTION OF THE FREDERICK_& GENEVIEVE MORSE PROPERTY.RESIDUE .• 71927i ACRES - 316.74 MON. LOCATED ON ST. RT. 643 , ABOUT 1.1 MI. E. OF U.S. RT. 29 FOUND ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VIRGINIA • T.M. 46 22B SCALE : I" - 200' DATE : 6-27-90 F.A. IACHETTA FOR REV. : 7-2-90 D.B. 441 - 649 / D.B. 661 - 700 PLAT CHURCH OF GOD ROGER W. RAY L ASSOC. , NC. CHARLOTTESVILLE , VA. 8I28 .. 7 . nv�a - .. .1- . .; . , r,. 777 ::ti .es sae .: THE LAND USE REGULATIONS LISTED BELOW ARE IMPOSED THE DIVISION Of THE LAND DESCRIBED HEREON lJ WR PURSUANT TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE THE UNDERSIGNED OWNER,PROPERTIES AND TRUSTEES. ANREFERENfI TO FUTURE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE IN POSES THISL DATE AND ARE SHOWN FOR INFORMATION IN EFFECT ONLY.DATE ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE FOR COVENANTS DEEMED AS THEORETICAL ONLY ALL STATEMENTS AfflXf Ss), RUNNING WITH THE LAND AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON THIS , TO THIS KNOWLEDGE. ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YY RF4y T.M. 46 23E PUT IS NOT INTENDED TO IMPOSE THEM AS SUCH /°7V\ PETER 1 - 306 K A. PARCEL A MAY NOT BE FURTHER DIVIDED. —�— D.B. 916 - 306 B. THE RESIDUE MAY BE FURTHER DIVIDED INTO D.B. 596 71 PLAT 4 LOTS OF AREAS LESS THAN 21 ACRES EACH, • �! �_ PROVIDED THEY DO NOT AGGREGATE MORE THAN C- 20.70 ACRES, AND'AS MANY LOTS OVER 21 i'l T.M. 46 - 26C ACRES EACH AS THE RESIDUE WILL ALLOW. JOHN H. CLARK NOTES 24" WALNUT D.B. 352 2.16,217 PLAT N. BANKN. I. PARCEL A L THE RESIDUE EACH HAVE .NI. STREAM-- OF 30,000 S.F. OF AREA WITH SLOPE SS S84'41'13"E 99.00 THAN 25 A. 696.12 IRON FOUND 2. PARCEL A DOES NOT LIE WITHIN THE 100 O ' N51'46'37"E 116.13FLOOD PLAIN ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD IRON N21'02'SO E C� YEAR RATE MAPS. R/pad' N�IRON SET YEAR SET /(( `' - S75'13'34"E 19.78 13'040" S79'4111'E 57.91 D PARCEL A - S82'48'47"E 138.57 g, 10.30 AC. 1-{\ h g D.B. 23E - 45 0 M D.B. 639-544 ° S8O'19'39"E 75.86 APPROVED FOR RECORDATION ID 2 •A� DRIVEWAY t.il\ S77'40'46"E 126.04 �.3 FRAME v , r - SHED ----___- IRON SET DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 10.5 10.3 ° S79'05'41"E 51.85 IRON S36'S2'26"�yl �° �` O' SET 649.63 �% S83'42'25"E 70.36 IRON /,� lu p SET S22'45'19'W 2 ° -589'20'45"E 66.80 400.00 o Q SJ2 d N84'I I'S1"E 93.34 4 .'-9�N80'32'0I"E 66.23 iS 4.10 ;v17 PLAT SHOWING MON. CONTAINING 10.30 ACRES T.M. 46 - 22 by FOUND SURVEY OF PARCEL A , FREDERICK L GENEVIEVE MORSE y�L' S08'12'24"E D.B.639231 - 45 , 49 PLAT A PORTION OF THE FREDERICK & GENEHIEj^'EEMOORSE U.S. RT.PROPERTY D.B. 544 HWY. TAKE 316.74 LOCATED ON ST. RT. 643 , ABOUT RESIDUE - 71.927t ACRES FOUNDO . ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VIRGINIA - 200' DATE : 6-27-90 SCALE I" .:.,. .., REV..: 7y 2-90_ T.M. A4 - 22B FOR 1 .' - F.A. IACHETTA CHURCH OF GOD D.B. 441 - 649 ., / D.B. 661 - 700 PLAT ROGER W. RAY L ASSOC. , INC. CHARLOTTESVILLE , VA. Covenant Church of God January 11, 1991 :���` ^'' ` �,' _ • 1025 East Rio Road Chariottesvilb, Mr. F. R. Bowie, Chairman 4:�•t� t� • Virginia 22901 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors JAN 14 1991 (ea)973-5538 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Pi AsN;;,k-i D;V1 ION Dear Mr. Bowie: Please accept this petition as a formal request to include TM 46 Parcel 22 in the jurisdictional area for public water and sewer. As you are aware this property has been approved for con- struction of a church complex. Included in our purchase of the property were easements to the public sewer which runs adjacent along the eastern boundary of the above cited parcel. Less than 300 feet of natural fall is between our boundary and the sewer line. Our petition incorporates historical studies of the county growth plan, even back to the 70 's, which anticipated growth parallel with sewer and water lines . The sewer. line is already installed. Forest Lakes ' plan anticipates southerly development approaching Route 643 . In addition, Meadow Creek Parkway, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan, will certainly dictate growth. Approval of this petition would also preserve acreage for much more practical uses than drainfield. It is noteworthy that the Tax Assessor' s office has designated 8+ acres as being taxable--non-agricultural, which indicates that the governmental disposition towards this parcel is commercial. The petitioner understands that installation of lines and hookups are the cost of the petitioner. We have already . talked with Paul Shoop of the Albemarle Service Authority regarding the logistics, and a letter from Mr. Shoop is attached. Our expectation would be to act expeditiously consequent to approval. SENIOR PASTOR Harold L. Bare, Sr. PASTOR Youth and Music Jerry Steele PASTOR Education and Extension Victor Morris Obviously, we are most anxious for a favorable vote. What we have petitioned seems to us quite logical. Your consideration and cooperation will be deeply appreciated. Grat ull old L. Bare, Sr. Enclosures (2 ) : Plat Letter from Paul Shoop cc: Paul Shoop Wayne Cilimberg L3EVARLE ' ;O ., \ TY SERVI E AUTHORITY Box 1009 401 MCIIN'IRE RD. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VH. 22902 (804) 296-5810 January 9, 1991 Pastor Harold L. Bare, Sr. 1025 E. Rio Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Sanitary Sewer Service for TM 46 Parcel 22 Dear Pastor Bare: I have reviewed the availability of public water and sewer to your part of parcel 22 above. Unfortunately, this property is not currently within our jurisdictional area. You must petition the Board of Supervisors to have this included. There is a sanitary sewer line onsite with adequate capacity to provide service to this property. Connection to this line will require authorization from the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority. If you are successful in your petition to the Board, we will support this connection and intervene to have it approved by Rivanna. , Water service is somewhat distant. the nearest available line is at Rt. 29 approximately 6600 if offsite. I hope you are successful in petitioning the Board. The proximity of other properties included in our jurisdictional area should support your request. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul A. Shoop, P. Director of Engineering PAS:dmg ALBEMARLE33 COUN-I \ ti • +�j+r s`9,,�£, : �c`' g• T''': ` c, A1,• a•: ; i '.. '4 `YK* fi, £ Yt" 'Fri t � a" « \ y '",Y�� • 30• ,tea A i +�. Y ♦ 2 a q. �`t . f '� k/ �. ��.� .fines 4 ,- ra0=d a n � Ott 4' � � �, �;;. • �1 )0�• Ce !E b ,. a R" • 'fz4,iah`" a`f _ s� k ,:.• -; ,�s S �;( ''� •� g5 1iie )leN'.>..i,t... .,Alglat : i ....''''t" .. '.''7:V® �¢ K�a a 1 Z36 e - tpititi, : Ca0 K^ j �r c^C i/ 336 • '• Illik : , qiil le q£# ej{ s e i• ..;f4.,;./'•';1,$':•?:,:::''• --"Lc.....„'Ci;-•...,:.>-...„(3.•:''''',..........: V. 1r• \•• \' '7 �k . 11 � e � ,: y 37,V �� ; \y 1$ } � . E IfYti/ ; g. �¢ ' I ;".P...1433,` 3AC> r Y } € 3 A `zo _ f�/ alar c��. VI. YrMi ' S ma x4a.p J If • • • i. ' 14A tip',00.:.'„::,.:,:?„:.'21...4..*•:;;.;.•: : 1.,..A.:1,A. 1 ill 1111 iv,,,,. 