Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-07May 7, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 7, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment-of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to accept the items on the Consent Agenda as information. Mr. Lindstrom 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. Memorandum dated April 30, 1986, from Mr. Ray B. Jones re: Report Form; received as information. Fire Incident In his memorandum, Mr. Jones explained that the report form is the result of efforts by a special committee of the Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association. Each unit will fill out a form for each call, and forward the form to the Fire Prevention Officer. Information will be filed on a computer system in the County Office Building, and quarterly reports then made for each unit. It is hoped that this information may be useful in the future to the fire companies and the County. Item 4.2. Memorandum dated April 22, 1986, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., re: Virginia Power Study - Coal-Fired Plant in Buckingham; received as information. "As a follow-up to your request regarding our investigation of the status of Virginia Power's (VEPCO) interest in a new power generation plant in Buckingham County, I offer the following comments. Virginia Power represen- tatives have stated that environmental studies have been completed regarding four (4) different potential sites in Virginia. Virginia Power has 'shelved' these studies for now, however, and are not actively pursuing another plant site. They indicate that should they decide to move forward on any of these sites, the existing studies would have to be updated and permits sought through state agencies for review of environmental impact, and at that time local government comments would be sought by the State. In contacting Mr. Charles Ellis, State Director of the Council on the Environment, he recalled Virginia Power's interest in the above mentioned sites in late 1984, but no permits for approval have been filed with the State." Item 4.3. Letter dated April 23, 1986, from Mr. George R. St. John re: Analysis of Criteria used by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) - Granting Variance; received as informa- tion. "This letter is in response to the Board's directive that they be given an analysis of the criteria used by the BZA in granting variances. I am enclosing a copy of State Code Section 15.1-495, which sets out the criteria the BZA is required to use. The Virginia Supreme Court in the case of Packer V. Hornsb¥, a 1980 case, has held that these criteria amount to a requirement that the applicant show that if the variance is not granted, then the restriction as applied to him will be constitutionally impermissible. I am unable to discern any pattern in the decision of the BZA other than the application of these statutory criteria. Rather, they do seem to be a little more lenient in applying the facts to these criteria, on a case by case basis, than the standard of Packer v. Hornsb¥. Different members often give different reasons for their vote, and while I believe they do grant some variances which the courts would reverse, if the court itself applies the strict standard of Packer v. Hornsby, nevertheless I feel they are looking at the statutory criteria in their decision. I think also that a strict application of the constitutional-unconstitu- tional test in every case would lead to some decisions which would be inequitable and unsupported by common sense. The Board itself has at times had to bend the rules a little to avoid this situation, as witnessed the recent situation in Jarman's Motorcycle case. I do not think the present BZA does this more than any other governmental agency does, or any more than 542 May 7, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) a different group of BZA members would, given the type of questions which come before them. The one exception to this analysis is the treatment by the BZA of the sign regulations applicable to scenic highways, on Route 250 West. Because there were so many signs along the eastern part of that route as it leaves Charlottesville going West, the BZA unofficially applied a policy of granting variances out to the point where these pre-existing signs ended, and from there on westward they applied the ordinance to the letter. In sum, what they appear to do is apply the statutory criteria, tempered with their own concept of equity and common sense. We don't always agree with the result, but we see no pattern which tends toward a piecemeal nullification of the zoning provisions, or an infringement upon the legisla- tive prerogatives of the governing body." Item 4.4. Letter dated April 15, 1986, from the Department of Conservation and Historic Resources stating that High Meadow has been placed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, was received as information. Item 4.5. Letter dated April 17, 1986, from ABG Financial Services, Inc., re: Bond Program Monthly Report for March, 1986, for Arbor Crest Apartments; received as information. Item 4.6. Letter dated April 21, 1986, from Senator Paul Trible, in support of radar at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport; received as information. "Thank you for your letter forwarding the resolution adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors supporting the installation of a radar at the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport. I have contacted Federal Aviation Administrator Donald Engen to indicate my support. I understand that the FAA Regional Office in New York verified that the two airports have the necessary volume of traffic to warrant the installation, and that the Washington office is presently conducting a cost-benefit analysis. Among the factors to be considered are safety, the volume of passengers enplaning at the two airports and the amount of time the airports close due to inclement weather. This study should be completed in June and at that time we will learn if the project is a candidate for funds. If the project is competitive, it should be considered in the FY87 budget cycle. I will continue to work closely with you on this project and will do all I can to see that it is funded." Item 4.7. Letter dated April 23, 1986, from Rep. D. French slaughter, Jr., re: installation at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport; received as information. "Thank you for writing in support of the Aircraft Surveillance Radar instal- lation at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Your may be aware that I recently met with officials at the airport about this situation. After that meeting I wrote to the FAA Administrator in support of the terminal radar installation. I believe we have a strong case and I want to assure you that I will do everything practicable to facilitate this project." Radar Item 4.8. Letter dated April 23, 1986, from Mr. J. W. Brent, re: Officers elected by the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors; received as information. Mr. Robert Humphris was elected Chairman; Ms. Elizabeth Tewksbury, Vice-Chairman; and, Mr. Bill Brent, Secretary-Treasurer. Item 4.9. Copies of the Planning Commission minutes for April 15 and April 22, 1986, were received as information. Item 4.10. Letter dated May 2, 1986, from Mr. Stephen H. Watts, II of McGuire, Woods and Battle, re: Application of Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc. to the State Corporation Commission, to revise its tariffs; received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. Public hearing: To amend Section 14-11 to allow fees for use of swimming facilities, etc. to be set by resolution of the Board rather than by ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 22 and April 29, 1986.) Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. After ascertaining that no one present wished to speak, he closed the public hearing and put the matter before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor to explain how fees would be set if the proposed ordinanc were adopted. Mr. Agnor said any changes to fees would be adopted by resolution, without advertisement. No longer would public notification be required to change fees. Mr. St. May 7, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) __~a_ge 3 ) 543 John added that the County Code would not have to be changed every time the fees changed, if Section 14-11 were amended as proposed. Mr. Lindstrom said he preferred keeping as part of the procedure the notification of the public and holding a public hearing. He feels County residents deserve a chance to address any proposed change in park fees before the change actually takes place. He said he would like to see the ordinance amended to ensure that the public would be notified and a public hearing held if any changes to fees were proposed. In light of the interest shown by the public in such matters tonight, Mr. Bowie said he supported the ordinance as it stands. He said notice of changes to fees could take place during the budget hearings, which were public. Mr. Agnor said the proposed ordinance could be revised to include a notice to the public. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the ordinance could be revised to stipulate that the public be notified two weeks before the public hearing. Mr. Fisher said two weeks was too long; ter days was the length of time usually required. Mr. Lindstrom said a period of ten days would suit him just as well. Mr. Way pointed out that the Parks and Recreation Department hoped to have the new fees established by Memorial Day. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the revised ordinance and set a public hearing for May 21, 1986, to hear citizens' comments on the proposed changes in fees. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher warned that staff might not have enough time to adver- tise a public hearing for this date; however, if the Board adopted the ordinance revised as Mr. Lindstrom suggested, it could not change the fees without a public hearing. To circumvent this problem, Mr. St. John suggested that the ordinance be rewritten to make a public hearing necessary only after a certain date, such as June 30, 1986. If this were done, the Board could impose the new fees by Memorial Day, without another public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom accepted this recommendation. Mr. Lindstrom amended his motion to adopt the following revised ordinance allowing parks and recreation fees to be changed by resolution, following a ten-day public notice and public hearing after June 1, 1986. Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. 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. 