1988-10-05580
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on October 5, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 7:35 P.M.) and F. R.
Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins
and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County
Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John; and County Planner, Mr. John T. P. Home.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Mr. Way recognized Ms. Sue Penner as an observer for the League of Women
Voters.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve 4.1 and 4.2, and to accept the remaining
items on the consent agenda as information. There was no further discussion.
Moll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
Item 4.1. Street Name Sign Maintenance Resolution f6r Fieldbrook
Subdivision, Phase 3. Request for street signs from the!~eveloper of
Fieldbrook Subdivision was received. The following resolution was adopted by
the vote shown above:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads in Fieldbrook Subdivision, Phase 3:
Old Brook Road (State Route 652) and HearthgloWLane
(State Route 1331) at its intersection.
Lane (State Route 1331) and HearthKI0w
Hearth~low
Court (State Route 1332) at its intersection.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and the same hereby is requested to install and maintain
the above mentioned street signs.
Request for street signs having been received from t~e developer of Mill
Creek Subdivision, the following resolution was adopted b~ the vote shown
above:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads in Mill Creek Subdivision, Phase!l:
Avon Street Extended (State Route 742) and MilllCreek Drive
(State Route 1150) at its intersection~ ~-
Mill Creek Drive (State Route 1150) and Copperstone Drive (State
Route 1151) at its intersection;
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
581
Copperstone Drive (State Route 1151) and Mill Creek Court (State
Route 1152) at its intersection;
Copperstone Drive (State Route 1151) and Stone Mill Court (State
Route 1153) at its intersection.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation be and the same hereby is requested to install and maintain
the above mentioned street signs.
Request for street signs having been received from the developer of
Lakeside Subdivision, the following resolution was adopted by the vote shown
above:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following road in Lakeside Subdivision:
Brookhill Avenue (State Route 1137) and Willow Lake Drive (State
Route 1135) at its intersection.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation be and the same hereby is reques~ted to install and maintain
the above mentioned street signs.
Item 4.2. Request to take Old Oaks Drive, Ivy Oaks Subdivision, into the
State System of Secondary Highways. Request~.idated August 19, 1988, was
received from Craig Builders of Albemarle, I~c. requesting that roads in Ivy
Oaks Subdivision be taken into the State system. The following resolution was
adopted by the vote shown above: '
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department df Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept in~!o the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following road in Ivy Oaks Subdivision:
Old Oaks Drive
Beginning at Station 10+09, a point~ common to the
centerline of Oak Oaks Drive and the edge of pave-
ment of State Route 1647, thence iq a southwesterly
direction 376.40 feet to Station 13+85.40, the end
of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaC~nteed a 40 foot unobstructed
right of way and drainage easements along this requested addition as
recorded by plats ~n the Off~ce of the Glerk of the C~rcumt Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 838, page~!!720 through 723, Deed Book
885, pages 237, and Deed Book 975, page 131.
Item 4.3. The following Notices from th~ State Corporation Commission
were received as information: (1) ApplicatiOn of Virginia Electric & Power
Company dated September 7, 1988, to revise it~ fuel factor pursuant to Vir-
ginia Code Section 56-249.6; and (2) Application of Virginia Electric & Power
Company dated September 19, 1988, to install ~ombustion turbine units on
property adjacent to its Surry Power Station.~
582
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item 4.4. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly Bond
Report for August, 1988, received as information.
Item 4.5. Copies of the Planning Commission's Minutes for September 13
and September 20, 1988, were received as information.
Item 4.6. Letter dated September 29, 1988, to Mr. Peter T. Way, Chair-
man, from Mr. G. William Thomas, Jr., Manager, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, re: recent Award for National Excellence, given by HUD in
recognition of outstanding public/ private partnership in community develop-
ment, was received as follows:
"You and the County of Albemarle have every reason to be proud of
your recent Award for National Excellence. This prestigious award is
given by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in
recognition of your outstanding public/private partnership in commu-
nity development.
Outstanding projects such as yours make community development more
effective by focusing available public and private resources on the
needs of the county.
I look forward to seeing you and other Board members at a formal
award presentation ceremony in the near future."
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-88-60. Dr. Martin Schulman. (The applicant was
not present at this time, so the Board skipped this item temporarily.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Appropriation: Telephone System Study.
Mr. Agnor said that the request is for $25,000 to fund the County's shar~
of the Joint City/County Telephone Study. Funds will come from the unspent
balance of the FY 1987-88 911 Emergency Dispatch Center Budget, funds which
were allocated in order to add rescue square dispatching ko the Center's
operations. Twenty-one proposals were reviewed. A commfttee chose the firm
of Sachs/Freeman Associates, a telecommunications firm frbm Rockville, Mary-
land, to perform the study which is to take four months, i The total contract
cost is $44,900, with the cost being prorated to the two ~urisdictions based
on the number of hours the consultant spends in each jurisdiction. The
County's share is estimated at 55 percent of the total costs.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. ~ooke, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation:
"Fiscal Year: 1988/89
Fund: General
Purpose of Appropriation:
Funding of Joint city/county Telephone
Study
Expenditure
Cost Center CateKory
1100043200300420
Description Amount
Joint City/County Telephonel
Study
$25,000.00
2100051000510100
Description
Appropriation from Fund
Balance
There was no further discussion. Roll was called an~
by the following recorded vote:
Amount
$25,000.00
the motion carried
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way.
None.
