Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-10-111,52 October 11, 1979 (Adjourned from October_ _$.0 , 1~79) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia~ was held on October ll, 1979,'at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from OCtober 10, 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arriving at 1:50 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.(arriving at 2:17 P1M.), F. Anthony Iachetta (arriving at 2:35 P.M.) C. Timothy Lindstrom, and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:52 P.M. by the Chairman. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan Amendments. a) Staff report on Neighborhoods i and 7. Mr. Fisher then called for the staff report which had been requested by the Board at their meeting on September 19, 1979. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer read the following into the record: DEVELOPMENT OF SLOPES UNDER THE RUNOFF CONTROL ORDINANCE The following is an analysis of the effect of slopes on the density of develop- ment that may be achieved un,er the County's Runoff Control Ordinance. The area of this study is the area of the Urban Area which lies within the South Rivanna Reservoir watershed as described in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Under,the provisions of the Runoff Control Ordiannce, the post-development losses of sediment and phosphorus from a development shall not exceed the losses under the areas predevelopment condition, but in no case shall the post-development. losses exceed 135 pounds per acre per year of solids or 0.68 of phosphorus. Guide- lines are provided by the County by which a developer may compute these losses and, also, descriptions of devices and practices by which such losses may be controlled in order to meet the required local limitations. Anyone who engages in computing the sediment and phosphorus losses of the post-development p~riod will quickly see thZt the phosphorus losses are the more significant. For this reason, the calculations in this study are confined to that element. The control of the rate of run-off of stormwater is also required under the ordinance. In general, this is not as difficult to achieve as is the control of phosphorus and, therefore, is not treated herein. This study assumes that land is available for the site of whatever treatment structures may be required, a condition which is not likely to be found on every individual property within the study area. The removal of sediment and phosphorus from stormwater is limited by practical considerations. The guidelines of the ordinance indicate that a maximum of 50% of suspended solids and 75% of phosphorus may be accomplished under ideal conditions. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that 33% of the solids and 50% of the total phosphorus can be removed. Based on this assumption, the maximum loadings which may be successfully treated are: 135/.67 : 202#/Ac./Yr. Sediment 0.68/.50 : 1.36#/Ac./Yr. Total Phosphorus The Ordinance Guidelines, Section B-2, Calculations of Sediment and Total phosphorus Run,~ff Characteristics for Developed Site Conditions, give the following equation by which Total Phosphorus may be computed: Lp = P(LS) (Sd) When Lp = Total phosphorus loading in pounds per acre per year P = total phosphorus loading factor in #/Ac./Yr. t~~to~g~a~idf~a~'~dimensionless Sd = the sediment delivery ratio, dimensionless Values of P vary with density of development and values of LS, with slope and slope length. Tables are provided in the Guidelines for these factors. Table One of this study gives a tabulation of total phosphorus loading for ~rious conditions of slope, slope length and density of development. TABLE ONE RELATIONSHIP OF SLOPE TO DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT SLOPE LENGTH OF SLOPE DENSITY DU/AC TOTAL PHOSPHORUS #/AC/YR REMARKS 6 6 8 8 10 2000' 1000' 2000' 100O' 1000' Shopping Center 1.20 ~Strip Commercial 1.15 16+ 1.31 Shopping Center 1.28 16+ 1.31 Acceptable for 16 or more Du/Ac or Shopping Center Acceptable for Strip Commercial Acceptable for 16 or more Du/Ac Acceptable for Shopping Center Acceptable for 16 or more Du/Ac 153 October ll_~ 1979 (Adjourned from 0ctober_10, -1979) TOTAL PHOSPHORUS % SLOPE LENGTH 0~ SLOPE DENSITY DU/AC 12 300' 16+ 1.26 12 600' 14 1.36 12 1000' 7 1.28 12 2000' 3 1.35 REMARKS ~ Acceptable for 16 or more Du/Ac Acceptable for 14 Du/Ac Acceptable for 7 Du/Ac Acceptable for 3 DU/Ac 14 200' 15+ 1.31 14 500' 8 1.36 14 1000' 4 1.~6 14 2000' 2 1.07 Acceptable for 153Du/Ac Acceptable for 8 Du/Ac Acceptable for ~ Du/Ac Acceptable for 2 Du/Ac 16 200' 8 1.36 16 500' 4 1.40 16 1000' 2 0.97 16 2000' 2 1.33 Aceeptable for 8 Du/Ac Acceptable for 4 Du/Ac Acceptable for 2 Du/Ac Acceptable for 2 Du/Ac 18 200' 5 1.39 18 500' 2 0.98 18 1000' 2 2.17 18 2000' 1 1.29 Acceptable for 5 Du/Ac Acceptable for 2 Du/Ac AccePtable for 2 Du/Ac Acceptable for 1 Du/Ac There are approximately 2462 acres of the designated Urban Area within the watershed of the South Rivanna Reservoir. A study of a map which was prepared by the Planning Department to show slopes, shows the following breakdown: SLOPES ACREAGE % OF TOTAL AREA 0-15 1304 53.1 15-25 527 21.3 above 25 631 25.6 The most desirable slopes are concentrated on State Routes 654, 657, 743, and 631. Approaching the reservoir and Ivy Creek, the slopes are steeper and the terrain is more fragmented. There are several cliffs along the margin of the reservoir. The belt of gentle slopes is particularly narrow along State Rmute 631. By no means are all of the 0-15% slopes conducive to development, since many small parcels are surrounded by steep slopes. There is a considerable acreage of 0-15% slopes that can accommodate high density development and comply with the requirements of the Runoff Control Ordinance. However, high density development requires that both water and sewerage be available to the area of development. A pump station would be required for any individual development or an interceptor through this area could service a number of subdivisions, conveying their wastewaters to a major pump station from which a single force line would carry the wastewater across the ridge into the