Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1985-10-02N
October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 2, 1985, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St John; Deputy County Executive and Interim Director of Planning and Community Development, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowie offered motion to accept the items on the consent agenda as information. 'Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called an~ the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item No. 4.1. Letter dated September 17, 1985, from Senator Paul Trible re: the Board's resolution supporting the sale of Conrail to the Norfolk Southern Corporation was received as follows: "Thank you for sending me a copy of the resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle. I was pleased to receive your comments on the sale of Conrail. I fully agree that Conrail should be sold. The federal government need not be in the business of running a railroad. Furthermore, the sale of Conrail would generate more than one billion dollars for the federal treasury. As you know, the Secretary of Transportation has recommended the sale of Conrail to Norfolk Southern Corporation. Legislation implementing this sale was recently approved by the Senate Commerce Committee, and I joined the majority of my colleagues on the committee in supporting the Conrail sale. This proposal must now be considered by the full Senate, and I will continu'e to keep in mind your support for the sale of Conrail. I appreciate your taking the time to let me know your views and please stay in touch." Item No. 4.2. Letter dated September 18, 1985, from Congressman D. French Slaughter, Jr. acknowledging receipt of the resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors in support of the proposed sale of Conrail to Norfolk Southern Corporation, was received, as follows: "I have carefully noted the copy of the resolution recently pasSed by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in support of Congressional approval for the Department of Transportation's proposal to sell Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) to Norfolk Southern Railway. As you know, the sale proposal is awaiting further action in the Committee on Ways and Means and in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. In the Senate a bill has been reported out of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation along the lines of the Board's interest. I appreciate having the benefit of the views of the Board of Supervisors on this issue and I will certainly keep their views in mind when the sale proposal is considered on the House floor." Item No. 4.3. Form 8038, Information Return for Private Activity Bond Issues, was received from the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority, regarding financing oJ Riverbend Limited Partnership. Item No. 4.4. Copy of memorandum No. 195 dated September 18, 1985, from S. John Davis, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and M. E. Cale, Associate Superintendent for Financial and Support Services, State Department of Education, regarding differences between State and local projections of funds to be distributed from departmental appropri- ations was received. Mr. Bowie said in regard to this memorandum regarding the schools, he does not under- stand the problem. Mr. Agnor said the State is providing revenue projections on a state-wide basis. When the projections are divided into individual school districts, 08 October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) variations'occur from what the individual school districts have prepared as their own revenue projections. Since the estimates are only accurate on a state-wide basis, it is better to use local estimates, because local staff is more familiar with revenue estimates in its own locality than the broad-based state estimates. Item No. 4.5. The following letter dated September 19, 1985 from D. $. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of the Highway Department, was received regarding additional "No Parking" signs on Route 631 South in the Pancake Falls area: "Please be advised that additional 'No Parking' signs have been added further up Route 631 in the Pancake Falls area as requested in your memorandum of September 12, 1985. Concerning the Board's suggestion that the Department contact the owner of the Pancake Falls property, I am afraid I must refuse. From the beginning I have felt this was a trespassing problem, not a parking problem. The Department has no problem with conditions as they currently exist at this site. We have installed 'No Parking' signs in an attempt to assist the County in combating this trespassing problem. Any contacts with area property owners, I believe, should be made by the County." Item No. 4.6. Letter dated September 19, 1985 was received from H. W. Mills, Maintenance Supervisor for the Highway Department, confirming that the bushes around the blinker light at Crozet School (Rt. 810) have been removed. Item No. 4.7. Copies of Planning Commission meeting minutes for September 10, 1985 and September 17, 1985 were received as information. Item No. 4.8. Copy of the Monthly BUilding Activity Report of August, 1985 was received from the Department of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-85-1. Fontaine Forest. To rezone 25 acres of a 54 acre parcel from R-10 to PD-SC. Located on south side of Fontaine Avenue, past the intersection with Rt. 250/20 Bypass; bounded on the east by Corporate City Limits. Tax Map 76, parcel 17B (part of). Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1985.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not acted on ZMA-85-1 and he requested deferral until November 6, 1985. Mr. Tucker said there is a Comprehensive Plan amendment that accompanies this rezoning, and it has not been acted on by the Planning Commission. It is scheduled to be heard by this Board on October 16, 1985. The Planning Commission is waiting for the Board's decision of the Comprehensive Plan amendment before acting on the rezoning request. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to defer hearing ZMA-85-1 until November 6, 1985. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-85-67. Margaret and Goodwin Walker. To locate a single-wide mobile home on 3.557 acres, zoned RA. Property located on east side of Rt. 618, northeast of its intersection with Rt. 620. Tax Map 116, parcel 10 (part of). Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: This property is heavily wooded. No single family dwellings are visible in the area. Directly adjacent to the south is a single wide mobile home approved administratively in June 1985 (SP-85-33 David Proffit). A description of land uses along Rt. 618 from the Fluvanna County line to Rt. 729 (2.8 miles) follows: Most of this road segment is heavily wooded. A total of 12 dwellings are visible from Rt. 618. Three single family dwellings are located north of this site. South of the site are four mobile homes and five single family dwellings. Staff Comment: Objection to this petition comes from two adjoining owners stating concerns of fire hazard and property devaluation. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition staff recommends the following conditions: Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Maintenance of a buffer to reasonable satisfaction, of the Zoning Administrator along Rt. 618 to screen mobile home from the public road. October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 1, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-67 subject to the two conditions recommended by the staff, and a third condition reading: "Site of mobile home to be located approximately 200 feet south of the Birckhead line and 175 feet east of St. Rt. 618." The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bob Bradshaw, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Bradshaw presente~ photographs for the Board to review. Mr. Bradshaw said the applicant did not realize at the time of the Planning Commission meeting, how the setback lines would affect the property. The property owner is agreeable to maintaining a buffer between the mobile ~ome and Rt. 618, and a buffer between the Birckhead property. The applicant did not know where the 200 feet would run now realize how the 175 feet width would effect him. It is the applicant's position that this limita- tion is unduly restrictive. The applicant is willing to set the mobile home back 150 feet from the highway, and he is willing to maintain screening. As stated, the area is wooded and the area where trees have been cut has been approved by the Highway Department for the driveway. The applicant has obtained approval for a septic field and a water well, which will be located in the setback area. On behalf of the applicant, he would like to propose that a 100 foot setback line from the Birckhead property be allo~ed, and 150 feet from the highway. The topography of the land slopes back and a better site would be in the area proposed by the applicant. The applicant i~ not contesting the setback, but no one considered the distances at the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant intends to make this his home. Mr. Bowie commented on the setback required by the Planning Commission and asked Mr. Bradshaw to explain his comments. Mr. Bradshaw said the area proposed by the applicant is the only location where the mobile home can be set. Mr. Bradshaw again stated that the applicant is requesting that the setback be modified to be 100 feet back from the Birckhead property and 150 feet from the highway. Mr. showing where the trees are to be cut, is tl Mr. Walker, the applicant, said the photogr~ of Rt. 618. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the setbacks lin the well and septic field. Mr. Bradshaw saJ of the mobile home, but the well and septic home. Mr. Tucker said the well and septic Bowie asked if the photograph presented ~e proposed driveway onto the property. .ph shows approved entrance for the driveway off ~it only the location of the mobile home and .d that is correct, the setbacks affect the field should be in the proximity of the mobile ield can be located in the setback. Mr. John Camblos, representing Mr. Birckhead, next addressed the Board. Mr. Camblos sa'Ld Mr. Walker has already cut all of the ~imber on the site in the area next to Mr. Birckhead's entrance road and next to Rt. 618. He walked on Mr. Walker's property, approximately 200 feet from Mr. Birckhead's property, and 75 feet from Rt. 618, and he feels there is no reason the mobile home ca~not be installed in the location the Planning Commission suggested. He suggests that before the Board take any action, the Planning Commission look at this property and determJ.ne whether or not its ruling is a proper location. He would rather not have another to be another one, the Planning Commission'~ upheld. Any final decision should be delayE review the site and determine whether or not Mrs. Wilma Moody, speaking for William said if the neighbors must live with the mo~ stated by the Planning Commission. She tra% timber has been removed from that property. there will be a buffer. The Planning Commi~ site and then give a report. mobile home in the area, but if there is going ruling is perfectly proper and should be :d and the Planning Commission requested to the setback is proper. I. Vernon, addressed the Board. Mrs. Moody ~ile home, then the conditions should be as 'els the route every day and a large amount of The mobile home needs to be located where sion should go back and review the proposed Mr. Bradshaw again addressed the Board. ! Mr. Walker s property for which he has a ri¢ Birckhead property line, is not for the pur~ Mr. Camblos next addressed the Board. in a square, back from the right-of-way to the trees have been cut in a square. He wo% directly