Loading...
1986-07-16 July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) __(Paqe 1~ 151 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 16, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 97, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. J. T. Henley,-~ Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Gerald E. Fisher. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Vice-Chairman, Mrs. Cooke. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Way offered motion to accept the items on the consent agenda as information. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Item 4.1. Memorandum dated July 7, 1986, from Mrs. Judy Gough, Finance Department, re: Refunds on Business and Professional Licenses, Real Estate and Personal Property Taxes from March 1 to June 30, 1986, was received as information. Item 4.2. Memorandum dated July 9, 1986, from Mr. Michael Armm, Director of Engineer- ing, re: Keswick Country Club Land Trust - Request for Central Sewer System, was received as follows: "This department has reviewed a report entitled 'Keswick Country Club Wastewater Treatment System Design Summary' prepared by Applied Technology and Engineering of Charlottesville, Virginia, dated May 20, 1986. Pursuant to Section 10-18 of the Albemarle County Code, we would recommend approval of this proposed system contingent upon further approval by local and State health authorities. Reuse of the treated effluent will conserve a considerable amount of water in an area which has a history of water shortages, it should be noted that this project is located outside of any reservoir watersheds." Item 4.3. Letter dated July 7, 1986, from Ms. Patricia L. Lambeth, Special Assistant to Governor Gerald L. Baliles, re: Receipt of resolutions adopted at the July 2, 1986, Board meeting, proclaiming drought conditions in Albemarle County. The resolution will be forwarded to the appropriate state officials for their attention. Item 4.4. Letter dated July 8, 1986, from Senator Paul Trible, re: Airport Surveil- lance Radar (ASR) at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, and attached letter dated July 3, 1986, from Mr. E. T. Harris of the Federal Aviation Administration, re: Inclusion of Char- lottesville as a candidate for ASR. Mr. Harris indicated in his letter that submission of a particular project does not ensure inclusion in a specific budget, since resources are limited and consideration must be given to high priority projects in the National Airspace System. Item 4.5. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for its meeting of July 1, 1986, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. Introduction of 4-H Delegates to Japan. Mrs. Cooke introduced Miss Laura Perkins and Mr. Greg Scharer as the 4-H delegates traveling to Japan. Mr. Scharer stated that he will be leaving on Sunday and will be staying in a post World War II industrial city. He hopes to see the historical and cultural aspects of Japan. He will be staying with a family whose son was hosted by his family this past year. Miss Perkins stated that she will be staying in southern Japan and anticipates meeting a lot of new people. Mr. Henley and Mr. Way made presentations of copies of Jefferson's Upland Virginia to be given to the host families. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-82-25. Innisfree Village. Allow group residences for handi- capped adults, office addition, community center, and machine shed at Innisfree Village. Located one mile from Brown's Cove, west of Route 688. Tax map 14, parts of Parcels 10 and 3. Zoned RA. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress, July 2, and July 8, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: 152 July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) "Request: This is a request for the expansion of an existing group home facility for the developmentally disabled. Acreage: The total area of the property is 372.38 acres (for the group home and farm). A total of 7.5~ acres of the farm are proposed to be converted to the Innisfree Village Group Home facility. (If the request is approved a total of 35 acres would be in the group home use, 368.8 acres would be in farm use). Location: The property is located on Route 765 north of Mountfair and just west of Route 668 (approximately one mile from Brown's Cove). Character of the Area: This property is located in a rural area of the County adjacent to the Shenandoah National Park. Innisfree Village is a working farm which also includes workshops, housing and eating facilities for the developmentally disabled. Staff Comment: The Code of Virginia requires all localities to make zoning provisions for group homes in order to provide the developmentally disabled with the 'benefits of normal residential surroundings.' The code also states that 'conditions may be imposed on such homes to assure their compat- ibility with other permitted uses, but such conditions shall not be more restrictive than those imposed on other dwellings in the same zones unless such additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of such homes.' Summary and Recommendations On January 14, 1981, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved SP-80-79 for the Innisfree Village Group Home with the following conditions: The special use permit limited to Tax Map 14, Parcels 3A, 10A, 10B, 10C and 10E; Applicant to amend Parcel 10B including area for new additions; Limit seventy-five (75) persons (staff and patients). The applicant is requesting an amendment to the conditions of SP-80-79 to expand the special use permit to other portions of parcel 10. The applicant is proposing to establish additional residential facilities (two homes), additional office space, and a community center (which will contain a gym, indoor pool, and dining area). All of the proposed facilities are intended to increase and improve the facilities available at the village, and are not needed as a result of an intensification of activities, or an increase in residents beyond what is currently allowed under the conditions of the previous special use permit. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented: 'The section of Route 668 from 810 to 765 and also 765 are both currently non-tolerable. This request will add additional traffic to both of these gravel roads. The Department cannot support a request that will add addi- tional traffic to non-tolerable roads.' Route 765 carries an average of 46 vehicle trips per day. Route 668 from Route 810 to 765 carries an average from 60 to 83 vehicle trips per day. Staff feels that this proposal will not significantly increase the level of traffic on these roads. The village generally operates as a self-sufficient facility, with residents and staff living on the site. The community center will provide additional facilities for the residents, but is not intended to be used for any functions or activities other than what already takes place at the village. Currently there are approximately 50 residents (patients and staff) living at the village. The additional residences proposed would house approximately ten more residents. The existing special use permit already allows up to 75 residents on site, therefore this proposed expansion is still within the limits previously approved. This is a request to amend the special use permit to include additional property for the provision of these facilities. The special use permit under which the facility currently operates is limited to certain specified parcels. The intent of this condition was to limit the amount of land under tax exempt status to just those facilities associated exclusively with the 'treatment' of the handicapped. This request would provide the additional land (under the special permit) needed in order to expand the village. (Approval of this petition shall in no way be deemed to indicate that any additional land will qualify for tax exempt status.) The expansion of the village will still be limited to the 75 persons (patients and staff) allowed at the village. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Limit of seventy-five (75) persons (patients and staff) located at the village; The special use permit shall be limited to Tax Map 14, Parcel 3A, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10E and proposed parcels 10F, 10G and 3B as shown on plan entitled 'Innisfree Village,' dated November 7, 1984; Staff approval of site plan(s) for the development of these facilities. July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 0 Residential facilities to be designed as single-family dwellings; Staff approval of subdivision plat creating new parcel 10F, 10G, and 3B." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 2, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of SP-86-25 subject to the same conditions as these recommended by the staff. The public hearing was opened· Mr. Bruce Williamson, representing Innisfree Village, introduced Mr. Heinz Kramp, Director of Innisfree Village, ~who was also present. Mr. Williamson said the limit of 75 persons is regarded as an optimum, maximum size for this tract of land. This new construction is well within the limit of 75 persons. There will not be any intensification of activities, only an increase in residents present on a daily basis. So that the Board does not feel it is being misled, he would like to mention some of the future plans for Innisfree. There will likely be a request submitted to bring the number of residents in the village closer to the 75 limit. Innisfree does not want to be insular forever and feels that it will be appropriate at some time for residents of Browns Cove to be able to use the facilities provided by Innisfree. Mr. Henley asked if the single-family homes are to be occupied by the staff. Mr. Kramp responded that the homes will be occupied by staff and residents of Innisfree. Mr. Henley said he has heard concern from residents of Browns Cove that Innisfree may eventually allow parents of children at Innisfree to build homes on its property since it is such a large tract of land. Mr. Williamson said that has not been contemplated by Innisfree nor has an increase in density of population been contemplated. He does not think Innisfree will apply for a subdivision request. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Henley offered motion to approve SP-86-33 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: Limit of 75 persons (patients and staff) located at the village; The special use permit shall be limited to Tax Map 14, Parcel 3A, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10E and proposed parcels 10F, 10G and 3B as shown on plan entitled 'Innisfree Village,' dated November 7, 1984; Staff approval of site plan(s) for the development of these facilities. Residential facilities to be designed as single family dwellings; Staff approval of subdivision plat creating new parcel 10F, 10G, and 3B. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion was.carried with the AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-86-33. John Kluge. Allow for a helipad to be used by Albemarle Farms. Property on the west side of Route 627 about 1.5 mile south of its intersection with Route 727. Tax Map 102, Parcel 35A. Zoned RA. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress, July 2 and July 8, 1986.) "Character of the Area: Contiguous acreage of Albemarle Farms at this location is plus or minus 1,350 acres (i.e. - about two square miles or the equivalent area of Falls Church, VA). Marshall Manor subdivision is located across Carter's Mountain. Staff Comment The proposed helipad would be located about 1,500 feet from the closest property line which is to the southwest and about 2,000 feet from Route 627. The helicopter, which would be based in Maryland, would be on-site infre- quently. The applicant estimate~ usage to be less than six flights per month to commute to Maryland and to receive guests. The FAA, Virginia Department of Aviation,-and Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport have been contacted by the applicant. The Airport Manager has stated to staff that the helipad would not interfere with airport operations. The Virginia Department of Aviation will register the helipad once local approval has been obtained. Staff has reviewed the proposed helipad for consistency with criteria for issuance of a special use permit as well as special zOning provisions related to aircraft uses (5.1.11). Staff opinion is that the helipad subject to appropriate conditions: Se would not be of substantial detriment to adjoining properties; would not change the character of the area; would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance; would in no fashion interfere nor compete with the operations of the Charlottesville - Albemarle Airport. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. This Special Use Permit is issued to the applicant and is non- transferable; 2. Usage limited to not more than ten flights (i.e. take off and landing) 154 July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) per month. Not more than one helicopter to be on the premises at any time; Landing lights to be shielded from adjoining properties and public road; Approval/registration of FAA and Virginia Department of Aviation." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 1, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of SP-86-33 subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the helipad would interfere with other airplanes and would there be a random flight pattern. Mr. Horne said he has not addressed that issue with the appli- cant, but assumes that the the helipad's flight would be from a northerly direction. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the helipad could constitute danger to surrounding property owners. Mr. Horne responded not in his opinion. The greatest danger is during take off and landing and given the size of this parcel, if a problem occurs it would occur on the applicant's property. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Tim Wood, representing Albemarle Farms, said he is present to answer any questions. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Wood to address his previous question. Mr. Wood said Albemarle Farms has contacted the Airport Authority and the flight pattern to be used by the helicopter will not interfere with other flights of airplanes. It is correct that the majority of the flights will be coming from the north. Mr. Bowie asked if it is required to contact the airport when flights come in for landing. Mr. Wood said a flight plan must be filed with the airport. In addition, the applicant is designing a system for the helicopter pad whereby the lights for the pad will be controlled from within the helicopter. Also, a homing device will be placed whereby the helicopter will be able to locate the pad from a four mile distance. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way offered motion to approve SP-86-33 subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission: This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non- transferable; Usage limited to not more than ten flights (i.e. take-off and landing) per month. Not more than one helicopter to be on the premises at any time; Landing lights to be shielded from adjoining properties and public road; Approval/registration of FAA and Virginia Department of Aviation. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion was carried with the AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No 8. SP-86-35. Melvin L. Morris. Allow a special use permit within the floodway of Buck Island Creek. Property on east side of Route 795, about 2.3 miles south of Route 620. Tax Map 103, Parcel 23 (part of). Zoned RA. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 2 and July 8, 1986.) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-86-39. Melvin L. Morris. Locate a single-wide mobile home on property located on the east side of Route 795, about 2.3 miles south of Route 620. Tax Map 103, Parcel 23 (Part of). Zoned RA. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 2 and July 8, 1986.) Mr. Horne said Agenda Item No. 8 and Agenda Item No. 9 both deal with the same property; SP-86-35 is a special permit for a stream crossing in the floodplain and SP-86-39 is for a mobile home. Although he will present the two together, separate actions will be required on the two special permits. Mr. Horne then presented the following staff report on SP-86-35: "Request: Stream crossing (30.3.5.2). Acreage: The crossing will serve 32.77 acres. Zoning: RA, Rural Areas. Location: The property, described as Tax Map 103, Parcel 23 (A-2) is located on the east side of Rt. 795, approximately one mile north of Blenheim. Scottsville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: The 32-acre parcel is presently densely wooded, although some lumbering activity is occurring on the site. The proposed creek crossing is located on the front portion of the property and is needed to access a_proposed mobile home site. Staff Comment: This is a proposal to cross the floodplain of Buck Island Creek. The stream crossing consists of one 42-inch and one 48-inch culvert with headwall. There are two other crossings of this creek or its tributary in this area. Both crossings are on Route 795 and each consists of two 48- inch culverts. The culverts were already installed by the applicant prior to his knowledge of the need for a special use permit. The County Engineer has reviewed the July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) 1.55 crossing and has determined that his construction will not increase the flood level of the creek more than one foot, and has already given his approval to the actual construction of the crossing. The County Engineer has also noted that this crossing would not be suitable if any further division of this property is to occur. The crossing would not meet the private road standards of the subdivision ordinance. This crossing is proposed to serve as a private driveway to this parcel, and there are no additional division rights with this parcel to allow for any further divisions 'by right.' However, any special use permit request to increase the density allowed by right on this parcel would require that this creek crossing be modified. This creek is not canoeable in this area, and staff opinion is that the proposed crossing would not change the character of the area or establish an unwise precedent. The applicant has met the requirements of the flood hazard overlay district of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30.3) and staff recommends approval of this request." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 8, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of SP-86-35. Mr. Horne presented the following staff report on SP-86-39: "Request: Single-wide mobile home. Acreage: 32.77 acres. Zoning: RA, Rural Areas. Location: The property, described as Tax Map 103, Parcel 23 (A-2) is located on the east side of Rt. 795, approximately one mile north of Blenheim. Scottsville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: The 32 acre parcel is presently densely wooded, although some lumbering activity is occurring on the site. About 50 single-family dwellings and six mobile homes are visible from Route 795 between Routes 727 and 620. A total of six mobile homes are located within a one mile radius of the site. Staff Comment: Two objections to this request were received from adjacent owners (letters of objection are on file). One objection was to the use of a mobile home on this site. The second objection came from the property owner located adjacent to the rear and (north) side property line of the applicant. Their objection was not with the use of a mobile home, but with its proposed location on the property. Their concern is that the mobile home is to be located 100 feet and 140 feet from his property lines. The adjacent owner has stated that in the winter months he will be able to see the trailer site from his residence. His residence is located approxi- mately 1,400 feet from the proposed trailer site. Staff is recommending that the mobile home site be located further off the rear property line. This will place the site at a lower grade relative to the adjacent owners residence and essentially on the opposite side of the high point on the applicant's property. This should more successfully obscure the visibility of the mobile home. Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: Compliance with section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; The mobile home site shall be located on a site more internal to the property which is to be a minimum of 300 feet from the rear property line and 100 feet from the northern side property line." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 8, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of SP-86-39 subject to the first two conditions recommended by the staff and a third condition as follows: "Existing trees within 300 feet of the rear property line and 100 feet of the north side property line to remain as a natural buffer." The public hearing was opened. Mr. Melvin Morris, the applicant, addressed the Board. He and Mr. Robert Sullivan, an objecting property owner, went over the site yesterday and came to an agreement. Mr. Sullivan indicated that he has no problem with 500 feet from the rear property line and 200 feet from the northern property line. Mr. Morris said he also has no problem with these distances, but to go any further than the 200 feet from the northern property line would cause problems because of the ravine. Mr. Way asked Mr. Morris if he intends to reside in the mobile home. Mr. Morris replied yes. July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Robert Sullivan next addressed the Board. He is in agreement with the statements made by Mr. Morris considering that both of the property lines in question are next to his property. He has no problem with a shorter distance from the northern property area, but is concerned with the rear property line. He would prefer that the screening remain as recom- mended, but if the location is 500 feet he does not have a problem with no screening. He is assuming, with regard to the angle of the mobile home, that his home will face an end of the home and not a front side or back side. It is also his assumption that the mobile home will be owner-occupied and if Mr. Morris builds a permanent home, the mobile home will be removed and not allowed to be be rented or used for relations. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way said he has been out to the area which is extremely remote. He would like to commend Mr. Morris and Mr. Sullivan for mutually getting together, discussing the issue and coming up with a satisfactory agreement. Mr. Way then offered motion to approve SP-86-35 as recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Mr. Way offered motion to approve SP-86-39 subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission with a change to condition 92 as follows: "The mobile home site shall be located on a site more internal to the property which is to be a minimum of 500 feet from the rear property line and 200 feet from the northern side property line." Also the addition of a condition ~4 as follows: "Should the applicant build a home, the mobile home is to be removed from the property and shall not be rented." Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mrs. C~oke commented that in the past the Board has added a condition that the mobile home may not be used as rental property for any reason and is to be owner-occupied. She feels that it would be appropriate to add that condition. Mr. Way said he has no problem with making that a fifth condition as follows: "The mobile home is to be occupied by Melvin L Morris and his family and shall not be rented." Mr. Bowie said he is in agreement with the condition. Mr. Henley commented that he has a problem with the buffer provision of 300 feet because the condition would not allow the applicant to cut or use any of the trees. Mr. Lindstrom said his understanding is that there has already been some tree removal. Mr. Horne said if condition ~3 remains as recommended by the Planning Commission, the applicant would not be able to cut any vegetation for 300 feet and if the location is 500 feet, the implication is that he could cut within 200 feet before reaching the mobile home site. Mr. Lindstrom commented that there is a lot of this property which is not affected by this restriction. Mr. Henley said he is more concerned with the five or six acres that would be affected by the restriction and would not be able to be used. He does not recall this restriction being added to any other permit. Mr. Horne commented that the parcel is heavily wooded. Mr. Bowie said he agrees with Mr. Henley that 300 feet is a lot of land that cannot be used. He could support a modification to 93, particularly in lieu of the applicant's willingness to move the mobile home further onto the property. He could support a recommendation for adequate screening from the rear property line. Mr. Lindstrom said he also is not sure a buffer to this extent is necessary for one mobile home. Mr. Horne said given the location and the dimensions of the property, a solution could be maintenance of a buffer across 300 feet of the rear property or one-half of the rear property. In his opinion, that would clearly screen the view if that is the Board's intent, and would leave the southernmost portion of the rear property line without the restriction. Mr. Henley said he could support that. Mr. Lindstrom commented that the location or site of the mobile home is not restricted and it might be better if the buffer were in terms of the location of the mobile home, itself. The buffer should be 300 feet from the site of the mobile home towards Mr. Sullivan's boundary line and 100 feet from the boundary line on the other side. Mr. Horne said there would be maintenance of the existing trees from 300 feet, which would allow 200 feet along the property line for removal of trees, and maintenance of a buffer of 100 feet to allow potential removal of some trees. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think the Board can restrict whatever timbering activities the applicant is engaged in. Mr. Horne said that he would request that the screening be to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Lindstrom then restated the amended condition as follows: "Main- tenance of a 100 foot buffer of existing trees on the northerly side of the mobile home site and 300 feet of existing trees towards the easterly boundary line to the reasonable satisfac- tion of the Zoning Administrator." Mr. Way agreed to incorporate all of the changes in his motion. Mr. Morris stated that he understands the conditions and is in agreement. Mr. Bowie, as seconder, agreed to the changes. The conditions for approval of SP-86-39 are as follows: e Compliance with section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; The mobile home site shall be located on a site more internal to the property which is to be a minimum of 500 feet from the rear property line and 200 feet from the northern side property line; Maintenance of a 100 foot buffer of existing trees on the northerly side of the mobile home site and 300 feet of existing trees towards the easterly boundary line to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator; Should the applicant build a home, the mobile home is to be removed from the property and shall not be rented; The mobile home is to be occupied by Melvin L. Morris and his family and shall not be rented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) __(Paqe 7) __ 157 AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-86-36. Francisco and Caroline Davila. Allow for an equestrian sports club at Auburn Hill Farm. Existing use as residence and horse farm. Located on north side of Route 732, about four-tenths mile west of intersection with Route 729. Tax Map 78C, Parcel lB. Zoned RA. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 2 and July 8, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Petition: Francisco & Caroline Davila petition the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for an equestrian club (10.2.2) on 79.214 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property, known as Auburn Hill Farm, is located across Route 732 from Auburn Hills Subdivision about 0.4 miles west of Route 729 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: This property is developed with a main residence, guest house, and several accessory buildings. The original Auburn Hill Farm was divided into four large tracts and a 70-lot subdivision. In addition to this subdivision several small residential lots exist in the area. Staff Comment The applicant proposes an equestrian club consisting of five perpetual memberships and 50 annual memberships. Regular activities would include riding lessons, horse training and boarding, hunts and guest lodging for up to five members (no new construction is proposed at this time). In addi- tion, an annual horseshow open to the general public would be held. Route 732 in this area is listed as non-tolerable with over 900 vehicle trips per day. The current entrance to Auburn Hill Farm does not have adequate sight distance for a commercial entrance due to both horizontal and vertical curvature. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and staff met with the applicant on-site and it appears that adequate sight distance can be obtained by relocating the entrance to the southwest and vegetation removal/grading in both directions (this will require work on the Davila property and the property across the road). Staff opinion is that agriculturally-related uses of this character are consistent with the RA zone and should be encouraged. Staff recommends approval subject to: 2. 3. 4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a private street commercial entrance; Membership limited to 55 persons. New residential construction will require amendment of this special use permit; Not more than one (1) horseshow or other such event per year open to the general public; Compliance with 5.1.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, which reads: 5.1.3: a. Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material such as pine bark to minimize dust and erosion; and b. Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 1, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of SP-86-36 subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a special provision for an equestrian club in the ordinance. Mr. Horne replied no; the staff used the section on special permits for a commer- cial stable, but there are other activities involved. Mr. Lindstrom asked if guest lodging is covered by the same section. Mr. Horne replied he thinks so since it is the use of existing structures, no new construction involved, and will only be for five persons lodged at the facility. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the limit of five persons was a condition imposed. Mr. Horne replied no, the number was requested by the applicant. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Francisco Davila said the request is for a club in which to facilitate the members because the five members will be coming from the New York and Washington areas and this is the reason for housing facilities. The club is expected to participate in all of the events in the area related to the sport. The club will have its own team, dress code and allow members to train along with their horses. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is part of the proposal that the facility be limited to existing structures. Mr. Davila said it was not a part of request, and there may be the need to build another facility for more comfort, but he is not presently interesting in expanding. Mr. James Edwards said he lives on a 25 acre tract to the west of the applicant's property. He and his wife moved here from south Florida last year. He is in favor of this application because this property was a horse farm and he would like to see the same character preserved on the 79 acres. The request is for a low density use with the population being about one person per eight acres and this use will improve traffic conditions. Mr. Davila has already allowed part of his tract to be graded down so that someone can see around the dangerous "S" curve. The condition that visibility be improved appeals to him very much. He is thoroughly in favor of this application. July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Paqe 8) Mr. Donald Henke, next to address the Board, asked if this class of operation is commonly requested in Albemarle County; if this type of operation is a commercial enterprise by definition; and whether or not it contributes to the tax base of the County. Mr. Horne replied that most of the special use permits in the rural areas are for small scale commer- cial establishments and the staff is treating this as a commercial stable. In terms of frequency, commercial stables are very common in Albemarle County, but he not sure about the type of riding club. Mr. Henke then asked why the initial five members requested by Mr. Davila are from New York and Washington. Mrs. Cooke responded that the Board cannot restrict who belongs to the club. Mr. Henke then asked if Mr. Davila is a U. S. citizen. Mrs. Cooke replied that was not an appropriate question. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked the type of construction allowed by right in a RA zone. Mr. Horne said in terms of agricultural uses, facilities to house or train horses are permitted. The only other type of lodging would be for residential use. Mrs. Cooke asked what the Zoning Ordinance states with regard to unrelated persons living in a residence and if it would apply in rural areas as it does in subdivision areas. Mr. Horne said the definition would apply to single-family dwellings. He then read the definition of "family". Mr. Henley said he does not see the reason to limit lodging to five persons. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that the Board not leave the number of members who can lodge there open-ended and not establish a common housekeeping unit that would be controlled by the definition of family in the Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-86-36 subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission, with an amendment to condition 92 as follows: "Membership limited to 55 persons and lodging is limited to no more than five members; any new lodging construction shall require amendment to this special use permit." The conditions are as follows: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a private street commercial entrance; Membership limited to 55 persons and lodging is limited to no more than five members; any new lodging construction shall require amendment of this special use permit; Not more than one horseshow or other such event per year open to the general public; Compliance with 5.1.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Way seconded the motion. recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-86-38. F. Anthony Boom. Allow for installation of culvert in the floodway of a creek of the Mechum River. Property on the north side of Route 676, 1.5 miles west of its intersection with Route 678. Tax Map 58, Parcel lB1. Zoned RA. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress July 2 and July 8, 1986.) (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:48 P.M.) report: Mr. Horne presented the following staff "Character of the Area: In September 1985, staff approved a subdivision plat dividing the Boom property into two parcels of 7.45 acres (Tax Map 58, Parcel lB) and 12.59 acres (Tax Map 58, lB1). Under this division, the two parcels shared common access. This special use permit is being sought to further divide the property into a total of five lots which will occasion: Entrance relocation and Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion private street commercial entrance approval; Construction of a public road (unless otherwise approved as private road by Planning Commission. An unnamed tributary of the Mechum River parallels Route 676 along the frontage of this property and adequate access cannot be provided without new stream crossing. Staff Comment The applicant's consultant has met with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to field establish the proposed entrance location and has submitted design and calculation information. Agency comments are as follows: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that 'the installation of this culvert should not affect Route 676 by backing up flow on the invert end of the crosspipe at this location.' The County Engineer has indicated that design is acceptable and that the proposed crossing would not raise flood levels more than one foot during a one hundred year storm. The Watershed Management Office has stated that 'the site is located within the watershed management area of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir' and that 'construction in this area should be designed to minimize runoff into the stream. Practices with water quality and water quantity protection as criteria should 159 July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) _/Paqe_~ be utilized.' This stream is not canoeable or otherwise of public interest. mends approval subject to the following: Staff recom- 1) Written Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, County Engineer, and Watershed Management Office approvals for stream crossing and construction practices prior to Planning Commission review of preliminary subdivision plat." Mr. Horne said this special permit request is not for division of the prOperty. The crossing of the creek is the first step before petitioning to divide the property. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it will require a special permit for division of the property. Mr. Horne responded yes. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 1, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of SP-86-38 subject to the condition as recommended by the staff. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Mark Osborne, Gloeckner, Lincoln & Osborne, repre- senting the applicant, said the applicant is seeking permission to fill in the designated flood fringe area to provide the state standard highway entrance. The applicant is not seeking permission to subdivide the property and agrees to the conditions of approval as recommended by the staff. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 8:55 P.M.) Mr. Osborne said he is present to answer any technical questions and describe the character of the stream flows under different conditions. If there are future steps to subdivide the property, the applicant will be looking for a by-right subdivision. He has written approval from the Highway Department for the location of the road. Although the approval is not what is required by the condition, the applicant intends to meet the requirements of the Highway Department's normal road designs. Mr. Henley asked if the applicant is willing to make further road improvements if he subdivides the property further and the Highway Department determines further improvements are necessary. Mr. Osborne said the applicant is willing to create a state standard entrance that will meet all of the requirements of the Highway Department and is willing to do what is necessary to get a standard commercial entrance. Mr. Henley commented that he has no problem with approving the crossing, but he is not committing himself to approval of a subdivision. Mr. J. L. Mean said the residents of the neighborhood are strongly opposed to a subdivi- sion in the area. The land is not suitable for a subdivision. There are problems with sewer, water and traffic. The roads are narrow, winding and hazardous. He requests that the Board consider what is being asked when requested to approve a culvert across a stream with the open intention to subdivide. If the Board should approve this petition, he requests that it be limited to those restrictions which would normally be on a driveway for one or two houses. Next to address the Board, Mr. Doug Cox said he has the same concern as Mr. Mean. His major concern is the lack of water. He has lived in the area for four years and the last two summers has run out of water. Two years ago he dug another well, but the past summer had to limit his showers because of the water situation. The sewage and road are other concerns. He asks that the Board consider this request as it will affect the entire neighborhood. Mr. Bruce Norris, who owns property adjacent to Lot 1, said if the culvert is approved for Lot 2, the applicant would come back and close the driveway that is currently shown between Lot 1 and Lot 2. He is concerned about division of Lot 2 and would hope that if it does come to the Planning Commission for subdivision approval, the neighbors have an opportu- nity to work and help decide what is best for the neighborhood. Ms. Rita Stoll, another neighbor, said she is also opposed for the same reasons stated. Speaking for her neighbor and friend Jenny Jennicks, she bought her property because of the creek running through it. She raises horses for a living and the creek is the only source of water for the horses. She is concerned that nothing be done to affect that flow of water. Ms. Jenny Jennicks said she is the closest neighbor to the Boom's property and is very much against this petition. She is concerned about the wildlife being destroyed along with the peacefulness. The water level at her lake now is so low that she has to carry water for the horses. She wishes to keep the area as beautiful as it is. Mr. Osborne again addressed the Board and said that a subdivision has already been approved to divide the property into two pieces. Although there is no submittal from the applicant for subdivision of the property, one of the requirements of that plat was a state- ment to the effect that Lot 2 will require a private street commercial entrance which is one of the reasons to get written approval of entrance location and of pursuing permission to provide access to Lot 2. Further, the existing plat for Lot 2 states that the lot retains four development rights. The property may be sold as it is with only the improvement of the crossing. In order to proceed further, there are items in the ordinance that must be taken into consideration. The applicant decided purposefully to not mix the two issues together at one time and to take a step approach in looking at a full proposal. Again, the request before the Board tonight is not for subdivision of the property. Ms. Jane Cox, a homeowner near the Boom's property, said she also is concerned about the water and requests the Board to deny the request. There being no one else present to speak, public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with Mr. Henley's comments that approval of this special permit is not approval of a subdivision. Approval of a subdivision must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. What's before the Board is a special permit request for construction within the flood area of the Mechum River which does not imply approval of a subdivision and he would not want his vote to be construed as such. July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-86-38 subject to the condition recom- mended by the Planning Commission as follows: 1) Written Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, County Engineer, and Watershed Management Official approvals for stream crossing and construction practices prior to Planning Commission review of preliminary subdivision plat. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Not Docketed. 9:20 P.M. The Vice-Chairman called a recess at 9:11 P.M. The meeting reconvened at Agenda Item No. 12. CPA-86-2. Designate New Roadway Network. Amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to describe a roadway network to be constructed between Rio Road and the Hilton Hotel site between the SPCA Road and Route 29 North; and amend Chapter 11, Land Use Plan, Page 150, to describe the roadways in the recommendations for Neighborhood One. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 2 and July 8, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "On March 4, 1986, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to describe a roadway network to be constructed generally between Rio Road and the Hilton Hotel site between the SPCA Road and Route 29 North. On May 13, 1986, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the County proceed to public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to designate the alignment of this roadway network. On May 21, 1986, the Board of Supervi- sors authorized the County to proceed to public hearing for this amendment. Existing Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: The proposed road network would be located entirely within Neighborhood One of the current Comprehensive Plan. The Plan recommends commercial develop- ment along the west side of Route 29 from Rio Road to the Rivanna River and medium to high density residential development along SPCA Road (State Route 659) from Rio Road to the river. No section of the proposed roadway network is a part of the current Plan recommendations. History of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment: March, 1985 - Route 29 Corridor Analysis - Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation published its analysis of the Route 29 corridor from the Route 250 Bypass to Greene County. Alternative 3 analyzed widening Route 29 to six lanes and constructing eastern and western external service roads. The proposed connector between Rio Road and the Hilton Hotel site was a section of the overall western service road which would extend from the Angus Road/Route 29 intersection to the entrance to the Hilton Hotel. The projected average daily traffic (Year 2005) for the entire length was 7200 vehicle trips per day. August, 1985 - Department of Engineering Presentation to Board of Supervi- sors - The County Engineer presented 32 potential County urban area road projects that might favorably impact traffic flow in the urban area. Among projects presented were: $20. Network of roads between SPCA Road and Route 29 to serve future commercial and multi-family development. Two connections to Route 29 should be provided at Woodbrook and relocated Carrsbrook roads. $21. Realign Carrsbrook Drive to intersect Route 29 at the loca- tion of the new road beside the 'Better Living' complex. The Board took no formal action on these projects. May, 1986 - ZMA-85-35 River Heights - The Board of Supervisors, at its May 21, 1986, meeting, approved an application from River Heights Associates to rezone 12.8 acres from R-15 to Highway Commercial and one acre from R-15 to Commercial Office. The subject property is located on the west side of Route 29 North adjacent to the Hilton Hotel entrance road (Hilton Heights Road). Included in this rezoning was acceptance of the developer's proffer to construct to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards that portion of the proposed roadway network within the River Heights property boundaries. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Comments: In a letter of April 21, 1986, Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- tation's Transportation Planning Division was requested by staff to assign appropriate traffic levels and advise on the general design characteristics of the proposed roadway system. In its reply of May 1, 1986, Virginia July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) __ (_p a~_q~_l 1 ) Department of Highways and Transportation estimated a minimum of 5000+ vehicles per day would use the roadway under land use development assump- tions provided by staff. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation indicated the need for a two-lane facility with 50 feet of right-of-way (40 feet curb to curb, no parking, and a sidewalk on one side) conforming to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's subdivision street requirements. Additional width would have to be provided for right turn lanes at the Rio Road intersection. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation also would require that the connection of the proposed Route 29 parallel road to Hilton Drive be at least 400 feet west of the existing roadway connection for the access road to the Hilton Hotel. No physical barriers to constructing the proposed roadway system were indicat- ed. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation supports the concept of parallel roads in the Route 29 corridor. Staff Comments: Since March 4, 1986, staff has been working with an engineering consultant to develop a specific alignment for the proposed roadway system. Staff has worked with affected private property owners and developers to establish the roadway. The alignment shown on the attached map (on file) is a result of that work. The final locations of the proposed roadway are intended to be left somewhat flexible to allow some latitude in working with developers of specific parcels. The optional location on parcels 112 and l12E minimizes the impact on a residential structure and small graveyard. Construction of the roadway, in general should follow the proposed alignment. Staff feels that the proposed roadway system is critical to insuring future traffic circulation functions properly in a fully 'built out' Rio Road to the South Rivanna River section of Neighborhood One. Staff has estimated the potential for over 40,000 total vehicle trips per day ultimately genera- ted in this area should all parcels be 'built out' under current zoning. This does not take into account multiple purpose trips which will signifi- cantly reduce this total or the percentage of trips captured by Route 29 North. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has estimated 5000+ vehicles per day would use the proposed roadway system. As develop- ment continues in this area, it will be undesirable to have all traffic use an already heavily traveled Route 29. Furthermore, access to Route 29 will be restricted for existing tracts as they are developed, necessitating common access points or service roads to Route 29 and creating the potential for undesirable U-turn movements on Route 29. Staff does not visualize the proposed roadway system as a bypass or alterna- tive through roadway for Route 29 North traffic. Instead, it is seen as an additional link to the overall urban roadway network that would specifically serve as an urban connector for commercial and residential development in the Rio Road/South Rivanna River section of Neighborhood One. Significant volumes of through traffic on this roadway are not anticipated. This roadway system will likely increase development pressures in the area, including western parcels along Route 659 (SPCA Road). However, zoning of the area, supported by the Comprehensive Plan, exists to assure this occurs at planned densities. Desirable land use densities for the area can be further reinforced during the Comprehensive Plan update process. Any change in zoning which would increase the scale or density of development would be under the total legislative control of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The absence of connectors to SPCA Road restricts the opportu- nity for traffic generated by eastern parcels along Route 29 North to use the SPCA Road. It is staff opinion that the proposed roadway system is both physically and economically feasible in its proposed location and could be constructed to some extent by private developers. The Board of Supervisors has accepted the concept of the proposed road system in its rezoning of River Heights. It has been made further aware of the possible financial obligation to the county for constructing portions of the road that may not be built by developers. Based on the aforementioned, staff recommends the following: To amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, Map 9, Urban Area Land Use Plan 1982-2002, to show the locations of the proposed roadway network as shown on the attached map (on file). e To amend Chapter 11, Land Use Plan, page 150, by adding the following under 'Recommendations - Transportation Improvements should include:' A north-south urban collector from Rio Road at Berkmar Drive to Hilton Drive and two minor east-west connectors from this proposed roadway to Route 29 North at the Woodbrook crossover and a reloca- ted crossover for relocated Carrsbrook Drive." Before addressing the Planning Commission's concerns, Mr. Horne reviewed a map which was presented by the Engineering Department to the Board of Supervisors last August. The map showed a total of 31 improvement projects in many parts of the urban area with an attempt to illustrate the need to build an urban roadway network. In addition to improvements on Route 29 there are a number of connector roadways and smaller improvements that are needed to integrate an urban network in the urbanized area. Mr. Horne indicated on the maps three ways July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) to view the specific proposal and an illustration of the current commercial zoning in the area. There currently exists a significant amount of highway commercial zoning in the area and the staff has been receiving interest from developers and has received some site plans for development of parcels. Mr. Horne then presented the following memorandum dated July 8, 1986, re: Commission Action, CPA-86-2: Planning "On June 24, 1986 the Albemarle County Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-2, recommended denial of the above Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Board of Supervisors. At that meeting there were a series of concerns expressed by some members of the Commission and the purpose of this memoran- dum is to specifically address those concerns: Service to the general public: This roadway will provide service to the general public through the prudent planning for an urban roadway network in Neighborhoods One and Two. Only a network of interconnect- ing roadways can effectively reduce the severe burdens on major road- ways, and therefore, alleviate the need for extremely expensive 'by- pass' type improvements. The Eastern Bypass Committee recognizes this principle, although in a different context, in its report to the Board of Supervisors and City Council. Traffic impact on Rio Road: The potential impacts on this roadway network on Rio Road will be different in various sections of Rio Road and the overall effect will be difficult to measure at this time. Se Eastbound traffic on Rio Road from Neighborhood One, without the proposed roadway, will need to travel on Rio Road to the inter- change with Route 29 and then northbound on Route 29. With the proposed roadway, some of this traffic may turn onto the roadway to travel north instead of travelling to the interchange at Route 29. This effect would tend to decrease the traffic load on that portion of Rio Road between the proposed roadway and the Route 29 interchange. Westbound traffic on Rio Road may increase as vehicles go through the interchange on Route 29 to this road or exit off Route 29 to drive on Rio Road to this road. This would tend to increase the traffic on that portion of Rio Road between the proposed roadway and the Route 29 interchange. Southbound traffic on Route 29 which exits at the Hilton site to travel on this roadway to Rio Road is anticipated to be minimal. If that traffic were attempting to go to Rio Road, however, it would be travelling on Rio Road without the proposal, having exited at the Rio Road interchange on Route 29. Again, this roadway may actually decrease the volumes of traffic on Rio Road between this roadway and Route 29 North. Finally, the improvements to Rio Road between SPCA Road and Route 29 as proposed in the current Comprehensive Plan are totally within the growth area, not in the watershed at any point, and justified by present and projected traffic volumes. Traffic volumes on Route 29: If it can be assumed that all traffic on this proposed roadway would have been traffic on Route 29 in the absence of the roadway, then the anticipated effect on the traffic volumes would be approximately 5000 vpd. The decrease in the amount of turning movements and other frictional movements on Route 29 is another potential benefit to the Route 29 traffic situation. This friction results due to limited crossovers and awkward entrance locations which may result in awkward traffic movements in the future. Again this roadway must be looked at as one component in an overall urban roadway network and not as a 'one shot' panacea for Route 29 North. County Contribution - The County contribution toward construction of some portions of this or any other roadway is a fundamental policy question facing the Board of Supervisors on most of the planned transportation improvements now shown in the County Comprehensive Plan. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation funding levels are completely inadequate. Contribution to this specific roadway, if any, would depend on the pace and nature of the private development in the area and the Board of Supervisors' decisions as to the needed pace for the construction of the roadway. The River Heights property has proffered a portion of the roadway and the staff has seen substantial private developer needs and interest in the construction of an additional one-quarter to one-third of the roadway network. The staff also believes that as other parcels wish to develop they will see the need for construction of a roadway of this nature. All the above interest in the roadway has been generated with the existing zoning patterns. Development Pressure: The pace of development may accelerate on some parcels as currently zoned for those parcels that either have no access or limited access to Route 29. For those parcels without limitations to access to Route 29 the staff does not perceive that the roadway will have substantial impact on the pace of development. Any requests for July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Paqe 13~ changes in zoning for the parcels west of this road is not supported.by the current Comprehensive Plan recommendations for Neighborhood One. It is staff opinion that existing zoning can support the construction of this roadway and the staff does not now support any change in zoning. The staff also sees no reason why the upcoming review of the Comprehensive Plan should change as a result of this roadway. The Comprehensive Plan, therefore, would provide sufficient support to the Board of Supervisors in any request for change of zoning in this area. In summary, the staff continues to strongly support this Comprehensive Plan amendment as necessary to address the specific needs of this section of Neighborhood, One and Two and to continue the construction of an urban roadway network in the urbanizing areas of the County." Mr. Way asked how much of the roadway construction might be paid by developers. Mr. Horne indicated on the map the areas where developers have shown substantial interest in constructing a portion of the roadway for their purposes, but there is no guarantee that site plans will include proposals to build the roadway to the standards of the County. The major portions of uncertainty are the areas where zoning goes from commercial to R-6 residential. These areas are not owned by major developers and the owners do not have the resources to contribute to the roadway. Mr. Way asked where County funds would come from. Mr. Horne replied that funding would be up to the Board. This roadway is not eligible for any State Secondary Road Improvement funds. Mr. Way asked the reasons for Planning Commission denial. Mr. Horne said the Commission did not feel there was an adequate demonstration of service to the general public; felt the roadway would generate unacceptable levels of traffic on Rio ROad; were concerned that there would not be a significant decrease in traffic volumes on Route 29 North; were concerned that there were no current policy or identifiable source of money at the County level to build portions of the roadway; and were concerned that it would increase development pressure on certain parcels in the area and for a rezoning to more intensive development on the property west of the SPCA Road. Mr. Lindstrom said although he is inclined to support this proposal, he is concerned about the way in which this has been presented by the staff. He previously voiced a concern that the staff has become too much an advocate on certain positions. Except for the ques- tions raised by Mr. Way, the Board never really got a succinct statement on the Planning Commission's objections. He is concerned that because of the strength of the staff's feeling about certain proposals, this being one of them, that the Planning Commission's function is being lost. There is a need to have the minutes of the Planning Commission before the Board to assist in its analysis. The July 8 memorandum does not develop the concerns raised by the Planning Commission which he does not think is fair to the Commission or the Board. In his opinion, this role of the staff is interfering with the legislative function of the Planning Commission and Board. The principle is that the Planning Commission's staff is the staff and if the Commission's findings and decisions are not adequately and amply reported by its own staff, he thinks its function is then rendered minimal. He appreciates the position by the staff, but it should be careful not to cloud the Planning Commission's role. Mr. Bowie said he does not have the same problem with the staff report as Mr. Lindstrom. He has appreciated receiving the Planning Commission minutes when they are available. He has no problem with the staff's advocacy because he feels that the Board and the Planning Commis- sion previously advocated the same position. He has not had any problem with staff presenta- tions or positions. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Joan Graves, President, Berkeley Community Associa- tion, presented a statement stating the Association's concern with a southern extension of the Rio-Hilton roadway network intersection with Rio Road at Berkmar Drive. She suggested alternatives for the point of intersection with Rio Road. She stated that this connection would greatly increase traffic in the residential neighborhoods. She reiterated that this should clearly be examined further before amending the Comprehensive Plan. There are other places on Rio Road which would be much more feasible to connect this road if it is decided to be necessary. She feels that if there is to be an impact on Neighborhood One, then as she suggested at the Planning Commission meeting, it should first be studied further. The Commission did not address that concern of hers. Again, she does not feel the proposal would help traffic on Route 29 North. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said he finds it difficult not to support something that will improve the flow of traffic on Route 29 North. The land in the area is already zoned commercial. He asked if the Board has the authority, as R-15 property is developed, to state there will be no exit onto the SPCA Road, that this roadway will be the exit road to that property. Mr. Horne replied yes. Mr. Bowie said he is inclined to support this amendment. Mr. Lindstrom said, although his inclination is to support the proposal, he would like to have time to study the Planning Commission's minutes and defer such a major policy decision until a all Board members are present. Mr. Henley asked if a decision is postponed if it will affect any future development. Mr. Horne said there are no current submittals that would be affected. The reason for bringing this up now is because there is continued active interest and the staff does not want to lose a component such as the road. Mr. Henley stated he is also inclined to support the proposal. Mr. Lindstrom requested that a decision be deferred until September 3 and if an applica- tion is presented for approval, then this amendment can be taken up at the next meeting of the Board. He is a little confused as to the extent this proposal would set a precedent for contributions by the County. He would also like to look at what other roads are contemplated in the future and sources of local funding. Mr. Horne said the staff can use the current July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Comprehensive Plan and point out those roadways that are not eligible for state funding with the only way to get them built being through private developers. Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with deferring this amendment. She is inclined to support it, sees its importance, and feels it would be a valuable addition to solving the traffic problems in the area. Mr. Lindstrom asked for a response to the concern raised by Mrs. Graves to adjust the alignment of the connector. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to defer action on CPA-86-2 until September 3, 1986. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS:~ ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 13. ZTA-86-03. Amend Section 8.5.6.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to clarify zoning status of certain planned developments designated at time of adoption of the 1980 zoning map. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 2 and July 8, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Staff Comment During development of the 1980 zoning ordinance and map, certain properties which were not planned developments under prior zoning were designated on the new zoning map as planned developments. These properties were primarily in two categories: Residential developments with a density of 20 dwelling units per acre or greater: Under the 1980 Zoning Ordinance no conventional residential zoning district permitted a density greater than 20 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, higher density residential complexes were designated as Planned Residential Development (PRD) or Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the new zoning map. Shopping centers: Properties which were developed as shopping centers were designated Planned Development-Shopping Center (PD-SC) on the new zoning map. The purpose of this current amendment (see language following) is to add language to the ordinance to clarify that in these cases the approved site plan shall be deemed to be the planned development application plan. Therefore, the approved site plan would 'become the zoning' on the property and would be treated in all respects as the application plan. This would permit the property owner: Ability to reconstruct in the event of building destruction (beyond limitations of 6.0 nonconformities); Ability to make minor site plan amendments in accord with 8.5.6.3; Increased ability to refinance, etc., since the Zoning Ordinance would clearly state that the development complies with current ordinance provisions. 