2.1:„:„.,,,,or..4 4.3 18 !�r3°$: ',s `c s.y.<::'�c^...s.sa.-��-- g�' a` >,`;vrF tHs / � >_ \ 931 a a�Y . , 3. 1 38 /rK !� Yr „s �°' ��'":n3'¢< °. "r ��evt, a� �.; 3a,S�} a a•a 40 / �jRt.784 C = mil. ,s fit . - Yi^ • -�; : ' s ,�\ 47—: K / /' -. t �K :. as • z a. k v ��Q.,, 14/. a�� K' :wx r z Ac"a c} ¢ s <a • yt"^ 'A1''• •\b 54• \Sot „..9: 70 '�\ x VI a a 'w x , z aria g „,�� a i:: J� ; • so •% � • Y� • $" 3 '� ? �s �L„X *� §3aa'4 a� s7._`,�( :''� '�-4 \ 3a\ W.W "� '# , ,x "icy ^k, Cax. . e. K •\ { •- ,q° .. `' ,"'2�E , .1t. I ;tom 3Yt gr • � 171 �� f7( t1�2 71 s aw ,. +Z V 7I,11 Y Y • . ,� Itrft'sj ...:t1000.,:• `a "'k' `-'� 3 4.� "f' <x �, \ P • 'f,.r ,.f c.1 ••�S!� 4T ' ..- " '•'•A• "" 14eN \ et3i, a. a»�tsrkV' \ /d 9 3 J • al`r °.r, "r � l ? i ' 1:" i:, .4 f ,../.// i',..„ „o.,".05'..\:"\ •,,,:,:.../ c 679\ \ 4 u•/ . P �..1 ..1 ky \ l /tr d v^Pa a g: ; W ♦l�'�9 P • ! s a : 99xx iA 0atx : Q\ \ 2]C \ a op,,;„ P`J f O : '..—L/oe ,6, ...' • .‘‘.. --..' .. s...N.,"A / . 92 77/e . 1,10 338 ....../1/, 7...: " •syi,.,; lQ4 ,II',.1-Dk .4 �7sort </Jf pj .:V. »y />/: "1. ..„ 4"!;.5's:'' .:".:. . ..:7-':;,; ',4W_4iit41 „iii• • ‘ ..IA \ ... 44 //:::„.„.\ .1.14\2‹ 1•3 v3./.........1 1.0 / 30. • // 7. / AZ""R� tt„f, fax .�. / , N� /,(� "%'\Ni.'\ tot //ert,, „.•;....._-__,,,L- „,iii 1-k.41•.:ko,:.... : :..--.4t1r,•: .-..i•.:I 1 - ,.,,„,•,„..,,,:..,. • ::.. .,.:. . . :,,,ad • ,.,.. jN . \ AI „, ,\ ,,,,:::„.: :T, - ,� f j 121 I:rr... , '- --ic 91s • \ ......„...,,„ „.i., ,. ..:. ..... f/ 1.-- ,, ,, • ,,�f�� 1 • • \ r / 62 sc.,. ,� RLO SECTION 46 A�In C71vnCHAnlnl�TTESVILLE nlc-r•nl�T, SERVICE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS MAP KEY WATER ONLY ?f; WATER AND SEWER WATER ONLY TO EXISTING STRUCTURES These are existing structures as of the adopted date, either 10- 1 -82 or 8-10-83 Please see "List of Existing Structures OR Development Rights" for specific structures and . dates. o•3 • ,•,vtei ;� LIMITED SERVICE Please see "List of Existing Structures OR Development Rights" for specific limitations. M t.a r c a- :s t: r_ I DEC 2 DM F r i g -i. n r i n ci & . C, 0 reap t.t i.: r PLANNING DIVISION pL> ]. ic:._ t: i. Lt11_; --_ . ATTACHMENT B 338 Rio Road t----1 j i Charlottesville , VA 22901 - i 804 - 978 - 7879 � ... - December 2.. 1,191 • Mr. V. Wayne Ci.l.imbe rat, Director of Planning & Community Development Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22'101 Re: Covenant Church of God Dear Mr. Cilinnberg: • 1 am writing in regard to the Covenant Church of God (Tax Map 46 - Parcel 22D)'s request to be included in the Albemarle County. Seivic:e Authority's jurisdictional area. As you stated in youi February 8, 1991 staff report, the Comprehensive Plan is "inten- tionally specific in objective and strategies as to where and under what circumstances public utilities should be made available: OBJECTIVE: Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban Area and communities. STRATEGIES: Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas." The Comprehensive Plan's reasoning behind that strategy is that "such utilities are not to be extended to the rural areas as • these services can increase development pressures." The develop- ment potential does not exist in this case. The flood hazard overlay maps clearly show that there is no developable land between the Hollymead Growth Area and the Rivanna River until 4,000' down Route 643 from Route 29. Everything else is in the floodplain. As a matter of fact, a detailed flood study was done in this area and virtually everything is in the floodway, which as you know, prohibits all fill under any circumstance. The total area bounded by Route 643, South Fork Rivanna River, Route 29 and Powell Creek is approximately 200 acres. Of that total, 120 acres is floodway. There are just over. 30 acres which are not part of the church property, not in the floodplain and beyond setback reguiremi•nts. A significant portion of the 30 acres would be tinbuildahle due to critical slopes and the align- ment proposed For the Meadowcree>: F. rkwr_ty. V. Wayne Cilin►hery December: 2, 1.991 Paye 2 The church property f ronts on a road which is the southern bound- ary of the Hoilywead Growth Aroa and the back of oriyit►al tract abuts the boundary for the Nr.igl►borhund 2 Growth Area. Why then is this property not part of a growth area? The answer is found in the Comprehensive Plan which :,;taLes: The area between the southern boundary of Route 643 and the South Fork of the Rivanna River to remain in an open state as a buffer between the urban area and the Community of Hollyrnead. This boundary is critical as it preserves the distinct identity of the community from the urban area and prevents continuous development from the City of Charlottesville up Route 29 North to the North Fork of the Rivanna. Thi:< area is included in the Rivanna River. Greenway Corridor and provides an oppnrH-unity for passive recreational uses. Again, please look at the flood hazard overlay. You will find] that the 100-year floodplain and floodway accomplish the stated objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, providing a buffer and opportunity for a yreenway corridor. Staff said that they were aware of the limited opportunity for growth in this area and that was one reason why this property was not included in the Holly►ne.►d Growth Area. Yet, the Comp Plan says "utilities are not to be extended to the rural areas as these service:: can increase development pressures". This puts the church in a position where it can't be included in a growth area and have utilities because there's not enough area to develop, but at •the same time, it can't have utilities if it isn't in a growth area because too much may develop. How can it be both ways? If there isn't enough developable land to be included in a growth area, there can't be an increase in development pressure, and therefore, utilities should be allowed. This request is consistent with the reasoning which supports the strategies and objective of the Comprehensive Plan for provision of public water and sewer service. Finally, according to the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, the sewer which the church would be connecting to (Powell Creek Interceptor) was originally de - signed to include the church property and has plenty of capacity. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Sincerely, :]. Thn►n.-is Muncaster, Jr., P.E. Attachments / =Zoe o D 27 30,• /23 DAMES L. CA[.VER.STA IGEOLrOOIST '•'1..• • e iJ60 us NW • • • ,;!'�' : \Ri ar na • S\•-. ` rEARL VSV, , en /16 . /..„,...-----„,---2.?, , &•:• „..3 / , , • = Nutty ao iit - / them Garcon; • t a S'�J -•' ,•• /• •-••--;._./ --•a . • 4 o • 1 � I w\ter �� 4- • 1I .l r I�• �/ - �C� • 40 / L �t / /, �// Bethel, `c'"`y0� • Y v Cem _':':0- 1. • \ ) ! ‘ /y�Traler 50 L - •. / \ 8 `\ f Park lSchYmead Cem' a kd r.V • .w� ) .�� /` •40 ,\ - /� _ s= _.'._ Pro ffit'. / • ilf S uth,'FOrk �/ s, 0. o a°" N' •- ./•-�� , Mauer oar \ 1 rr BM a39 wr way,..,. _ a �. y W• .t�.�• Cem / ~na , ' l .•may\ /v _, .- \,5 ' \ Chi • cpp� /; � S. n Ever6ran•\ram-ft 15! H trahon ! „ ..