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 Board of Supervisors'of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby amend the Albemarle County Code Section 14-11 as follows: Sec. 14-11. Same--Fees (a) The Board of Supervisors shall from time to time by resolution establish fees, rates and charges for entry to and use of parks, recrea- tional areas and swimming facilities under the county's jurisdiction. Establishment by resolution shall require ten (10) days public notice and a public hearing for all rate changes after June 1, 1986. (1) Season rates. Season passes will be honored from Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day. (2) Picnic shelter reservation fees. No fee will be charged for picnic shelter reservations during the period that park entry fees are being charged. However, shelters still must be reserved on a first come, first served basis. (b) A copy of rates shall be posted at points where such fees are to be collected. Fees for rental of county-owned boats and recreation programs or activities shall be determined by order of a county official so designat- ed by the county executive. (c) No person shall be permitted to use facilities for which fees are charged as aforementioned without first having paid the same; however, the foregoing charges may be suspended by order of a county official so desig- nated by the county executive. No fees paid under this section shall be refunded. Passes issued on payment of such fees shall not be transferable. Agenda Item No. 6. Adoption of Resolution to set fees for use of County Parks, etc. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that pursuant to the authority granted by Section 15.1-526 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, there is hereby imposed by the county the 544 May 7, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Paqe4_~ following rates and charges for the entry to parks and recreational areas and swimming facilities under the county's jurisdiction: (1) Daily rates. so Adults (thirteen years and older), $2.00 per day for county residents; $3.00 noncounty residents. Children (four to twelve years of age), $1.00 per day for county residents; $2.00 for noncounty residents. c. Children (under four years of age), free. (2) Season rates so Adults (thirteen years and older), $25.00 for county resi- dents; $35.00 for noncounty residents. bo Children (four to twelve years of age), $15.00 for county residents; $25.00 for noncounty residents. Ce Family (parents and children residing in the same household) - $50.00 for five people, plus $10.00 for each additional person for county residents; $75.00 for five people, plus $15.00 for each additional person for noncounty residents. d. After July 15, these rates are reduced by one-half. (3) Picnic shelter reservation fees. a. Groups under fifty, $10.00 per event. b. Groups fifty to one hundred, $20.00 per event. c. Groups one hundred to one hundred fifty, $30.00 per event. de Reservations will not be made for groups in excess of one hundred fifty. No fee will be charged for picnic shelter reservations during the period that park entry fees are being charged. However, shelters must be reserved on a first come, first served basis. 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. ZMA-85-29. Forest Hills (Lake Reynovia PUD). Request to rezone about 236 acres from R-1 to PUD. Property on west side of Avon Street Extended, past National Guard Armory (deferred from April 16, 1986). Mr. Fisher said the Board has just received copies of an agreement (also referred to in minutes on this subject as a contract) for the Lake Reynovia PUD, dated May 2, 1986, and asked Mr. George Gilliam to elaborate upon this document. He asked Mr. Gilliam if this were the latest draft of the agreement. Mr. Gilliam addressed the Board and said this draft, except for a minor change in wording suggested by Mr. St. John, is the latest draft of the agreement. The change, he said, called for changing Item 1 on the first page of the agreement from "Trust will dedicate an easement" to "Trust will dedicate to public use a roadway, along with all necessary drainage easements". Mr. St. John suggested that this change would make more explicit the fact that fee simple title to the land would be dedicated to public use: the developer would no longer retain any ownership in the easement land. According to this agreement, Mr. Gilliam continued, Reynovia Land Trust will pay to build the collector (sometimes referred to in these minutes as a connector road) road in stages, as the subdivision sections are recorded. Using a map, he showed Board members the order in which various sections of the proposed PUD would be developed. He said Reynovia Land Trust would not construct or bond any part of the collector road until 100 residential occupancy permits have been issued. Mr. Fisher asked if the agreement specified what portion of the road would be built after 100 permits were issued. Mr. Gilliam answered that the agreement stated the road would be built to the closest intersecting road to be served by the collector road. Mr. Fisher asked if the collector road would start on the Avon Street Extended side. Mr. Gilliam said "yes". Mr. Gilliam said the Reynovia Land Trust has not yet received any feedback from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDOT). He asked that the Board approve this agreement with the understanding that any changes required by the VDOT could be made if