to the right-of-way going onto Mr. Rt. 618, but very close. With no one else to speak for or agains closed. Mrs. Cooke said the Planning Commissior asked if the setback included only the locat septic fields. Mr. Tucker said the Plannin¢ He said there is a lot in the rear of · ht-of-way. That lot, which is along the ,ose of the mobile home. He said the clearing that has been done is cut ~here the mobile home would be located. Ail of .ld estimate that is is 100 by 100 feet coming Birckhead's property. It is not entirely on t this application, the public hearing was · recommended relocation of the mobile home and ion of the mobile home, not the water and Commission only indicated the site of the mobile home. Cooke said that was also her understanding the recommended setback came from? Mr. Tuc~ Planning Commissioners. Mr. Fisher said he that it is hard for the Board to figure out will solve any problems. Unless someone kn¢ arbitrarily picking numbers at this point. to look at the property. Mr. Tucker said t~ for these setbacks. It is his opinion the water well and septic fields were not included. Mrs. Mrs. Cooke suggested that if this perm~ condition reading: "This mobile home cannot rom the meeting. Mr. Fisher asked where does .er said they are numbers agreed to by the believes Mr. Camblos is correct in the sense whether 25 feet or 50 feet one way or another ws the property, he is leery about just Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff has been out .e staff did not go out to measure the property t is approved the Board should add a fourth be rented, but must be occupied by the owner. At such time as the mobile home is vacated, it must be removed from the property within ninety days." Mrs. Cooke said this condition has been added to other mobile home requests by the Board. Mr. Fisher recommended the application be deferred for two weeks to either receive a staff recommendation on the setback, or that the Board members visit the site. Mrs. Cooke agreed that the staff should visit the site and determine the proper location oJ October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) the mobile home in order to properly buffer the adjoining properties. Mr. Way then offered motion to defer any action on SP-85-67 until October 9, 1985, for the staff to visit the site and determine proper location of the home in order to provide a buffer from adjoining properties. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher suggested that the adjacent property owners be notified of the time when staff will visit the location, so they may add their comments. Mr. Fisher requested that Agenda Item No. 7, ZMA-85-20, and Agenda Item No. 8, ZMA-85-07, be heard simultaneously. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-85-20. Hollymead Land Trust and Tri-Ton, Inc. To rezone 37 acres from R-1 to HC. Property located in southeast quadrant of Rt. 29N/Rt. 649 (Proffit Road) intersection. Tax Map 32, part of parcels 42 and 36. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1985.) Mr. Tucker said ZMA-85-20 is a request to rezone 37 acres from R-i, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial, in the Hollymead Community along Rt. 29 North. The two original petitions, ZMA-85-16 and ZMA-85-07 were combined to be ZMA-85-20. When the staff first reviewed the petition it recommended to the Planning Commission that a comprehensive rezoning of this property addressing the access to these parcels would provide a more appropriate review. The applicants complied with that request with regard to ZMA-85-16, and then also requested that ZMA-85-7 be deferred until tonight's meeting. Mr. Tucker presented the following supplemental staff report dated September 24, 1985 to the Board: "During the review of this petition on August 6, 1985, concerns were expressed by the Planning Commission as to the amount of land proposed for rezoning. On August 14, 1985, the Board of Supervisors had adopted a resolution regarding Route 29 North which stated among other things intent 'during the next revision of the County's Comprehensive Plan to reevaluate the recommendations for increased densities in the Route 29 North corridor on lands which have not yet actually been zoned for the higher density.' Given this background, staff recommends that commercial rezoning be proportionate to undeveloped residentially-zoned land (other than R-l). The Comprehensive Plan residential capacity for Hollymead represents an additional population of 11,669 persons. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends a maximum commercial development of 73 acres. Current Population Capacity Hollymead Square II North Hollymead (1.7 d.u./ac.) North Hollymead (15.20 d.u./ac.) 300 persons 1360 1000 TOTAL 2660 persons Current population capacity is 22.8 percent of the Comprehensive Plan capacity. Applying this percentage to recommended commercial development results in a figure of 16.6 acres. The portion of Tax Map 32, parcel 42 requested for rezoning consists of about 17.8 acres; staff recommends that this property be rezoned to HC Highway Commercial and Tax Map 32, parcel 36 (part) not be rezoned at this time. Other issues/questions raised during the Planning Commission's review on August 6, 1985 are as follows: 1) Proximity of commercial to residential zoning: The area adjacent to residential land (other than the appliCant's) is not recommended for rezoning at this time, therefore, this should no longer be a concern; 2) Ail commercial property should have internal access to the proposed new crossover: While this could be addressed during site plan review, it may be prudent to resolve this issue at this time to complete a comprehensive access package and avoid protracted debate in the future with individual applicants. 3) Effect of commercial development on Route 29 North corridor: This property could generate about 7,700 vehicle trips per day (i.e. 432 vehicle trips per day/acre for general commercial). Distribution of trips to Route 29, Airport Road, Proffit Road, and internally to Hollymead PUD and North Hollymead has not been calculated. The extent to which commercial development in this area could reduce traffic on Urban Area Route 29 would be dependent on specific uses and duplication of goods/services available to the south. General retail/services (i.e. - grocery, pharmacy, restaurant, service station, hardware) would tend to reduce Urban Area traffic by serving areas north of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and east and west on Proffit and Airport Roads. Specialty retail/services would tend to increase traffic from the Urban Area." October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) The following letter dated July 23, 1985 was received by the Board from the Department of Planning and Community Development: "Mr. Robert Smith 1836 University Circle Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA-85-07 Tri-Ton, Inc. ZMA-85-16 Hollymead Land Trust Dear Bob: On July 18, 1985, you, Jeff Echols, and I met to discuss issues related to the above referenced rezoning petitions. Summary of the issues discussed follows: Two entrances to Tri-Ton property: Since the northern entrance would be locat~ed at a crossover, the southern entrance would provide access from the northbound lane and should not conflict with the crossover function. I will recommend approval of the fifth access. e Traffic study for commercial area: The Commission requested a traffic study of the proposed commercial area. Such study was done by Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation for the CATS Study. A current study would be duplicative and an unneces- sary expense in staff opinion. I requested Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation to file-search for this information, and will present the same to the Planning Commission if available. Internal access: Provision should be made for a roadway (Road A) from the proposed crossover on Rt. 29 to future Powell Creek Drive. Also, access should be limited to a point on Proffit Road and a roadway (Road B) should connect Proffit Road to Road A. Road A has been shown on a plan by Buddy Edwards; Road B should be added. No study has been approved by Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation to size these roads. Roadway design should be addressed at time of internal development. At this time, I am requesting alignment and right-of-way through the commercial area be determined. Right-of-way should be reserved for dedication upon demand of the County. Due to unknowns regarding timing of development, posted speed limits and the like, staff recommendation of June 18, 1985 will be amended as follows: Access Point 1 (AP1) to be established near southern property line at approximate location of existing crossover 1 (El). Recommendation: Construct decel/turn lane in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation standards. ~se-~e~ Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation may require closure of ECl as a condition of commercial entrance permit. Access Point 2 (AP2) located approximately 500 feet north of AP1 at proposed location of new crossover (NCl). Recommendation: Construction third lane from AP1 to AP2. ~se-E~-a~-ee~s~e~-Ne~ Should NCl be constructed, Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation may require closure of ECl. Access Point 3 (AP3) located +500 feet north of NCl. Recommendation: Construct third lane from AP2 to AP3. Access Point 4 (AP4) located near north property line at approximate location of existing crossover 2 (EC2). Recommendation: Construct third lane from AP3 to northern property line. ~se-~ Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation may require closure of EC2 as a condition of commercial entrance permit. Access Point 4S (AP4S) located +175 feet south of AP4 shall be permitted only if (a) AP4 is established; or (b) EC2 is closed. Also, as I pointed out, there is a 'leg' of proposed commercial of about 2.5 acres which would intrude into an area of R-1 Residential. will recommend that the +2.5 acres not be rezoned at this time. I hope the foregoing is an accurate reflection of our discussion of June 18, 1985. As you know, the rezoning will be scheduled for Planning Commission review on August 5, 1985, so I would need any materials/proffers you intend to submit as soon as possible. Also, I have advertised this as a new joint petition ZMA-85-20 Hollymead Land Trust & Tri-Ton, Inc. Please contact me immediately as to paperwork necessary to perfect this petition. Sincerely, (SIGNED) Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning" October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 25, 1985 failed to recommend any action on ZMA-85-20 due to a tie vote of 3-3. He then presented the followin proffer submitted and signed by both applicants and received in the Planning Department on September 29, 1985 (after the Planning Commission meeting): "Proposed Proffer Tri-Ton, Inc. and Hollymead Land Trust Join together under rezoning application ZMA-85-20 to make the following proffers: Proffer ~1 The entire Rt. 29 frontage of approximately 1560+ shall be served at only five access points, only one of which shall serve as an entrance to a future collector street. A. Access point 1 (AP1) shall be established at the south end of the property across from an existing crossover (median break) a decel lane shall be constructed by VDH&T standards to serve this access point. (Mr. Tucker said AP1 is at the southernmost end of the property. The Highway Department has commented that it may require closure of this existing crossover at some future time. The 29 North Corridor does envision closing the two existing crossovers in the future.) B. Access point 2 (AP2) shall be 'established 500' north of AP1 opposite a proposed new crossover which exact location is yet to be determined. A 3rd lane built to VDH&T standards shall