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
583
Not Docketed: Mr. Way said he had the staff prepare a calendar to be
used for work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan. If work proceeds in a
timely fashion, the public hearing will be scheduled for November 30, with
adoption on December 14, 1988.
Mr. Bowie said he could not attend the work session planned for Octo-
ber 26, 1988.
Mr. Bain said he has had several constituents ask if they could have a
copy of the plan. Mrs. Cooke said she also had received requests for copies.
Mr. Home said the Planning Department had only printed thirty copies of the
draft of the plan and they have been dispersed. It was agreed that copies
would be made available to the public, if requested.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-88-11. Heavenly Holding Corporation. To rezone
100 acres from RA to R-4. Property located on the west side of Route 742,
approximately one-half mile west of its intersection with State Route 20, is
known as Lake Reynovia. Tax Map 90, Parcel 36. Scottsville District. (As
advertised in the Daily Progress on Septembe~ 20 and September 27, 1988.)
Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character. of the. Area: This property ~epresents the remainder of
the original Lake Reynovia recreationalI! development. Portions of
Lake Reynovia to the north and south of~!this site have been rezoned
as Mill Creek 1 and Mill Creek 2. Property across Route 742 (Avon
Street Extended) is developed with various commercial and industrial
uses and will be the site of the new southern area elementary schoOl.
Applicant's Proffer: As part of this r~zoning to R-4, Residential,
the applicant has proffered that:
1. Density would not exceed 1.98 dwelling units per acre (198
dwellings);
2. The development would be in genera~ accord with the Reynovia
Residential Community preliminary p~lat (revised August 29,
1988); and
3. That a secondary means of access wduld be provided through the
Mill Creek 1 project.
Land Use Summary/Pro3ect Description: ~ot sizes comparable to those
in Mill Creek 1 are proposed in the northern end of Reynovia adjacent
to Mill Creek 1. Smaller single-family !lots would be located in the
southern end of the project with an open space buffer to Mill Creek
2. Townhouse lots (40 units) would be Located centrally within the
development adjacent to attendant open ~pace and recreational areas
(open space is required only for the proposed townhouse units and
therefore only that area need comply with section 4.7.3 which defines
physical characteristics of open space)~ About eight acres west of
the lake is reserved for future development. Reduction in lot size
for some single family units is proposed under Section 15.4.1 for
maintenance of wooded areas (15.24 acre~). Staff concurs that the
plan satisfies the bonus provision. ~
Comprehensive Plan: Reynovia is located in Neighborhood Four of the
Urban Area. The Comprehensive Plan currently shows the property as a
public/semi-public area designated for ~ecreational usage. (This was
done at the request of the prior property owner). The Planning
Commission has endorsed a low-density residential designation for
this property in the current Comprehensii~e Plan revision. Staff
opinion is that the Comprehensive Plan need not be amended to extend
low-density zoning to this property for ihe following reasons:
1. Some traditional recreational uses 6f this property have been
overcome by surrounding urban develgpment;
2. Low-density residential surrounds the property, therefore,
low-density would be a logical alternate usage. Proposed
density is comparable to surrounding development.
584
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Some other properties designated for semi-public/public uses
carry urban residential zoning, offering alternative usage.
Site Characteristics: Several loam soils are present on this site
with moderate to severe limitations to development. Shallowness to
bedrock as well as erosion may be problems on steeper slopes. Some
ridgelines on the site are relatively narrow with steep side slopes.
Several proposed lots contain critical slope areas.
Transportation
External Roadways: The Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation
Study (CATS) proposed no improvements to Avon Street (Route 742). As
VDoT observed in 1987 during review of the Mill Creek PUD, traffic on
Avon Street exceeded CATS projections for the year 2000. Staff at
that time stated that 'the fact that current traffic levels exceed
CATS projections for the year 2000 emphasizes the need for continued
transportation planning and constant monitoring.' Recently during
review of the Six Year Secondary Road Plan, VDoT recommended that
attention be given to inclusion of Route 742 into the plan for
improvement.
Also, since that time, agreements have been finalized with the
developer of Mill Creek PUD for a portion of an east-west connector
road from AVon Street to Fifth Street Extended and engineering
feasibility studies have been completed for the portion of the
roadway west of the Mill Creek PUD. In addition, engineering studies
are complete for an east-west connector roadway from Avon Street to
Route 20 South. ,~
Mill Creek 1 and Mill Creek 2 were approved for more than 600 dwell-
ings. This proposal is for a maximum of t98 dwellings. Staff
anticipates submittal of the Hillcrest property as ~ planned develop-
ment in the near future (prior Hillcrest proposal w~s for 720 dwell-
ing units). Again, staff emphasizes the need for cqntinued transpor-
tation planning in the southern urban area.
Regarding access to Reynovia from Avon Street Extended, YDoT has
stated that a right turn lane will be required. Construction will
require easements from others. A left turn lane ma~ be recommended
once the transportation study is reviewed. At this iwriting, VDoT has
not completed review of the transportation study.
Internal Roadways: Except within townhouse areas, 411 internal roads
would be public roads. VDoT has recommended that p~blic roads be
designed with curb and gutter due to lot size and t~Pe of develop-
ment.
As in both Mill Creek developments, staff opinion is that urban
design has advantages of rural design. However, both Mill Creek
rezonings were approved with rural roads.
Frontages on some smaller lots are about 70 feet whJ 6h is less than
those shown in Mill Creek 1 or 2. Frontages on most'! lots are,
however, equal to or greater than those in Mill Cresk. To avoid
on-street parking, side-by-side parking should be r~quired in lieu of
urban design.
