Loading...
1985-09-04Set~.ber 4~ 1985 (Re~~eeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on September 4, 1985, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room ~7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire 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; and Deputy County Executive and Interim Director of Planning, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 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. The following item was received as information. Item No. 4.1. Notice from State Department of Education dated August 19, 1985, noting approval of a Chapter 1, Education Consolidation and Improvement Act grant for FY '85-86 in the amount of $353,701. This was accompanied by a memorandum dated August 30, 1985 from Garland M. Canter, Jr., Director of Elementary Education and Federal Programs, stating that this program supplements basic instruction by providing target students in eligible elementary schools with an average of 30 minutes of additional reading instruction and 20 minutes of additional math instruction each day. This additional help is provided by 10 teachers and five aids paid with federal funds. Mr. Bowie requested additional information be provided on how many students were involved in this program and how the program works. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-85-42. James K. Barr, Estate. Allow for 28 lots on a 241 acre parcel zoned RA. Property located at northeast intersection of Rt. 20 North and Rt. 610 (deferred from August 21, 1985). Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Division of 241 acres into 28 lots with an average lot size of 8.6 acres (Section 10.5 of the Zoning Ordinance) Zoning: RA, Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 63, Parcel 30, is located on the northeast intersection of Route 20 North and Route 610. Rivanna Magisterial District. Character of the Area: This property is mostly wooded, rolling land. Generally speaking, other properties in the area are large tracts in agricultural or forestal usage. The proposed Eastham Agricultural/Forestal District is adjacent to the south and west of this parcel. A more developed area is located approxi- mately 0.3 miles south, at Eastham. By right, the property in question could be divided into 16 lots, 11 of which would be 21.0 acres or greater. Therefore, this is a request for 12 additional lots and decreased lot size. Review of this application will focus on both aspects. Comprehensive Plan A great majority of this property is composed of soils classified as 1, 2, 3 or 4 by the Soil Conservation Soil Survey; which soils are considered important farmlands according to legislation enacted by the General Assembly. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a maximum density of one dwelling per 10 acres for important farmland. This petition proposes an 8.6 acre average lot size. In regard to a development of this scale, the Comprehensive Plan recommends as follows: Small residential developments in rural locations should be limited to small developments not exceeding 20 dwelling units. Development on internal public or private roads should be encouraged. This standard is in response to one of the County's major concerns which is the incremental encroachment of strip residential development on the open and rural character of Albemarle's country and scenic roads. This standard also serves as a basic safety measure by reducing access points to public roads and reducing side friction. Conventional developments are recommended at a scale from 20 to 75 dwelling units. Such developments should be internally oriented and served by new public roads. Conventional developments should be restricted, to designated village, community and urban areas as recommended in the Land Use Plan. 56O September 4, 1985 (Regul~~Meeting) The Comprehensive Plan also recommends that the village scale of develop- ment begin with a population of 100 persons. This development would have an estimated population of 75 persons. Route 20 North is recommended for scenic designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has attempted to fulfill several goals of the Comprehensive Plan. These goals as outlined in the applicant's submittal letter are as follows: - internal roads to serve homes - minimum subdivision along scenic roads - use of natural elements to organize plan (lots divided along hedgerows, streams; roads on ridgelines and along contours as much as possible; forest edges to divide lots) - a lake for a recreational amenity and improvement of stream quality - lots with open land of sufficient size to qualify for land use taxation if fertility of land improved. Special Use Permit Criteria The following is a review of the proposed Barr Subdivision for appropriate- ness of development as set forth in the eight criteria of the RA district: (The applicant has responded to criteria 1 through 4; response listed in parenthesis after staff comment). 