Meadow Creek basin. Such installations'are relatively expensive because state regulations require duplications of pumps and power sources. They are also energy users and require constant maintenance. These drawbacks do not rule out the use of sewage pump stations and force mains; they are merely less attractive than gravity flow installations. Several pump stations are already present in the area under discussion, notably those serving 01d Salem, Georgetown Green and the county schools. In addition, that part of Hessian Hills Subdivision which is located in the watershed is in need of sewerage. The Albemarle County Service Authority has made a study relative to service of an area roughly from Barracks Road (State Route 654) to Lambs Road (State Route 657), lying on either side of Barracks Road and Lambs Road. This service would be located at an elevation which would collect wastewater from Hessian Hills and could possibly eliminate the pump stations now serving Georgetown Green. Without the use of the Runoff Control Ordinance, developments within this area would be limited by the amount of impervious area they introduced, i.e., to 5% or less of the develaped area.. In practice, this requires lot sizes of two acres or greater. October ~ 1979 i{Ad~ourned from October Area~ Mr. Bailey said ~in the report is a bable of values which correlates densities and distance. It is assumed that any development that can take place that does not produce more than 1.36 pounds per acre per year of phosphorus can be treated so the results leaving the site will be 0.68 pounds per year. Under that condition, if the slopes do not exceed 6% and 2,000 feet in length, which none of the slopes in this area do, the land can be developed to any of the densities shown on the Urban Area land use plan, except for strip commercial. Mr. Bailey said there are about 2,462 acres which were studied. Of that amount, 1,304 acres, or 53%, have slopes that do not exceed 15%; 527 acres have slopes of 15% to 25%; and 631 acres have slopes above 25%. The 631 acres would be excluded from any type of development because of restrictions in the Soil Erosion Ordinance. The study shows that less than 55% of the 1,304 acres could be used for development because of fragmentation of the area. There is no way of telling how property ownerships split the slopes that are shown. If the Board chooses to show densities that would be permitted under the Runoff Control Ordinance, public utilities would have to be furnished, and this would be entirely a sewage pumping operation. Pumping stations are more expensive, both th construct and operate, than gravity flow systems. Nevertheless, that is not to discourage the use of such systems, because it is still economical to use pumping if it is not too deep within the property. There are already in existence in this area several pumping stations with respect to disposal of wastewater; namely Old Salem Apartments, Georgetown Green and the County Schools. There has also bean some interest shown by people in the area, particularly in Hessian Hills, of securing a pumping station for sewage disposal and the Albemarle County Service Authority has made a preliminary study on the question. Without the use of the guidelines in the Runoff Control Ordinance (provisions whereby overloading of solids and phosphorus may be corrected), any development would be limited to the 5% of the impervious surface which is exempted in the runoff control ordinance. Translated into general practice, this wm~ld mean October 11~ 1979 (Adjourned from October 1A 1979) Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Bailey meant that any density greater than one dwelling unit per two acres would.come under the provisions of the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr? Bailey said yes, the Runoff Control Ordinance covers this area and without resorting to-corrective measures provided in the~ordinance, land would not be exempted unless less than 5% w~re ~ being developed. Mr. Fisher asked what kind of control measures were assumed to come up with this removal factor. Mr. Bailey said it was not limited to any particular structure since it would be impossible to make assretions until there were a specific plan to study. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Roudabush had done an analysis of some of the lands in the area and had come to the conclusion that a maximum density of about one ~welling unit per acre could be allowed on some of the terrain. He asked Mr. Roudabush if that correlated with the figures Mr. Bailey had given today. Mr. Roudabush said he felt it did. Mr. Fisher said if the Board were to use this analysis as a basis for setting maximum densities, maps would have to be studied to see where these densities could be placed on slopes of less than 15%. Mr. Tucker said the staff would need to evaluate this further. Mr. Linds~rom'said he had no objection to the staff making such a study, but he felt this demonstrates the tortuous course Which the Board must follow to include the watershed area in the Urban Area of the County. The Runoff Control Ordinance does not specifically address development as it occurs, but only in the developed state. He is aware that the Soil Erosion Ordinance does address the developing stage, but from the analysis presented today, the area does not lend itself to any one kind of impoundment device to provide for sedimentation. Topography in this area is broken up in such a way that it would require many devices if developed to an urban density. These devices would be privately owned and maintained. While in theory the devices called for in the ordinance may be accomplished, administering the installation of the devices and then maintaining and overseeing them after the developer has completed a subdivision would be almost an impossibility. The Crozet community is in the South Fork Rivanna watershed, but the distinction in Crozet is that the topography lends itself to one sediment basin that could serve a significant part of the community. That sediment basin could be maintained at public expense to insure its effectiveness. That cannot be done with a topography in this part of the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he cannot see the County successfully including the watershed area in the Urban Area. Also the ecomomics are not present for providing water and sewer to this kind of a fragmented area. He did not think that taking the watershed area out of the urban area will preclude it from being provided with the kind of utilities needed for development. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lindstrom when he spoke about having many structures on private property if he were speaking of the ~evelopment stage. Mr. Lindstrom said no, post-development stage. Mr. Fisher said the post-development stage will be maintained at publio expense. The only~hhing that has not been agreed to with the City is how this expense will be paid. Mr. Lindstrom said that question is still unanswered and he has reserva. tions about the County's ability to successfully deal with this kind of problem. Mr. Lindstrom said about one-half of this area does not lend itself to urban densities at all, and the areas that do lend themselves to development are fragmented. The County is not lacking for any~density in the Urban Area. The maps show that She carrying capacity of the Urban Area is 60,000 and all that is planned for in the way of population in the next twenty years is 13,000. (Mr. Henley arrived at 2:17 P.M.) Mr. Dottier said that he shares some of the concerns, but the Board has been advised by the engineers that these devices will work. The devices should eithe~ be tested or the ordinance changed since developers are depending on what has been written for guidelines for future development. If this area is deleted from the Urban Area just because the Board feels the ordinance will not work, the ordinance shOuld be scrapped for the whole watershed. Mr. Lindstrom noted that at Rivanwood subdivision, there were four run-off control de- vices. During one of the recent rains, three of those devices w~re not functioning in the way he felt they should. Rivanwood is a small subdivision and not that much develop~ ment has taken place at this time. Also, the lots are all in exces~ Of two acres, When you think of the density that the Board is trying to achieve ~n the. urb~u~,~e~'and the pressure which will be put on these devices, Mr. L~nd~t~.om said he'~doe~ not feel that the County will be successful. Thi~bmingahfm~c~ ~o t~e argument that he cannot see the Boamd successfully including~ki~ pamt 'of the County in the Urban Area, and he feels it should be removed~ M~. Fishe~. asked Mr.' Bailey if he had noted the failure of the device's at Rivanwood. Mr. Bailey said~the' engineering department staff had looked at these structures at the instructions of the consultant. The engineering staff interpreted what happened and the purpose of the retention pond differently from what Mr. Lindstrom has said. In this instance, the control of removal of solids and phosphorus depends not on the ponds, but on seeding and sodding. Rivanwood is typical of some of the better lands in the area. The slopes are not violent. The land is more rolling and does not have phonounced draws eroded into it. The design of the basins was for the control of the rate of run-off. Rates of run-off vary with intensities and the staff had fixed upon a return frequency of a ten-year storm ~ on which the structure was designed. It is obvious from observations around the area that the two storms which occurred recently were in excess of the ten-year frequency. This system had beengraded around the ends of the dam fairly close to the period of this Storm and the areas had been seeded and there had been some partial germination, but it had not established and the loose material washed out. Mr. Bailey said he did not personally inspect the damage but it was inspected by a member from the staff of the engineering department and a soil erosion inspector. Their view was that there was no failure, but this was an instance where the grass sod had not established to ~abilize emergency run-off. These devices are to cure the long-range problems but they will not cure every situation. Mr. Roudabush said even if the Runoff Control Ordinance provisions are set aside, there is no way, under the current zoning ordinance, that Shm could get four dwelling units per acre, attached or in one building. It could be done on a multitude of acres, but when the structures required under the Runoff Contr.ol Ordinance are taken into account, these densities are not obtainable except on larger sites. The number of sites that could be developed at that density would be very few. 158 October _ll, l~_9_~Adj ourned from 0ctober l_~0 19_~9_) _ Mr. Fisher said he understands that Mr. Lindstrom would like to exclude the whole watershed area from the Urban Araa of the plan, but he is not ready to make that decision. The staff has made the report that was requested of them, but he did not know what impact this analysis would have made on the recommendations, of the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker asked for a clarification from the Board. He said that what the Board sees on the Urban Area map at this meeting, does not show the Planning Commission's recommendations. The map shows the committee's recommendations. The Planning Commission recommended one dwelling unit per acre for all of the area in the watershed and deleted all of the high density zoning. He asked if the staff was to take the analysis presented by Mr. Bailey, assume that everything in the area will be one dwelling unit per acre, and then try to find areas that would be suited for higher density, or make the same assumptions using the committee's recommendations on densities. (Dr. Iachetta arrived at 2:35 P.M.). Mr. Roudabush said he felt the staff should use the Planning Commission's recommendation with the information presented today to see if the Planning Commission's recommendation is valid. Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission recommended a blanket one dwelling unit per acre density and the limitation should be on the higher densities. Mr. Bailey said it would appear that some factor other than slopes and the Runoff Control Ordinance should be the deciding factor on density. Mr. Fisher said the staff should pick for study, one piece of undeveloped, high density land and see what effect this analysis would have on the density on that parcel of land. Mr. Roudabush said that sooner or later the Board will have to make a definite decision on the density for the strip of land along the edge of the reservoir. Mr. Fisher said the last time the Board looked at this area, they had decided that one-acre density would be correct for that area. Mr. Roudabush said no decision was made at that time. Mr. Bailey said there are other things to consider for the lands far-removed from Hydraulic Road. If a density is to be applied that requires sewage, it will be very costly since it will require pumping stations. Mr. Lindstrom said if densities are applied that require sewage, the sewer lines would be run through a great deal of land that would not be suitable to densities that need utilities. Mr. Lindstrom then requested that Mr. Bailey report at the October 24 meeting on which are&s designated for high density development in Neighborhoods i and ? cannot be served by gravity sewage flow. Also, at the October l? meeting, Mr. Bailey was requested to report on the feasibility of an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek. Mr. Agnor noted that the areas which cannot be served by gravity sewage flow were outlined in the five-year pollution abatement program when the analysis for the Crozet interceptor and sewer plant for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was made. The boundary lines for the Albemarle County Service Authority were designed around gravity flow of sewage on the south side of the Urban Area. Mr. Roudabush asked if the Liakinghole Creek impoundment would be looked at both as a flood control and water impoundment structure. Mr. Bailey said he did not think the two ~hings cuuld be separated. The reduction of solids depends on how long you can hold these solids to achieve sedimentation. Agenda Item No. 2c. Public Hearing: Neighborhood Number 4. (Public hearing on the Planning Commission's recommendation that the Biscuit Run area be added to the urban area of the Comprehensive Plan. Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on October 9 and October 10, 1979.) Mr. Tucker began by giving the staff report which is set out in full in Minute-Book 18, pages 85 and 86, September 19, 1979. Mr. Dorrier asked how utilities fit into this area. Mr. Tucker said it is a natural area for gravity flow of sewage. Mr. Agnor noted that the design of Interstate 64 accommodated a box under that route for a sewer line. This was done because there was an obligation on the purchase of property for the National Guard Armory by the owners of Reynovia Lake to sewer all 'of the Reynovia property. This commitment was made a number of years ago by the City and was passed on to the Albemarle County Service Authority when they obtained the system. Dr. Iachetta asked ~the criteria used to designate the Reynovia area as a park. Mr. Tucker said that area was shown as a park in the 19?l Comprehensive Plan and he believes the consultants Just carried it over to this plan. At this time, the public~hearing was opened. Miss Ellen Nash said the proposed road connecting Route 20 with Route 631 seems to~ be rather arbitrary. It would be more logical to have the intersection where Avon Street runs into Route 20. She also asked about the commercial area shown~--Mr. Dorrier said he liked the idea of having commercial off of Route 20. It appears to be fairly well hidden from view, and would be off of the main stretch of road. Mrs. Treva Cromwell said she was not clear about the source of drinking water for this area and she ha~ heard that this area has a poor groundwater supply. Miss Nash said she was troubled by the timing of this proposal and felt it was overplanning at this time. With Route 631 in its present condition, it would be impossible to put more traffic on~hhat road. Route 20 is dangerous and the hope of any road improvements for the next five years is very slim. She could not see planning now to put this density in this area with the present roads~ Mr. Fisher said the Board has agreed that all maps in these revisions will be dated 1995 to show ~.he timing of the plan. If this area is included invthe Comprehensive Plan and the road and utility systems are deemed to be adequate, there are liable to be requests for changes in zoning much sooner than 1995. Mr. Dottier said the Board has already seen plans for improvements of Route 6~1, and while no timetable has been set for the improvements, the plans have been drawn and are ready for funding. Mr. Fisher noted that there are no design drawings. Mr. Tucker said an alignment has been chosen and that alignment is shown on the large map of the Urban Area. Mr. Dorrier asked what timetable has been set for these improvements. Mr. Tucker said they are not scheduled in the foreseeable future. The alignment-has been chosen, but these improvements would first have to be included in the Six-Year Highway plan. Dr. Iachetta said there is not enough money in the six-year plan to do the work that needs to be done. This section of Route 631 is also a part of the CATS committee recommendations. The CATS study is projected through the year 2000. Mr. Dottier said improvements have been made to Rmute 20 South section by section, and eventually improvements will be completed on the entire length from Charlottes- ville to Scottsville. October 11, 1979 (Adjourned from October 10, 1~7_9) Mr. Roudabush asked if the Highway Department had looked at this proposed connector between Route 631 and Route 20. rMr. Tucker said no, th2 alignment and location are similar to that proposed under the Biscuit Run Plan (SP-78-15;~ June 1978) and the Highway Department had looked at the design of that proposal. Mr. Lindstrom said even if the carrying capacity in Neighborhood 7 is reduced, he could see no compelling reason to add that population elsewhere. He said Miss Nash had a good point. The roads in this area are not adequate and it would be unrealistic to think that the County can provide the necessary roads. He agrees that there is a need for commercial development