One public road connection will be provided to Mill ~reek 1. Such
connection should be bonded with approval of 50 lotsi' and constructed
prior to occupancy of more than 50 units. Tow otheri~potential
connections (Gray Stone Court; Mill Creek Drive) mayi be vacated.
Public Utilities: At this writing, negotiations aret on-going between
Reynovia and Mill Creek as to routing and other aspects of provision
of public sewer to Reynovia. The Albemarle County S~rvice Authority
will require gravity sewer for this project.
Public water will be available from the new storage ~ank facility
located to the north. The preliminary plat does not,show method of
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
585
service to the property. The applicant will need to provide calcu-
lations to demonstrate that fire flows can be satisfied.
Schools: Children from the development would attend Rose Hill
Elementary, Walton Middle, and Albemarle High Schools. The School
Board has selected a site in the southern Urban Area immediately
across Avon Street for location of a new elementary school to serve
the Rose Hill district.
As stated under TRANSPORTATION, a total of about 1500 units could
result from Mill Creek 1 and 2, Reynovia, and Hillcrest.
Staff Recommendation: Heavenly Holding Corporation has requested
that the rezoning petition and preliminary plat for Reynovia Residen-
tial Community be reviewed simultaneously by the Planning Commission.
Rezoning Petition: Staff opinion is that low-density residential
zoning is appropriate to this site. The proposed density and scheme
of development is comparable and compatible to the surrounding Mill
Creek 1 and 2 developments.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends a Planned Development approach for
residential development of 75 dwelling units or greater. In this
case, it was questionable as to whether or not the mandatory require-
ments for open space in the PRD could be satisfied, therefore, the
applicant pursued a proffered zoning approach to include a plan of
development. Bonus provisions would allow for reduced lot size. R-4
is sought for dwelling unit variety. ~Staff has no objection to the
proffered zoning approach provided such approach equally or better
serves the intent of the Planned DeveiOpment approach.
Under a PRD, a minimum of 17.5 acres of 'useable' open space would be
required, and the Reynovia plan shows 14.7 acres of useable open
space. Furthermore, Section 4.7.3 limits the amount of required open
space which may consist of one hundred~year flood plain, lands in 25
percent or greater slope, public utility easements, stormwater
detention/flood control devices and la~ds having permanent or season-
ally high water tables. While staff o~pinion is that the lake is a
viable open space amenity, it also serves as the stormwater detention
facility and would be subject to interpretation.
With the exception of lot design, staf~ opinion is that the appli-
cant's proffers generally satisfy the intent of the PRD and are
reflective of the public welfare. In ~eview of ZMA-87-22 Mill Creek,
the staff recommended that: ~
Each lot shall contain a 5,000 square foot building site with a
length to width ratio not to exceed 2.5:1. No driveway shall
encroach more than 50 lineal feet?ion slopes of 25 percent or
greater. ~.
Staff will recox~end deletion of ~dditional lots due to drainage
concerns during final approval un]~ess adequate corrective
measures are proposed by the applicant. The number of proposed
single family detached units lost: as a result of slope, drain-
age, or other design considerations (excluding the desire of the
developer) may be added to the number of multi-family units.
In that case, a modification to open space requirements was being
requested. Since useable open space was to be less than ordinance
requirements staff recommended that each lot contain a 5,000 square
!
foot building site exclusive of critical slopes, intended to accom-
modate buildings and provide some useable yard areas'
As to Reynovia, the applicant has stated that: 'The minimum single
family lot size is proposed to 7,900 square feet. On each lot within
the proposed development, provision has been made for a buildable
area of less than 25 percent slope to accommodate a single family
residence. Given the small size of some of the lots, the applicant
586
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
feels that it is unreasonable to require on each lot a minimum 5,000
square foot building area with 2.5:1 length to width ratio.'
Section 4.2.2.2 of the CRITICAL SLOPES provisions states that 'for a
use served by a central sewerage system, the applicant shall demon-
strate that the building site is of adequate area for the proposed
development.' While the burden of demonstration is on the applicant,
staff opinion is that the 'proposed development' is a single-family
residence which includes not only the building but attendant needs
and uses normally associated with a single family dWelling (parking,
recreation, gardening, etc). The recon~nendation for a 5,000 square
foot usable area is based on a 1,000 square foot structure area
(dwelling plus possible addition, deck) surrounded by minimum yard
areas (to include parking). Also, it should be noted that staff is
not proposing a flat area, but an area that drops less than one foot
vertically in four horizontal feet.
About ten lots would be affected by this proposal. By redesign or
combination, about half of these lots could be salvaged. Additional
units could be added to the townhouse area (Note: Single family lots
74 and 75 are adjacent to the townhoUses and separated from other
single family lots).
Staff can distinguish no circumstance to warrant a different lot
design approach than was applied to Mill Creek 2. ~taff is also
reluctant to endorse a rezoning where future dispute:has been estab-
lished. Staff recommends denial of ZMA-88-11. ~
Preliminary Plat: The following conditions of approval for the
preliminary plat have been provided should the Planning Commission
choose to recommend approval of ZMA-88-11.
Approval is subject to approval of ZMA-88-11 by!!the Board of
Supervisors
Commission site plan approval for townhouses prior to subdivi-
sion plat approval for townhouses. Staff site lPlan approval for
recreation center, tennis courts, clubhouse, and other such
improvements in open space areas.