1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation .... The Barr property is approximately 241 acres of land at the intersec- tion of Rt. 20 North and Rt. 610. It is very hilly land, and approximately one-half of the site has slopes over 15 percent. Approximately 18 percent is over 25 percent and the maximum slopes reach from 40 to 50 percent. There is very little land under seven percent. Most of the steep areas (15 percent and over) are forested. Some of these wooded areas were open forty to fifty years ago but because of the steep topography and resultant loss of topsoil, it was abandoned and is returning to woodland as mixed pine/hardwood growth. Much of the open land is also over 15 percent slope and is covered with scrub growth. There is evidence of soil erosion in these steep fields. Forests cover approximately 66 percen= of the property. In the last feW years, these woods have been harvested for pine and mature hard- wood. The woods are now composed of-small to moderate sized hardwood and pine. Tulip, poplar, hickory, sycamore, maple and oak predominate. Tulip poplar, by far the most dominant species, will reach economic maturity in about twenty years. Present and projected timber market trends clearly show that poplar is and will be in oversupply. Consequently, the timber resource of this property is much less signi- ficant than other areas of the county which produce hardwoods such as oak and ash. In summary, steepness and the recent harvest of timber restrict the use of 'this property for agriculture and forestry. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production . . . All of the soils are highly erodible. The two potentially good agricultural soils (Rabun and Myersville) are found mostly on slopes that are too steep to produce crops and because of their erodibility, must be used with great care for pasture. In fact, the first portion of the site now contains eroded Rabun (%54). These fields used to be Rabun (%49) which is good topsoil, but because of the steepness and past agricultural use, it has eroded away. The Rabun soil found in the forest are good soils (%49) but because of the general steepness of these areas, the timber must be harvested with care. Myersville is a moderately good timber soil and Catoctin is fair to poor. SOILS Erodibility% Factor Rabun (%49) .32 (Rabun %54, is eroded-loss topsoil) Myersville (%42/142) .37 Catoctin (%143) .32 Drainfield Capability Moderate Moderate Severe Agriculture%% Forestry%%% 0,6%/120 good 90/100 good 6-10%/100 Fair 7-15%- no planting 0-7%/135 7-15%/120 good 0-7%/85 fair 85/95 fair 70/70 poor September 4, 1985 (Regular~Meeting) o (Because of the topography of Albemarle County, only a small percentage Of soils would be classified as prime agricultural lands, though the soil quality may be identical to prime soils. Prime soils range in slope from 0 to 7%. Beyond 7% these same soils are classified as important agricultural lands indicating a high suitability for grazing, pasture and forestry uses. On this property, the prime cropland is mostly of small size or located on a hill. Approximately 75% of the property is classes 2, 3, and 4. While these soil types are not listed as prime soils, Soil Conservation Service does consider them important agricultural lands/important forestry lands (slope less than 15%) and important forestry lands (slopes greater than 15%). The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses .... The farm stopped being an active farm in 1961 when the Barr family sold the farmhouse and fifty acres. Since then that fifty acres has been further subdivided by the new owner into four lots. Another three acre parcel was subdivided by the Barr family in 1974. The Barr family has not used the open land for farming in many years and are not paying land use taxation on it. They have harvested the timber from the wooded area in recent years. (This property has enjoyed preferential land use taxation based on forestal use since 1975 for 140 of 241 acres, or 58% of the parcel, of the land qualifying for forestry land use, 62 acres (or 26% of the parcel) is rated as excellent, 46 acres (19%) is rated as good, and 32 acres (13%) is rated as fair. From 1975 until 1983, the remaining acreage (96.16) was receiving agricultural land use taxation. In 1983, the County Real Estate Department's inspection revealed that agricul- tural land use was not being maintained. Therefore, the property owner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County Real Estate Department that legitimate, continuous forestry use has been maintained.) 4o If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect .... The site has been designed to preserve the rural character of the site and to locate few homes near the proposed Agricultural and Forestal District. The most visible area is the front bordering the two roads. Three large lots are located here to preserve the landscape units of fields surrounded by forest or hedgerow. Due to careful siting, the houses will not be visible, from Rt. 20, a scenic highway, and neighbors (except for the one house on the lot off of Rt. 610 which will be only visible from the adjacent existing house). In the central area the houses are located in the woods. In the open area there, the houses are located along wood edges and ridge lines to vary and screen house sites from each other and the surrounding neighbors. The remote wooded areas contain larger lots because of the steepness .of the terrain and these, of course, will be completely screened. (The majority of land within a mile of this property enjoys preferen- tial land use taxation for either agricultural or forestal usage. Of the 3,250 acres in the area, 2,180 acres or 67% are under land use tax. Therefore, staff opinion is that this property is in an active agricul- tural area.) In regard to the effect of development on the character of the area, staff