these changes did not alter the concept underlying the agreement. Mr. Lindstrom asked what would trigger the construction of any portion of the collector road. Mr. Gilliam said Reynovia Land Trust would begin construction when the developer recorded a subdivision plat showing a road intersecting with the collector road. Mr. Fisher said that statement worried him. What would happen if Reynovia Land Trust recorded plats which did not tie into a collector road? Would construction of such a road ever begin, he May 7, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Paqe 5) 545 asked. Mr. Gilliam said the Reynovia Land Trust intended to begin construction on the cOllector road after 100 residential units were built. He said the wording of the agreement may need to be changed in order to clarify this intent. Mr. Fisher said he was inclined to support this request if the agreement could be worded in a way that could be understood by both parties. He said he did not wish to support something that might become an unending source of dispute for the next twenty years. He added that he has not had enough time to think about the agreement. Until the collector road is built, Mr. St. John pointed out, either the developer or a Homeowners' Association must pay for the other roads in the subdivision. Moreover, he said, these roads must be maintained to standards acceptable to the VDOT, so that they may be accepted into the Secondary Highway System when the time comes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Reynovia Land Trust could begin commercial development under this agreement without beginning work on the collector road. Mr. Horne said "yes". In fact, he added, Item 5 of the proposed agreement described a "second access", which would serve initial commercial development of the proposed PUD. Mr. Horne said another point staff would like to see clarified concerns the adjacent industrial area. He said the agreement deals only with the traffic this area will generate within in the proposed PUD. He said it is possible that the industrial area will generate traffic outside the PUD, necessitating that a road lying outside the PUD be upgraded as well. Mr. Horne also questioned the imposition of one hundred units as the condition to begin the collector road. He said he would like to see a second access underway before the hundred-unit threshold was reached, somewhere around fifty units. Mr. Gilliam replied that a possible compromise might include setting the limit at fifty single-family dwellings. Mr. Gilliam continued his presentation with a description of the proposed commercial development. He said the Planning Commission recommended that initial commercial development be limited to 28,000 square feet gross floor area; thereafter, 60 feet of commercial space could be added for every building permit issued for a dwelling unit, up to 48,000 square feet. Mr. Gilliam said his client did not think this arrangement was economically viable. He requested that the Board permit a minimum of 40,000 square feet of commercial development, with an ultimate maximum of 60,000 square feet. Mr. Bowie asked if the Reynovia Land Trust accepted the Planning Commission's recommen- dation of 60 square feet for every dwelling unit after the initial allotment. Mr. Gilliam said his client would prefer being able to build up to 40,000 square feet of commercial development at any time, and then dividing the last 20,000 square feet of commercial develop- ment on the basis of 100 square feet per dwelling unit. Mr. Gilliam added that his client could not build necessities such as a grocery store and drug store on much less than 40,000 square feet. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bill Brent about the water lines and any agreement the Reynovia Land Trust had with the City. Mr. Brent that there was a dead-end waterline in Avon Street adjacent to the proposed PUD. He calculated that the pipeline could draw enough water for 230 single family dwellings. Mr. Fisher asked if there would be enough water for 230 families if other households started using this waterline before the PUD was developed. He asked if Mr. Brent could guarantee that this waterline could serve 230 families once the development is built. Mr. Brent replied "no"; someone else could use that waterline to serve new housing units before Reynovia Land Trust builds its PUD. Mr. Fisher asked what building additional water lines would entail and who would pay for them. Mr. Brent said it would be necessary to extend another waterline from the dead-end line on Fifth Street, along Biscuit Run, and then cut through the proposed PUD in the vicinity of the collector road. While the developer would pay the costs, he said, the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has assured him that the costs for the off-site work may be recovered in the form of credits for future connection fees. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any sewer service to the area. Mr. Brent said "no"; the responsibility for providing sewer service falls completely on the developer. While Reynovia Land Trust has several options, he said, the one favored by the staff involves running a sewer line along Biscuit Run in the vicinity of the water line. Mr. Fisher asked if this wOuld be a gravity-fed sewage line. Mr. Brent said "yes". Mr. Fisher asked how long it would take before the VDOT responded to the proposed agreement. Mr. Horne said he had no idea. Mr. Gilliam suggested that the Board delete the collector road the next time it revises the Comprehensive Plan. Then, he said, the VDOT would have to accept the collector road for maintenance. Mr. Fisher said the question of the adjacent industrial lands and the trigger for the second access are not resolved in the proposed agreement. He said there is also disagreement about the amount of commercial development and concern about whether there should be a limit on the number of dwelling units that can be built without applying for another special permit. If the applicant is requesting 315 dwelling units, he said, then 315 should be the limit under this permit. He is not certain that the Board should act upon this request with so many unanswered questions. Mr. Lindstrom said so much hinges upon the collector road. He said he would like to hear the response from VDOT. He said he is unwilling to vote on this request until some of the issues Mr. Fisher outlined have been addressed, particularly what event will actually trigger construction of the collector road. He said he has not had the time he needs to review this draft thoroughly and carefully. May 7, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Gilliam said he sent a draft of the agreement to Mr. St. John's office within two days after the last Board meeting. He said he has no control over when the Board first sees a document. He believes that the uncertainties worrying several Board members can be handled at the subdivision approval stage. He urged that the Board act upon this request now. Mr. Lindstrom said it is the Board which will be responsible for whatever confusion may result from a vague agreement. Mr..Fisher asked Mr. Gilliam if he could present an agreement that would resolve these issues by 12:00 P.M., May 9, 1986. Mr. Gilliam said he could not attend next week's Board meeting. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Gilliam could attend the meeting the following week. Unless the Board acted promptly, Mr. Gilliam said, his client may withdraw the application and subdivide by right. Mr. Fisher repeated that he would not vote for this proposal without a firm agreement. Mr. Gilliam said he could get together with Mr. St. John and Mr. Horne right now and work out those problems; the only issue they could not address right now concerns the response of the VDOT. Mr. Daley Craig, owner of the land in the proposed PUD, addressed the Board and urged that the Board act on this request tonight, saying that the Board's delay had already caused him hardship. Mr. Fisher asked how long it would take Messrs. Gilliam, Horne and St. John to reword the agreement to clarify the language in dispute. "Fifteen minutes", Mr. Gilliam replied. At 8:54 P.M., Messrs. St. John, Horne and Gilliam left the meeting to work on a new draft of the agreement. In their absence, the Board moved on to the following agenda items. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Liability Insurance Prices. Mr. Agnor said he had referred this matter, brought up by Mr. Bowie at the last Board meeting, to Mr. St. John. Mr. Agnor said the State must initiate most of the tort law legislation expected to alleviate the liability insurance crisis. Until such legislation is drafted, he said, there is nothin¢ the Board can do. Since the letter from Mr. Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. concerning this problen was addressed to Mr. Bowie, Mr. Agnor said, perhaps Mr. Bowie could write back to Mr. Daniels and ask that the County be kept up to date on the issue. Mr. Bowie agreed. Agenda Item No. 9. Approval of Minutes: October 10, 1984; and March 11 and September 11, 1985. Mrs. Cooke had read October 10, 1984, pages 12 through 23, and September 11, 1985, pages 1 through 18. She offered motion to approve the minutes that had been read. 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. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Bowie presented a report on the May 1, 1986, meeting of the Thomas Jefferson Plan- ning District Commission (TJPDC). At this meeting, the Commission received the resignation of its last professional staff person. Reasons given for the resignation included a work week of 50 - 60 hours and insufficient remuneration. While the amount requested by the TDPD( has usually been funded, Mr. Bowie said, the amount requested has not been enough to pay staff. This year, he continued, only three of six local governments have agreed to fund the full request. Albemarle was one of the counties that did not. Due to an increasing number of resignations, Mr. Bowie said, it has become difficult fo~ the TJPDC to have the quorum necessary to conduct business. He said the TJPDC has considere( changing its bylaws to permit proxies and mail-in votes. Finally, he said, at the May 1 meeting, the TJPDC passed a resolution calling for the disbanding of the TJPDC. Actually, h( added, the TJPDC cannot disband itself; each member government must withdraw. Mr. Bowie asked that staff present next week to the Board a report detailing the services the TJPDC provides the County and what the County would have to do if the TJPDC wer( disbanded. He said he also wanted to know what it would cost the County to replace any services offered by the TJPDC. He asked that each Board member receive this information by May 21, 1986, in order to act upon this matter at the May 22, 