No final subdivision plat shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission until the following conditions have been met:
a. Obtain all necessary off-site easements;
b. Recreation provisions shall comply with Section 4.16 of the
Zoning Ordinance;
c. Albemarle County Service Authority final approval of water
and sewer plans. Unless otherwise permitted by Albemarle
County Service Authority, all service shal~ be gravity
sewer;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation appr6val in
accordance with comments of August 10, 198~; provided that
internal roads may be rural section if two,side-by-side
parking spaces are provided on each single !family lot. The
Planning Commission may require installation of a left-turn
lane on Route 742 at time of final review;!
Department of Engineering approval of road~nd drainage
plans and calculations;
Department of Engineering approval of stor~water detention
plans and calculations;
Department of Engineering approval of an e~osion control
permit;
Approval by Deputy Director of Inspections ~f fireflow
calculations as recommended in con~nents of ~uly 29, 1988.
Optional
i. Each lot shall contain a 5,000 square foot ~uilding site
with a length to width ratio not to exceed ~.5:1. No
f.
g.
h.
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
587
driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes
of 25 percent or greater."
Mr. Horne also read the proffers of September 16 and September 26, 1988,
as follows:
"16 September 1988
Mr. Ron Keeler
Chief of Planning
County of Albemarle
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: Lake Reynovia; Rezoning Application
Dear Ron:
I am writing in response to our conversation of September 13, 1988 in
which we discussed certain rezoning proffers and approval conditions
of the preliminary plat.
The applicant, Heavenly Holding Corporation, will prffer the follow-
ing conditions with regards to the rezohing of the Reynovis property.
1. If the rezoning application is apprgved, development will be
undertaken in general conformance with ~he application plan (prelimi-
nary plat) with the exception of future amendments as may later be
provided for during the preliminary plat approval process. Such
modifications to the plan may include, but not be limited to, (a)
entrance relocation at Avon Street, (b)~.igreater overall density as a
result of additional dwelling units planned for 'the ridge' located
west of the lake and adjacent to Mill Creek Phase 2 (see item no. 2
below), (c) realignment of roadways as dictated by VDoT review, (d)
reconfiguration of townhouse layout, and (e) other revisions as
proposed by County staff and Planning CQ~mission and agreed to by the
applicant, i~i
2. Development will not exceed the density as specified on the
application plan plus additional units as may be planned for 'the
ridge'. Buildable area on 'the ridge' ~omprises approximately 3.9
acres. Assuming a multifamily density df 8.0 DU/acre for this area
(condominium townhomes), we can expect ~o more than 31 additional
dwelling units, translating into a tota~ of 198 dwelling units or a
gross project density of 1.98 DU/acre. ;We would propose access to
this area be provided by private drive aS necessary for condominium
development. General alignment of this ~access drive will be delin-
eated when revisions to the application iplan are made.
3. Access to Reynovia shall be provided in two locations as delin-
eated on the application plan.
In response to your comments regarding the preliminary plat, we offer
the following:
1. The small central open space area enclosed by lot numbers 118-126
will be dedicated to the owners of these lots.
2. The connection to Mill Creek (Reynovia Road "A" to Mill Creek
Gristmill Drive) will be bonded or built.after homes have been
constructed on 50 lots in Reynovia.
3. The minimum single family lot size is proposed to 7,900 square
feet. On each lot within the proposed development, provisions have
been made for a buildable area of less than 25 percent slope to
accommodate a single-family residence. Given the small size of some
of the lots, the applicant feels that it is unreasonable to require
on each lot a minimum 5,000 square foot building area with 2.5:1
length to width ratio.
588
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
4. The applicant is scheduled to meet with the Mill Creek developer
on September 20th to discuss the sewer issue, access and off-site
easements as they effect both developments. Should agreements be
reached at that time, it is the applicant's desire to proceed with
Planning Co~mission review of the preliminary plat on September 27th
as scheduled. Since we will not have procured engineering department
approval of the preliminary road plans by this date, it is understood
that should the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat on
the 27th, it will also be necessary for it to review the final plat.
I trust this adequately addresses your questions at this time regard-
ing the Reynovia project. If not, and should you have additional
concerns, please call. With best regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Robert B. McKee, P. E., ASLA"
"26 September 1988
Mr. Ron Keeler
Chief of Planning
Department of Planning and Community Development
County of Albemarle
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SMA-88-11~ Heavenly Holding Corporation~ Lake Reynovia
Dear Ron:
Pursuant to our conversation on Friday, September 23rd, I am writing
to confirm the applicant's acceptance of the planning staff recommen-
dation that all single family detached lots have a 5~000 square foot
minimum building area.
It is my understanding that with the applicant's acc&ptance of this
condition, the staff will now recommend approval of ZMA-88-11 and
that its report to the Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 27th
will reflect this change. Additionally, it is our understanding that
staff will recommend that the lot reconfiguration necessitated by
this condition of approval and other necessary modifications to the
preliminary plan be undertaken after review of the plan by the
Commission and that the changes be subject to administrative approval
by staff. ~
Please advise if my understanding of this matter is iincorrect. Thank
you.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Robert B. McKee, P. E., ASLA"
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 27,
1988, unanimously recommended approval of the permit with. lthe proffers.
Mr. Home said the staff had recommended that this a~plication be denied
because staff believed that the lots should each contain ~ building site of
5,000 square feet, since the useable open space was to be iless than the
ordinance requires. He said Mr. Ron Keeler received a second proffer from Mr.