on the south side of town. Mr. Dorrier said he has always advocated more commercial development in a certain area south of Charlottesville, His concern is that this whole tract of land could be sold at any time and subdivided. If that is done, he feels the County should have some guidelines for development so that the whole area does not end up in two-acre lots. This area is presently undeveloped, but in the future will be developed. The County has an opportunity now to influence what will happen in the area. If the County says the area should not develop that is one thing, but if nothing is done, he feels the County will be loosing an opportunity to control what will happen intthe area, particularly since the public utilities are so ~lose. Dr. Iachetta said there is no chance that this area can be served by sewage disposal until 1982 and it is not far beyond that date when the Comprehensive Plan will have to be reappraised in its entirety. Since nothing can happen in the area until the AWT Plant is completed, he sees no urgency to add a~ditional land to the Urban Area if there is no good reason to do so from a planning point of view. Mr. Henley said it is a natural area for growth because public water is already available, but he could see no reason to include it at this time. Mr. Gaston Fornes said he was in favor of this area being included as part of the Urban Area. It is in a good location for sewerage facilities and is not far from the City boundary. He feels it is well served by roads since Interstate 64 borders the area. Mr. Fornes said he has lived in the area for eighteen years and it is a beautiful valley. The valley itself is free from slopes and there are lots of building sites available. Mr. Rey Barry said the area could be developed in single-family homes, but basically it is a large tract of land under one ownership. There is some development taking place east of Route 631 at present and there are proposals for further development. To fail to take that into account could cause two-acre, strip development and a lot of other things that the County does not find desirable. Mr. Fisher said just because someone owns a piece of land they want to develop, the county cannot be put in a position of planning how to get water, sewer and roads into the area. The County is to look at the public interest, and the landowners intent at this stage~aannot be the controlling factor. Mr. Lindstrom said just because there is developable land in the area does not mean that this area should be included on the Urban Area map. Mr. Dottier said he felt any plan for a large development would come under the RPN category in the zoning ordinance, but without any master plan to guide the County, the area may end up with a hodge-podge from a planning standpoint. He did not think the County should encourage development, but try to influence its final shape. Dr. Iachetta said he could agree somewhat with the intention of the Planning Commission. If they felt a need to shift the lost population in Neighborhoods i and 7 to another area in the County, it was obvious that they should look at an area where lift stations were not needed for sewage treatment. Mr. Roudabush said the argument that this area cannot be ~eveloped until the sewer is available in 1982 should not be used, since the Crozet community plan is all predicated on the interceptor line being built and that is much further off in time. The public hearing was closed at 3:38 P.M. P.M. The Board recessed and reconvened at 3:43 Agenda Item No. 2b. Neighborhood Number 3. (New ~ap on ~g~ p~age. ) Mr. Tucker noted that the property to the west of the dark dashed line can be served by gravity sewage. According to the County Engineer, even the areas to the east that would have to have sewage pumped back to the interceptor would then have flow by gravity to the treatment plant; Dr. Iachetta said it appears that about 30% of this neighborhood would require a lift station. Mr. Tucker noted that the staff had shown on this map a medium density buffer between Glenorchy Subdivision and the adjacent high density. Mr. James Hill was present and noted that the owner of the Pantops property has already planned to put in sewer lines and has sized that sewer line at twenty-four inches to take care of this property and the property on the northeast side of Route 250. Mr. Fisher said a large part of the State Farm property is outside of the area that could have a natural gravity flow for sewage. Mr. Hill said the whole area can be served by sewer and the sewer line is actually already in place. Mr. Fisher also noted that the medium density residential shown on this map for a designation of 5 - 10 dwelling units per acre is on both sides of the gravity line and that density would require public sewer. Mr. Fisher also noted that he had looked at the areas designated for commercial at the 1-64 interchange and any develpp- merit of that area would be difficult. Mr. Roudabush said the zoning in the southwest quadrant cmuld be used oriented toward the Pantops Farm area, but the one on the northwest quadrant would be difficult to obtain access. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board choose not to create any additional commercial zoning on this map what the staff would recommend asa density for those areas. Mr. Tucker said because of the way the way is presently developing in commercial and commercial office uses, he did not think these properties would be conducive to low density~residential. Also, in the commercial area shown at the Rivanna River, the property in this section is effected by recommendations in Alternative 4 of the CATS study, which recommends a new location for Free Bridge. October_ 11,19~9 (A~ourned from October 10, ~1~97_~9) I -/ KEY Extent of Gravity Sewer (Property west of this line) Undeveloped Commercial Undeveloped Comm. Office Medium Den. Res.(5-10du/ac) Urban .Area Neighborhood Three Scale 1"- 2000' Mr. Dottier noted that the industrial site between ~-64 and the River is not shown on this map and asked the reason why. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had recommended that land south of I-6~ be designated as a combination of commercial office and low density residential. Ne was not sure how conducive this area would be to low density residential since the area is adjacent to the interstate. There is a railroad in the area and an industrial operation might be able to afford the money to design a lift station for sewage. Mr. Roudabush said an industrial operation could h~ve less potential sewage needs. Dr. Iachetta said it might be a more intelligent way to use the land since an industrial operation~ight not require the same volume of water, thus making it less expensive to develop. Mr. Fisher said the Board has been looking at areas within the Urban Area that can be served by gravity sewer. This map was a shock to him because he did not know there was this much land in Neighborhood No. 3 which falls outside of the gravity sewage situation. If the Board decides not to recognize the line on this map as the boundary for the Urban Area, then the limits that have been established in other parts of the Urban Area are also subject to questions. Dr. Iachetta said he did not feel the line should .be extanded eastward to a point where the land cannot be served by gravity sewage. MP. Roudabush said the Board needs to be careful how they define pumping, because there is already a pumping situation at Hollymead. Dr. Iachetta said he did not want to limit pump stations, but also did not want to encourage them. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any consensus for limiting the N~hg~lA~ea to the ridge line as the limit for gravity flow of sewage. Mr. Lindstrom agreed that the ridgeline should be the limit. Mr. Dorrier asked if that meant that the property on the other side of the line would be downzoned. Mr. Fisher said it meant there would not be any high density residential zoning in that area and the question of commercial and commercial office would have to be reconsidered. Mr. Henley said he did not know why the intersection at the Interstate needed to be with- in the Urban Area to be zoned commercial. Dr. Iachetta said he had the same feeling about the area south of the interstate. He did not feel it needs to be included in the Urban Area to develop in a suitable manner. Mr. Dottier asked if no high density was planned, if the only thing left was &ow density or open space. Mr. Fisher said there would be no density higher than that which could be served by septic systems. Mr. Roudabush said there are areas in the watershed where high density is shown. If the Board does not want any land which is outside of the gravity flow situation designated for higher than a low density, that decision will have to be made soon. Mr. Hill said that the developer of the Pantops property is in the process of putting a waterline along State Farm Boulevard. The sewer line is also going in even though it will be two years before it can be used. There is already a pipe across Route 250 to the Odyssey Night Club and a lift station has been planned. He said that utilities must be planned far in advance of building and the developer has been working under a Pantops Master Plan for a long time. Mr. Roudabush said with the number of commercial and commercial office uses and the industrial use in the Pantops area, there will be a lot of people working in that area and be very few places for them to live. He wondered if there should not be some high density residential included in this neighborhood. Mr. Fisher said it appears that most of the high density proposed on this neighborhood map is to the west of the ridge line. It would seem to be better planning if the high density were to the east of the ridgeline; the urban area boundary stop at the ridge line; then, from that point east, designate the land as low density residential. ~He was not sure if the areas at the interstate are developable, however, he did think that the one south of Route 250 and north of 1-64 might be develepable. Mr. Lindstrom said the commercial zoning shown on this map is creating another Route 29 N East and he. could see no need for that much commercial. If that zoning is converted to high density or medium density, there is a sewage problem. He said the County does not really need any highway commercial at all. Mr. Henley agreed that the interstate is a good natural boundary, but did not think that c~mmercial zoning needs to be shown all the way to the interstate. Dr. Iachetta suggested that the industrial site below Route 1-64 be eliminated and that the commercial intensit~ on the remainder of the neighborhood be reduced. Mr. Fisher, at this time, suggested that 6~he Board continue these work sessions with a di~cussien of the village plan on October 17 at 2:30 P.M. and on the remaining neighborhood plans on October 24 at 2:30 P.M. Net Decketed: Mr. Fisher noted that the Board had asked Mr. St. John for his legal en several items and then asked Mr. St. ~ohn to speak. Mr. St. yohn said M~. ~gnor had asked him to assess the legal implication of Mrs. Opal David,s D~oDesal dated SePt~ember 4, 1979. A Statement and a Proposal re the Plannin~ Commission Proposals for Revision of the Albemarle County Zonin~ Ordinance ~t is claimed intthe~ Summary of~ the Planning Commission Proposals that the ex- p.ansion of the numbe~r~ of districts or zones from 15 to 23 provides greater Flexibility in land use decisions. The fact is that increasing the number of districts (zones) limits flexibility by freezing property into detailed classifications today which may no longer be appropriate when actual develop~ ment is undertaken. Proposal ~nstead of expanding the existing 15 dis~ict~ ~[zSnes] to 23, reduce 'the numbe~ to the following basic six: Agriculture - Forestry Residential - Low Density Residential - Medium Density Residential - High Density Commercial Industrial Recast the material in the draft ordinance dealing with permitted uses, dimensional requirements, and special restrictions into regulations on the basis of which decisions as to density or intensity of use, height of buildings, road frontage, parking places, etc. are made by the Planning Commission, subject to review by the Board of Supervisors, at the Site Plan level or, in the case of subdivisions not being developed under single