1986, Board meeting. Mr. Fisher asked if either Mr. Lindstrom or Mrs. Cooke, the Board's other two represen- tatives on the TJPDC, wished to speak on this issue. Mrs. Cooke said she has serious reser- vations about just how much the County receives from the TJPDC, but she would like to see th( staff report before making a final decision. Mr. Lindstrom said that he had been asked by the Daily Progress to write an editorial the TJPDC. This editorial will be in the Sunday, May 11, 1986, edition of the paper. Mr. Fisher said he received a memorandum from Dr. Richard Prindle of the Health Depart- ment. Enclosed was an internal memorandum from the Albemarle County Service Authority about gravity sewer service in the Woolen Mills area. Mr. Fisher said Dr. Prindle wanted the County to know what was being proposed in this area and whether it was in keeping with the County"s plans. Mr. Fisher asked if someone could tell him what the problem was in this area. A few years ago, Mr. Brent answered, the Health Department reported that five or six houses in the Woolen Mills area were discharging waste or sewage directly into the river. The Service Authority prepared a plan to provide a sewage system for this area and the Board of Directors appropriated money to build the system. He said the Service Authority asked th~ Health Department to require that the owners connect these houses to the system. So far, he said, this has not been done. May 7, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) ___lPage 7) 547 Mr. Fisher said the Board should encourage the Health Department to move forward on this matter. Mr. Way agreed with the Chairman. Mr. Lindstrom moved that the Board adopt the following resolution requesting that the Health Department require that these households in the Woolen Mills area connect to the public sewer system. Mr. Way seconded the motion. WHEREAS, there are existing residences in the Woolen Mills area of the County near East Market Street that have been reported by the Thomas Jeffer- son Health District office as not having safe, sanitary sewage disposal systems; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority has investigated the matter and developed plans for installing a sanitary sewer line system in the area to specifically correct the potential health problem that exists in that area; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority is prepared to install such a system but does not have the authority to require connection of the existing residences to the system to assure the correction of the potential health problem; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Director of the Thomas Jefferson Health District be requested to require the owners of the existing residences to connect to the proposed sewer line system; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that compliance by property owners with this requirement be assured by the Health Director's staff prior to commencement of construction of this system. 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. Ms. Becky Graves, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Charlottesville Taxicab Association, addressed the Board. She said she also serves as a non-voting member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, an invited participant on the JAUNT Board and an office manager for the Yellow Cab Company. Taxicabs, she said, are the major provider of demand-response transportation in the County, offering service 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. She said JAUNT also operates in the County as a demand-response system. According to JAUNT's FY 1985 figures, she said, it provided less than 20,000 trips in the County. According to a recent survey taken by the Charlottesville Taxicab Association, she said, taxicabs provide over 40,000 trips a year in the County, excluding University-baSed trips. She asked that the Board insure that the taxicab business remain healthy and safe from too much encroachment by subsidized transportation services. At 9:15 P.M., the Board returned to Agenda Item No. 7, the discussion of ZMA-85-29. Messrs. Gilliam, St. John and Horne returned to the meeting and Mr. Gilliam outlined the changes they agreed to make to the agreement. First, Mr. Gilliam said, Page 2, Section 2, Line 5, after "generated by the PUD", the following words were added: "or by adjacent properties now zoned Industrial which are granted access to the collector road by Trust". This addition, Mr. Gilliam said, will put the Virginia Real Estate Investment Trust land, if they are given an easement to tie into that road, on the same footing as any land within the Trust. On Page 3, Item 5, he continued, there is a change beginning in Line 7 concerning the trigger for construction of the collector road. The new wording is: "Trust will be require~ to construct or bond appropriate portions of the collector road at such time as 50 single- family detached residential occupancy permits .... " The following sentence, he said, will be changed to read: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, Trust will dedicate right-of-way and drainage easements .... " Mr. Gilliam said he believed these changes address the concerns expressed by members of the Board. In conjunction with the changes to the agreement, Mr. Horne said, there will be a change in the recommended conditions of approval. Condition No. 6 should be changed to