offers the following: As discussed during the development of the Zoning Ordinance, develop- ment in an agricultural area has direct and indirect effects. Among direct effects are: the vandalism of crops and equipment and the destruction of livestock by children and pets; the desire to regulate routine farm activities by residents of the development (i.e., spraying of pesticides and herbicides; spreading of lime and manure; proximity of livestock to residential areas, commercial timbering activities) and high land prices which make it difficult for existing farmers to expand and new farmers to locate in the area. Indirect effects are generally related to the expectation of continued development in the area, resulting in the impression that agricultural land is in transition. Indirect effects include: reduced or marginal production; disinvestment in equipment, livestock and other aspects of farming requiring large and/or long term investment and idling of farmland. Development in an agricultural and forestal area can change the character of the area, not only in the immediate vicinity but in remote areas. Increased residential traffic on rural roads can result in hazardous conflicts with slower moving tractors, fruit trucks and logging trucks. New or expanded utility corridors through active farms may be required to serve new development. September 4, 1985 (Regular ~tMeeting) Staff is not suggesting that the proposed Barr Subdivision would generate all of these negative effects. However, the subdivision would introduce the casual elements of these effects to an area which has not previously experienced such development. These potential direct and indirect effects of development in an agricul- tural area could receive special attention in this case due to the proximity of this property to the 764.75 acres proposed for Eastham Agricultural/Forestal Conservation District. Sections 15.1-1511 and 15.1-1512 of the Code of Virginia discuss the review of land within and adjacent to agricultural/forestal districts. 'Land use planning decisions or ordinances enacted pursuant thereto affecting parcels of land adjacent to any district created pursuant to this chapter shall take into account the existence of such district and the purposes of this chapter, which are to encourage the maintenance of farming and forestry'. Where development occurs in identified agricultural and forestal conservation areas, regulations should be flexible to permit site locations that minimize interference with agricultural and forestal operations that use marginally productive land, and that cause a minimum loss of productive agricultural and forestal acreage. Six lots (number may be reduced) are shown as accessing off Rt. 610, which will also be utilized by an adjacent parcel in the proposed Agricultural/ Forestal District. It should be noted that there is sufficient road frontage on Rt. 610 for the parcel in question to have at least the same number of lots on Rt. 610 through 'by right development'. All proposed 28 lots and the properties in the proposed Agricultural/Forestal District will utilize Rt. 20. Due to the steepness of the land, it is not as well suited for row crops as for hay, pasture and forests; however, in those uses it may be productive. (Note: At this point, Mr. Tucker stated the applicant has made some minor changes to the plan which the Planning Commission reviewed. One change includes the continuation of a road downward to intersect with Rt. 610. By doing this, the applicant reduced the plan by one lot that would access directly to Rt. 610. Mr. Fisher asked if this-amended application, is different from the plan seen by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker replied that is correct. The road that was reviewed by the Planning Commission was a cul-de-sac and the applicant is now proposing that the road.be extended to Rt. 610 in order to give residents along Rt. 610 a better access out to Rt. 20.) Se The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas . . (The majority of land within a mile of this property is in lots of five acres or more; only five percent of the land area is in lots of five acres or less. Most of these lots are in two small concentrations about three-quarters of a mile north on Rt. 20 North. In addition, Redbud, a 20 lot subdivision approved in 1980 with 2.1 acre average lot size is about a mile to the south. This rural area of large tracts in mostly agricultural/ forestal use lies between two areas of small development. Therefore, subdivision development in the area has been limited and has been remote from this property. This property is not considered to be within a developed rural area.) The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers, .... (This property is located five miles northeast of the Pantops/250 East Urban Neighborhood 3, and 2.8 miles southwest of the Stony Point village. Therefore, this property is remote from proposed growth areas and supporting services.) The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements .... (The response time for the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Department would be approximately four to six minutes. The total projected enrollment from this development is 15 students, or seven more students than 'by right development'. The Education Department has commented 'If each unit houses two elementary students, Stony Point Elementary School would be overcrowded. Stone Robinson is at capacity. Therefore, we would have to build or redistrict Key West back to Greer. This would be breaking a promise to the Key West parents. Burley Middle School will have room. Albemarle is crowded at present, and the impact will be a higher pupil-teacher ratio.') 