be constructed between AP1 and AP2 when AP2 is approved by the VDH&T. C. Access point 3 (AP3) shall be established 500' north of AP2. A 3rd lane built to VDH&T standards shall be constructed between AP2 and AP3 when AP3 is approved by the VDH&T. D. Access point 4 (AP4) shall be established 12.5' south of the property line between Mercer Carpets and Tri-Ton and opposite of an existing crossover. A 3rd lane built to VDH&T standards shall be constructed between AP3 and AP4 when AP4 is approved by the VDH&T. E. Access point 4 South (AP4S) shall be built 175' south of AP4 and shall only be constructed if and when AP4 is constructed. Proffer 92 (Mr. Tucker said this proffer will not be affected if the Board approves rezoning of the 17.8 acres.) The entire Rt. 649 frontage shall be served at only one access point. A. Access point 5 (AP5) shall be built on Proffit Road (St. Route 649) opposite the existing entrance road that serves 84 Lumber. This shall be the only access point from the property subject of this petition on St. Rt. 649. (Mr. Tucker said if the staff's recommendation is followed, the Board is not rezoning land that this access point would have access to. Mr. Fisher said he understands Mr. Tucker, but he is not sure that is what the applicant is proffering. It sounds to him like the proffer may only apply if the whole area is zoned as originally requested. Mr. Tucker said it is the applicant's intent to request the entire rezoning, but he is giving the staff's recommendation as well.) Proffer ~3 Ail construction relating to these access points, done in the VDH&T r/w Shall be at the property owners' expense. Proffer 94 A road shall be constructed at a later date, size and exact location to be determined by the County. This road shall link access Point 2 to access Point 5. The road shall be located, dedicated and built as site plans are submitted for sites along this road and not having access to Rt. 29 from any of the access points mentioned above: i.e. - AP1, AP2, AP3 or AP4. Further, a road shall also be built, at a later date, extending east to connect to proposed 'Powell Creek Drive'." Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any legal problem accepting proffers relating to the construction of road improvements. Mr. Tucker said he had the same question, however, at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Fred Payee, Deputy County Attorney did not feel it would be a problem. Mr. Fisher asked how the^can insure that these third lanes will be built at some future time if the zoning is approved now, the property is partially developed with one entrance, and then the owners change? Mr. Tucker said the only way to enforce this is as the applicant submits site plans, he is limited to these access points. Mr. Tucker said if the applicant decided to build the one entrance and never build the others, he does not see how construction of the third lane can be triggered, because everything is dependent on these entrances being built. In addition, a bond will be required at the time of receipt of site plans. Mr. Fisher said he is worried that basically the whole concept is unenforceable. October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if he agrees that there is no problem from a legal standpoint. Mr. St. John said he does because he thinks these road improvements relate directly to the access to this property. These are not improvements to the public road, but access to this property including the third lanes which are really just extended acceleration and deceleration lanes to serve these entrances. Mr. Lindstrom asked why with a property of this size, there are five access points instead of fewer access points and use of an internal road? Mr. Tucker said this is the applicant's proposal. On the portion of the property Tri-Ton is requesting for rezoning, they propose to build a service station. They propose an entrance and then exert at a crossover. That is the reason for the closeness of AP4S and AP4. Basically, the separation of 500 feet is not a problem from the staff's perspective. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this land should be further divided in the future, if the Planning Commission has the authority to require a combination of entrances at that time? Could the Planning Commission, when approving subdivision plats, restrict access points so that any lots being created in the future would be required to use common access points? Mr. St. John said yes, the Planning Commission can do that, at the time of subdivision approval. However, if this rezoning is approved, the applicant is locked into having only five entrances. Mr. St. John said in answer to an earlier question, there is as good a chance of enforcement of these conditions as with any other conditions placed on a special use permit. Mr. Fisher asked if that is true if there are subsequent owners and entrances are constructed out of sequence? Mr. St. John said that is correct. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a way on this application (ZMA-85-20) as proffered, to limit the type of development to general retail as opposed to specialty retail. Mr. Tucker said the applicants would have to proffer to place limits on the development. Mr. Fisher asked if this area of the County is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as Highway Commercial. Mr. Tucker said it is shown only as commercial. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the area is now zoned for residential use. Mr. Tucker said when the Zoning Map was being prepared in 1980 the staff did not have any property lines to associate with the area that is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as commercial. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-85-07. Tri-Ton, Inc. To rezone 5.0 acres from R-1 to HC. Located on east side of Rt. 29N, about 600 feet south of Rt. 649. Tax Map 32, part of parcels 42 and 36. Rivanna District. (Note: This petition was deferred from the meeting of May 1, 1985, and from several subsequent meetings, so was readvertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1985.) Mr. Tucker said as indicated earlier, ZMA-85-20 is a combination of a proposal titled ZMA-85-16 (never heard by this Board) and ZMA-85-07, which has been pending before the Board since May. ZMA-85-07 was heard by the Planning Commission on APril 16, 1985 and was recommended for denial. Staff had recommended denial of ZMA-85-07 because it felt a more comprehensive rezoning should be investigated. The following staff report deals primarily with the pros and cons of reviewing ZMA-85-07 on a comprehensive basis or on an individual basis: "Requested Zoning: Acreage: Existing Zoninq: Location: HC, Highway Commercial 5.0 acres R-i, Residential Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcel 42 (part) and 36 (part) is located on the east side of Rt. 29N about 600 feet south of Rt. 649. STAFF COMMENT: This property has been the subject of a prior rezoning petition. In January, 1984, Dr. Charles Hurt requested among other things rezoning of 37 acres (including this current five acres) adjacent to Rt. 29N from R-1 Residential to HC Highway Commercial. At that time, staff stated that: (taken from ZMA-83-19 Hollymead Land Trust/Albemarle Bank & Trust Company): Rezoning +37 acres to HC Highway Commercial adjacent to U.S. Route 29 North: The location and acreage of this requested zoning appear in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan recommends that this area 'may be developed as highway oriented commercial to serve residents of the Hollymead Community as well as travelers on Route 29 North.' Therefore, in this case, Highway Commercial zoning is viewed as appropriate. This site could support about 330,000 to 365,000 square feet of floor area, roughly equivalent to that for Shopper's World and Albemarle Square Shopping Center combined. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that 'rezonings to a commercial designation for sites of three acres or more should be accomplished under a planned development zoning designation accompanied by a transportation analysis plan.' The potential floor area is in the regional shopping center scale of development recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that a planned approach addressing concerns of Sections 25.4, 25.5. and 25.6 of the Zoning Ordinance would be appropriate. Detailed access planning is viewed as critical. In regard to commercial rezoning requests, additional planning by the developer is warranted. Such planning could be accomplished either through planned development districts (Planned Development-Shopping Center; Planned Development-Mixed Commercial) or conventional zoning (Highway Commercial; C-l) accompanied by a proffered plan of development. In either case, access and site planning considerations as outlined in Sections 25.4, 25.5, and 25.6 (or similar provisions of Section 25A) should be addressed. October 2, 1985 (Regular Night M~etinq) During public hearing, staff clarified and reemphasized its position that transportation issues were the major concern regarding the commer- cial rezoning. As stated in the report, 'detailed access planning is viewed as critical.' Regarding the current rezoning request: Staff can determine no planning basis for reassessment of prior recommendation; 2. Staff cannot identify any public purpose to be served by reassess- ment of prior recommendation; Staff cannot determine any other change in circumstance which would warrant reassessment of prior recommendation. To the contrary, current and future traffic problems have recently been amplified by report from the Richmond office of Virginia DePartment of Highways & Transportation including comment by Harold King, Commissioner. In regard to this specific request, Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has stated that: 'This rezoning request is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Department recommends that access to this site be through a collector road in the Hollymead area and not solely on Route 29 North. The Department recommends that a plan be submitted to coordinate access for this commercial property in this area, otherwise, the strip development that has occurred along the Route 29 North Corridor will continue in this area.' Staff recommends denial of this rezoning petition." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 16, 1985, unanimously recommended denial of ZMA-85-07 agreeing with the concerns of the staff as addressed in the staff report. As a result of the actions of the staff and Planning Commission, the applicant attempted to comply with the recommendation to join that application with ZMA-85-20 Hollymead Land Trust into one application. Mr. Tucker said the problem with ZMA-85-07 is that there is no proffer limiting any type of access points to the property. Under the proposal in ZMA-85-20, the proffers could apply to all of the property, including ZMA-85-07, the Tri-Ton property. