Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-16April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) ( Pa__qe 1 ) 519 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held or April 16, 1986, 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. BOARD MEMBERS OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., 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 7:35 P.M. by the Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Way offered motion to approve Items 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items for information. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. 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. Resolution regarding funding for CAC3. Once a year the Department of Conser vation and Economic Development, Division of Litter Control, allocates funds for litter control through a grant to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission. In order to receive the funds, the following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, recognizes the existence of a litter problem within the boundaries of Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provides, through the Department of Conservation and Economic Development Division of Litter Control, for the allocation of public funds in the form of Grants for the purpose of enhancing local litter control programs; and WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered the Regulation and the Applica- tion covering administration and use of said funds; BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia: Hereby expresses the intent to combine with the City of Charlottesville in a mutually agreed upon and Cooperative Program, contingent upon approval of the Application by the Department of Conservation and Economic Develop- ment, Division of Litter Control, and contingent upon receipt of funds; and Hereby authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commis- sion (CAC3) to plan and budget for a cooperative litter control program, which shall represent said Program for all localities named in this resolu- tion; and Further authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission to apply on behalf of all of the above named localities for a Grant, and to be responsible for the administration, implementation and completion of the Program as it is described in the attached Application Form LC-G-l; and Further accepts responsibility jointly with the Charlottesville- Albemarle Clean Community Commission and the City of Charlottesville for all phases of the Program; and Further accepts liability for its pro rata share of any funds not properly used or accounted for pursuant to the Regulations and the Applica- tion; and That said funds, when received, will be transferred immediately to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission or if coordinated by the Planning District Commission, said funds will be sent directly to the Planning District Commission by the Department. Ail funds will be used in the Cooperative Program to which we give our endorsement and support. Hereby requests the Department of Conservation and. Economic Develop- ment, Division of Litter Control, to consider and approve the Application and Program, said Program being in accordance with Regulations governing use and expenditure of said funds. Item 4.2. Request to accept Locust Hill Drive into the State Secondary System. A letter dated March 3, 1986, was received from Toby Zakin, developer of Locust Hill North · ' April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Subdivision, requesting acceptance of this road. vote shoWn above: The following resolution was adopted by the BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection an approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Locust Hill North Subdivision: Beginning at station 10+12, a point common with the edge of pavement of Route 678 and the center line of Locust Hill Drive, thence in a northwesterly direction 684.07 feet to station 16+96.07, the end of pavement of the cul-de-sac. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot right-of-way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 838, page 112. Item 4.3. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, and Regional Jail, for March, 1986, were approved as presented by the vote shown above. Item 4.4. Letter dated March 14, 1986, from Senator Paul Trible, re. disaster assis- tance for Albemarle County fruit growers was received as follows: "Today French Slaughter, John Warner and I joined together to appeal for disaster assistance for Albemarle County's fruit growers. I realize that many farmers are hard pressed to recover from last year's freezes, and I am convinced that these hard working individuals should not have to forfeit the federal assistance they need and deserve. I am enclosing a copy of our letter to Secretary Richard Lyng for your information. I hope that our joint efforts will bring relief to the coun- ty's fruit growers. I will contact you as soon as I receive the Secretary's response. In the meantime, please keep in touch and let me know if I can assist you further." Item 4.5. Copies of the Planning Commission Minutes for April 1 and April 8, 1986, wer~ received as information. Item 4.6. Police Department Quarterly Report for the first quarter of 1986 was receive( as information as follows: "Below is a comparison of the first quarter 1986 statistics with the compar- ative period for 1985. It should be borne in mind that there are a number of variables which may effect the increase/decrease of offenses in a given period of time. I am pleased with the fact that crimes against persons are down 37 percent (30-19), but am concerned about the 25 percent increase in crimes against property (302-377). Overall, reported crime is up 19 percent for the quarter. As I have pointed out in earlier reports to the Board, it would probably take three years of statistics to make any meaningful quarterly or annual inferences. FIRST QUARTER STATISTICS 1986 1985 1986 CHANGE PERCENT OFFENSES CLEARANCES OFFENSES CLEARANCES HOMICIDE 1 1 ..... 1 -100 RAPE 3 2 2 2 -1 - 33 ROBBERY 2 0 2 0 0 -- AGG. ASSAULT 24 22 15 13 -9 - 38 B & E 49 13 60 8 +11 + 22 LARCENY 232 50 293 59 +61 + 26 AUTO THEFT 21 12 24 6 + 3 + 14 TOTAL 332 100 396 88 +64 + 19 CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY 1985 1986 CHANGE PERCENT 30 19 -11 -37 302 377 +75 +25 CLEARANCE RATE 1985 1986 30% 22%" Item 4.7. Letter dated April 7, 1986, from Columbia Gas, re: State Corporation Commis sion Notice of Public Hearing to permit flexible rates to meet all oil and propane April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting') (Paqe 3) .521 competition under Rate Schedule AFDS (Alternate Fuel Displacement Service) for Columbia Gas, was received as information. Item 4.8. Letter dated April 8, 1986, from Senator John W. Warner, re: House Bill requiring State and local governments to send a statement of income tax refunds to taxpayers received as information, as follows: "Thank you for taking the time to let me know your views concerning your opposition to that part of the House passed tax bill that requires State and local governments to send the taxpayer a statement of income tax refunds received. State and local governments would also be required to provide the IRS with a computer tape that includes this information on an individual taxpayer basis. The Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Bob Packwood, has submitted his version of Tax reform to the Finance Committee and the committee began mark-up on March 19, 1986. The Senate tax bill will developed at this time. I appreciated your concerns about the additional costs and paperwork this provision will create for State and local government. I will certainly keep this in mind as the Senate considers tax reform. You were most kind to share your views with me. I value your opinions, I hope you will never hesitate to bring them to my attention°" Agenda Item No. 5. SP-86-09. VEPCO. To allow installation of a 150 foot communica- tions pole on property located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 6~ and Route 631 (Fifth Street). Zoned HC. Tax Map 76, parcel 55. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 1 and April 8, 1986.) Mr. Horne noted that the Planning Commission has not acted, so this petition will be rescheduled and readvertised for another date. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: Amend Parks and Recreation Ordinance to extend the swimming season for County Parks. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 4 and April 12 1986.) Mr. Agnor said the Director of Parks and Recreation has requested opening of County lakes prior to Memorial Day and following Labor Day. The purpose of the hearing tonight is to amend the County Code to allow rates to be charged during this time. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Tom_Ward, from Lake Reynovia, said he was not aware that this was before the Board tonight, but would like to know the dates proposed for extend- ing the season. Mr. Agnor said that is up to the discretion of the Director of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Ward asked if lifeguards will be on call at the lakes. Mr. Agnor replied yes. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following ordinance as advertised: ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 14 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE, PARKS AND RECREATION, SECTION 14-11 ENTITLED "FEES" BE IT ORDAINED that the Albemarle County Code be amended and reenacted in Chapter 14, Section 14-11, Same--Fees, to read as follows: Sec. 14-11. Same--Fees. (a) Same (i) Daily rates° a. Same b. Same c. Same (2) Season rates. Same Same Same Same Season passes will be honored from Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day. (3) Picnic shelter reservation fees. a. Same b. Same c. Same d. Same e. No fee will be charged for picnic shelter reservation during the period that park entry fees are being charged. However, shelters still must be reserved on a first come, first served basis. (b) Same (c) Same 52 2 April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) J_~a~e 4 ) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-86-10. Jeff Surguy and Ramona Dean. To locate a single wide mobile home on property located on the west side of Route 795, about three miles south of the intersection with Route 620. Tax Map 103, parcel 23C (part of). Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 1 and April 8, 1968.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: The property is heavily wooded as are other proper- ties in the area. A creek and flood plain run along the southern portion of this lot. There is one mobile home located on the lot immediately to the north of this proposal. The next closest dwelling visible from Route 795 is approximately one-quarter mile away. About 50 single-family dwellings and six mobile homes are visible from Route 795 between Routes 727 and 620 and a total of six mobile homes are located within a one mile radius of the site. Staff Comment: This property was previously reviewed twice, once for a mobile home subdivision (SP-84-29, Daniel Velicky) and the other for the location of a mobile home (SP-85-72, William Parrott: approved). In both reviews, staff recommended a seventy-five foot tree buffer from Route 795. Two letters of concern were received pertaining to this petition. One adjacent property owner objects to this petition. The adjacent owner of Lot 2 (William Parrott) is not opposed to the mobile home, but requests that this applicant comply with the same setbacks that he was required to provide which included a seventy-five foot side setback (with tree buffer) from the property to his north (lot 3), as well as a seventy-five foot front setback with tree buffer (along Route 795). Due to the location of the creek on this property, this applicant would be unable to provide a seventy-five foot setback from his north property line without encroaching on the flood plain of that creek. The reason for the seventy-five foot side setback for the Parrott petition may have been due in part to the opposition of the adjacent property owner to his north and of their intent to locate a single-family dwelling unit on that lot. Should the Commission and Board choose to-approve this petition staff recommends the following conditions: Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Maintenance of a seventy-five foot tree buffer along the frontage of Route 795." Mr. Horne noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 8, 1986, unani- mously recommended approval of this petition with Condition No. 1 recommended by the staff, but Condition No. 2 was changed to read as follows: "Maintenance of a seventy-five foot tree buffer along the frontage of Route 795, and maintenance of a fifty-foot tree buffer along the northern property line." The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jeff Surguy, the applicant, said he has no problem with the conditions suggested by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Surguy intends to reside in the mobile home. Mr. Surguy replied yes. Mr. Daniel Veliky said he has given the Surguy's a contract on the property and asks that the request be approved. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way offered motion to approve SP-86-10 as recommended by the Planning Commission, but adding a Condition No. 3 reading: "Mobile home will not be used for rental purposes." Mrs. Cooke said she thought the Board usually designated the name of the resident in the conditions. It was agreed that a fourth condition be added: "Residents of mobile home limited to Jeff Surguy and Ramona Dean." Mrs. Cooke then seconded the motion. The condi- tions of approval are as follows: Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Maintenance of a 75 foot tree buffer along the frontage of Route 795, and a maintenance of a 50 foot tree buffer along northern property line; Mobile home will not be used for rental purposes; Residents of mobile home limited to Jeff Surguy and Ramona Dean. 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. April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)' (Paqe 5) 5 Agenda Item No. 8. SP-86-07. Merry L. VanCleave. To allow day care center with enrollment of fifteen children. Existing use as single family dwelling. Property on west side of Route 623 near Route 616 in Woodsedge Subdivision. Zoned RA. Tax Map 94B, parcel 01-B18. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 1 and April 8, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Petition: Merry VanCleave is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a DAY CARE CENTER (10.2.2.7) on 1.0 acre, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Lot 18 of Woodsedge Subdivision (Tax Map 94B, 01,B18), is located on the west side of Route 623 about 300 feet from Route 616 in the Boyd Tavern area of the Rivanna Magisterial District. Character of the Area: Woodsedge Subdivision consists of 29 lots with an average lot size of 1.1 acres. All lots in the subdivision are served by a central well system. The applicant shares an entrance with an adjoining lot. Installation of a loop drive would result in tree removal and in staff opinion is not necessary due to good sight distance and low traffic volume (281 vehicle trips per day). The applicant has installed stockade fencing around the play area. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to operate a day care center for 15 children employing one full time and one part-time assistant. Hours of operation would be 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. The facility would operate as a Family Day Care Home under state licensure and must, therefore, satisfy Virginia Department of Welfare requirements. Staff is unaware of any child care facility in operation in this general area of the County. Staff opinion is that a day care center would be of service to this area and would not detract from nor substantially change the character of the area. Staff recommends approval subject to: e Health Department approval~ Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commer- cial entrance in accordance with comments of March 17, 1986; Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance; Enrollment limited to 15 children; This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 1, 1986, unanimously recommended approval subject to the staff's recommendation. Mr. Horne said the applicant has presently received Health Department approval, state license for a family day care home and a certificate from the Social Services Day Care Home Provider Training Program. The only remaining condition to be met is Highway Department approval of the commercial entrance. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there are any residences adjoining this parcel. Mr. Horne replied yes, on both sides, but there have been no comments made concerning this request. Mr. Fisher said the Board had before it previously a similar application for a day care facility where the occupants did not intend to reside in the home. He does not see it stated anywhere that this residence will continue as a residence with full time occupants. Mr. Horne said it is the staff's understanding that the applicant intends to reside in the home. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. VanCleave said she and her daughter will reside in the home. She is present to answer any questions Board members may have. Mrs. Cooke asked if children would be coming to the facility in the afternoon after school. Mrs. VanCleave said at present yes, but when she becomes licensed for 15 children then it would not include after school children, only full time two to six years old. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said there is a need for this type of service in this area. He then asked what training program Mrs. VanCleave took for licensing. Mrs. VanCle&ve said she took a six week course through Social Services and she is in the process of getting a Child Care Certif- icate from Piedmont Virginia Community College. Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve SP-86-07 with the following conditions as recommend- ed by the Planning Commission: Health Department approval; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commer- cial entrance in accordance with comments of March 17, 1986; Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance; Enrollment limited to 15 children; This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferable. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said, for the record, he will support the petition on the condition that it does remain a residence and not become a full time busines~ operation for that structure. Mr. Bowie said he does not feel the need to state that as a condition as Mrs. VanCleave has stated she will remain living in the residence. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. NAYS: None. 524 April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Paqe 6) Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-85-29. Forest Hills (Lake Reynovia PUD). Rezone about 236 acres from R-1 to PUD. Property located on west side of Avon Street Extended (Route 742) from the National Guard Armory to Lake Reynovia entrance road. Tax map 90, parcel 01-B-18. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress April 1 and April 8, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "AppliCant's Proposal: The Application Plan proposes residential, commercial, and industrial land. uses as follows: Gross Open Acres Space Units Single family residential Multi-family residential Commercial Industrial Roads right-of-way 176 acres 81 acres 215 10 acres 100' 6 acres ** 37.5 acres 29 acres The applicant anticipates construction of about 50 dwellings per year, therefore, residential, build-out would occur in six to seven years. '118 units shown on plan, however, note on plan calls for 100 units. Summary and Recommendation: The applicant's proposal for residential and industrial development are in general accord with the Comprehensive Plan; The proposed commercial area is not reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. Approval of commercial development at the scale proposed will require a policy decision by the Planning Commission and Board; The applicant has made provision for a possible connector road from Avon Street to Fifth Street and has designed a residential street pattern which would provide two reasonably direct means of access to Avon Street from residential areas as well as a major loop to these access points. While residential street alignments may vary in final planning, the general pattern is reflective of staff intent; Due to soil conditions, presence of rock, questionable topographic information and other factors, final plans may vary from the layout depicted on the Application Plan. Staff should be authorized under 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to accept alterations in final layout which may result from these factors. Subject to certain agreements, staff could recommend favorably On this rezoning. Staff Comment: Section 8.5.4 of the Planned Development regulations requires the Commis- sion, in its recommendations to the Board, to include findings as to: The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD district proposed in terms of: relation to the Comprehensive Plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its relation to surrounding area; Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services; Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments or for amendments in those proposed; and Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or general regulations as applied would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications. Based on such findings, the Commission shall recommend approval of the PD amendment as proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated modifications, or disapproval. The remainder of the staff report will address these issues. Comprehensive Plan Forest Hills is located in Neighborhood Four of the Urban Area. The Compre- hensive Plan recommends low and medium residential development and indus- trial uses in the area. Residential: The Application Plan proposes a lower density of residential development than is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Only 100 medium- density units are proposed while the Comprehensive Plan depicts roughly 150 to 300 units. (Note: Areas in Willoughby PUD shown for medium and high density residential development have been approved for low-density residen- tial and industrial development respectively. Combined with this petition this represents a 'loss' of about half the total of medium and high density units representing about 20 percent of the maximum design capacity of April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) ___~e 7). Neighborhood Four.) Low density development is less than the average ~ecommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Industrial: The Application Plan proposes about 39 acres for designation as light industrial usage (of this acreage, the applicant has estimated about 24 acres as net buildable with other acreage devoted to open space and landscaping). Combined with the existing 78 adjacent acres already zoned for light industrial development and other industrial land, the vacant industrial land would total 310 acres while the Comprehensive Plan recom- mends a maximum of 170 acres to be developed. (Due to topographic features, not all acreages are likely to develop to maximum potential. Forty-eight acres were approved under Interstate interchange policy of the Comprehensive Plan). Since the January 21, 1986, Planning Commission hearing the Application Plan has been revised to delineate developable industrial acreage from attendant open space. The staff has reviewed this plan and generally agrees that those areas delineated are suitable for industrial development. Commercial: The applicant proposes six acres for commercial designation. Based on past experience and assuming one story buildings, staff would estimate a maximum floor area of 61,000 square feet. (Note: Riverbend Shopping Center has a ratio of one square foot building per 4.3 square feet of site with minimum landscape requirements. Charlottesville Retail Center at Shopper's World was approved for one square foot building per 4.4 square feet of site. In both cases, design problems were encountered in accommo- dating these building areas on flat sites. The applicant has been notified that maximum grade of six percent for parking lots and maximum of 2:1 cut and fill slopes will be recommended as design standards throughout the project.) The Comprehensive Plan recommends three commercial areas totalling a maximum of 35 acres. Two areas are shown on the east side of Avon Street across from Forest Hills and a third location would be at the southern extreme of the neighborhood. None of these areas is currently zoned commercially. No commercial development is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for the Forest Hills property. PUD regulations provide for two types of commercial development - commer- cial/service and shopping center. The commercial/service designation authorizes CO, Commercial Office and C-i, Commercial uses at a scale intended to serve the residents of the PUD. Under zoning regulations, a floor area of 6,600 square feet could be aUthorized (Section 20.9.3). The shopping center designation which permits HC, Highway Commercial uses in addition to CO and C-1 uses, is also limited to the PUD scale of development or in certain cases to a scale 'to serve areas not conveniently and ade- quately provided with a broad range of commercial and service facilities (Section 25.1).' During review of the Fontaine Avenue shopping