Robert B. McKee, dated 26 September, 1988. Based on the ~pplicant's agreement
to meet Option (i) of the suggested requirements for the ~ots, Mr. t{orne said,
the staff now recommends approval of ZMA-88-11. He added ithat Mr. St. John
received a document today indicating that there may not b~ the need for
off-site easements to build the right turn lane. %
Mr. Bain referenced a letter, dated September 29, 19818, from Mr. George
H. Gilliam, the attorney for Renovia Land Trust, which owqls the Mill Creek
subdivision property adjoining the property owned by the applicant. In this
letter, Mr. Gilliam objected to the lack of interconnection between the
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
589
internal roads of Phase 2 of the Mill Creek subdivision and the development
proposed by the Heavenly Holding Company. According to Mr. Gilliam's letter,
"it has been the policy of the County to require, for safety reasons, such
interconnects wherever possible. However, the Planning Commission has indi-
cated that this is no longer the County's policy".
Mr. Home said that not requiring interconnections between the. two
subdivisions is not evidence that the County has changed its policy. Where
they are feasible, he said, interconnections foster orderly development and
staff requires them for that reason. But in this case, the topography does
not lend itself to interconnection between the Mill Creek 2 and the Heavenly
Holding tracts.
Mr. Bain asked how the condominiums west of the lake would be accessed.
Mr. Home said connecting these condominiums to the rest of the development is
a problem. He said the developer may present several options for such a
roadway, but nothing has been decided yet.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the lake would be considered a common area and
maintained by a homeowners' association. Mr~ Home said, "yes"; the lake is
open space dedicated to the townhouse development and will be maintained by
the townhouses' homeowners' association. Mr~ Home said he thinks residents
from the rest of the development will also have access to the lake.
Mr..Lindstrom said it would be have been very helpful to have had the
minutes for the September 27 meeting of the Planning Commission. In the
future, he said, he would like to see copieSof minutes from the Planning
Commission whenever an application is discussed upon which the Planning
Commission and the staff disagree.
Mr. Bowie said he does not understand how the staff can use topography as
a reason not to require interconnections betWeen the Mill Creek 2 subdivision
and this proposed development. He said the roadway to reach the townhouses
will have to built either through the flood plain or over steep slopes. Those
are the only two ways to reach the proposed ~ownhouses, he said.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Robert McKee if he wished
to address the Board on behalf of the applicant. Mr. McKee said he is happy
to answer any questions members of the Board ~may have.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the applicant intended to incorporate into the
site plan the requirements of Condition 3(i),! marked "Optional" in the staff's
report, which states that each lot shall contain a building site of 5,000
square feet, with a length to width ratio nog to exceed 2.5:1 and with no
driveways encroaching more than 50 feet on slopes of 25 percent or greater.
Mr. McKee said "yes".
Mr. Bain asked Mr. McKee what kind of road he planned to build to reach
the tOwnhouses west of the lake. Mr. McKee Said this issue is unresolved. He
said building a road from Reynovia to that arima could necessitate 35 to 40
feet of fill-in, which would have a great impact on the already eutrophying
lake. He said another option would involve ~uilding the road across the dam,
which is frowned upon by the VDoT. Another option is to build a private drive
to reach the townhouses, which could be steeper than %/DOT allows for public
roads. The fourth option would be to connect~ the townhouses to the Mill Creek
II subdivision, which he thinks would affect ~he environment the least.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the most raLional approach would be to leave
this area west of the lake undeveloped. Unle
something with the owners of Mill Creek 2, he
townhouses will be expensive and destructive,
tage enjoyed by other residents in the area.
ic characteristics of this property is the wo
Mr. McKee agreed with Mr. Lindstrom, but he s~
is the applicant works out
said, building a road to the
mitigating the aesthetic advan-
He said one of the most aesthet-
~ded hillside across the lake.
lid he cannot commit the appli-
cant to not developing this part of the property.
If the applicantdecides to develop this eight acres, Mr. Bowie asked,
would he have to submit a new application? M~. Home said the development of
this area could be treated either as an amendment to this proffered plan or as
a site plan issue.
590
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Bain said the applicant is asking the Board to rezone the entire
property. If the Board approves this request, he asked Mr. St. John, is it
not approving the number of dwelling units requested by the applicant for this
eight acres west of the lake? Mr. St. John said ".yes". He said the applicant
will still have to meet environmental standards when he submits a site plan,
but Mr. St. John does not think the Board can approve this proposed zoning map
amendment and then tell the applicant when he submits the site plan that this
eight acres must be left undeveloped.
Mr. Rick Richmond, the attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board.
He offered to answer any questions members of the Board may have.
Mr. St. John said he would like to discuss the letter he received today
(dated October 5, 1989) from Mr. Richmond concerning easements for the right
turn lane from Avon Street Extended to Reynovia. He said the Planning Co~is-
sion was concerned about acquiring the right-of-way for the turn lane and the
sight distance. In his judgment, Mr. St. John said, the document Mr. Richmond
gave him constitutes a colorable legal right to dedicate.the right-of-way
needed for the easement. If the Board wishes to approve this application, Mr.
St. John said, he thinks a condition should be added staving that the easement
for the right turn lane be dedicated, rather than have the Board determine the
legality of this document for itself.
Since no one else wished to speak to this applicatiOn, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is still confused about what density the applicant
will be able to show on a site plan for the eight-acre area west of the lake,
if the Board approves this application. Mr. Home said the Board would be
approving a total density if it approved this applicatio~ As long as the
applicant does not exceed this density and turns in a site plan that meets the
requirements of the ordinance, Mr. Horne said, he thinks ~the applicant would
have the right to have that plan approved.