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board were to approve ZMA-85-20, if it would deny ZMA-85-07. Mr. Tucker said if the Board were to approve ZMA-85-20, he believes Mr. Robert Smith, representing Tri-Ton, would then withdraw ZMA-85-07. The public hearing was opened at this time on both applications. Mr. Robert T. Smith, a commercial real estate broker, representing the applicants addressed the Board. Mr. Smith said that Tri-Ton is a petroleum marketing company based in Atlanta Georgia. Tri-.Ton operates about 40 to 50 stations from Georgia through this part of Virginia. These stations will typically have twelve pumping stations, a convenience store of 24 by 60 and canopies. This is not a truck stop. Typically these type of petroleum marketers have restraints imposed on them by what they are allowed to pay for land. When looking for a site, he looked at the Comprehensive Plan for areas in the County designated as commercial growth areas, and much to his delight he found that this part of Rt. 29 North was indicated for commercial growth. He said the confusion that has arisen on this application has come from the concern of the Planning Commission for rezoning small pieces of property. Tri-Ton then went to Virginia Land Trust which owned 37 acres, and presented its project. The only way to do the project under current ordinance requirements was to subdivide the property into five acres. That is the way Tri-Ton arrived at the request for five acres, which could be subdivided administratively. When the application was submitted, the problem of access to the balance of the property and what would happen to that property was raised by the Planning Commission. Tri-Ton then went back to Virginia Land Trust and presented the problem and said that the access points had to be shown on the balance of the land. That is when the other 32 acres of the 37 acres came in under ZMA-85-16, and then the staff asked if the applicants would object to these applications being combined as ZMA-85-20. The applicants are somewhat frustrated over this procedure, but want to reach some compro- mise. He showed to the Board, a map illustrating the four access points on the proposed rezoning. Two of the access points will serve the Tri-Ton station. The points conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements with regard to spacing, distances, etc., with the exception of AP4S. After talking with the Highway Department and the staff, it was felt that AP4S was proper and appropriate for its use. He presented to the Board two aerial photographs of the Highway Department. Problems, if they exist, will be minimized by use of a third lane. Mr. Smith said the applicants are open to any suggestions that make good sense. They are attempting to schedule the project to begin in Spring 1986. Mr. Fisher said the proffers seem to indicate they are predicated on the rezoning of the entire 37 acres. What is the meaning of the proffers under the Planning staff's recommendation that a smaller part of the parcel be rezoned? Mr. Smith said he does not think there is a problem with that recommendation. The applicants may have a problem with committing to just a single entrance on Proffit Road. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Smith if he could speak for both of the parties whose signa- tures are on the proffer, that if only 17.5 acres are rezoned with respect to the proffer not related to Proffit Road, that they remain bound by their proffer on a 17.5 acre rezoning. Mr. Smith said he thinks he can, but the applicants would like to have all of the land rezoned. Mr. Lindstrom said from Mr. Smith's presentation, it seems the applicants area looking for is the ability to use a relatively small portion of this property at the north end, so that it would be likely that AP4 and AP4S would be the access points first constructed. Mr. Smith said that is correct and a third lane would be construe ted down to AP3, so a third of the third lanes would be built at the onset. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Smith for his perception of how this construction would occur. It seems to him the proffer is really in reverse order. AP4 and AP4S would require the third lane to be established down to the point called AP3, but the rest of the third lane would not have to be done until AP3 was desired, and then the third lane would have to be built down to AP2. If there was no desire to do anything with AP3, AP2 or AP1, then there would be the third lane only from AP3 to AP4. October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Bowie said for the record, he received a letter from Mr. Smith. The letter mentions the 17+ acres and he assumes from the letter that Mr. Smith and the principals have no objections to rezoning the 17+ acres. Mr. Smith said they have no objections, but would like to have the whole 37 acres rezoned. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that there is no proffer to build the new crossover on Rt. 29 North. Mr. Smith said that is correct. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt for his opinion on this proposal. Mr. Roosevelt said on Rt. 29 North no entrance is a good entrance. Everyone recognizes that the property in the area being discussed is indicated to be commercial property and will be developed in that manner at some time. No matter how it is developed, it will require access to Rt. 29. The plan presented basically creates a new entrance for Hollymead (AP2) and two commercial entrances 500 feet each side of the new street intersection, with hopefully a new cross- over. The proposal meets the guidelines of the policy the County adopted to have crossovers at 500 feet intervals. His opinion is that this balances the needs of the highway and the needs of commercial property. It is the best compromise that can be expected. The other two entrances are to simply allow a gas station to be built. The Board has to decide whether it wants a gas station there or not. Mr. Fisher said that basically the Board is not deciding whether it is a gas station, but whether the property will be rezoned Highway Commercial with all its attendant uses. Mr. Roosevelt said five acres can function as highway commercial with one entrance and it can function as a gas station with two entrances. The second entrance is for the gas station. He does not think it is his place to say that this application should be denied after the staff has worked out what he appears to be a solid compromise. With no one else from the public to speak for or against these application, the public hearings were closed. Mr. Bowie referenced the Board's copy of the map and said there is a section shown with a line stating recommended to remain R-l, and on the map attached to the proffer, that line is not shown. Is that section a part of the 37 acres? Mr. Tucker said yes. The map attached to the proffer does not present the property line as well as the staff's map. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Smith if he intentionally left that piece of land off of the map attached to the proffer. Mr. Smith said yes because it had been suggested that that piece of land be eliminated. There are approximately two and one-half acres involved in that section. Mr. Fisher said there have been problems over the years trying to deal with strip zoning where every parcel had to have an entrance. He asked if this property is deep enough to be developed like a PD-SC? Mr. Tucker said he thinks so. The minimum depth for highway commercial is 150 feet. This property exceeds that depth. If someone wanted to develop a neighborhood-type shopping center, this property could be developed as such. Mr. Bowie said it seems that construction from AP2 to AP5 would allow future develop- ment of the lower area without constructing AP1. Mr. Tucker said AP2 is at the location of the new crossover on Rt. 29 North. AP1 is at an existing crossover that could be closed at a later date. Mr. Lindstrom asked if AP1 is proposed for closing? Mr. Roosevelt said the 29 North Corridor Study calls for the closing of both crossovers in the area south of Rt. 649 to be replaced with a new crossover located approximately at AP2. The question is when those two crossovers will be closed and the new crossover will be opened. Mr. Lindstrom said the issue is really whether or not the Board wants to approve more commercial development in view of the recommendations of the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the indications given to staff to cut back on development in the Rt. 29 North Corridor. He gathers that the 22.8 percent ratio used by the staff to make the determination that 17.5 acres could be developed as commercial at this time may be intended to address the problem. The commercial would then serve the existing residential and not stimulate the need for any addition. The real crux of the matter is what kind of commercia is going on that site. Logically speaking, one would think it would be commercial oriented toward, the existing residential. If there was a guarantee, he would have little reservati about approving the staff's recommendations. Mr. Bowie said it seems to him the line drawn on the map messes up the five acres. Hz asked if that will cause a redesign of everything or if it can be adjusted around so that the five acres are left alone. Mr. Tucker said the area Mr. Smith is interested in is less than five acres. Mr. Bowie said that with the proper development, this proposal does not increase traffic on Rt. 29 North. It serves traffic on 29 North and if built to serve the people who live in the vicinity, will probably reduce traffic. He does not have any problem supporting this application for the 17.5 acres as recommended by the staff. Mr. Fisher said this begs a question about the intent of the commercial land shown in the Comprehensive Plan. It seems to him that the intent for the Hollymead area was that the commercially zoned land would serve that development, and not highway traffic per se. In fact, at one point the planning direction was that all of that commercial zoning had to be internal to reduce travel, etc., for all of the people living in the Hollymead communit~ As Mr. Lindstrom mentioned, there is no indication that this request is designed to serve the people of the Hollymead community, except that there is one road that will come into the community, and property just 500 feet deep is not big enough to plan a big shopping center to serve those people. It looks like a group of highway-oriented commercial enter- prises may be placed here and these may or may not provide a benefit to the people in Hollymead. He questions whether the Board has any control over that. Mr. Lindstrom said if this were just for a gas station he could not support the application. He agrees with the Chairman concerning commercial, but feels it would be unrealistic from an economic standpoint to deny the applicants the market that comes from Rt. 29. The number of access points really relate to their access to the Rt. 29 market. If the Board could be assured that with the gas station there~was a commitment on the balance of the property, that the commercial development would serve Hollymead and not everybody else, then his concern about the proliferation of commercial development on Rt. 29 North would evaporate. - He is bothered because there is not that guarantee. The Board has to accept that it is subjecting an applicant who has been cooperative to the mechana- tions of public planning. October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) /© Mr. Bowie said he would be less concerned with this application if it were approved as recommended by the staff. Over one-half of the property would not be included, so would prevent the development of the property in some way that will not serve the immediate area. At the same time, he thinks the Board would have a hard time zoning anything if it were to direct what went on the property rather than allowing the market place to have its influenc If only highway commercial users go in there, he doubts he would support any future applica tion for rezoning if the use were not compatible to the surrounding area. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to approve ZMA-85-20 as recommended by the staff concerning the acreage and with the proffer as received dated September 29, 1985. He said that the motion does include the elimination of the small section of land that extends over into the residen- tially zoned property. Mr. Way asked Mr. Bowie if his motion refers only to Proffer ~1, or also the access off of Proffit Road. Mr. Bowie said he will accept the proffer, but that land is not being rezoned and the applicant said they would extend the proffer to the smaller zoning. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands Mr. Smith to be offering, representing the Hollymead Land Trust and Tri-Ton, Inc., is Proffer No. 1, Proffer No. 3, and Proffer No, 4. Proffer No. 2 which relates to the Proffit Road access was not offered on the reduced rezoning. Mr. Smith said from a business standpoint that is what they would prefer. Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with that. The proffers included are Proffer No. 1 (the access points), Proffer No. 2 (Proffit Road entrance) is withdrawn because it applies to land which is not now 'included in the rezoning, and Proffer 3 and 4 remain the same. Mr. Smith Said that is what he is saying. Mr. Bowie said his motion stands. He restated his motion to be approva of ZMA-85-20 as recommended by the staff as relating to the 17.5 acres and with proffer dated September 29, 1985, and noting that it includes the elimination of that small parcel of land that extends into the residential zoning. Mr. Lindstrom said it includes the elimination of a whole lot more land than that; it includes the elimination of all that land to which that small parcel is attached. Mr. Bowie said that is correct; that is the 17.8 acres, so the second point becomes moot. Mr. Henley seconded the foregoing motion. Mr. Fisher restated the motion to rezone about 17.5 acres to highway commercial as recommended by the staff and with the proffers received by the County September 29, 1985, the proffers have not been withdrawn, but Proffer No. 2 appears to be moot. He asked Mr. St. John his opinion. Mr. St. John said the motion is alright if four or five years from now, someone can read the record of this meeting and figure out what the proffers require. That is the only problem. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that if Mr. Bowie's motion is approved, based upon the statements made by the applicants' representative, all of the proffers apply even thoUgh the property on Proffit Road is not being rezoned. If that property on Proffit Road to which the proffer speaks, is brought in for site plan approval or development, unless that proffer is waived, the applicants would be limited to that one access point, Mr. St. John said if that is so, then it should be clarified as to whether Proffer No. 2 is being moot and eliminated or whether it stands as stated. Mr. Fisher said the motion does not eliminate Proffer No. 2. Mr. Bowie said he does not want to negotiate. The Board was presented with a~proffer and he included it in his motion. Mr. St. John said he understood Mr. Smith to say that this lesser acreage meant that they felt that Proffer No. 2 no longer applied. Mr. Fisher requested that Mr. Smith return to address the Board. He said it appears to him that the record is confusing at the least. Mr. Smith said that as long there are provisions, that on good reason that particular proffer could be waived or amended at a future date, there is no big problem. If the Land Trust sells that property and a rezoning were requested, he would assume that reasonable people would amend that. Mr. Bowie said his motion stands with all the proffers. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John with respect to the construction of the access points and the third lane contained in this proffer, if the applicants start at the northernmost access point~ the County's insurance that the balance of those access points will be built is that when site plan application is presented that would involve those other access points, the county can deny the approval of that plat or approve it conditioned upon the construction of the improvements that are called for in this proffer. Mr. St. John said that is correct. Mr. Fisher said it is difficult not to support something shown in the Comprehensive Plan when a request is presented. He does not think the sequence of improvements to this property are likely to be carried out in the fashion shown. He believes that this is going to be another case of something that will come back to the Board over and over again. He does not think this land, since it is a narrow strip of land that would serve primarily the highway and not be oriented to Hollymead, will address the needs of the people of the Hollymead community. In that sense he does not believe it fully complies with recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan and for that reason, he will not support the motion. Mrs. Cooke said she feels the rezoning of this property will service more than just the Hollymead area. There is a tremendous amount of development occurring on Rt. 649, and the people who pass this location would find it a very convenient place to stop. There is a tremendous amount of development potential further north Rt. 29 North and certainly in the Airport Acres area. She said she has no problem with this application and is prepared to support it. Mr. Lindstrom said a convenience store is a relatively small part of what the Board is approving. There are traffic congestion problems on Rt. 29 because of the cOmmercial development along the highway, so he is persuaded bY the arguments made by the Chairman. When the Board drafted the Comprehensive Plan, it was looking at this area as commercial zoning that would serve Hollymead. Although, access points must be allowed to Rt. 29 for commercial development, what he sees here is one access to the development and five access points to Rt. 29 North. This property is very shallow and is owned by a person who is in the business of speculating in real estate and he can sell it to whoever wants to buy it, and is not going to be concerned about serving Hollymead.. The property will be sold to the highest bidder. If there was not already such a tremendous amount of commercial on Rt. 29, October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) l? or if there was a proffer that limited the kinds of commercial uses, he would feel inclined to support it. He does not think this proposal is ultimately oriented to the Hollymead community which was the rationale for showing this area as commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Cooke said she does not think this particular application is going to take any traffic off of Rt. 29 North nor will any other business development of a service nature. If the County has this area with service-oriented businesses on it, it will certainly keep the traffic moving along 29 North and they are not going to stop at the gas stations and the convenience stores further down Rt. 29 where the bottle neck in the traffic is. She sees this as a means of keeping rush hour traffic flowing. She has no problem with develop. ing the area in a service capacity. Mr. Bowie said he thinks Mrs. Cooke is right when she pointed out there are a lot of other areas besides Hollymead, and this will help reduce the traffic. Mr. St. John said he has a problem with this proffer. He feels that at some point down the road what is happening here is going to be unintelligible, if it is ever drawn into question. He questions whether Proffer No. 2 complies with the Code. The Code states that conditional zoning, the rezoning itself must give rise to the need for the condition. When the piece of land is eliminated from the rezoning that will use this proffered access, he does not see how this rezoning can give rise to the need for Proffer No. 2 and the proffered access onto Proffit Road. Furthermore there are some gaps. When Mr. Smith was asked if he had authority to agree that these other proffers are still in effect for the 17+ acres instead of the larger tract, he responded "I think I have". That is not an unequivocal statement and it is not binding on the principals. Mr. Henley asked if that could be made a condition? Mr. Bowie said the motion is to include the proffer. Mr. Lindstrom said the only way to condition the rezoning is on the proffer. If the proffer is not offered by someone with authority, is the rezoning without conditions? Mr. St. John said with respect to Proffer No. 2, when Mr. Smith was asked if 92 is still in there, Mr. Smith said yes, provided it can be amended if it does not suit a future owner. Mr. St. John said these questions are not answerable unless this proffer is amended in writing to fit what is now being done. There is a sequence in writing that is opposite to the verbal sequence concerning the entrances. To make a legible record, the proffer should be rewritten to fit what is being done and signed by all the owners. Mr. Agnor said there are four proffers in the one letter. He asked if the Board could accept Proffers No. 1, No. 3 and No. 4 and not accept Proffer No. 2 rather than rewriting. A proffer does not have to be accepted when it is offered. Mr. St. John said it is his understanding that the Board wanted that proffer in and Mr. Smith said that was agreeable to him provided it was understood it could be amended later if good reasons were shown. Mr. Lindstrom said it would be safer to have another proffer signed by the owners or a written statement of authority that Mr. Smith can act on the behalf of the owners to amend the proffer as he has indicated he believes he can do. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. St. John if the motion passes accepting the proffer and the owners say they do not want to do the proffer, does that nullify the motion. Mr. St. John said that would nullify the motion, but if the owners accept it for now and proceed and several years from now the owners do not want to comply with one of the proffers, then the owners cannot be made to give up what they have done. The owners would be able to go into court and say they never agreed to the proffer or Mr. Smith never had authority to do it; he said, "I think I have the authority." The burden would be on the Board to enforce the condition. The proffers were signed as a basis for rezoning 37 acres. If Mr. Smith can give the Board an unequivocal statement "Yes, I have authority to bind the principals to the proffer," then that is different. Mr. Fisher said that is putting Mr. Smith in a terrible position, because what is being offered by the County in the way of a rezoning is a lot different from what the owners signed. Mr. St. John said if Mr. Smith has not expressly consulted his principals about this change, then he does no~ see how Mr. Smith can say he thinks he have the authority to agree. Mr. Tucker said if the owners disagree with this proffer then he feels they would come back to this Board through the Planning Commission to amend the proffer first before going to court. It seems that the issue would be discussed at that time rather than trying to resolve it tonight. Mr. St. John said he feels everybody should do this with eyes open as to what the potential problems are. Mr. Way said he has no problem supporting the motion assuming that everybody is in agreement with the proffer. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to defer action on the motion until next week's meeting to allow the representative of the applicant to clarify his status and come back with a proffer that has been signed by the owners that reflects what his agreement and understanding is of what this Board is doing. He said he is not going to support the main motion, but it seems that rather than denying the motion, the applicants should have a chance to get it clear. Mr. Henley seconded Mr. Lindstrom's motion. Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion to defer ZMA-85-20 until the Board receives a clarification on the proffer. Mr. Smith said he understands what the Board is asking. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion to defer voting on ZMA-85-20 until October 9, 1985 to allow the representative of applicants to clarify his status or bring back a proffer signed by the applicants stating their agreement to the staff's recommendation that only 17.8 acres be rezoned, passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Smith addressed the Board and asked if the Board would defer ZMA-85-20 for two weeks because some of the principals are in Atlanta and it may be difficult to get this done in that length of time. Mr. Fisher asked for a motion to reconsider the former motion to defer ZMA-85-20 until October 16, 1985. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie and-carried by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. 18 October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to defer the vote on ZMA-85-20 until October 16, 1985. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Not Docketed: At 9:35 P.M. the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened into open session at 9:41 P.M. Mr. Fisher said that his interpretation of the last motion is that both ZMA-85-20 and ZMA-85-07 were deferred. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-85-66. Frederick F. Bainbridge, III. To allow for construction of a dam and lake on about 150 acres zoned RA. Existing use as farm land with residence, garage and barn. Located on north side of Rt. 250 West, about one-half mile east of Mechums River. Tax Map 57, parcels 79 and 79A. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1985.) (Mr. Lindstrom abstained from voting and then left the room because his law firm is representing the applicant.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Acreage: Zoning: Pond dam (30.3.5.2.2.1) +150 acres RA, Rural Areas Character of the Area: This property is developed with a dwelling, garage and barn. property is wooded to the rear with pasture to the front. The Staff Comment: The applicant proposes establishment of a fifteen (15) acre pond on a tributary of the Mechums River. The pond would not interfere with canoeing or otherwise be obtrusive. Due to location in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed, special conditions are warranted. Staff recommends approval subject to the following: o County Engineer approval of dam and construction activity in floodplain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; Watershed Management Official review of contractor specifications and grading permit to be guided by construction Best Management Practices as outlined by the Watershed Management Plan, the Comprehensive Plan and State Water Control Board; Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on on September 17, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-66 subject to the conditions as recommended by the staff. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Bain, Jr., representing the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Bain said Mr. Bainbridge is presently a resident of Atlanta, and plans to retire to Albemarle County. He intends to build a lake behind the house on the property. He has no future plans to do anything else to the property other than build an additional house. All plans have been submitted. The applicant has no problems with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Fisher asked if any part of the construc- tion, or the area to be flooded, will in any way affect the existing house on the property. Mr. Bain said it will not. The applicant intends to keep the house on the property. The top level of the edge of the lake is at approximately 520 elevation and the house is at approximately 530. Mr. Fisher said approval of this dam and pond in no way implies approval of any future development. Mr. Bain said he understands that. The appliCant has had offers to purchase some of the land, but he does not intend to sell any of it. With no one else present to speak for or against this application, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie then offered motion for approval of SP-85-66 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: w County Engineer approval of dam and construction activity in floodplain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; Watershed Management Official review of contractor specifications and grading permit to be guided by construction Best Management Practices as outlined by the Watershed Management Plan, the Comprehensive Plan and State Water Control Board; Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies. Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion. the following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-85-22. Peacock Hill. To rezone 2.5 acres zoned RA to PUD, an addition to the existing Peacock Hill PUD, and to amend 62 acres of the Peacock Hill PUD. Located on the north side of 1-64 accessed from Rt. 708 and Peacock Hill Drive. Tax Map 73, parcels 29E2, 29J, 29K, and part of parcels 29 and 73A-2-2. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1985.) (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 9:49 P.M.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Amend Peacock Hill PUD (Frank Folson Smith) History: Peacock Hill was originally approved in July 1973 subject to the following conditions (SP-253): 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Central well system and sewage disposal system to be approved under separate permits. Future village center to be deleted at this time. One dwelling unit per two acres. Density for cluster and single family over entire area. Present road system not to be approved as proposed, but to be considered when the site plan is presented for approval. A charter established for a citizens association is approved. Areas designated for playgrounds shall be implied on the site plan. Site Plan is to come to the Board of Supervisors before final approval. Approved total of 195 units. Plans for sewage disposal are to be for entire project and not just for individual clusters. As can be seen, Conditions 3 & 8 appear in conflict since Condition 3 would permit about 175 units while Condition 8 specifically authorizes 195 dwelling units. Of the 195 units, 41 were to be single-family dwellings and 145 units were to be located in seven (7) townhouse/ apartment clusters. Later, a proposed single-family lot was sold to an adjoining property owner and removed from the PUD. The number of approved units was subsequently reduced to 194 dwellings (SP-80-18). Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes addition of 2.5 acres to the PUD; change of dwelling unit type; redistribution of dwellings; and deletion of the proposed commercial area (i.e. - 50 unit inn and general store which constituted 'village center'. Condition 2 of SP-253 stated 'Future village center to be deleted at this time.'). Staff Comment: During development of the 1980 zoning map, previously approved planned developments were recognized and 'grandfathered' under prior conditions of approval. That is to say, so long as the development proceeded as originally planned, compliance with current regulation was not required (i.e. - 30,000 sq. ft. building site). However, substantial amendment of an approved planned development could be treated as 'new business' susceptible to current regulation. Staff has recommended in the past that these older developments be viewed in a manner similar to a non-conforming use. More specifically: Amendment should not be permitted which would make the development more 'non-conforming' to current planning regulation/efforts; Amendment which would bring the development more in keeping with current efforts should be received favorably. Under this context, staff offers the following comments: Aspects considered more 'non-conforming': a) b) The proposal is for 196 units as compared to current approval of 194 units. Staff would recommend, in view of the addition of 2.5 acres, that a total of 195 units would be appropriate. Peacock Hill enjoys a higher density than surrounding properties; Nine double-frontage lots are proposed along Route 708 with an average lot width of about 200 feet. To offset 'strip' development effect, an area of open space should be provided along Route 708 or at a minimum, a 'landscape protective' easement as has been done on other lots in the development. Whether open space or easement, this area should be planted in trees. Setback from Route 708 should be increased to at least 35 feet. (a Zoning Ordinance requirement). Aspects considered more 'conforming': a) b) c) A reduction in the number of proposed cluster units and conversion to single-family detached units. This is considered more consistent with the intended character of the rural areas; Deletion of the request for commercial usage (i.e. - 50 unit inn and general store); Provision of two drainfield locations on individual single-family lots. October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) In addition to the foregoing, the following matters should be addressed at this time: Roads: Condition 4 of SP-253 stated that the 'present road system not to be approved at this time, but to be considered when site plan is presented for approval'. As originally planned, the development was to be served by a combination of public and restricted roads (a restricted road was a public right-of-way with the road privately maintained). Currently, the County Engineer has recommended that 'this amendment indicates the use of private roads in an area where there seems to be no topographic or environmental justification for favoring a lesser road standard than a public road would require'. Under current require- ments, a private road serving more than twenty lots must meet Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards. Staff would recommend that Peacock Drive be continued as a state road (as originally planned) past Sections 6, 3, and 7 to intersect with Turkey Ridge Road. (Note: Mr. Tucker said this last statement is incorrect.) Property in the area has already been sold and, therefore, Peacock Hill Drive should not be extended as a State road.) Additionally a public road should be provided to serve Section 6 (34 units). Private roads, meeting current standards, should be considered for Sections 3, 5, and 7. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented that the approved road plans for Peacock Drive have a note indicating that additional pavement would be added at the time the development reached 102 housing units. Staff recommends a condition be added to the PUD to this effect. Water and Sewer: Ail lots are to be served by a central water system. Cluster lots are to be served by multi-unit drainfields while single-family lots would be served by individual septic system. Staff offers the following comment: e The Albemarle County Service Authority Board has requested that central water systems be designed in accordance with Service Authority standards in the event the same are submitted for Service Authority operation/ownership. The County Engineer has recommended County Engineering approval of the central water system including witnessing of well testing; Once 50 connections are made to the well system, a public utility status could be granted by the State Corporation Commission; Location of all existing tanks, drainfields, and sewer lines serving cluster lots should be field verified to insure that tanks and drainfields are not located in proposed lots or other areas for development. Likewise easements should be provided for access to sewer lines on private property. Among other things, Section 8.5.1(i) requires a statement from the applicant to 'proceed with the proposed development according to regulations existing when the map amendment creating the PD district is approved, and with such modifications as are set by the Board of Supervisors and agreed to by the applicant at the time of amendment'. Staff recommends that such agreement include the following: e · e Approval is for a maximum of 195 dwelling units in locations and densities as generally depicted on the Application Plan; Building setback from Route 708 to be not less than 35 ft. Planning Commission to approve method of landscape buffering at time of subdivision plat approval; The road serving Section 6 shall be constructed to Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation standards with development of twenty (20) dwellings or more. The Commission may require the road to be dedicated to public use. Peacock Drive to be upgraded in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation comment of August 16, 1985 at time of approval of an aggregate of 102 dwelling units or more; All lots to be served by one or more central well systems designed in accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority standards and approved by the County Engineer including witnessing of well testing. Location of all existing septic tanks, septic drainfields and appurtenant sewer lines serving cluster lots shall be verified in the field to insure that all tanks and drainfields are not located on proposed lots or other areas for development. Easements for sewer line maintenance shall be noted for areas subject to private ownership; Submittal of three (3) rewLsed copies of the Application Plan reflective of Conditions 1-6 shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development in accordance with Section 8.5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 17, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-85-22 subject to the seven conditions as recommended by staff. Mr. Fisher asked if any evidence was presented at the Planning Commission meeting as to the location of the multi-unit sewer drainfields. Mr. Tucker said the Health Department has records of the locations. They are basically all in the common October 2~ 1985 (Regular Niqht Meetinq) open space. The concern that staff, had, since there are now single family lots, the staff wanted to insure that some of the drainfields did not extend over into those areas that were originally planned for cluster development. Mr. Fisher said it does not appear to to be enough land left to cover the large drainfields for all the cluster units up the hill. Mr. Tucker said he does not have a map with him tonight to verify that, but it can be checked to be sure the drainfields were not located in areas that are now proposed for single-family lots. Mr. Fisher asked the normal setback for other properties on this road. Mr. Tucker replied it is 75 feet for a front setback. Mr. Fisher noted that the backs of the units will only be 35 feet from the road, instead of the fronts at 75 feet. Mr. Tucker said that is the minimum setback. He said the applicants have indicated that they wil% consider a greater setback so may be willing to offer an amended condition. The ordinance requires that the setbacks of the adjoining properties must be complied with. Normally with a PUD the setbacks are determined at the time of review by the Planning Commission and Board. In this instance, because the land is along the perimeter of the property, the adjoining land setbacks must be complied with. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board is being asked to approve all of this as an amendment to the plan and asked from what areas the other units will be taken that are proposed to be built in this area. The applicants have the right to 194 units now and this proposal raises that number by just one unit. Mr. Tucker said the area was originally proposed to be commercial, but was never approved. The applicants are asking to shift some of the units that were originally shown in clusters to this new area for single-family use. The overall density will be reduced. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the project is built out. Mr. Tucker replied to a large extent. There are still some vacant lots and the rest of the land is basically platted. Mr. Fisher said this new amendment to the PUD will drastically change the appearance of the whole area because there is both basically an open scenic view from 1-64 and from Rt. 708. Mr. Tucker said by proposing single-family lots, it will take up more land because they propose to put the drainfields on the individual lots just like in a conventional subdivision. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is assumed that the drainfields serving the existing development are in the common areas. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Smith, the applicant, addressed the Board. He stated the applicant has agreed to the suggestions by the staff and Planning Commission. This basic request is to include a piece of property located on the lower southeastern section of the Peacock Hill area, that currently is a platted 2.5 acre lot, into Peacock Hill in order to enhance its conformance with the association guidelines and Peacock Hill standards. The applicant is also withdrawing a previous 1973 request to build a 50 unit inn along with commercial space along Rt. 708, because the development of the County, the economic conditions, and the guidelines to the 1980 Zoning Ordinance revisions states that this does not make planning sense. The applicant would like to replace this with estate-type single family lots served by internal roads, with no houses fronting along Rt. 708. This new plan conforms better to the 1980 Zoning Ordinance for economic and market conditions. Also, single-family lots are selling better in the County. Since this subdi- vision was first started in 1973, a little over 100 lots have been platted. There have been about 51 houses built in 12 years. This plan is conforming to an idea established by the Board and Planning Commission in the early 1970's toward open space planning and more environmentally-oriented development in the County. Although there has been a demand to orient more towards detached housing, they have still dedicated 90 acres of common ground and have another 18 acres proposed, so there will be 105 acres of common space dedicated permanently to the Peacock Hill Community Association in open space which is a tremendous asset to both the County and Association. In response to Mr. Fisher's comments about visibility from the roads, the lots on section 7, 3 and 6 are 75 feet above 1-64. Any building site would be about 300 feet back from 1-64 with heavy vegetation. None of these houses will be seen in the summer time, perhaps some will be visible in the winter. Along Rte 708, some of the houses in section 5 could be visible. This particular plan was ~ to the Board of Directors of the Peacock Hill Community Association on September 14. The Board unanimously found no objection to the plan. On September 30 the plan was brought up at the Community Association meeting and a number of people expressed concern about the units that would be built along Rt. 708, with their back yards viSible from Rt. 708. He was not present to tell them that the applicant had already agreed with the Planning Commission to increase the setback and develop landscape screening along Rt. 708 so the rear of the houses would be private and visibility screened from the road. In addition, the backs of the houses in Peacock Hill are as attractive as the fronts. There are community regulations as far as the kinds of vehicles that can be parked there, laundry hanging out and anything that might be offensive to 1985 County residents driving along Rt. 708. Mr. Smith said he hopes that a continuous screen of ferns, landscaping and fencing to totally screen these houses would be developed. In reference to the drainfields, they are also a concern of the applicant. There are no drainfields on any of the proposed lots, with the exception of lot 7. They have asked the surveyor to plat lots so that they do not develop an area that has not easement for access and maintenance. Mr. Carl Berman, manager of Peacock Hill Community Association, and Peacock Hill Service Company, is present to answer any questions. Mr. Bob McKee, engineer and planner, is also present. Mr. Fisher asked how many units are hooked up to these central septic tanks. Mr. Smith said there are three central septic tanks with a maximum of 12 units on each tank. In section 1, in the Turkey Ridge Road area above Section 6, there is an existing system with 12 units that has been operating effectively for almost 10 years. In section 2, there are two areas, one with a system designed for 12 units but which currently only has four units hooked into it, and then an additional unit at the end of Big Oak Road just above section 7 that currently has seven units hooked to it. So there are three with a maximum of 36 units. Each has two sets of drainfields and there is an alternating siphon that periodically fills up and switches over to the other drainfield. The applicant doubled the amount of drainfield area than would normally be needed. The only other additional large drainfield foreseen would be in section 6, a twenty acre parcel where they still anticipate building a cluster some day. Mr. Fisher asked if there is enough land left to do that. Mr. Smith replied yes. There is a tremendous amount of land there whick is most adaptable to drainfields. The average lot size in section three is a little over two acres, in section seven the lots are from one acre to one and one-half acres, and in section five there are between one acre and two acres. They have adhered to a current guideline of a minimum o'f a 40,000 square foot lot. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Smith if there is October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) enough water for 195 units. Mr. Smith said yes. The wells have already been drilled. There are only two wells connected at present. This is an automatic system that operates and charges one well to pump to the two elevated tanks up on the mountain, and then automatically switches to the other well. However, there are three backup systems. Mr. Smith said the building setback from Rt. 708 will be increased from 25 feet to 35 feet. Within the Community Association there are landscape and site plan ordinances with specific guidelines which are judiciously enforced. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Smith if this plan affects the recreation center shown on the original plan. Mr. Smith said the recreation center will not be affected. It is 80 acres that have already been dedicated. It will be a a passive recreation center. The residents are against any clubhouse being built. With no one else present to speak for or against this application, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher commented when he first reviewed this application he did not think he could support it, but Mr. Smith has "sweet talked" him through it again.~ Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approved ZMA-85-22 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: Approval is for a maximum of 195 dwelling units in locations and densities as generally depicted on the Application Plan; Building setback from Route 708 to be not less than 35 feet. Planning Commission to approve method of landscape buffering at time of subdivision plat approval; The road serving Section 6 shall be constructed to Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation standards with development of twenty (20) dwellings or more. The Commission may require the road to be dedicated to public use; Peacock Drive to be upgraded in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation comment of August 16, 1985 at time of approval of an aggregate of 102 dwelling units or more served by Peacock Drive; All lots to be served by one or more central well systems designed in accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority standards and approved by the County Engineer including witnessing of well testing; Location of all existing septic tanks, septic drainfields and appurtenant sewer lines serving cluster lots shall be verified in the field to insure that all tanks and drainfields are not located on proposed lots or other areas for development. Easements for sewer line maintenance shall be noted for areas subject to private ownership; Submittal of three (3) revised copies of the Application Plan reflective of Conditions 1-6 shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development in accordance with Section 8.5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-85-23. Ivy Land Company. To rezone about 10.2 acres of a 21.433 acre parcel from C-1 to PD-SC. Located on east side of and will be an addition to Pant·ps Shopping Center at Riverbend. Property is accessed off Rt. 250E and Riverbend Drive. Tax Map 78, parcel 17A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1985.) Mr. Tucker said a letter was received today from the Ivy Land Company requesting withdrawal of this application. Mrs. Cooke offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to allo~ withdrawal of ZMA-85-23 without prejudice as requested by the applicant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Amend the Albemarle County Code Section 2.1-4 to include in the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Ordinance subsection (c) creating the "Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District" consisting of 764.75 acres located on the east and west sides of Rt. 20 North, and on the north and south sides of Rt. 612 near Eastham. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report to the Board: "Report of Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Regardin9 the Proposed Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District. On July 9, 1985 the Advisory Committee met to consider the application for a proposed Eastham A/F District located on Route 20 North at the intersection of Routes 612 and 610. Present at the meeting were committee members: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Sr. Mr. Bruce Hogue Mrs. Joan H. Jones Mr. Steven Murray Col. William R. Washington October 2, 1985 _(Regular Night Meeting) Also present were Mr. Gordon Yager, Area Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, Ms. Peggy Van Yahres, representing the applicant and, Ms. Mary Joy Scala, representing the Planning Department. Absent were committee members: Mr. Joseph T. Henley, Jr. Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. Mrs. Babs Huckle Statement of Findinq: The Advisory Committee unanimously recommended that the proposed district be accepted as submitted, based on a report by Mr. Yager regarding the soils and existing agricultural and forestal use of the land. Soils and Existing Land Use: Mr. Yager prepared the following facts: Land Use is 48% open 52% woodland. Land Capability Classes are: Class I 0% II 23% III 21% IV 31% V 0% VI 20% VII 5% VIII 0% Suitability For Row Crops Hay Pasture Woodlands X X X X X X X X X X X X See attached sheet which describes the capability classes (on file). Mr. Yager noted that the soils within the proposed district are fairly representative of the County as a whole, but that compared to the Scottsville area the soils are not as well suited to cultivation. Committee Comments: 1. There is a utility line (AT&T, 100' right-of-way) which traverses the properties of Bigelow and Shaw-Kennedy. The committee ques- tioned whether the A/F district would pose a conflict with possible expansion of the utility. The committee concluded that any requirements (such as an environmental study or public hearing) which were imposed as a result of the A/F district would be beneficial to the area. The committee questioned whether there had been any public opposition to the proposed district. It was determined that there had not been. The committee discussed the effect of the district on adjacent properties. Staff noted that the district would have no effect on developments which were by right, but could have an effect on proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit. Regarding public input, the committee decided that the committee purpose was only to determine the agricultural and forestal' significance of the proposed district, and that the public could be heard at the two future public hearings. Concern was expressed because there had been a subdivision of part of the Worthington tract in the past, that owners should be aware that they can leave out part of their properties if they so desire. The committee felt it would be better not to include the entire property rather than request a withdrawal from the district after it has been established. e The committee had no problem with the shape or contiguity of the parcels, which are divided by Rt. 20 and Rt. 612. The committee discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the district to the applicants. The committee expressed concern that the property owners may not understand what they are getting into, and requested that the Planning Commission explain the law to the applicants in writing. e The consensus of the committee was that the proposal is a reasonable request; that the land is conducive to agricultural and forestal uses and meets the guidelines for acceptance as a district; and that the proposed district represents a commitment to agriculture. The committee commended the applicants for making such a commitment. Staff Comment: Land Use Taxation: Ail the parcels except 63-1A (13.0 acres) currently qualify for the land use tax assessment. The Real Estate Department lists the land uses as follows: October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) 63-1 63-1A 63-1A1 63-2 63-4 63-26 63-27 63-28 pasture, livestock, forest no agricultural use - "bushhogged" pasture, two-acre house site forest hay, pasture, livestock, forest forest crops, pasture, livestock, forest, two-acre house site, one acre non-qualifying crops, pasture, livestock, forest, four-acre house site, one acre non-qualifying, fours acre non-qualifying, one acre radar site. The proposed district consists of all the parcels owned by the three applicants in this area. Staff has no problem with the inclusion of all lands as proposed, regardless of the current land use tax status. A recent staff report on the adjacent property to the north estimated that 67 percent of the land within a one mile radius is currently under the land use tax program. Existing Development: The same report estimates that only five percent of the land area within a one mile radius is in parcels of five acres or less. Most of the smaller lots are located to the south along Rt. 20. Redbud Subdivi- sion contains twenty - two acre lots and is located adjacent to Parcel 1, on the west side of Rt. 20. The proposed district is located about 3.5 miles north of the Pantops Urban Area and 3.5 miles south of the Stony Point village. Eastern Bypass: One of the alternatives for an eastern bypass proposed that Rt. 20 North in the area of this district be improved for use of a bypass for Rt. 29. It has been determined that any form of eastern bypass would not appreciably relieve congestion on Rt. 29 North, and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation recommended that no further consideration be given to such a route. Comprehensive Plan: This proposed district is shown as part of Rural Area II. Land in active agricultural, horticultural or forestal use is recommended for a density of one d.u./five acres. Important farmland is recommended for a density of one d.u./10 acres. The proposed district is consistent with Goals 1 and 2, Natural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan: Summary Staff concurs with the Advisory Committee that the proposed district is appropriate for this area, and recommends approval as submitted." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 13, 1985, unanimously accepted the Advisory Committee's recommendation to approve the proposed district as submitted. Mr. Tucker said the ordinance advertised is to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4 of the Albemarle County Code known by adding subsection (c) creating the "Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District". Mr. Tucker said this proposal encompasses 764 acres. The public hearing was opened. Mr. B. J. Shaw-Kennedy, one of the applicants, addressed the Board. He said the applicants are doing this because they love Albemarle County and want to help preserve a "green belt". If this could be done in perpetuity, he would like for that to be done, but there is a statute of limitations on time. This does devaluating the land, but they want to keep this "green belt" and hope that other people in the area will follow suit. Mr. George Worthington, IV, one of the applicants, addressed the Board and said he just wants to second the previous statement. He said he knows it is a shock for the Board to have someone come and say they like the area just as it is and wants to keep it intact. He said they want to look at their green acres as long as possible. With no one else to speak for or against this ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he is glad to see people in Albemarle County thinking this way and he supports this concept. Mr. Bowie said he had two telephone calls supporting this request and he also supports it. Mr. Way said there was a committee comment made that the property owners may not know what they are getting into. He asked if anyone communicated with the property owners. Mr. Tucker said he understands the comments were made to the applicants. Mr. Way said these are farm operations which are unpleasant to a community. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt, an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4 of the Albemarle County Code known as the "Agricultural and Forestal Districts Ordinance" by adding subsection (c) creating the "Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District". BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Albemarle County Code known as the "Agricultural and Forestal Districts" Ordinance be amended and reenacted by adding subsection (c) creating the "Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District", described as follows: (c) The district known as. the "Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax Map 63, parcels 1, lA, 1Al, 2, 4, 26, 27 and 28. October 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) AYES: NAYS: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Ordinance to add Section 8.1-5 to the Albemarle County Code relating to the use of credit cards for payment of taxes. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1985.) Mr. Agnor summarized the request from the Director of Finance for this ordinance. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against this ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Albemarle, as amended, by adding Section 8.1-5 relating to the use of credit cards for payment of taxes. Roll was called and the following ordinance was adopted by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. FiSher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that the Code of Albemarle is amended by adding Section 8.1-5 reading as follows: Section 8.1-5. Use of credit card in payment of taxes. The Director of Finance is authorized to accept payments of local taxes by use of a credit card. In addition to any penalties and interest, the Director of Finance shall add to such payment a sum not to exceed four per centum of the amount of the tax, penalty and interest paid, as a service charge for the acceptance of such card. Such service charge shall not exceed the percentage charged to the County bY the credit card company. Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: August 7, 1985. Mr. Way offered motion to approve the August 7, 1985 minutes. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the'following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ~Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher welcomed Mr. John T. P. Horne, the newly employed Director of Planning and Community Development, to his first Board meeting. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjournment. At 10:35 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.