„,_ ° / n�'q ,...:, ,..,..,.....\_, , r ,.. 0 l Il ( ' Y& \ II (,,, . . / • # ..-. , s.. / • . ' t •••• ',..‘.1.,".11"-- \ 4' .., N\ )71 / \' Ce-n\ . II„ ,.'/..er "' ( I t � '-,fir ik • l'i g / ' .is al • •7 • • • •• NEiG n00b 2 I,, krook `k`` � Ej' aB, _.e\ 0 �� : 4 • • 7 ^4• r I a . li... .4, \i 6'66.1.1i:J••• :III �' .... ;\• estmorelan- ;' /V'7-k` ;' - 1 ° Y • •J�/ • •\•• 8 sue, . \ r\ P nd a 0. I , • •,;, .j' • // • c ' r • • / 4 �i'/ ' /N rthfield ' °•�" ••em, ' _ :: e `. • • • r • • _\ i, //, .. •" b 's. ! r 111 _ j ' ._ -• , '/ ` % � . ilk � ,� • :,: " r' `4 ;; __ ,�I\ ��/.•e'. •a • %'•43• * W ;. , i *•> • mil • ' /. " ad . ( • .„,,st.M.,•.•• ..__. . • ci. • l(--j _._, p111111(.1111))..titiiiii S4.?' sii?,../41 I 1:ief*:1:1:::•::::::gieii:::::. :rate.::::•:.-w I. t4::****i::::::•:?•:•• "- ••'•••::::::.ill iN . .;:;:::::::::t;:::::::::::: %Ir :-:-. pleiwkfliil zi.; ......,....••.....x...•••••• .,..,...::::•:: N... - • ......:...- •••• . ,....t..•, , ,.,,,, •••• ..• ..., ) 1-, I -,- 4,-.:40::::•.04:p -::ii:iiii:giii:....-1.4....::g::f .41, , 4\4,,zr ov:K4::::::::g:::::• •::::!:::;::::i:::1::::i::::::::::: ;:t:f - 0,1 ,4, seX•••••••••••••• %••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• isd -,,,A,',-' 's:::;A:::*:::;:::: e.y::-::::: :•:;::::•:::::***, . • E. .„----- 6, r• tc ft 5.- ... 1 • ) \ ,,,tf 1 ,,,,,41:4,,,,4 :!:::::!:$•::::::•:...- .4•:•:: :::Z::•::::•:••:•:•:•• 4- Ste ••••••••••44:,ts a i • .47.114 142P:k .::::i?..iri.:.*..4;iiiiiiti....;:e:ii 4::Zi"::::****Z• • ,•• C A ;4;71 r, .ri-V-rr 4.0/40.•:•:•:•:•:•*:.: .s V 4 •••:1• •C \ ../441 4`•J Ps•,-''4'"- 0 "••••:••••••••0;•*••••••••-•L w• ,V 1. iv'''' I :r••.Z.:•:•:•:W:•4:*:.;.:. V 4 V / s 4,. t , ;.::•:::::::*.:::::.::::::::::• b , , .. . , !- g , - t4r. 6,; ' , :::•::::::::::*:-::::::::: : 0' 4 7 > lie,ALr•t•ZItb!:' ‘ ' P:VW6W:$,P4 7 V 4' • 4 I --) I 3,t1, „..Isi•-•`.,::,,,,„, ta'V ,' -‘''''i •••-•••:1,•••:•••••••- 7• r L. lie r thwood >.64,1:. a. 44 Po ift /1 / ,',1•40,14%.,s3'.":',' ,T.'• 4Clit," Cr 11,CF4$ ( ....I; 6) . ;•••• ?4:474.41.••'%;. •••:•:•••• 4 .' •• al ir•'•- tn 4. tr,,,..., ....".......ARIV I ,.,'-'_ viefi. "°/ :::::::*::::::V•N , .. .•.• • ! • .: "li`i'':;‘: 1.t.::klti::"..%:?::::*/ .#14. ,r, •••••V *.••••••• •••A,..., , „...., ,.......s.,.. ........ A.... .a:u. ::::. sArl.? •- i e.,..s• a, ''-, L:•::::::44:414 .:•:**. .4t:::•::::.. •. . . ::: -•7 R. 4 47----- i ' It ...--' R:::: :•'44.1.. .* •+•••:::::•:::::::;•,,cl....:-:-: ,.::::. ,::.''. -' --.1/4 1 %Id r:4- T.•rybrook 1 , .-- •. •••••.•..••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••• . • 4. i 'tr,,,,,. , ..:•:<#.•.;e4Xxe I 00.••••••••••:•••••••.:+t*:* • '•:: ,r i'Is= Ac '•• - •' • ••••::::•• •••1 •::•A:::::••k::•At‘•••:•,"Alb,:•4 * t,,..144,.:,.., lip 3. _1••,\ 4. , ',"-Ittw.: .+*;:::::;:1::::::: .if:::§::::k1:::::::i:i;VO.oenk ;;•,.4-1044re.4"= • 4;\ 1-V i ' ---•••4,- •• :•:4.1:;•••' -•••:4•14•;•:. X.::::::1::::::$•.:X4::EVI ...::, '': lbe".'-•'11%/Z4, • „ 4, 4 1 I.I .•/ : .j.Lt 4.40:10:04... ..•:: 4:. 0:0:1'Xi I:400 Ci I:0:0:4 10:4 CO.,...... .74 Ilia ' dit ih ." ...4/ I ,„s •„,•••:%••••••••••••••••••-".. • ••••••••••••:•••••••••••••••• •••'.":1 ' it: e .: -• 4 A , • ,•• 'F'•••••:•••,••••••••••••••••. ••••••X•••:•:,•••••:•••P .••'.'.'• , ,,.. ••• e p_ & r 4 k 4 `• '' 4 4 ugrlot • '4'• ,\X' •', 4,*:::::::?:*_;:*::::. •4:4:::::*4:z$4:" .....:••• r,`•A ' r 4 .4041,10 Ai,••..* ‘k .44:••••4:414••4.4.•944:4••••• ••••t .1.•••-•-.. "' - 74414 , 1 „•.,,..',,,.i.. :' #•.•:•:•,,•:•:•:%••••••••:•:••••• •••••••• •:.*;'. No 1 I Y „ i 4 ‘ • ,4 •,44 , 4 4 4 , Itaibita::::::•::+:441"",, P::::i4 a•-•PG elmrerl al:1 ,,V 4 4;Pp 44%I v4 is:xl.44 4 , ..• •••••••••• ..•„••••••••••••• ••••.' .4?„-,...1.4.i., i s ‘k .a)v4i 4• .. . .V ••••••:•:**.t0 zittT -.t., / A t LA .0".:4X.;!.;..11•:•:•N.•:•:•*- :- „c17)4-.47:i / a. • •fr 'II • e, 4 - i / , 14,4%•„•:•••••••••••••••••:•%••••••••„;•:4;• •:...:•., •ril,'•••,91.,';‘, / 7 1°II ., 1 441 04-1'' !tttlig;t§::***(:::::::::-::K:i4i . .1...:•:*::•.:•'C-C:3)1.4.1:')7 4 1 4 - ‘ : I/1 4...41.:$10:3:3i*:**:1 .....::!::::* ' .*-* k 61 4•t. 4/ P.)4 4 1 4'4 P I I 4..-kt..444:4.:4z%•••••••,•••:.:14, 4........:::.:,•:;,:74 .1' s' a fgt. < ).41 • .. i• t t s. ' 44 4 )4 V a' ...47.?-1.,77: •••• ...'••:• < --.., '444 .,":-1;13V ';'. . 4 4 V • I ./ , I, •• < -44i1th 1 4 V - • ;7 7 I•4 \ tr.t•vx;:;-•-,e, 44 4 4 x 4 .dip • 7 7 4 •••* - 1 i',4*: ,T.i)1 Ir ' -•4 1 V 11' A A t- '•. ....-1,... ..,. .1 A , P 1 4 A ••• , s• •_i • •• g. ."..,%"1 -s•Vir_": 4 1 P.AO I. °I A A tet.••••:•. • .1 .1•7Ase V V'4 i 4110 .4 •••••:•1:060 • k / , '110 0 ••••"`. ... A r , :: •41,„•••••••1 ,,e •••: .4%.,*,•••••,•4 I'A - ,491., ,I ••• •‘::••••••J ••ye a& g t••• i 1. ••••••::•••••• ?••••••0111.10:.•%•••!: 4 j• •‘:'" '''," .1 0:::.)••••:".. •-e- Ite-ir 4 a. 4 • , p 00 0.11._fte•sear 4 • Ve 1.14:10 416.6 4.*; 4 A A , '-'3,' '''' .'"'"-16 11.1.1•1,;"•••3$•": ...,,.. i%••••%•%111%.•0. 1 * ft .1 ..i , t-4, •ir. 0.0. ••{"._••••• Proff I %••••2 4.-. .,„••,,........i a • 4 v - , ffi•J'...•.ffi•• , t - '' V•66••••:••••;:""/4 A 7 1 '4 : . "16:•: •111% \ • • 0.04N:re*.cr ,.s.,. , ... ) r - VI 116.ple• ...•, . ..•••41;i'V 1. .' b,4 / 4 • .1•1••••sii•i . -; -• ..?.•:•:• 7 7 4 4 ill•l•..\ v14,4 -I, q 1 A .., 4,0,•.•:, i , 7 - ----- ',.4..„,• , s'.., ‘ ( 7-4 -7-4 7ellasj:,•-• „- _,, . ..„. % a v 4 A r y .• Ilfse\i, ir• r .. Map 22: .,,,, . -,•-,-,,.. .._x.„ , ,,,, „, , lig. . .;%,„%,.1_,....pt.".,.,,..,„„ .,.,,-,-. ,, --Y i• •0•0,4er 1' 74;.:.i .!, .. .. "-•':;2ii, vitsgiett t t• °*b4:%.:Y"'.. Ivc:1:;F:;.;,.:441',4., I 4 g•t; 4 .......7,5,%:,:, ..,„i:-,03,,a,.4- 4,4,4, u.%. •I 1 q I.5 7 7 4 •%••‘:%••• / "•'.'",- •114AAL,k, 's.••-•,,‘ - • 1. V• V 4 'PIP ..••••• e, e 447::" " '' : r.1,.......a,' t*,: e , i ill::41:14•4:4 , . .%1:411.1..i. COMMUNITY OF H OLLYMEAD r . 47% 64 1. • 7' • ,...- 14 A v AA r4A44 4 .• V> v.. 4I. „ 0?:: 11, •• 4 7 "110 b 1* . ..• P• •14/1, ••••.' •. .45 . 4`....4 • c <f4t, 4 .. . ? • a V - - 42.0 . A .....r-""- ..' • • °IN? - s 1:3 • 1...0t.) Des,t(T l' i elCs ii)C PUT I AL 41 'rL 11$.41/4. Z:_____________________________ • „• • 273 ------------•-•"--•••-••••••••••••••••-^•••••••••••• ••' - - -- ---- -.- - • __. _ • ',4•••1•11nlieeiiiiiiiiMEIRrig".""*"..." • ! ��-. « // ' 'Park rCooD ) y "fir . • • v }` II PA&r_ Z.30 11 • I N. •rM r .... \\ \ j '�fR�:p, :%s J• rr� i \ ii • • • -•�L' II - •\ + • II II . • "g% 51 4t4;'0. % ...--N. \ Nistillor- ‘i is • ,S•• . •l• � P. Yam•. II k _ \��� �'.. � II \ ‘1 II • �� II • •:.-.:i.) II ,T;41, 0 • • Ati°Z •' z---.3,prr, 1., .1 '‘4'. :k - -'•°1.'' tla C°' ift'''''. .,,-, ''' ,,, ailm, _ Loe. , A laP f k 1\I OEY •411 • • 'C\0 , i • • •• •'•f.: J� 4;'i� • T ' :' • ;• ..•:. 45...;::..t',. .,.; '-` . =., tea.,, I /(I/ c. • ,SAS ' . !• • ♦ P• / _., • , -. '• ;;.Iry YIrrip , loi 11.11 •r/, •y .i_, • ./^ir : , •. • :PO,PG�•E • FAO PTE •O GEs • `6 I % . ^X.ttw. 1 0,S., �� , . R.P° �,L• RUOP°• K=� arf���?aL. • e. '+. �• _fit: t ^^}J' Y' 1 • • bOVER a ` lkik, i A C '!/S T/�-- SE GQA k `cY \ 1 2J V ��' /C . / / '\;; - N - 6 ( • 1 . / 24 26c - / kJ ,�l 1- 23 A N . / t 25 J; / ,.. \ ..z. _ \�� 94 �2 _ s 26 JT/.,_ 96 �/ --)f.