ownership, at the point when the number of new lots or parcels exceeds ten. On the Zoning Map, show--in a color indicating its inclusion in one of the six basic districts--all land which is undeveloped or is subdivided into residential lots or parcels which conform to the gross density permitted inthhat district (low, medium, or high). Show, in a color or cross-hatching indicating the density or other special characteristics covered in the regulations, all developed land and any subdivisions approved for lot or parcel simes different from those established for the district in which they are located. Fth on Route October 11, 1979 (Adjourned from October H0, 1979) As applications for development clear the site plan review or subdivisions are approved at densities different from those established for the district in which they are located, add them to the map, overlaid with the date on which they were approved. Dismussion The fatal flaw in the proliferation of districts (zones) as proposed in the Planning Commission d~aft is that it makes maximum potential density or intensity of use the basis for establishing district boundaries. The Code of Virginia provides, with respect to the zoning authority of a local governing body, that it may "classify the territory under its Jurisdiction . . . into districts of such number, shape and size as it may deem best suited to carry out the purposes of this article, and in each district i~ may regulate, ~estrict, permit, prohibit, and determine" various matters such as permitted uses, density or intensity of use, required open space, etc. This language seems to make a distinction between the classification of land into districts within which a broad range of functionally related activities may take place (i.e., agriculture, business, residential) and the promulgation of regulations which determine in specific detail the circumstances under which those activities will be permitted or restricted. Districts relate to the Comprehensive Plan; regulations focus on specific projects, ready to happen. The districts (zones) in the ordinance should correspond generally with (and be no more detailed than) those in the Comprehensive Plan. Like the land use categories recommended in the plan, these districts (zones) should be taken as an educated guess about the locations most suitable for future development in Albemarle (the statements of intent material in the draft) and, like the plan, they should be subject to review and possible change every five years--a powerful argument for keeping the ~istrict or zoning structure as general and simple as possible. The regulations should encompass the multiplicity of standards and guidelines which provide the basis for Planning Commission and Board decisions on individual applications--dimensional requirements, special restrictions (as for mobile homes, flood hazard areas, junk yards, sanitary landfills), and the necessity for compliance with other ordinances such as the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control. It is at this stage that density or intensity of use should be determined, within a framework of known--not conjectured--variables. Mr. St. John said Mrs. David's proposal would not satisfy the requir~nents of the Virginia Code as it would be interrupted by the Virginia Judiciary. Her proposal calls for an ordinance which is not very~percise but simply an educated guess as to density, setback regulations, height, etc. in given districts, these being established only under standards at the site plan and subdivision~stage. Boundaries of the districts themselves would not be spelled out any more specifically in the zoning ordinance than they are in the ~ompre- hensive ~lan. If this were done, it would be left to the Board of Zoning Appeals to define these boundaries. In Greene County, the whole county was placed in an A-1 zone with certain exceptions. This was done to allow the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, maximum flexibility~]~ the case of Matthews vs. Greene County, the Supreme Court said maximum flexibility to the government equals maximum uncertainity to the landowners and struck down those provisions and left Greene County with no zoning ordinance during a hiatus period. Mr. Fisher said that was done while the Board of Supervisors was working on a comprehensive plan and a zoning ordinance. Mr. St. John said if the County could hat have such an arrangement on the interim basis, then necessarily it could not be done on a p~rmanent basis. In the case of Hylton Enterprises vs. Prince William County, it is stated, "site plan approval and subdivision approval are ministerial acts". If the application complies with the ordinance, it has an absolute right to approval and approval is not a discretionary act. Administrative acts are divided into~"discretionary'', where you have to use some judgement, and pure "ministerial", where you see a set of facts to exist and you have no choice in approving~ The approval of site plans and subdivisions are ministerially administrative acts in that case. If Mrs. David's suggestion was followed, the Board would be delegating to the Planning Commission what amounts to legislative judgement. Even if the Board retained the power to appeal and had final approval or disapprov the Board would be delegating legislative decisions to the Planning CommisS&on in an area where that function has been said to be ministerially administrative by the Supreme Court. Mr. St. John said for these reasons, he does not think the County can do what Mrs. David has suggested. Mr. Lindstrom said that would a~so apply to using this approach in dealing with the watershed. Mr. St. John said he did not think that this approach could be used in the watershed any more than any other area in the County. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. St. John if he were saying that a landowner's rights under the new zoning ordinance will be locked in concrete, the same as under the present zoning ordinance. Mr. St. John said he did not like the choice of words but that Dr. Iachetta was basically accurate. Mr. Fisher said that in the present A-1 zone there are a certain body of uses by right. There is also the special permit procedure whereby an applicant can apply for a higher density. If the base residential area had certain rights, and higher densities could be _ applied for through the special permit procedure, how would that ~e different from what Mrs. David had proposed? Mr. St. John said that is the reason he did not think ~± would be "locked in concrete", because through the special permit procedure other densities could be granted or denied. Dr. Iachetta said what Mr. St. John had just outlined is what he maant by "locked in concrete". Dr. Iachetta said what Mrs. David has set forth, is referred to in some of the northern states as impact zoning, where there is nothing by right and all densities are negotiated. Mr. St. John said that was correct. When Mrs. David proposed this two years ago, it was accompanied by an analysis of impact zoning. The County Attorney's Office reviewed several analyses of impact zoning at that time. Mr. St. John said Mrs. David differentiates between ordinance on one ha~d, and regulations to be followed in approving or disapproving an application. She states that the regulations are not of the statu~e of an ordinance, but are guidelines to be followed when site plans or special use October 11, 1979 (Adjourned from October 10, 1979) office disagrees with her statement and feels that these regulations must be incorporated into an ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he understands~that the County Attorney does not feel that State law permits this concept to be implemented. Mr. St. John said that is true and he is confident that any ordinance which used this approach would be struck down by the ~udiciary. Mr. St. John said there was also a question posed at yesterday's meeting during discussion of State Farm Boulevard and a request for industrial access funds. As he understood the Board's request, the ~lanning Commissinn and the Planning Staff were to develop a budget which would keep State Farm Boulevard within a Category 5 road in the future. Mr. St. John said he did not believe the County has the legal tooSs to do this and mentioned the following alternatives. Use the Comprehensive Plan as a legal tool as described and set out in Virginia Code Section 15.1-456. This section states that once a comprehensive plan has been adopted and the road system shown for a certain area, no public facility shall be constructed until such time as the Planning Commission shall fi. nd that the location and the use of that road are in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan. Using the Comprehensive Plan as a tool, also the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and site plan ordinance, which are geared toward the enforcement and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, the Board could do any of the following five things. 1) Require that State Farm Boulevard be designed and built to take care of the 30,000 vehicle trips per day when the site plan is approved. Mr. Roudabush noted that the site plan had already been.approved. Mr. St. John said this could have been done when the site plan was before the Planning Commission. 2) Disagrea with Mr. Roosevelt's assessment of requirements and say that no matter what the zoning is, the road will never be called on to handle 30,000 vehicle trips per day and that the site plan will be approved with a road built to a lesser specification. Mr. St. John said if the County disregards the recommendations of the Highway Department, he does not feel the Highway Department has the power to refuse to take the road into the system once the commercial entrance has been designed and built, and the road built to the state specifications originally required. 3) Rather than building the road to handle 30,000 vehicle trips per day at this time, make future developers, under the site plan and subdivision ordinance, improve the road if it is found to be inadequate to handle traffic. 4) Agreement with Mr. Roosevelt's assessment and follow his recommendation. 5) Take the alternative which Mr. Roosevelt suggested of making Virginia Land Company follow a binding plan whihh would indicate less than 30,000 vehicle trips per day for the entire area. In that case, the developer would be budgeting the vehicle trips per day to the individual parcels. Dr. Iaehetta said that was the thrust of his question yesterday. Mr. Roudabush said he felt there was little possibility that Mr. Roosevelt will stick with his recommendations since there are examples where the Highway Department has-approved the construction and taken over roads that were designed to be upgraded in stages as additional development takes place. Mr. St. John said the one problem with that aspect is the bonding. The road is presently designed as a Category 5. If the road is built to serve only that development which has been approved at the present time and the road is taken into the state system, there could be an agreement on the part of the developer, which would be recorded and binding on the purchasers of adjacent properties, that at the time the vehicle trips exceed a certain number per day, the purchasers would have an obligation to bring the road up to the next highest category. This agreement could be recorded and made a lien on the property, but Mr. St. John said he could see no way to bond such provisions. (Mr. Dorrier lef~ the meeting at 5:23 P.M.) Mm. St. John said he would recommend that the Board let the Highway Department handle this matter and hope that the developer comes forward with a plan which shows ~vehicle trips that will not exceed the standards of this road. Mr. Agnor said that the replacement for Jim Butler as extension agent lives three miles out of the County in Louisa County and asked if the Board felt the County Agent should live in Albemarle County. It was the consensus that the agent did not have to live in Albemarle County. Agenda Item No. 3. At 5:26 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn this meeting until October 16, 1979, at 5:30 P.M. at the Sheraton Inn for a meeting with the School Board. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henle~ Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Dottier.