8.5.6.5 SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN PD DISTRICTS In the case of any PD district established at the time of the adoption of this ordinance, or thereafter by action of the board of supervisors without an application, as to which no application has been submitted in accordance with section 8.5.1 of this ordinance or the analogous provisions of any predecessor ordinance, no site development plan or subdivision plat shall be approved unless and until such application, including all transportation analysis plans and other plans, maps, studies and reports required by this ordinance, shall have been submitted and approved in accordance with this section. In the case of any such PD district which has been heretofore developed in accordance with an approved site development plan, such approved site development plan shall be deemed to be the application plan for all purposes hereunder and there shall be no requirement for any further application." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 24, 1986, unani- mously recommended approval to amend Section 8.5.6.5 of the Zoning Ordinance as presented in the staff report. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the essence of this amendment is that there may be some lands shown as planned developments that are really just nonconforming uses. Mr. Horne replied yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many and the locations. Mr Horne replied there are only a handful, mostly larger residential developments in the rural areas that are now shown as PRD. However, an example is the shopping center at Shopper's World. The shopping center has the zoning but does not contain a major component required of that zoning category. Mr. St. John said this amendment was the original intent of the Board and he thought this language was already in the Zoning Ordinance. In the 1980 Ordinance,it is stated that July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) 165 certain kinds of developments, i.e., shopping centers and high density multi-family, that were already in existence would henceforth be deemed Planned Unit Developments and any new ones could only be created by going through the planned unit process. There are some pre- existing developments which are called PUD's, but there is no original plan on file on which the approval was based. The further away one gets from the history of original apprroved, the more confusing this becomes. There is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance to give guidance for what constitutes a "PUD." He sees this amendment as a housekeeping measure to implement the intent of the Board in 1980. Mr. Horne said it is his understanding that the language was written, but somehow omitted from the adopted ordinance. Mr. St. John commented that most of these developments are in total conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and were also in conformity with zoning until the 1980 Zoning Ordinance was passed. The public hearing was opened. public hearing was closed. There being no one present from the public to speak, the Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with this amendment. the following ordinance: He then offered motion to adopt AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING CERTAIN PLANNED DISTRICTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 8.5.6.5 SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN PD DISTRICTS of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: In the case of any PD district established at the time of the adoption of this ordinance, or thereafter by action of the board of supervisors without an application, as to which no application has been submitted in accordance with section 8.5.1 of this ordinance or the analogous provisions of any predecessor ordinance, no site development plan or subdivision plat shall be approved unless and until such application, including all transportation analysis plans and other plans, maps, studies and reports required by this ordinance, shall have been submitted and approved in accordance with this section. In the case of any such PD district which has been heretofore developed in accordance with an approved site development plan, such approved site development plan shall be deemed to be the application plan for all purposes hereunder and there shall be no requirement for any further application. Mr. Way seconded the motion. following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion was carried with the AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: June 26, October 16, November 6 (Afternoon), November 6 (Night), and November 13, 1985. Mr. Henley had read the minutes of November 6 (Night), 1985 and found them to be in order. Mr. Way had read November 13, 1985 (bottom of page 21 to the end), and with the excep- tion~of a few typographical errors found them to be in order. Mr. Way offered motion to approve the minutes read. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Lindstrom requested an executive session for legal matters regarding the appeal of the redivision of Lot 8, Pheasant Lane on the Milkey tract. Mr. Way said he was not present at the last Board meeting when Mrs. Graves spoke con- cerning JAUNT Zone Fare Study. The Jaunt Board needs approval of this request as soon as possible as it wants to institute the new zone fare program in July, and it has been consider- ably delayed. The idea to institute a zone fare program for Jaunt was originally proposed by the Albemarle County Budget Review Committee. His understanding is that basically a reduced fare will be implemented on certain days of the week and in certain sections of the County. For example, JAUNT will run certain routes in the urban area on Tuesdays and Thursdays and will charge the riders a dollar. He does not see this proposal drastically affecting the number of people using taxicabs in the urban area. People would not be allowed to call JAUNT just to ride anywhere in the urban area for a dollar. If a person lives in the City of Charlottesville, or in the County on a bus route, that person can ride anywhere for $.50. This program would not be detrimental to the taxi industry. After implementation the program will be reviewed and the Board will then know exactly how many people are using it. His recommendation to the Board is that it allow the Jaunt Board to vote on the issue., and if that vote is favorable, to institute the system and then to have a review to see how it works. July 16, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Paqe 16) Mrs. Cooke asked what action is requested of the Board. Mr. Way said no action is re- quired. Since the proposal affects residents of Albemarle County, JAUNT wanted the Board to . express itself as to whether it was to institute this pilot program. Mr. Lindstrom said his understanding from Mrs. Graves is that she wanted the Board to be aware that the Taxicab Association considered this program as an infringement on its rights as private enterprise to serve the general public. As described by Mr. Way, the system seems to be so limited in terms of its availability to the general public that he does not see the basis for the concern that has been raised. He has no objection to the proposal. Mr. Bowie said he expressed opposition before based on subsidized programs competing with taxis. He is willing to go along with this as a trial program to see how many people use it, their location, with JAUNT to present a report back to the Board. Mr. Way said the vast majority of people who ride a JAUNT bus have to be served anyway and have to qualify for its services. The general public would be able to ride at these reduced rates only on certain days of the week and at a certain time of the day. Mrs. Cooke said she more clearly understands the program and has no problem with proceeding. There being no opposition from Board members, Mrs. Cooke instructed Mr. Way to authorize JAUNT to proceed with the proposal. Mrs. Cooke said she received a telephone call from Mr. Haynes Dominick who asked her to pass along to the Board a comment concerning the Police Department. He is in support and praise of the Police Department's quick response to his burglar alarm that went off several weeks ago. The police were there in record time. Mr. Agnor handed out information on Police Department crime statistics for January. Mr. Clyde Gouldman, representing Mr. Bill Edgerton, asked if he should wait around until after the executive session to see if the Board will take action on his client's request regarding the Milkey tract. Mr. St. John said the Board can include or exclude anyone it so desires from executive session. If the Board so desires, Mr. Gouldman can attend the execu- tive session. Mr. Lindstrom said it would only be fair to the Board to meet by itself to hear the initial report and then if the Board feels it would be appropriate to invite Mr. Gouldman to the meeting. Mrs. Cooke asked that Mr. Gouldman wait until after the executive session. At 10:40 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters and land acquisition (requested by Mr. Agnor). Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. The Board reconvened into open session at 11:10 P.M. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt a resolution to adopt an ordinance vacating a plat for the redivision of Lot 8 of the Milkey tract with the hearing on the ordinance set for 3:00 P.M. on August 20, 1986. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom commented that the intent is to hold a two-hour hearing with each side presenting their. The Board may then take action on the ordinance that day, or defer action, if needed. Mr. St. John advised the Board that this hearing will be in accord with Title 15.1-482B of the Code of Virginia, requiring notice similar to a rezoning or amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St. John will propose the ordinance and distribute it with other information on the issue, including pertinent Attorney General opinions. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 16. adjourned at 11:15 P.M. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was C~AIR~AN