--, /-c;! ( ' i Z ^� �. ' 98e d � 99 / \\, e- -- ... 22 Av). • I\C)I 1° i .S3 %,9, ' S1�L 1' 11 \ • `� - \ ' i )\ n;\sr62 v, ..;, //// \�-�o 106 / r ` ./. 7j. '4>//,' t....--,„, i (\ it ' 1 t . Z / � rl ifs .\ , .1/ \fb; /`\ IF 1 / \ fImo r•k r. K .. i ,� 4 = p c,�- \\ l\>F 1 B \' ,\\Ii k\ 7 , ,,\-"' I\� /3?R� '\ \ o ' / ,-/- /35. Is.,, \ raiNMotEs � )55 \ . ZQ. W-S \ •V 1 \ 3y • <:.,E.-r.vicE.-) ... D 4/1(7 / ,..• \ \.1..,,,,\ (., , �'1 Q\ �'\ l"5 \ S3 \ `` I 9u {' Jq�q \ 03 �.p I� I l T • l4- , • 1 10-5 f ' (<,,s'7,/ /t \Db , Va c.6 „ .•., 7//I////I///I/ J lad I� � .- ///////////// // / _ M.B. 40, Pg. 120 February 1' '992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) intersection with the origin of Barn Branch; then southwest with Barn Branch to its confluence with the Rivanna River; then meandering west with the Rivanna River to its intersection with the eastern city limits of Charlottesville; then northeast with the city limits to its _ intersection with State Route 631 and the Southern Railroad right-of-way, the point of beginning. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include TM46,P22D, Covenant Church of God, for water and sewer service. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 28 and February 4, 1992.) Mr. Cilimberg noted that the tax map relating to the Covenant Church of God identifies the parcel of land in question as Parcel 22. He pointed out that the original special use permit was for parcel 22, but that was before this particular ten acres was subdivided from the original tract to create the site for which the particular use is being proposed. Mr. Cilimberg went on to say that this request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service areas to provide public water and sewer to The Covenant Church of God was originally made a year ago, but the applicant chose at that time not to go to public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant subsequently returned with information supporting his feeling that it is appropriate to provide water and sewer service to this particular location for the proposed church. The applicant then chose to go to public hearing in December for this request. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the Albemarle County Service Authority's existing service areas on a map to show the relationship of this particular parcel to surrounding service areas. Adjacent to the north and across the South Fork Rivanna River there are full water and sewer service areas. These areas coincide with the growth area boundaries for Hollymead and for the urban area. This request is for an area shown in the Comprehensive Plan outside of those growth areas identified as open space between the two growth areas. i This particular site was approved for a church by special use permit, and at that time, it was thought that a well and septic system would be used. Further research into the site and further identification of the applicant's need for the development site itself has since identified the need for consid- ering public water and sewer to avoid a large area of septic fields and disturbance on the site. Mr. Cilimberg reminded Board members that they were provided a report in December summarizing the staff's position on the request. Also provided in that report as Attachment A was a report of February 8, 1991, and an Attach- ment B which is the justification as presented on behalf of The Covenant Church of God by Mr. Tom Muncaster. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Mr. Muncaster's reasoning is that the parcel to be served is part of a very limited area that could be developed between Hollymead and the urban area. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that due to the general restriction of flood plain and topography, there is little area identified outside of the growth area that could be developed. Mr. Cilimberg commented that Mr. Muncaster argues that the reason this parcel is not included in the growth area is because it is part of an area of limited development potential, so Mr. Muncaster feels that providing public water and sewer to this parcel would not undermine the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff recognizes that fact, but the area was purposely not included in the growth area due to the decision to retain the area between Route 643 and the South Fork Rivanna River as a general buffer between the two growth areas. Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff has consistently recommended that any area that is not currently in the growth area should not be included in public utility service areas. A strong attempt is made to make sure that these boundaries coincide. The staff feels that public utility capacity should be reserved to support development in designated growth areas, and for that reason, even with approvals outside of growth areas for nonresidential development or special use permit types of — uses, the staff has not recommended water and sewer service. He reiterated that the staff feels that the capacity is most important to those areas designated for growth. Mr. Bain asked if staff has determined that the area within the buffer between the two communities is buildable. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the basic area Mr. Muncaster identified is shown in the report. The staff can February '" 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) N4.13. 44), Pg. 121 (Page 5) confirm, based on Mr. Muncaster's information, that it is a reasonable assump- tion that the area he has identified will be the limit of any developable area. He directed the Board's attention to Attachment B, and described several maps at the back of the package. He said there is an area that encompasses the site for the church, outlined in yellow on the map. The staff would agree that this is the area where, if development is expected in this area, this is where it would happen. The area beyond is very unlikely for anything besides the normal flood plain type uses. The staff told Mr. Muncaster and Mr. Bare that if they wanted to pursue the service areas re- quest, the staff would recommend looking at an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan first so the areas could be recognized as being in the growth area. Mr. Bain stated that he has a hard time supporting something that is outside of growth areas, because of the Comprehensive Plan and the procedures that need to be followed. He added, though, that if this is a limited area that can be used for something, then he thinks the Board should consider putting that limited area in the Comprehensive Plan as a growth area. He went on to say that it could be attached to the Hollymead growth area, and then there would not be a problem. He said that the growth area and the water and sewer service areas can be treated as they have been treated in the past. He then asked where the water and sewer lines now cross the buffer areas. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the sewer line travels up the South Fork Rivanna River and follows Powell Creek up into Hollymead. He does not know how close the water lines are, but Mr. Bill Brent or Mr. Muncaster would point them out. Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is water service in Hollymead and in the urban area. He then called the Board's attention to the fact that the reason the Route 643 boundary was used on the north and the Rivanna River boundary was used on the South is because it was considered that the whole area provided a green space between the two growth areas. He noted that if this request is approved, it would be in recognition of the fact that this area is not that valuable as a green space between the two growth areas. He stated that the easiest thing for the staff would be to consider this request along with the other expansions of growth areas to be considered next year./ Mr. Martin said since the church received a special use permit to build a church in that area it really is not a green area now. He does not think the water and sewer service will affect whether or not it becomes a green area. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that if the special use permit is exercised, the area will not serve as a green space. Mr. Marshall remarked that the staff is recommending that water and sewer service be denied to this property, and he doesn't agree. He asked why the staff is not recommending water and sewer service for the church. He inquired if the only reason is because the property is out of the growth area. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the property is out of the growth area and approval would be inconsistent with the County's planning approach. He reiterated that the capacity of the water and sewer system needs to be reserved for develop- ment of designated growth areas. Each incremental addition outside of the growth areas, which uses public utilities, takes some of the capacity away. Mr. Marshall then inquired if this property is going to be incorporated into the growth area. Mr. Bain stated that he had raised this as a possibility. Mr. Cilimberg stated that if the Board thinks that it is important to have this property incorporated into a growth area, then the Comprehensive Plan could be amended. Mr. Bain mentioned that if this property is really in a limited area, from a policy perspective, the Board probably should agree to incorporate this property into the plan as a growth area. Mr. Marshall remarked that he agrees with Mr. Bain. Mr. Bain said the Board had received information last year which con- tained quotes from the Comprehensive Plan indicating that the service areas should be followed wherever possible unless public health or safety are involved. M.B. 40, Pg. 122 February 12 1092 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) There were no other questions for Mr. Cilimberg from Board members. Mr. Bowerman then opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Muncaster if he would like to speak. Mr. Tom Muncaster, Muncaster Engineering and Computer Applications, pointed out that the project fronts on Route 643, and everything north of Route 643 is part of the Hollymead growth area. The area to the south of the property fronts on the South Fork of the Rivanna River, and everything south of that is part of the Neighborhood Two growth area. He stated that 100 percent of the land west of the bend in the river, between the site and Route 29, is part of the flood plain and is, therefore, not developable. There will not be the opportunity to increase development pressures if this site is included in the service area. Mr. Muncaster said a special use permit for this church has been ap- proved, and the church will be built, but there is a question of whether to build in an environmentally sound manner by connecting to a public sewer or to let the site layout be dictated by a mass of drain fields. From an engineer- ing standpoint, the best option is obvious. He said the Board has accepted such risks in the past under the assumption that the risks were less than the increased pollution which could be caused by development. In his experience, this has been an issue when a particular project has been in the watershed of one of the County's public drinking water impoundments. He pointed out that this project is different because it is not in the watershed of one of the County's public drinking water impoundments, and it is next to an existing sewer line. He added that the flood plain will provide a buffer between two growth areas. He reiterated that increased development pressures are not an issue with this project. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Muncaster to point out on the map the part of the property that would be in the growth area, if the Comprehensive Plan were changed so as to allow this property to be included in the growth area. Mr. Muncaster did so. Mrs. Humphris asked how many acres would be involved in the growth area. Mr. Muncaster replied that 30 acres would be involved. He pointed out that the Meadow Creek Parkway would also take some of the land if the Parkway is ever built. Mr. Bain stated that the 30 acres mentioned by Mr. Muncaster is not part of the church property. He asked how many acres are actually part of the church property. Mr. Tucker responded that the church has a ten-acre parcel. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Muncaster to point out the sewer and water lines. Mr. Muncaster showed Mr. Perkins the sewer line on the map, but Mr. Muncaster stated that the nearest water line traveled along Route 29 north. Mr. Harold Bare, Pastor, Covenant Church of God, said the special use permit an important factor for his local parish. He realizes that there may be some present tonight who could be opposed to his request. He asked church representatives to stand and be recognized, and he then presented a petition to the Board. He stated that within 15 or 20 minutes he could fill the room with 100 plus people who are standing by with buses, but he did not want to do that. Mr. Bare said his concern is simple, and he thinks that it is quite clear. He has listened to the evidence and heard the talk about the green space, but the church property is not involved with the green space area. The property has already been removed from the farm tract, and more than $500,000 has been invested in the property, so the matter cannot be treated trivially. This is a significant monetary investment, so something has to happen with this piece of land. Time is a factor, and he would like to begin the project this summer. If this Board chooses to have a Comprehensive Plan amendment, he believes that by the time the Board went through its time tables and the planners for the Church went through their site plan and everything were — cleared with all County departments, it could be 1994 before ground could be broken for the church. This is a time-consuming process, and any delays in the procedure would put the time further into the future because a site plan could not be done until everything were settled. Site plans are expensive and the church cannot afford to spend money on a site plan anticipating something that may not materialize. M.B. 40, Pg. 123 , February 