Mr. Way said he supports the request and thinks the ~evelopment will be a
good addition to the Mill Creek area.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for the density on the part of t~e Mill Creek subdi-
vision that adjoins the 3.9 developable acres of the eigh~-acre area west of
the lake. Mr. Horne said about three units per acre, consisting of single-
family, detached dwellings. Mr. Lindstrom asked what kin~~*' of buffer or
setback is required between this part of Mill Creek and t~e townhouse
develop-
ment of eight units per acre the applicant may build. MrS!~ Horne said he would
have to check the ordinance.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that two very dif~Mrent densities and
types of development may lie too close together. As they~='i~eview the site
plan, Mr. Horne said, members of the staff will look for 9~portunities to
place open space between the two developments.
Mr. Bowie said this concern of Mr. Lindstrom's troubiss him as well. He
said most of the plan for the development is very detailed~ except for this
area west of the lake, which is almost blank on the plat. ,~Once the Board
approves this application, he said, it will be too late for the Board to have
any control of how this area is to be developed. ~
Mr. Home said he should point out that the staff is not interpreting
this plan to limit itself to the numbers of townhouses versus single-family
lots. This plan shows 40 townhouses and 127 single-famil~i~lots, for a total
of 198 dwelling units on 100.2 acres. Mr. McKee said thatli3.9 acres of the
area west of the lake are developable. At eight units per!~acre, there could
be 31 townhouses possible in this area. Mr. McKee said this figure of 31
townhouses is a limit and not necessarily what the applicagt plans to build
there. ~
Unless the owner of Mill Creek grants the applicant a6cess to the town-
houses, Mr. Lindstrom said, building a roadway to this are~ is going to be so
expensive that the applicant will have to build as many to~nhouses as he can
to offset the cost of the road. ~i
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
591
Mr. Perkins said he thinks allowing 31 development rights on this piece
of the property insures that it will be developed to capacity regardless of
the impact to the environment. He said he thinks it would be better to limit
the development rights on this area west of the lake to something like 12
single-family units and move the rights for the 19 townhouses elsewhere on the
property.
Mr. Home said the Board must either accept or deny the plan before it
tonight. He said the Board cannot place conditions on the rezoning, but the
applicant can make a specific proffer addressing the concern.
Mr. Richmond said the applicant would be willing to proffer that single-
family dwellings will be built along the ridge, instead of townhouses. Mr.
McKee asked if the proffer could be worded to allow only single-family dwell-
ings in that area, unless the applicant brings another application to the
Board.
Mr. Home asked if the proffer means that only single-family, detached
dwelling units would be placed in the areas shown for future development on
the west side of the lake. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the density for this area
would remain the same as the net density, around three dwelling units per
acre.
If the roadway can be built from the cul-de-sac in Mill Creek 2 to access
this area, Mr. McKee said, the applicant believes that an additional 14 to 15
single-family lots, comparable in size to th~ Mill Creek lots, could be placed
in this area.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that~the townhouses that will not be
built west of the lake will be placed somewhere else. Where these townhouses
will be placed is another uncertainty, he sa~d. Mr. Bain said Mr. McKee said
the townhouses would be placed in the same ggneral area as the rest of the
townhouses. Mr. McKee agreed. ~
Mr. Home asked if the applicant intend~ to proffer that the area on the
west side of the lake shown for future development would be developed with
single-family, detached units, at lot sizes Toughly equivalent to those on the
adjacent property, and any density removed f~om that area and used as town-
houses would be placed within the area shown~Ifor townhouses development. Mr.
Richmond said this is a fair assessment of t~e proffer.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, segonded by Mr. Bowie, to approve
ZMA-88-11, with the four following proffers;~the fourth being the letter of
September 26 and which was stated in the record to include option (i), and
amendment of #2 just discussed to define the ~ensity and development design on
property shown on the plat for "future development", and allowing a realloca-
tion to the property shown for townhouses, a~d any excess density to make up
the 1.98 du/acre as the gross density for th~ whole tract.
If the rezoning application is approved, development will be
undertaken in general conformance with the application plan
(preliminary plat) with the exception of future amenclments as
may later be provided for during thee preliminary plat approval
process. Such modifications to the~plan may include, but not be
limited to, (a) entrance relocation,~at Avon Street, (b) addi-
tional dwelling units planned for ".~he ridge" located west of
the lake and adjacent to Mill Creek, IPhase 2 (see item no. 2
below), (c) realignment of roadwaysiias dictated by VDoT review,
(d) reconfiguration of townhouse la~out, and (e) other revisions
as proposed by County staff and Plahning Con~nission and agreed
to by the applicant.
Gross density of the total tract wi
units or 1.98 dwelling units/acre.
"the ridge" shown on the Applicatio]
shall be developed only with single!
units on lots of roughly equivalent
cent areas of the Mill Creek PRD.
[1 not exceed 198 dwelling
The area west of the lake on
. Plan (preliminary plat)
family, detached dwelling
size to those in the adja-
ny remaining allowable
dwelling units, up to 198 total dwelling units, which are
intended as townhouse units, may beiplaced only within the area
592
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
shown for townhouse units on the Application Plan. Additional
single-family dwelling units may be placed within the other
areas shown on the Application Plan.
Access to Reynovia shall be provided in two locations as delin-
eated on the application plan.
Each single-family, detached lot shall contain a 5,000 square
foot building site with a length to width ratio not to exceed
2.5:1. No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on
slopes of 25 percent or greater.