8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, .... (Traffic generated from this development would be about 200 vehicle trips per day. While this traffic increase would be slight in terms of current volumes on Rt. 20 North, the need for safety improvements would be aggravated. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented 'Rt. 610 is currently non-tolerable and this development would add to traffic on this road. The intersection of Rts. 610 and 20 North does not have adequate sight distance and an increase in traffic would add to this ~eptember 4, 1985 (Regular ~Meeting) existing problem.' 'The roads in this area do not have the best alignment and proper width and additional traffic will add to these problems. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the department does not support this special use permit.' Also, ~at the general proximity of the entrance shown on the plans, adequate sight distance does not exist.' To obtain adequate sight distance, cutting trees and grading a slope may be necessary on property other than the applicant's. Routes 610 and 612 intersect Rt. 20 on a curve within about 75 feet of each other. Free Bridge continues to be a limitation to additional traffic. No funds are yet slated for its improvement.) STAFF CO~ENT: SP-81-2, Richard E. Muller (Coldsprings) a request for 27 lots with an average 2.61 acres lot size on a parcel adjacent to the north of this petition, was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission on March 17, 1981, and was denied by the Board of Supervisors on May 20, 1981. Although the proposed average lot size was substantially less than that in SP-85-42, Barr Estate, staff can find nothing peculiar to the Barr proposal which would distinguish it from the Coldsprings special use permit. If the Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve SP-85-42, Barr Estate, they must distinguish this proposal from SP-81-2, Coldsprings which was proposed on adjacent property and denied. Staff has received two letters from an adjacent owner, Mr. Alden Bigelow, whose property is being considered for the Eastham AgricultUral/Forestal District. Mr. Bigelow cites the following reasons for objection: o Rt. 610 is inadequate and several owners refuse to dedicate additional right-of-way needed for improvement. o Additional traffic on Rt. 20 would aggravate existing traffic hazards. o Twenty-eight new wells might have a serious effect on the water- table. The Stony Point Road association is continuing to attempt to maintain the historic aspect of this rural area. The proposal is contrary to that effort. Staff opinion is that the Barr Estate Subdivision as proposed does not satisfy the RA criteria for granting a special use permit. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this petition. However, should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve SP-85-42, Barr Estate, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: There is an average lot size of 10.0 acres. The revised plan shall minimize access to Route 610. Planning Commission approval of pre- liminary plat for the entire project. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of sight distance for entrance on Route 20 and preliminary agreement for any sight easement or reservation of right-of-way necessary on land not owned by applicant, prior to Planning Commission review of preliminary plat. County Engineer approval of location of stub road. This road not to be built now, but to provide a future alternative access to Route 20. 4. Ail roads are to be public roads." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 16, 1985, unanimously recommended denial of the above noted petition because it did not feel the application meets the criteria for issuance of a special use permit in the RA district. Mr. Fisher said the question before the Board is not only the recommendations by staff and the Planning Commission, but whether or not this revised submittal is substantially different enough so that it should be referred back to the Planning Commission. Do the changes that have been made in the plan satisfy the concerns the Planning Commission had? Mr. Bowie said the primary objection of the Department of Highways and Transportation is related to Rt. 610. It seems to him this change in the road solves the problem by getting traffic out of the subdivision through a different route. Mr. Tucker said the revised plan will certainly improve the proposal, but ~the Highway Department is concerned about other people who live along Rt. 610. Mr. Lindstrom asked other than the above mentioned proposed change, is there any substantial change in the proposal from what was presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker replied there are no substantial changes. Mr. Lindstrom said the substance of the Planning Commission opposition was that the proposal~6e~s~n~ meet the special use permit conditions. Mr. Tucker replied that is what the Planning Commission commented on, not just the road. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Daniel deBettencourt, architect with Landow and deBettencourt, addressed the Board. Mr. deBettencourt stated that Landow and deBettencourt are architects responsible for several local projects, McGuffey Hill Condominiums, Church of the Incarnation, and the Central Place on the Downtown Mall in Charlottesville. These projects are mentioned because in every case the process they used was a participator process. This process respects the rights of neighbors and seeks out their opinion on projects. In March, Mr. deBettencourt was approached by Martin and Nancy Kates, heirs of James Barr, owner of the property. The Kates asked Mr. deBettencourt to evaluate alternatives for the develop- ment of the property and come up with a good, defensible plan for rural planning in Albemarle County. His first recommendation was to hire VanYahres Associates to perform a physiographic September 4, 1985 (RegularN~ Meeting) 565 in those areas of the County that did not have utilities and infrastructure for development. That was one of the major purposes of the Plan and the zoning that took the Board more than four years to put together effectively, as well as the protection of prime farmland. The staff report indicates that this is not prime farmland. The land has been qualified to the satisfaction of the real estate office staff as forestal land which receives the greatest public subsidy in the form of tax deferrals. The fact that the timber has been cut does not negate its' availability for forestal operations. He feels the Board needs to look beyond the specific details of an application to an overall pattern of development. The most recent reports he has heard from the Planning Department and the Planning Commission are that so far the effect of all the planning has not taken hold yet. One of the reasons is that at the time the Zoning Ordinance was adopted, the County had a surplus of approved subdivision lots plat to record that had not been developed which in effect provided more than the demand for rural lots that could be used in the next 15 or 20 years. For that very reason he does not see an immediate impact from these planning changes in rural areas, but eventually the County will see results. The Plan must be adhered to and pursued over a number of years to be effective and it is a plan for the future. In addition, he is concerned that if the Plan is dismantled on a piecemeal basis and the Board adds to the stock of rural subdivision lots, then the Board is putting further into the future the date when the planning will become effective. Given the fact that there is no other rural development of significance in this area, and the neighbors want to preserve their land in an agricultural/forestal district, the land has been historically used in an agricultural/forestry use, the land is far removed from all of the support for development that the Board has tried to build into the community areas, he cannot support the application. The Board needs to take a long-range view .on these types of applica- tions of the impact of allowing a small deviation here or there from the Plan which accumulates over a number of years. This is a pattern it seems the Board is considering. The application shows a significant increase in the number of dwellings, percentage wise, that can be permitted by right on this land. From that standpoint, approval would set a precedent. Obviously, from comments Mr. deBettencourt made, there are neighboring landowners that are looking to this decision to supply ammunition to support their applications, applications which in the past the Board has denied. The Board needs to remember the precedent they set as well as long-range implications for planning. Mr. Lindstrom then stated that he cannot support the application. Mr. Henley stated that he has a problem with starting to put subdivisions in the area. He does not believe the County should do that. After setting such a precedent, it would be hard to deny other applications in the area. Mr. Henley said he-does not think he can support the application. Mrs. Cooke said one of the concerns she has is what drilling more wells in the area might have on the water table. If the Board were to go ahead and approve the application, that will open the door for more surrounding developments in the area. Water might become a very serious issue in that area which will probably occur in the future anyway. The water situation must be considered carefully. The roads are still a concern. Highway funds are drying up. The County can barely afford the necessary road improvements on major highways. To increase traffic on a road that is presently nontolerable is asking for more trouble. Accepting this application will set a precedent for the area and only increase the.present problems. Mrs. Cooke stated that she does not think she can support the application. Mr. Way said he was not involved in the drafting of the Comprehensive Plan and the planning that occurred several years ago, but he personally does not have a problem with a ten-acre subdivision. He does not have a problem supporting the application. Mr. Bowie stated that he does not feel this Board is bound by previous Board actions. He said that in reply to an earlier statement by the Chairman, he feels it would be a waste of time to refer this application back to the Planning Commission. With a foregone knowledge of what the vote will be, and in order to put this matter to rest, he then moved approval of SP-85-42 with the following conditions