center for Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Community Development staff conducted an extensive analysis of the ratios of commercial to residential lands throughout the urban neighborhoods and the relation of commercial areas to the various roadways serving these neighborhoods. The Community Development staff concluded that the analysis, (October, 1985) 'indicates a need for additional commercial areas in the southern and western neighborhoods. [The analysis was not site specific but did establish] a general need for development of commercial centers within a broad area. Given the present large ratio of residential to commercial acreages, the greatest need in the southern urban area is for local services to neighborhoods.' Currently, residential development along Avon Street is sparse (in 1982 only about 150 dwellings existed in all of Neighborhood Four), and given the lack of east-west connector roads, this area is not convenient to other portions of the urban area. Staff opinion is that the commercial area at this time would be of primary service to limited areas of the City and rural popula- tions along Route 20 South (August, 1984 traffic counts on Avon Street were about 4,300 vehicle trips per day indicating substantial use of the roadway from rural areas south of the City). Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has offered the following comment (October 24, 1985): 'No commercial property is shown in the Comprehensive Plan along the west side of Route 742. The Comprehensive Plan shows all this property to be residential and industrial in zoning. This section of Route 742 is currently tolerable but this rezoning request would make it non-tolerable. The rezoning request in this ZMA would generate approximately three to four times more traffic than could be generated from the current zoning. The CATS shows no improvements to Route 742 and most of Route 742 is currently carrying more traffic than was anticipated by the year 2000 in the CATS. This development would necessitate the upgrading of Route 742 to a multi-lane roadway while the current zoning would require the widening of Route 742 to a 24-foot wide roadway to make it tolerable. There is not enough information given on the plan sheet sub- mitted with this request for the Department to address specific comments concerning access to the commercial property. There should be at least 200 feet between any entrance to the new 5'2- 6 April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) proposed road and Route 742 in the commercial area. If there is to be a major generator of traffic in this commercial property, then the access should be at least 500 feet back from Route 742. A divided roadway with raised median will be necessary for the channeling of traffic between Route 742 and the internal access points on this new road. The Department does not support this rezoning request based on the facts stated above.' In subsequent discussion with Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- tation, it was established that the development of properties along Avon Street as currently zoned would result in a non-tolerable status requiring similar improvements. The fact that current traffic levels exceed CATS projections for the year 2000 emphasizes the need for continued transpor- tation planning and constant monitoring. Staff offers the following summary comments and recommendations on the proposed commercial development: The commercial area would not currently be supported by Neighborhood Four nor would it be convenient to other urban area neighborhoods. However, the applicant has agreed to make provision for a possible east-west connector which would substantially increase accessibility to the area. The applicant has requested complete waiver of the PUD regulation that prohibits issuance of commercial use building permits prior to issuance of building permits for 80 percent of the dwellings in the PUD. Given the current limited residential development in Neighborhood Four, staff is concerned about premature commercial development. Staff could support a phased development, permitting a specified commercial floor area for each dwelling approved. (As stated earlier, residential build-out is anticipated in six to seven years). Should the Commission and Board choose to modify the PUD regulations, staff would recommend that not more than 150 square feet of gross floor area be authorized per residential building permit issued. Any achievable floor area beyond this limitation would be approved after issuance of the last residential building permit. Staff can recommend favorably on the applicant's requested commercial acreage under the following circumstances: The Commission and Board view this commercial acreage as being in addition to commercial areas already recommended in the Comprehensive Plan and find in accordance with Section 25.1 of the Zoning Ordinance that the area is not adequately or conveniently served by commercial development; To insure a future neighborhood orientation, uses permitted are limited to Section 20.4 Commercial/Services uses and that the applicant agrees to develop a balanced mix of uses intended to provide local service to the PUD and neighborhood. Shopping center parking sta.ndards may be employed. Site Characteristics Avon Street generally runs along a ridgeline. An unnamed Moores Creek tributary runs through the center of the site parallel to Avon Street and the site slopes fairly consistently from Avon Street to this stream. West of the stream the property rises into four small knolls, then drops dramati- cally to the flood plain of Biscuit Run. Within locations shown for development are some areas of critical slope (i.e. - 25 percent and greater). Lesser slopes, particularly near Avon Street, complicate road construction and building siting. Considerable cut and fill including individual building sites will be necessary to develop the property as proposed. Fill activity may require imported material since on-site soils are shallow in many areas. Soils consist primarily of loams, silt loams, sandy loams and very stony loams. Of the 18 soils mapped by name and slope on the property, nine have moderate to severe limitations for development and nine have severe limita- tions for development. Soil Conservation Service categorizes most soils as having severe limitations for development when slope exceeds 15 percent. Staff opinion is that County ordinances are generally adequate to address concerns of slope and associated erosion (i.e., Critical slopes, Soil Erosion, Run-Off Control, Urban Stormwater Detention). Therefore, staff has focused attention to soils exhibiting other limitations to development. Of these soils, the Orange and Riverview/Chewacla complex are the more problematic. Soil Conservation Service commented that the Orange silt loam 'found near the Armory is poorly drained, shallow and very difficult to work.' Limitations to development include wetness, high shrink-swell, low strength and seasonal high water table. Of 72 soil groupings in the County, seven non-flood plain soils, including Orange, are listed by Soil Conservation Service as Hydrologic Group D, which among other things, are soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high run-off poten- tial) when thoroughly wet. Therefore, Orange soils exhibit several problems to development associated with soils including some characteristics of flood plain soils. April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (PaGe 9) 527 The Orange soil adjacent to Avon Street is proposed for development with commercial, industrial and residential uses (in field review the County Engineer noted substantial rock in the southern portion of this area). Neither the Soil Conservation Service nor the Planning staff are recommend- ing against development of this area, however, it should be emphasized that special development techniques including subsurface drainage facilities as well as special attention to surface drainage may be required. From infor- mation available at this time, the County Engineer believes that substantial excavation including possible blasting of individual building sites may also be necessary. The other soil of concern is the Riverview/Chewacla complex. These soils are associated with flood plain areas and have limitations to development due to flooding, wetness, cutbank cave-in, seasonal high water table and low strength. These soils occur along the unnamed Moores Creek tributary. Additional study will be necessary to determine which portion of this area is unsuited to development due to flooding or poor drainage. Relation to Surrounding