Lot reconfiguration necessitated by this condition of approval
and other necessary modifications to the preliminary plan will
be undertaken after review of the plan by the Commission, and
the changes will be subject to administrative approval by staff.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. .
Mr. Home agreed to ask the applicant to sign a copYlof the above prof-
fers. ~':
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-88-60. Dr. Martin Schulman. ~ilTo· allow for veteri-
nary clinic on a 21.523 acre parcel zoned 1~. Property -1:~Scated on the north
!
side of Route 240 (Three Notch d Road) across from Acme ¥iisible Records. Tax
Map 56, Parcel 67. White Hall District. (Advertised in !~he Daily Progress on
September 20 and September 27, 1988.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The subject property is vacmnt, rolling,
open meadow. The existing clinic and a cottage zoned Rural Areas are
located to the north. A single-family dwelling is l~cated approxi-
mately 600 feet to the east. Properties to the sout~ and west are
zoned LI, Light Industrial, while properties to the ~orth and east
are zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is located acrossiRoute 240 from
the Community of Crozet, within Rural Area III.
The applicant has requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority service areas to ~xtend public
water and sewer to the site.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to reldcate the Crozet
Veterinary Clinic in new, expanded facilities. The ~resent struc-
ture, less than 800 square feet in area, has been found to be struc-
turally unsound for expansion. The vast majority (9? percent) of
veterinary care is for small animals. The new Virginia Health
Regulations require an isolation area (by July 1989){ which cannot be
met in the present structure. The applicant propose~ construction of
a 3,000 square foot building, with 12 to 16 runs. I~ addition to
boarding sick or recovering animals, they will boardithe occasional
animal that is healthy, but requires observation due!to a previous
medical condition.
Section 5.1.11, Commercial Kennel, Veterinary, Anima!~ Hospital,
specifies a 200-foot building setback from a soundproofed building
occupied by animals to any agricultural or residential lot line. The
applicant requests in accordance with Section 5.1, t~at the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors vary this setback to a
distance of 100 feet from the proposed property linei~o the east.
The applicant proposes to add a portion of this parcgl to the agri-
cultural parcel to theeast.
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
593
Staff Comment: While this site is outside the designated Crozet
growth area, this is a request for slight relocation of an estab-
lished use. Also, since veterinary clinics and kennels are by
special use permit in the RA, Rural Areas, district, they need not be
restricted to growth area locations.
Staff supports the applicant's request for a reduced building setback
from 200 to 100 feet. The relevant property owners have written that
they do not object. The applicant's architect has calculated that
the maximum noise level will be maintained with the reduced setback,
based on the proposed construction materials. Therefore, the intent
of this setback will be met with the reduced setback.
The applicant proposed access from a new entrance on Route 240,
instead of the internal road, Parkview Drive. The applicant's
justification is that grading will be minimized and the need to cross
a main gas line will be eliminated. The Virginia Department of
Transportation, County Engineering and Planning staff do not support
the request for an additional entrance 9n Route 240. Parkview Drive,
which presently serves the Crozet VeterSnary Clinic, also serves
several residences. A right turn lane exists at the entrance. Minor
trimming of vegetation across this property's western frontage is
necessary to obtain sight distance. Route 240 is a main thoroughfare
within the Community of Crozet and will,serve additional traffic with
future growth. Access directly to Route 240 would increase the
amount of side friction and congestion while providing no particular
public benefit.
The Health Department has granted preliminary approval based on a
Soil Scientist's report. Only domestic Isewage would discharge to the
septic field. Animal wash-up area's and the kennel's discharge would
be to a storage tank to be disposed of 6ff-site.
Staff has viewed this petition as an expansion of an existing use.
Staff recommends approval subject to th~following conditions:
Building area limited to 3,000 square feet;
Planning Commission approval of si~ plan;
Compliance with Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, except
that the minimum building setback to the eastern agricultural
property line shall be reduced to 100 feet. Engineer's report
addressing performance standards ofii Section 4.14 of the Zoning
Ordinance to be submitted with site' plan."
Mr. Horne said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Septem-
ber 27, 1988, unanimously recommended approva~ of the petition with the
conditions recommended in the staff report, a~d a fourth condition reading:
"The kennel use is approved in conjunction wi~h the veterinary use and shall
not be operated independently." il
Mr. Home said the applicant has also requested that the Board extend the
service area of the Albennarle County Service Authority to make it possible for
this site to receive both public water and se~er service. He said this
request for water and sewer service engendered a lot of discussion at the
Planning Commission meeting, but the Board could not decide this request
tonight because a legal advertisement had not yet run in the Daily Progress.
He added that the applicant would be able to use this site for the uses
requested in the special use permit regardless of whether water and sewer
service were extended to the site.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Home to brief members
the applicant's request to extend the boundarJ
Home said the request for public water and sl
are two separate requests and the applicant c~
and kennel without public water and sewerage.
Planning Commission spent a lot of time discu:
service boundaries. Mr. Home said he sent a
of the Board on the status of
es of the Service Authority. Mr.
~er and the special use permit
~ operate the veterinary clinic
Nevertheless, he said, the
sing the request to extend the
memorandum to the Planning
594
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Commission, dated September 20, 1988, stating that the Board wanted to know
whether an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be necessary in order to
approve extending public water and sewerage to this property. Since this
property is outside the growth area of Crozet and within the watershed of the
drinking water supply for Crozet and the water and sewerage would service new
development, not existing structures, members of the Planning Commission felt
it would be a major policy decision to extend the service boundaries, necessi-
tating an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Home noted that water is
provided to the existing clinic, even though the property is not shown on the
service areas map. Mr. Home said the staff believes this to be a mapping
error. Mr. Home then iterated that the request for water and sewerage is not
the request that is before the Board tonight.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to
address the Board.