recommended by the staff, and not to send the application back through the Planning Commission: 1, There be an average lot size of 10.0 acres. The revised plan shall minimize access to Route 610. Planning Commission approval of"pre- liminary plat for the entire project; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of sight distance for entrance on Route 20 and preliminary agreement for any sight easement or reservation of right-of-way necessary on land not owned by applicant, prior to Planning Commission review of preliminary plat; County Engineer approval of location of stub road. This road not to be built now, but to provide a future alternative access to Route 20: 4. All roads are to be public roads and taken into the State Secondary System. Mr. Way seconded the foregoing motion. Mrs. Cooke stated she does not have a problem~ with a ten-acre subdivision per se, but it is the precedent that will be set if the appli- cation i.s approved. There is no way to control the precedent once it's set. Water and highway funds are a problem, highway funds and she has a hard time imposing those hardships for future Boards to have to deal with. It is an obligation the Board has to look to the future and not to seize the moment. Mr. Lindstrom said he absolutely agrees with Mrs. Cooke's statements. As a brief remark to something Mr. Bowie just said, obviously no Board is tied to the decisions or policies of a prior Board, but that is the first time he has heard anyone on this Board indicate that the direction the Board took several years ago to preserve rural land was not the right decision. The problem is, for those who do not support the Plan, the incremental effect of a number of small decisions on planning is devastating. Each application may in and of itself be attractive and not generate a significant impact on the Plan, but all of these items must be reckoned with eventually and the Board does set a precedent. Every decision that the Board makes that deviates from that Plan is ammunition to use in the future to "shoot that plan down". Accumulatively, this is going in a direction about 180 degrees from what he feels the policy of the Board has been. Maybe, Mr. Bowie is September.~.~, 1985:(Regular ~i~tMeeting) correct and change should be made, but he does not agree. Mr. Bowie said it is not necessarily that he feels the Plan should be changed, but he continuously hears that the Boar should vote a certain way because the Board did certain things over a number of years. He just does not think it is reason enough to deny an application because someone in the past di something. Roll was then called on the motion and SP-85-42 was denied by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Way. Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. (Mr. Lindstrom abstained from voting on Agenda Item No. 6, SP-85-53, and Agenda Item No. 7, SP-85-54, because his firm represents the applicant. He left the room at this time.) Agenda Item No. 6. SP-85-53. Tom J. Curtis. To allow the subdivision of 37 single family residential lots. Total acreage of site is 284.11 acres zoned RA. Property located c south side of Rt. 616 at 1-64 interchange and adjacent to existing golf course. Tax Map 80, part of parcels 61, 8, 60A, 62, 70, 31, 8Z, and Tax Map 94, parcel 42. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 20 and August 27, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: To create 37 lots with an average acre lot size of 7.68 acres Acreage: 284.11 acres Zoning: RA, Rural Areas Location: Property is described as Tax Map 80, parts of parcels 61, 8, 8Z, 60A, 62, 70, and 31 and Tax Map 94, parcel 42. Property is located on the south side of Route 616 at the intersection of 1-64 interchange, adjacent to the existing golf course. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes the same number of lots as permitted by right, however, since a change of lot size is proposed, a special use permit is required. (Note: An nalysis of by-right development was presented to the Board which indicated a total of 63 parcels could be divided.) No redivision of the existing twenty-six lots is proposed. These lots, though not subject of this petition, will be discussed in this report in regard to utilities and other considerations. Subdivision Criteria: The eight criteria for subdivision by special use permit are directed primarily at increased development. In this particular case, the issue is whether +21-acre tracts should be maintained for future agricultural/ forestal purposes or whether a lesser lot size should be authorized. Therefore, staff analysis will focus on Criteria 1, 2, and 3 which deal with the suitability of the land for agricultural/forestal uses. This analysis is repeated from ZMA-84-20 Keswick Planned Unit Development: The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property ..... The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production .... The site consists of gentle slopes ranging from two to 15 percent. Areas along streams and bluffs consist of hilly and steep slopes with slopes in excess of 25 percent. The majority of soils on the site are Manteo channery silt loam. This is a very shallow soil with bedrock at 10 to 20 inches. The predominate land use, except for the golf course, is woodland of marginal quality. Due to the shallow depth of the soil and low fertility, the area is not considered to be high quality hardwood producing soil and agricultural potential is limited to primarily low grade pastureland. Septic limitations are severe due to depth to bedrock. 