Area: Most properties across Avon Street are undeveloped (a rezoning petition for Hillcrest PUD is pending at this time. ZMA-85-26, Mary V. Doggett, a request to rezone 12 acres from R-l, Residen- tial, to LI, Light Industrial, was denied). Biscuit Run is located along the westerly boundary, and combined with open space areas would provide substantial separation from Oak Hill Subdivision. Property between Forest Hills and Interstate 64 is vacant and zoned LI, Light Industrial. Addition- al industrial requested under this PUD would be a topographically logical extension of existing industrial zoning. In the January 21, 1986, report, staff stated that 'Lake Reynovia would be visually affected by the Forest Hills development' and that 'several single-family dwellings would be located adjacent to and clearly visible from the Reynovia campground.' Since the previous hearing, negotiations have been underway to: .Provide landscape screening to Lake Reynovia; Incorporate into the Application Plan two points of roadway access from Lake Reynovia to the Forest Hills road system and Avon Street; Provide water and sewer easements to the Lake Reynovia; property as final development plans are submitted. Transportation: As stated under the Comprehensive Plan section of this report, development of this property as proposed would cause Avon Street to move from a tolerable to non-tolerable status, however, so would development of properties in the area as currently zoned. Dependent of phasing of development, traffic increase to Avon Street would occur over a period of six to eight years (residential, commercial traffic) or longer (industrial traffic). Construction of Comprehensive Plan connector roads would reduce future burden to Avon Street. At the January 21, 1986, hearing, the Planning Commission requested traffic generation figures for current and proposed zoning. A problem lies in projecting net traffic increase to Avon Street under the proposed PUD since methodologies for such studies are not refined. Under existing zoning, traffic generation to Avon Street would range from 1,650 to 2,500 vehicle trips per day. Total generation under the PUD is estimated at 9,200 vehicle trips per day with a net increase to Avon Street of 7,300 vehicle trips per day. The difference between the total and net generation figures is attributed to trips internal to the PUD and shopping traffic which would be on Avon Street for other purposes. The total and net figures should be viewed as the range of traffic increase to Avon Street. As Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation commented in October 1985, the proposed Forest Hills PUD 'would generate approximately three to four times more traffic than could be generated from the current zoning.' This should be weighed against the applicant's agreement to provide right-of-way throughout the property and partial construction of a connector road to Fifth Street. ThroughOut review of this petition staff has worked towards a system of internal roads that would: Provide for a potential connector road from Avon Street to Fifth Street; e Provide for two direct means of access to Avon Street from residential areas; and Provide internal access from residential areas to the commercial areas. As to the potential connector road, the alignment shown on this Application Plan is, in the opinion of the County Engineer, the most workable option to provision of a connection from Avon Street to Fifth Street. As you may recall, alignments of east-west connector roads became an issue some two years ago during review of Hillcrest PUD (which is still pending). The County Engineer developed several alignments and, at this time, the 528 April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) issue remains before the Board of Supervisors. However, the preferred alternate route between Avon Street and Fifth Street is generally along the alignment of the connector road shown on this Application Plan (Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has made firm statement that no Avon Street/Interstate 64 interchange will be permitted). Given this background, staff has pursued this roadway as the connector road recommended in the Comprehensive Plan in order to maintain all options. Sufficient right-of-way for construction of the ultimate road would be dedicated through the Forest Hills site. Since other properties along the alignment are developed, condemnation of remaining right-of-way by the County would likely be necessary. (Mr. Horne clarified the staff report at this point by saying that in order to get this connector roadway built, a series of road plans will be devel- oped showing the ultimate design standards for the road. However, the connector roadway would be constructed only to the standards generated by the usage of the property - which is all the County can actually require. As the traffic levels go up, there are to be a series of improvements made to that private road through a contract between the applicant and the County.) As has been discussed numerous times in the past, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation policy is that no road is eligible for state maintenance unless constructed to its ultimate design, which in this case would exceed the standard required to support Forest Hills PUD. Virginia Real Estate Investment Trust (VREIT) owns adjoining industrial land which by agreement with Forest Hills would have access to the connector road. Potential traffic from Forest Hills and VREIT would result in the same standard for the connector road even if it does not become a through road. In order to accommodate all concerned parties and achieve construction of a portion of the connector road, the following strategy has been pursued: The applicant would develop road plans to be approved by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for the ultimate roadway design; e The connector road would be constructed in phaSed fashion to a standard occasioned by the development of Forest Hills and VREIT as the same occur. The road would remain as a private road and be privately maintained until upgraded in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approved plans; In the interim, a second access to Avon Street would provide public road service to the Forest Hills development. This roadway and all other roads in the development would be constructed to state standards and accepted for maintenance. o At such time as development generated traffic in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approved plans and the road were upgraded to that standard, the road would be eligible for acceptance into the state secondary system. Public Utilities: Around 1970, as part of acquisition negotiations for the Joint Security Complex site, the City of Charlottesville entered into agreement to extend public utilities to the original Lake Reynovia tract. After creation of the Albemarle County Service Authority, this obligation was assumed by the Authority. Currently there is not complete agreement between the applicant and the Albemarle County Service Authority as to the Authority's contractual obligation concerning utility service to the proper- ty. Public Sewer: The Service Authority has developed eight options for provi- sion of sewer to this property including both gravity service and pump/force main alternatives. Rejection of one proposal by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and lack of agreement as to participation between the applicant and the Authority have prolonged this study. At this writing, the Authority is analyzing all options. Public Water: Water is available to the property from two locations. A twelve-inch line exists adjacent to the property at Avon Street. Flow from this line appears adequate to support existing zoning, however, inadequate both in terms of fire flow and quantity to support the proposed PUD. Another water line exists near the Holiday Inn at Fifth Street. This line could be brought under Interstate 64 at Biscuit Run and looped with the twelve-inch line at Avon Street. Albemarle County Service Authority has calculated that a (modified)' twelve-inch looped system would provide ade- quate quantity and marginal fire flows to support the proposed PUD. The Application Plan has been amended to show such a looped system and the Plan notes that the loop would be constructed 'at such time as necessary to satisfy fire flows and quantities.' Schools: Children from the development would attend Rose Hill Elementary, Walton Middle and Albemarle High schools. The Education Department has commented that Albemarle High School is currently overcrowded