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Bare pointed out that the choice for the church lies between instal- . lation of a septic field which will take the prime land, or connecting to a public sewer line. He feels that going through the Comprehensive Plan proce- dure would cause an inordinate delay for the church. Mr. Bare said he does _ not sit in the supervisors' chairs, and he does not know as much as they know about government, but he reminded the Board that it made a decision that this meeting would be held, and he feels it has the right to go ahead and commend the progress of this work. He pointed out that this, is America, and Americans do things by the democratic process and they do not have to feel tied to always repeat what has been done in the past. He feels this is an extraordi- nary situation because the property is not attached to any other area. The property is a piece of isolated land, so it is not as though the Board would be setting a precedent. He does not know of any other place in the County where there is a church surrounded by a flood plain which is attached to a growth community with public services nearby. Mr. Bare said this is a unique situation, and he does not think there is any need for the Board to feel as though ordinances would be violated. He asked how there could be a violation when the Board has the right to vote for water and sewer service. This is a momentous time for the church members, and he does not feel that he is asking for anything exceptional. He thinks that this is a reasonable request, and he mentioned that many of the people's names on the petition have never attended his church. These people heard the case he presented, and they thought it made sense and that strong churches are needed in the community. He added that he had submitted these remarks to Mr. Cilimberg in, a private discussion. Mr. Bare said he is also a sociologist, and is trying to finish his doctorate at the University of Virginia. He said it takes approximately 80 people to support a pastor and 125 people to have a healthy, social network in a local church. He noted that sociologists are saying across the country that healthy churches are a healthy part of the community, and churches need to be able to grow. He said that this is an important factor. He feels the Board members have before them a clear-cut case, and the prayers and petitions are that the Board will grant its approp- al. He respectfully thanked the Board for its consideration. No one else wished to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing. Mrs. Humphris commented that SP-90-35 was the request that allowed the Covenant Church to be built in this area. She stated that the staff indicated in its report that this church was of an urban scale and implied that it should more appropriately be built in an urban area. She said that it was known from the very beginning that if the church was built in a rural area, it could possibly present a problem. In spite of that fact and the Comprehensive Plan goals and zoning implications, the church group made a conscious decision to go ahead with the request for issuance of the special use permit, and it was eventually approved. Even though the development potential may be limited in this area, the County has made a very conscious and careful decision to maintain that area on the map as a buffer between two growth areas, recogniz- ing its value as a green space. She thinks that such a change requires a proposal for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and if there are problems with that procedure, it is not the fault of this Board. She reminded the group that this Board did not make the original proposal. She noted that the church representatives decided that the septic system would not do and that public sewer was desired. She thinks the manner in which this Board should handle this situation would be not to grant an exception to the Comprehensive Plan and there would not be the possibility of setting a precedent. Mrs. Humphris noted that no matter how often it is believed that no similar circumstances will arise in the future, it could be discovered at a later date that a precedent had been established. She referred to the peti- tion and said that good planning is not done based on popularity contests. Good planning is based on good sound planning and policies; it is not a numbers game. She believes that this request is not consistent with the — objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, and she pointed out that the staff had given a lot of time and attention to the request and still feels that it is not in the best interest of the entire County. She really believes that it is possible that anytime an exception is granted to the Comprehensive Plan, it will cause problems for the County at a later time. She is opposed to this request and believes that this decision has to be based on existing policies. M.B. 44), Pg. 124 1 February 12 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Bowerman said that Mr. Bain had raised a good point. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board could take action on this request and change the Comprehen- sive Plan later to coincide with these actions. He went on to say that when the Board voted to go to public hearing, comments were made recognizing that _ 200 acres were designated as green space. He said the green belt can still be maintained because there is plenty of land area along the river, but basically this piece of property was a convenient boundary between the Hollymead growth area and the urban growth area. He stated that the situation was considered closely. He had argued that a person could legitimately look at this area not as separate from the urban area, but almost as part of it, since it is in such close proximity to it. He pointed out that the majority of the land there is not buildable. It was for that reason that he made the motion to hold a public hearing. He does not think this will create any bad precedent because he thinks it is a unique piece of property, even though there is some more acreage there which this Board may have to deal with in the future. He believes that this is a reasonable use in a reasonable location. He thinks it is impossible to get any closer to the urban area and not be in it because the property falls between the two growth areas, and it is located on a State highway. It is for all of these reasons that he will support the application for change in the service areas. He will consider, when the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed, studying this area and legitimately changing some of the lines. Mr. Bain remarked that he would rather change the lines . He would unquestionably support the request if the Board supports changing the growth area boundaries. He recalls that when the Comprehensive Plan was being developed, and the whole Hollymead area was considered, areas east of Hollymead were examined as possible growth areas because there was pressure from those residents. He added that the people north of Route 643 were requesting the same