read as follows: The alignment of the potential collector road shall be in general accord with the Application Plan. The collector road shall be built in accordance with an agreement approved by the County Attorney and by the Board of Supervisors which is generally in accord with the attached draft agreement dated May 7, 1986 (read by Mr. George H. Gilliam and changes as agreed to by the applicant and the understanding that the language may further be refined and the final agreement brought back to the Board for signature), presented to the Board on that date. There shall be no residential entrances onto the collector road, with the exception of public road connections. Mr. Fisher said the next area of concern for the Board was the number of commercial units. He suggested that the Board consider this as a separate item, discuss and vote upon it, and then make it a condition and part of the whole agreement. Mr. Bowie said he support- ed the limit of 60,000 square feet of commercial units. Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commis- sion was concerned that the commercial development serve the people living in the PUD, rathe~ than have highway commercial development occurring without residential development. 548 May 7, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Paeg~ Mr. Way said he believed there should be additional residential development in the PUD before the Reynovia Land Trust is allowed to build 60,000 square feet of commercial develop- ment. However, he said, 28,000 feet is too low a limit. He would support an initial limit on commercial development of 40,000 square feet. He said the proposed commercial development should not serve the PUD alone, but all people traveling along Route 20 South. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke to adopt Condition 7 with the substitution of 60,000 square feet of commercial development for the 28,000 stated in the first line and 60,000 for the 48,000 in the bottom line. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discus- sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Way. Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt Condition 6 as read by Mr. Horne. There was no further discussion. 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. Fisher asked that the Board consider placing a limit on the residential development. He said the applicant requested 315 dwelling units and he suggested adding a Condition No. 8 making 315 the limit for residential development. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to add a Condition No. 8 limiting residential development in the PUD to 315 units. There was no further discussion. 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. Way said he would like to remind the Board that there will be other difficult decisions to make concerning the connector road. He said there are several ways to tie this connector road into Fifth Street. He is concerned that houses and neighborhoods lie in many of the paths proposed for the connector road. He said that several citizens have already contacted him in distress about the effect the road will have on their neighborhood. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Way to approve ZMA-85-29 with the conditions of the Planning Commission as modified by the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he had little confidence in the way the collector road is supposed t¢ work and the requirements set for commercial development. He said the County may end up witt a commercial strip along the road frontage and little residential development. Despite his reservations, he said, he will support the motion. Mr. Fisher asked what the County could do to enforce the agreement if the developer lacked the resources to build the road once the requisite number of dwelling units had been built. Mr. St. John replied that the road will be bonded. There was no further discussion. ing recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow- AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. (Note: The following are the conditions of approval: 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 (2) acres as a result of possible realignment of the collector road. 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 services to the PUD and the neighborhood in general. Shopping center parking standards may be employed. e 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 deve- loper, 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. May 7, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) 549 0 e 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 built in accordance with an agreement approved by the County Attorney and by the Board of Supervisors which is generally in accord with the attached draft agreement dated May 7, 1986 (read by Mr. George H. Gilliam and changes as agreed to by the applicant and the understanding that the language may further be refined and the final agreement brought back to the Board for signature), presented to the Board on that date. There shall be no residential entrances onto the collector road, with the exception of public road connections. The commercial development limited to 60,000 square feet gross floor area. The maximum number of dwelling units approved under this PUD is 315 building units. Agenda Item No. 11. Adjourn. Board adjourned at 9:48 P.M. With no further business to come before the Board, the ' CHAIRMA~