and 'that additional students would probably be transported to Western Albemarle. April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) ~R~g~ 11) 529 A new elementary school to serve the southern urban area has been recom- mended by the School Board's consultant. The Education Department commented that enrollment projections 'for several additional developments in this area (Forest Hills, The Ridge, Sherwood Commons, Willow Lake) mean that a new school will have to be constructed in this area immediately. It appears that elementary schools are costing about $1 million for each unit of 100 students. If all of the recently proposed housing units are constructed in this area, there will be an immediate need for $5 or $6 million of capital funds. A similar estimate has been made for a school in the Ivy area.' Since receipt of comment from the Education Department, some development proposals have been reduced in intensity. However, other possible develop- ment proposals in the area may be forthcoming shortly. Particular attention should be given this area in setting priorities for school projects. Staff Recommendation Both Planning and Engineering staffs would emphasize that final plans may vary, due to engineering considerations, in physical, layout from the Appli- cation Plan. Section 8.5.6.3 requires final plans to be 'generally in keeping with the spirit and concept of the approved application plans,' which in staff opinion would accommodate changes in layout provided the following design criteria are satisfied: Residential, industrial and commercial areas with their attendant open space areas shall be located in general accord with the Application Plan. Industrial acreage may increase by not more than two acres as a result of possible realignment of the collector road.. o Uses permitted in the commercial area shall be as provided in Section 20°4 Commercial/Service uses. The applicant shall develop a balanced mix of uses intended to provide local service to the PUD and the neighborhood in general. Shopping center parking standards may be employed. Special use permit approval is required for establishment of the day care center. In lieu of day care use, the number of proposed single family detached units lost as a result of final street design, ordi- nance regulation, or other factors, excluding the desire of the devel- oper, may be added to the number of multi-family units, and located on this site. Preliminary road layout reflects recommendation of County Engineer and Planning staff. The residential street design shall provide for two street connections (including the potential collector road) to Avon Street in the approximate locations shown on the Application Plan. The residential street layout shall employ patterns which shall provide reasonably direct access from all residential areas to both Avon Street intersections and, shall provide at least one connection between the northeast and southwest portions of the site, in addition to the potential collector road. Ail roads, with the exception of the potential collector road shall be built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. The alignment of the potential collector road shall be in general accord with the Application Plan. The collector road shall be designed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards and have final road design plans approved by Virginia Department of High- ways and Transportation and the County Engineer. It shall be built according to a schedule approved by the County Engineer and the Plan- ning Commission and be privately maintained until upgraded to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards, at which time it shall be placed in the Secondary System. There shall be no residential entrances onto the collector road, with the exception of public road connections." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 1, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of this petition with the conditions set out in the staff report, addin¢ a No. 7 reading: "The initial commercial development limited to 28,000 square feet gross floor area. Thereafter, an additional 60 square feet per dwelling unit building permit issued may be permitted to a maximum total gross floor area of 48,000 square feet." Mr. Fisher asked if the contract between the applicant and County which Mr. Horne mentioned earlier has been agreed upon. Mr. Horne replied no. Mr. Fisher commented that the staff is recommending approval of a rezoning in anticipation of a hypothetical contract, but once the rezoning is granted, the Board can make no further requirements. Mr. Horne said that is true, but there have been discussions of what will be contained in the contract. He does think the concept of what needs to take place to build the connector roadway has been covered. It is correct to state that there is no signed contract or a design for the roadway at this time. Mr. Fisher said this is the time at which the County can make certain require- ments binding. Once the zoning is granted, there are no binding requirements that can get these road improvements. Mr. Horne said there are no binding requirements in a legislative sense. There are the binding requirements of the ordinances. Mr. Fisher said there are a lot of items the staff seems willing to waive for this development in order to get the road built that are actually in violation of the Comprehensive Plan, yet he sees no legal mechanism to 530 April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) _(Paqe 12) get that road built except to a standard less than will be ultimately required. Mr. Horne said the staff is attempting to incorporate in the conditions of approval a description of the intent of the Application Plan so that when the request is approved there would be sufficient descriptive material in the conditions and the agreement of the applicant as to how the road will be built. He agrees that this is the time to make specific conditions. Mr. Fisher said if the road is going to be built and upgraded at a later time, it seems to him there needs to be an iron-clad legal document that will specify how that is going to be done and who is going to pay for it or there will be no mechanism for it to happen. Mr. Fisher said if the road remains a private road he does not see how it can be bought into the State system or how it would serve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan which is to serve as a public corridor. Mr. Horne said in his opinion this is the only way the road will be provided through these particular properties which is by working with the developers to initially provide a lower level of service with an understanding that the road will be elevated to a higher service level at some time in the future, if the Board approves the road as a connector roadway. At that point, there would be final road designs and a schedule of improvements. Once the road becomes a through roadway, no private developer will want to build it based on road design standards. Mr. Fisher asked who is going to build the road. Mr. Horne said in this case the private developer will build the major portions, but at some point there will be a public obligation either to make the final connection or to do some of the final upgrading of the roadway, if the County wants the connector roadway and wants public roads. Mr. Fisher asked if the road would stay at the initial standard indefinitely, or until the County has enough money to bring the road up to State standards. Mr. Horne said, potentially, it could. It is staff's opinion that with a development of this scale, at some point industrial development will want access to that roadway, at which time a conditio~ of site plan approval would be that the road be elevated or brought near Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation through road standards. There is no guarantee that at some point public funds will not need to be expended to make the final improvements. The staff has no other suggestions. The staff does not feel that private developers will ever be able to finance those type of connector roadways. In addition, the private road standards to serve this development are close to public road standards. Mr. St. John said the Highway Department has agreed to the concept suggested by Mr. Horne. If the developer affirmatively agrees and encourages the Board to grant this rezonin( predicated on his affirmative agreement to construct the road to Highway standards at comple- tion of the development, that agreement is enforceable. Mr. Lindstrom asked what is neces- sary to show the developer's agreement. Mr. St. John said it could be a condition of approval, but he does not think an actual contract has to be in writing and signed before approval of the rezoning. Mr. Lindstrom said the staff recommended some special development techniques to deal with its concerns about soil quality, and asked if recommendations can be implemented at the site plan and subdivision approval level or if a condition needs to be added to the rezoning. Mr. Horne said he thinks that existing ordinances are adequate to handle the staff's con- cerns. Mr. Fisher said it is his understanding that the Albemarle County Service Authority is required to provide sewer service at no cost to this property as a result of an agreement the City of Charlottesville had with the landowner at some other time, and asked who will pay for the upgrading of water service. Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, said in the contract that the Service Authority acquired from the City in 1975, the contract specified a twelve-inch water line be extended out Avon Street Extended t¢ the southeast corner of the Lake Reynovia property. That waterline was extended several years ago when Calvary Baptist Church was constructed and it is his opinion that the Service Authority's obligation to extend that waterline to the corner of the Lake Reynovia property has been satisfied. Mr. Way asked about the "loop line" referred to by Mr. Horne in the staff report. Mr. Brent said that the position of the Service Authority is that in order to serve this develop- ment as shown on the Application Plan, it will be necessary to connect the waterline on Avon Street to the existing waterline on Fifth Street. The Service Authority is of the opinion that the construction of that loop will be the responsibility of the developer. The Service Authority Board of Directors previously agreed that should the developer extend the waterline from Fifth Street over to Avon Street, the off-site portion of that waterline would qualify for off-site credits, which could be recovered by the developer in the way of a credit tOward connection fees on the property. That is the only way the water needs of the commercial, industrial and entire residential development can be satisfied. The public hearing was opened. Mr. George Gilliam, representing the applicant, addressed the Board. He said there is enough water at the proposed site at present to serve 230 single-family residential customers. Before any commercial, industrial or residential in excess of 230 can be served, the loop line will need to be constructed. The estimated cost of the twelve inch loop line is about $150,000. He, County staff and a representative of Lake Reynovia have met with Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Highway Engineer, and the first rough draft o~ an agreement has been prepared. If the Board so desires, he does not mind stating for the record the applicants' plans for the road. The applicant is prepared to dedicate all of the right-of-Way for the road. The applicant is prepared to provide the ultimate design work with the right vertical and horizontal curvatures to the present existing Highway Department standards. The applicant is prepared to construct, at his expense, those portions and upgrades of the road necessary to serve the traffic generated by the development. An impor- tant distinction is that although the road will be privately maintained it will be dedicated to public use. In addition, there will be a road maintenance agreement subject to the approval of the County Attorney, until such time as the road is accepted into the State system. Mr. Gilliam said that considering the overall problem, he thinks everyone involved has worked diligently to come up with the best solution. He does think the County gets a substantial benefit from the proposal. Mr. Fisher asked what guarantee there is that the road will be built. Mr. Gilliam said there could be a condition placed so the Planning Commission would not approve the first section of the subdivision internally until the April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 531 agreement is worked out in a satisfactory format. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned the Board may not get another opportunity to see the request when it goes back to the Planning Commis- sion, and all of the concerns raised at tonight's meeting may never get addressed. Mr. Gilliam said the Board should then request Mr. St. John to suggest conditions that would take into consideration its concerns. As he previously stated, the first draft of the proposed agreement has been written, but does need a fair amount of additional work. The draft has been transmitted to the Highway Department for comments. Mr. St. John said he does not feel comfortable tonight, without some further thought, to come up with a condition to add~ess the concerns stated. He feels that if the Board is not of a mind to deny the concept of the PUD at this time, he would request that the rezoning be deferred until the next meeting to allow him time to work on precise language for the condition. Mr. Bowie suggested a condition that the County Attorney will approve a contract. If the County Attorney does not approve the contract then whatever the Board approves is not draft- ed. Mr. St. John said he thinks that would work but the Board may want to see the language itself after the contract is drafted. Mr. Bowie said when the next seCtion of the PUD is built it would be according to whatever the Highway Department requirements are at that time. Mr. Gilliam said that is correct, it would be to the then current standards. Mr. Gilliam said another matter alluded to was the landscaping between the Lake Reynovia property and this property. The applicant and the owners of Lake Reynovia had a partition deed several years ago calling for cooperation between the two pieces of property as to landscaping, utilities, access, etc. A definitive agreement has been negotiated that re- quires the owner of the PUD to provide bushhogging along the common border and provide plant material, and the owner of Lake Reynovia will plant the material next spring. The agreement is private but there is a clause in it that gives the County of Albemarle the right to enforce the agreement. Mr. Gilliam then spoke about the reasons the applicant feels the commercial development requested should be approved. That was the major area of contention at the Planning Commis- sion meeting. The Comprehensive Plan shows sizeable commercial on the other side of the street from the proposed development, although no plans have been approved. It has always been his understanding that the Comprehensive Plan is not site specific. He does not feel that moving some commercial from one side of Avon Street to the other side would do any great violence to the Plan. The Zoning Ordinance states that the area is not adequately served by commercial uses and that it is one of the goals of the Ordinance. The proposed shopping center would be on the same scale as Woodbrook Shopping Center. There is a need for some type of food, grocery and drug store between the Belmont Bridge and Scottsville. He asks that the Board consider a total of 61,000 square feet of commercial, to be phased. He believes that amount would adequately serve the residences of the PUD and the traffic using Avon Street. He believes that a small amount of multi-family and commercial in that area will serve the needs of the people in the southern area. This Board has stated in many ways and many times that it would like to do things to encourage people to move to the south side of the City. If the Board wants to encourage development south of the city then it must recognize that it takes this type of comprehensive approach to a community in order to get ii done. The applicant has appreciated the endless cooperation of the staff and feels that the staff has provided many helpful comments over the past months. Mr. James Murray~ Jr.~ representing the owners of Lake Reynovia, addressed the Board. Early in the development process when this first came before the Planning Commission, his clients were opposed to the development primarily because of their concern of the affects the development would have on Lake Reynovia. That problem has been resolved by a cooperative arrangement with the applicant, which was alluded to by Mr. Gilliam. He thinks the innova- tive concept which has come forth, with regard to the road, is one that holds great hope for the County. Lake Reynovia is surrounded totally by development which means that it cannot remain a park indefinitely. His clients do not presently intend to develop their property, but there is a prospect here for a real problem with the Highway Department. He thinks the County gets a good trade-off with the contract agreement. There is a great deal to be gained here and it appears to be the only way the County is going to get the road. On behalf of his clients, they are in agreement with the application plan and encourage the Board to approve the rezoning. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Daley Craig, the applicant, if he had any problem with the Board deferring the request. Mr. Craig responded no. Mr. Bowie said he has no objection to adding a condition that the contractual agreement be approved by the County Attorney, which would take into consideration all of the suggestions made at this meeting. Mr. Fisher said before he could vote to support this request, he would want to see the details worked out and defined. There are other items with which he is not comfortable. He thinks the statement that all water improvement costs will be at the expense of the develope~ should be made a condition. A condition to set the ms~imum number of dwelling units should be added so as not to be the subject of future controversy. He is concerned about the amount of commercial development. He thinks that all these issues should be worked out along with the road agreement. Mr. Way said he is in agreement with the general comments stated by other people. He has no problem with an increase in commercial development as he can see no rationale for the limit suggested by the Planning Commission. He thinks the shopping area will serve a much larger area than the proposed development. Mrs. Cooke said she tends to agree with Mr. Way concerning the shopping center area. There is certainly a need in that area and there will become a growing need for services. The road agreement is intriguing and she would feel more comfortable if there were more time to put it into proper language. She basically feels that she could support the application and does not have any real problems with the request. 5.3 2 April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Mr. Lindstrom asked how long it would take to prepare the written agreement. Mr. St. John said in order for the agreement to be of any value it should be reviewed by the Highway Department. He does not know how long the Highway Engineer will take. The agreement can be written within the next week or so and can be brought back to the Board without review by thc Highway Department within two weeks. Mr. Fisher suggested this rezoning~request be put back on the agenda on May 7. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem with receiving comments from the Highway Department if its role is to accept the agreement and would allow the roads to b~ maintained and taken into the State system at a later date. Mr. Gilliam commented that Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation will not be a party to the agreement. Mr Fisher said if the Highway Department cannot provide a response on the agreement by May 7, then he would suggest that the staff request their presence at the meeting to add comments. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to defer any action on ZMA-85-29 until May 7, 1986, to ascer- tain an answer from the Highway Department and to request their attendance at that meeting. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr. Bowie said he would support the deferral, but does not understand the role of the Highway Department if the agreement is between the applicant and the County. 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. Mr. Horne said the staff report was intentionally written from the staff's point of vie% to provide flexibility with regard to the number of units, etc. The staff would hope that i~ the interest of not having to bring this back to the Board repeatedly, that the staff could maintain that flexibility to provide for small changes in the plan even with regard to the number of units. Given the difficult development conditions on this site, there are things that are going to come up which cannot be anticipated right now that may affect some of the details on the plan. Agenda Item No. 10 Resolution: Literary Fund Load, Ivy Area School. Mr. Agnor said the School Board has approved an application for a Literary Fund loan fo] the new Ivy School. The Board of Supervisors must adopt the resolution attached to the application if it desires the School Board to apply for the loan. He recommends adoption of the resolution. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, The School Board for the County of Albemarle on the seventh day of April, 1986, presented to this Board an application addressed to the State Board of Education of Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund $2,000,000 for the new school building (or for adding to or improving the present school building) at Ivy, Virginia, to be paid in 20 annual installments, and the interest thereon at four percent paid annually. RESOLVED, That the application of the County School Board to the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $2,000,000 from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said amount for the purpose set out in said application. The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. 1985. Approval of Minutes: October 10, 1984, April 10 and September 11, Mr. Way had read the minutes of April 10, 1985, pages 15-33, Items 15-28, and found the to be correct with the exception of some minor typographical errors. Mr. Lindstrom read the minutes of October 10, 1984, pages 23-29, Items 22-27, and found some minor typographical errors. He asked that the Clerk take a look at the section on the sick leave policy on page 35, as there seems to be a paragraph in the wrong location. Mr. Lindstrom said with regard to Agenda Item $26, on a presentation by the Piedmont Environmen- tal Council about a coal-fired steam electric power generation plant in Buckingham County, the Chairman raised a question about the impact the proposal might have in this community an particularly with respect to ceilings that might be placed on local industry and their expansion because of the air quality standards that might be approached. A request was made to the staff to present the Board with a report and he asked that it be done. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the minutes as read.. 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. April 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) iaa~_e 15) 533 Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Agnor recommended that Mr. Michael H. Armm be appointed Director of Engineering effective May 12, 1986, with a Step D Pay Range 29. Mr. Way offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Michael H. Armm be appointed the Director of Engineering for Albemarle County, effective May 12, 1986. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. None. Mr. Bowie said he received a letter from Mr. Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Assistant to the President for Political and Intergovernmental Affairs, concerning the liability insurance crisis. He asked that the staff let the Board know at its May 7 meeting whether this is something the Board should respond to or pass a resolution on. Mr. Way said he made a request at the last meeting concerning Totier Creek and asked that the request not get lost and be put back on the agenda soon. Mr. St. John requested a resolution from the Board accepting an offer from an anonymous donor for the landscaping on the grounds of this building and to maintain that landscaping during the current year. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Way to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, has received an offer from the donor of the landscaping of the County O~fice Building; and WHEREAS, the donor paid for this year's maintenance of that landscaping under the same procedure set out in the original agreement for the land- scaping; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors accepts this offer and authorizes the donor to proceed with the work. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. NAYS: None. At 10:11 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discus~ personnel matters. Mr. Way seconded the motion. 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 reconvened into open session at I1:00 P.M. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. Mr. Lindstrom immediately offered motion to adjourn unti May 7, 1986, at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Way seconded the motion. 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.