thing. He thinks that the staff and Board decided that the whole area north of the river should not be in the growth area. He said that the green space was considered, but a lot of time was not spent on considering whether or not the property south of Route 643 could be used for development apart from the flood plain. He asked Mr. Cilimberg if he was correct. Mr. Cilimberg replied that topography maps identified flood plain areas and steep slopes during the overall consideration of growth areas and the immediate areas around growth areas. He thinks that this decision to stay with the buffer between Route 643 and the River was because there were two identifiable physical boundaries which provided a reasonable separation in this high area. He went on to say that if the area is not developed, and green space is desired in a high area that is very visible, then this area would be serving that purpose. He does not think that the staff consciously considered examining the south side of Route 643 to establish a reasonable addition to the growth area. The staff knew that there was an area there that might be available for development, but it was not identified because the staff and Board seemed satisfied with continuing the separation. Mr. Bain stated that the area in question is a very small area and he thinks it could be included as part of the growth area. He will support a resolution indicating that the Board will consider adding that area as part of the growth area. He is not sure, however, that this is a unique situation. He has being trying to recall other areas that are adjacent to streams and close to the urban area, where there is a similar situation. He said that he keeps in mind what the Comprehensive Plan indicates as far as extending utilities, and for that reason, he has difficulty supporting the request apart from a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Marshall commented that he also will support a resolution for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Comprehensive Plan can be changed. He pointed out that this Board is not considering a request from a retail establishment, a night club or a bar. He added that this is a request from a church group, and he wants to see as many people in church as possible. He asked if there was any reason why the church group should be denied its request. He said that he will support the church group and its efforts. Mr. Martin wondered if there was a way that a compromise could be worked out whereby the supervisors could approve the intent of this public hearing, and at the same time pursue a possible Comprehensive Plan change. M.B. 40, Pg. 125 February 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Mr. Bain replied that the Board can do that, but he cannot support the motion as it was stated. He understands that the church group has a lot of money involved in this project, but he reminded the church representatives that he voted against the motion in the beginning because it represents _ putting an urban use in a rural area. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Bain could support the motion if the church were allowed to connect to the utilities and the Board made a resolution to follow this action. Mr. Bain responded, "no." He said that he would support the resolution, but the matter should be brought back to this Board in 60 days. The property is a limited area of 30 or 40 acres of land, and if the staff feels that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is a way to handle the situation, then he could probably support a motion at that time. He believes that supporting the request before a Comprehensive Plan amendment is consid- ered would not allow the matter to progress in the proper order. Mr. Bowerman stated to Mr. Bare that he believes there is Board support for considering a Comprehensive Plan change first and delaying action on this request for 60 days. Mr. Bowerman said he does not know if the motion will be approved or disapproved if it is voted on now. He asked Mr. Bare his feelings about waiting for 60 days to look at a Comprehensive Plan change. Mr. Bare replied that he realizes that to wait would create a greater probability of a favorable vote. He said, again, that the 60 day wait would almost assuredly not allow the church to be built this year because the winter months would be here before any construction could be started. He also understands this Board's political position. He knows the Board has a legal right to vote tonight, and it is as legal as waiting six years and going through 50 Compre- hensive Plan changes. He added that this is due procedure, and he stated that this is the church group's position. Mr. Perkins commented that he can support this request because the important thing for this church group is the time element. He thinks this piece of property is unique. If the Board only adheres to the Comprehensive Plan there would not be any need for the Supervisors to meet as often as they do. He thinks the Comprehensive Plan was made to be changed, and he thinks that this is one of those times when it can be changed. He would not be opposed to the request because the timing is very important to these people. He will support a change in the service area boundaries. Mr. Bain said the issue before the Board is land use, and that is what the Board should base its decision on. He said that Mr. Bare and his congre- gation have the right as landowners to come before this Board and ask for a change. He added, though, that this Board makes decisions that are related to land use and the Comprehensive Plan, etc. This Board has already approved the request for the church to be built on that property, but now this Board is having to make another decision tonight. Mr. Perkins replied that a lot of requests have been before this Board, and some have been approved and some have been denied. He said that there will always be requests from people, and some of the requests will continue to be approved, unless there is a change in the Board members. Mr. Marshall stated that he feels each case has its own merits. Mr. Perkins mentioned that the Board has turned down a lot of requests along Hydraulic Road, north of Albemarle High School, because the property was in the drainage area of the Reservoir. He thinks that this is important. He said that this is not the case with the piece of property in question, and he thinks that this situation is unique. Mr. Marshall agreed with Mr. Perkins' previous statement that if the supervisors were only going to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, then they have no reason to be at these meetings. Mrs. Humphris remarked that the whole point is that if the supervisors don't want to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, then the Comprehensive Plan should be changed, but exceptions should not be made to the Plan. Mr. Marshall said that he does not agree. He stated that a whole text- book would not be changed just because it was necessary to change one area in M.B. 40, Pg. 126 • February 12. 