Dr. Martin Schulman said adjoining landowners and other residents of
western Albemarle County support his request for a special use permit to
operate a veterinary clinic and kennel. He said he has incorporated into the
design for the site the recommendations of the Planning Commission concerning
noise and waste control. He said his new clinic will meet the community's
need for an expanded facility and the new guidelines established by the
Virginia State Health Regulatory Board. These guidelines~require that all
veterinary hospitals in the State have an isolation wardlfor infectious
diseases by July, 1989.
Mr. Bowie asked how far the new structure would be from the existing
structure. Dr. Schulman said, "about 500 feet".
Since no one else wished to speak to this special uS~ permit, Mr. Way
closed the public hearing and placed the matter before t~ Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by M~i Lindstrom to
approve SP-88-60 with the four conditions recommended by ,~he Planning Commis-
sion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called ~and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. LindstZom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: Conditions of approval are set out below.)
Building area limited to 3,000 square feet;
Planning Commission approval of site plan~ ~.
Compliance with Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, except
that the minimum building setback to the easter~ agricultural
property line shall be reduced to 100 feet. Engineer's report
addressing performance standards of Section 4.1~ of the Zoning
Ordinance to be submitted with site plan;
The kennel use is approved in conjunction with the veterinary use
and shall not be operated independently.
Agenda Item No. 8.
February 10, 1988.
Approval of Minutes:
March 20 (afternoon), 1985, and
Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of February 10, 1988,~ page 1 to page 11,
and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. ~Bowie and seconded
by Mr. Bain to approve the minutes which had been read. T~here was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote: ~
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Llndstmom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. !i
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
595
Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and Board Members.
Mr. Agnor provided a status report on the volunteer firemen and rescue
squad study. He said Dr. Perkins will finish the study by the end of October
and will present it to the Board sometime during the first of November.
Mr. Agnor said he received a letter from the Jefferson Country Fire-
fighters' Association concerning the dedication of the fire training center on
October 13, 1988.
Mr. Bain asked when the Solid Waste Disposal Committee will finish its
report. Mr. Agnor said the Committee would present its report in November to
a joint meeting of the City Council and the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Bain asked when the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Neighbor-
hood Study will be available. Mr. Agnor said the study has been forwarded to
the planning commissions for the City, County and the University of Virginia.
Mr. Home offered to forward copies of the r~port to members of the Board to
consider while the Planning Commission is discussing the study. Mr. Home
said the MPO is also conducting a study on rgads in the southeastern part of
the City/County area, which includes Avon Street and Route 20 South.
Mr. Bowie presented Mr. Agnor with a copy of a letter from Mr. Charles
Burgess, Zoning Administrator, to a resident ~:in the Rivanna District. Judging
from this letter, Mr. Bowie said, he thinks ~he wording of the mobile home
ordinance should be improved. He asked the ~ounty Executive to take care of
this.
Mr. Lindstrom said he attended the Governor's Conference on Housing with
Mr. Horne. He said Mr. Home admirably represented the County's interests and
thanked him for his efforts. Mr. Lindstrom S~id the Conference identified and
described the problem of the high cost of hou~sing in the State. He said he
would have preferred some detailed ideas on ~Ow to solve the problem, because
he thinks the County is going to face even more of a shortage in moderate- and
low-income housing in the years to come, with the expansion of the University.
He said he believes there should be a joint effort by the City, the County and
the University to address this problem.
Mr. Bowie suggested that Mr. I{orne meet with builders and developers in
the area to see what they can do to meet the need for moderate- and low-income
housing. Mr. Home agreed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what staff has done about starting a low- to moder-
ate-income housing project similar to the one Nelson County. Mr. Home said
he is visiting the development in Nelson County tomorrow. He said he would
present a report by the end of October. i.
Mr. Way said Mr. Gary Grant, of WINA, sp~ke to him about a program WINA
plans to air concerning the meals tax, at 6:14 P.M. on November 1. Mr. Way
asked if any members of the Board would care to participate in the program, an
open forum between two representatives of theii~County and two members of the
Restaurateurs' Association. Mr. Bowie, Mr. L~ndstrom and Mr. Agnor agreed to
decide among themselves which two of them wou!d represent the County. Mr.
Bowie added that he is speaking in support off?the meals tax to the Parent
Teacher Organization in every school in his d~strict. Mr. Lindstrom suggested
that discussion of the meals tax be put on a ~uture agenda. He said he is not
opposed to putting something in the newspapap~r.
~ discussion by VDoT in
Mr. Bain said he attended the Round Tabl held
Culpeper. Mr. Bain said he thinks the representatives of the County, the most
metropolitan County in the district, should meet with representatvies of VDoT
596
October 5, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
on a one-to-one basis. Mr. Agnor said the District Engineer for VDoT has
expressed interest in attending such a meeting.
Agenda Item No. 10. Executive Session: Property Acquisition and Person-
nel.
At 9:29 P.M., a motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr.
Bowie to adjourn into executive session to discuss property acquisition and
personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 10:05 P.M~
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to authori
the Chairman to accept a deed for the Barksdale property, and the County
Attorney to record the deed, with an expenditure of $185,000 from the Capital
Improvement Fund appropriation for the Southern Regional :Park being authorized
for the purchase. Roll was called and the motion carrie~ by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Linds~rom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. ~