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) it. He said that the Comprehensive Plan is good, but it is not the Holy Bible. Mr. Martin stated that he would support a motion for Mr. Bare's request _ because a special use permit was given to the church, and he feels that once that special use permit was given, any legitimate argument of using that space as a buffer disappeared. Mr. Bain explained that any agricultural land outside of the flood plain can be developed, so this property could have been developed with houses. He said that in a rural area, there are still development rights. Mr. Martin remarked that he thought the special use permit was given with the idea that a church would be built there. He reiterated that once the special use permit was issued, then it was already determined that some of the buffer space 'would be lost. This decision was made when the special use permit was issued. He understands what Mr. Bain is saying about the order in which these matters should be handled, and he thinks that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and should be treated as a guide. He also believes that the Board should always try to stay within the Plan except when there are excep- tions. To him, this is one of the exceptions that the Board should approve, but he realizes that perhaps the next request will not be approved. Mr. Bowerman commented that he has not supported any exceptions since he has been on this Board or when he was a member of the Planning Commission where there was a question of extending the service areas into a watershed of any of the water supply reservoirs, including the Totier Creek watershed. He voted against changing the service lines for exactly the same reason. He pointed out that this property is not in a watershed area. He asked if there is a motion. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to approve inclusion of Parcel 22 on Tax Map 46 in the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for both water and sewer service, for the 10.3 acres to be occupied by the church, and further limited to only the church building as approved under SP-90-35 for Covenant Church of God. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Mr. St. John pointed out that this request is for water and sewer ser- vice. He asked, if this request is approved, how will the water be routed to the church. He pointed out that the sewer service is not on the church property, but it is near to the property. He stated that someone on the staff should supply this information. Mr. Bowerman' asked if there is service area coverage between the water and sewer lines and this parcel. Mr. St. John answered that there has to be a service area where the lines are. He said that there are houses adjacent to this church along Route 643. He added that if the water line is brought along the road to reach this church, it will be in the street adjacent to these houses. He said that this raises the question of whether or not these people might make the same request. Mr. Marshall noted that his motion stipulates that the water and sewer service will only be to the church. Mr. Martin asked if this would be a matter that will be brought back to this Board. Mr. St. John replied that the matter would be brought back to the Board if someone else made such a request. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bill Brent if he could comment on the proximity of water and sewer service to this specific site. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Brent to explain how the new lines will be routed if new lines are necessary to get — the utilities to the site. Mr. Brent responded that the applicant has not made a specific design as to how to extend the water line to the particular site. He added that the path of least resistance and the obvious route would have the water routed M.B. 44), Pg. 127 February 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) - (Page 11) down Route 643 from Route 29 because the closest water line is located at Route 29. He went on to say that he is not sure if the sewer line crosses the property in question, but if it doesn't, it is very close to it. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the sewer line is on a portion of the residue parcel. He pointed out on the map the portion of the property the sewer line crosses. Mr. St. John asked if the sewer line crosses a portion of the property now owned by the church. Mr. Cilimberg answered that as far as he knows the church owns the property where the sewer line is routed. Mr. St. John ex- plained that easements would have to be gotten if other people's property is involved. Mr. Brent stated that there are easement rights. Mr. St. John stated that this answers his question. He went on to say that it would probably be impractical to connect to sewer service without also connecting to the water service. Mr. Brent next explained that if the church was not connected to the County's water system, it would be impossible to know how much sewer service was being used. He said that, in such a case, the church representatives would be required to put a meter on the well. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: - Messrs. Bowerman, Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-91-12. Beechtree Associates Limited Partnership. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 1.12 acs from CO (proffered) to C-1 (proffered). Property in SE quadrant of Whitewood/Hydraulic Rds inters is located in Neighborhood I. Property shown in the Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhood Service. TM61,P25. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 28 and February 4, 1992.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows: c, "CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This site is currently developed with a commercial building consisting of multiple rental spaces. Adjacent properties are also developed commercially. This site has access directly to Whitewood Road and is connected to Hydraulic Road through the adjacent commercial development. Albemarle High School is located on Hydraulic Road opposite this site. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to amend the exist- ing zoning of the property in order to broaden the range of permitted uses. The applicant has proffered to delete uses which are inconsis- tent with the Neighborhood Service designation of this site or which may be inappropriate in this location due to proximity to the high school and/or access. The applicant's proffers are included as Attachment C (set out in full below). PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: 110 March 13, 1963 - Subdivision creating parcel under review was ap- proved. January 28, 1976 - The Board of Supervisors rezoned the one parcel from R-2, Residential, to B-1, Business, subject to the entrance to the site being limited to Whitewood Road. March 24, 1981 - The Planning Commission approved the site plan for this property. July 20, 1983 - The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-83-08 (Prof- fered). This action rezoned the property from C-1, Commercial, to CO, Commercial Office.