3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses .... The County land use records show that only three percent of the property is currently taxed under preferential land use taxation. In summary, this property-does not appear well-suited to agricultural/ forestal use, therefore, staff can determine no general public benefit in terms of maintaining larger tracts (i.e. - 21+ acres). Staff Comment During review of ZMA-84-20, Keswick PUD, issues were raised as to the physical ability of the property to support development. Due to these concerns, staff will address these issues, however, it should be emphasized that no increase of intensity of development is proposed under this petition. Roads: Access to the property is currently from Routes 731 and 744, both are non-tolerable roads. The applicant proposes to construct a public road to connect Club Drive, a private road, to Route 616 in the vicinity 567 September 4, 1985 (RegularN~ Meeting) ~ of the 1-64 interchange. The private roads provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance require the Planning Commission to find a public benefit to be served by permitting a private road (i.e. Club Drive) to intersect two public roads. Staff opinion is that~establishment of this connector road could offset or possibly reduce traffic to Routes 731 and 744. A negative aspect of this proposal may be increased traffic adjacent to four existing dwellings. Sewage disposal: Staff will recommend that, prior to subdivision approval, adequate area for two drainfields for each new lot be required. For the twenty-six existing lots, Section 4.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance states that 'no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, the use of which involves sewage disposal, without written approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement septic disposal fields adequate to serve such use.' The applicant could pursue alternate means of sewage disposal for the existing lots (i.e. - central sewer system is a use -by-right') or seek variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals from Section 4.1.6. Water: The applicant has proposed a central water system to serve all 26 existing lots and seven new lots northwest of Carroll Creek. Two wells located in the southeasternmost area of the property would provide water to these lots as well as the clubhouse uses. This is an attempt to alleviate concerns of existing lot owners as to overdrafting (the club- house and pools are currently serviced by wells located in the vicinity of the clubhouse). A central well system is a use by right under the Zoning Ordinance subject to testing and design and approval by the Board of Supervisors under requirements of the Code of Albemarle County. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to any subdivision plat review by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall obtain the following: a) Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic drainfield locations on each proposed lot; b) County Engineer review of pump tests for two wells in southeastern portion of property in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Albemarle County; e Prior to subdivision plat review by the Planning Commission for lots southeast of Carroll Creek, the applicant shall obtain the following: a) County Engineer approval of construction activity in the flood plain of Carroll Creek in accordance with 30.3 FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT of the Zoning Ordinance; b) County Engineer approval of public and private road plans to provide connector road from Club Drive to Rt. 616; Ail lots northwest of Carroll Creek shall be served by a central water system supplied by the two wells located in the southeast portion of the property or such alternative well locations as may be approved by the Planning Commission; Development shall be in general accord with the preliminary plan submitted as a part of this petition and marked 'Planning Commission; August 20, 1985' and initialled 'RSK'." Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 20, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-53 subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Tucker said there were many comments at the Planning Commission meeting concerning the road and how the road would be maintained, especially the existing private road and the advisability of having a public road tied into the private road, and additional traffic on a private road that is maintained by others. The general consensus was that at the time of subdivision plat approval, the Commission will consider a public road or upgrading the entire road to State standards, so that there will not be a private road for maintenance by others. Mr. Fisher said that could cause some disruption of existing yards. Mr. Tucker replied that it could. He does not think any engineering work has been done at this time. The public hearing was opened and Mr. William S. Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Roudabush explained the proposal using a drawing presented to the Board. Mr. Roudabush stated that the plan before the Board is substantially reduced in scope from the last application on the property. Presently there are only 37 additional subdivision lots proposed. These 37 lots are the subject of SP-85-53. The main entrance to the subdivision will be located on Rt. 616 at the same point shown on the prior application, and the secondary entrance will be located at the present entrance on Rt. 744. The proposal tonight is that all new r.oads will be built to State standards except for one small connection. This is different from the proposal before the Planning Commission. The applicant proposes at this time that Club Drive, which will commence on Rt. 616 come down to point B (Note: On the drawing Point "B" is shown at a point on Club Drive opposite a new road named "Wood Lane".) on the present Club Drive and that that be an entirely newly constructed State road and that Club Drive from point B to point A (Note: On the drawing Point "A" is shown as the beginning of Club Drive off of existing State Route 744.) be upgraded to State standards. (State roads are shown on the drawing in solid red while the private roads are shown in dashed red lines. The existing private roads are shown in dashes.) There is only one new private road which is a short connection which gives secondary access to the existing 568 September 4,~ 1985 (R~ularN~~ subdivision and to one new lot, #35. Preliminary discussions have been held with the Highway Department concerning the pavement and base design, and design traffic volumes. A tentative agreement has been reached on the design criteria for the new road. Turning lanes will be provided at both the entrance on Rt. 616 and the entrance on Rt. 744. The applicant is also considering the construction of a bike trail, or walking trail, parallel to Club Drive starting on Rt. 616 and terminating on Rt. 731. That would be a part of the application wit] the subdivision plat. Mr. Roudabush said soil studies made on all the areas involving new lots indicate that adequate drainfield areas are available for all of the new lots as proposed on the drawing displayed. All lots will be served by individual sewage disposal systems. At the clubhouse area, if a septic drainfield area is not adequate, an individual private treatment system may be used. Concerning water, the two wells that have recently been drilled in an area near Rt. 616 will be used to supply the clubhouse and the 26 existing subdivision lots owned by the developer and seven new lots west of Carroll Creek. Everything west of Carroll Creek, which is a geologic divide, will be served by a central water system, There is an existing central well permit for 30 lots. Mr. Roudabush said they will request that that permit be increased to serve an additional three lots on the west side of Carroll Creek. The two wells near Rt. 616 have tested at 60 gpm total, one well 50 gpm and the other well 10.4 gpm. Number 10.4 g~ well was drilled as a test well to measure and monitor the draw-down on the primary well and was not drilled to the same depth. All other lots on the east side of Carroll Creek are proposed to be served by individual wells. The special permit is sought to allow uniform sizing of lots based on the topographic characteristics of the tract rather than adhering to minimum sizes allowed by the Zoning Ordinance by right which would require that some lots be two acres and other lots be at least 21 acres. The applicant is not proposing to increase th~ number of lots, merely make the lots uniform in size and providing a better plan layout for the development. Mr. Roudabush said Mr. Ed Bain, Mr. Gilbert O'Neill who is working on the sanitary and septic requirements, and Mr. Henry Browne the~architect for the clubhouse, are also present to answer any questions. Mr. Roudabush said the applicant had hoped that the tw applications could be heard together (SP-85-54). Mr. Fisher stated that this application (SP-85-53) and the following application (SP-85-54) are being heard separately because basically they are separable issues. Mr. Fishe stated it was indicated by Mr. Roudabush that the road would be a State road from Rt. 616 to point and built to State standards to point "A". Does that mean the road will not be in the State system? Mr. Roudabush said no. Hopefully all of the road will be in the State system. He is only saying that the road from point "B" (on the drawing presented tonight) to Rt. 616 will be an entirely new road. From point "B" to point "A" is an existing road which will be upgraded to State standards. Mr. Fisher said it is the intent then to apply for the entire length of the road to be taken into the State system. Mr. Roudabush replied that is correct. Mr. Bowie asked at whose expense the road will be upgraded? Mr. Roudabush replied the applicant will pay for the upgrading. Mrs. Cooke asked if improvements will be made to the deceleration lane coming into the development. Mr. RoUdabush replied that is correct. Mr. Gordon Wheeler, Chairman of the Keswick Homeowners, and a property owner in the club section, addressed the Board. He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting the home- owners objected strenuously to having a State road come in and then connect to the existing private road. From talking to the County Engineer, they understood that the County has a policy that when a road goes from one State road to another State road, that only road allowe. is a State road. It seems the Planning Commission is no~ aware of this. The property owners maintain and repair this road. The Highway Department has said that usually when a State roa~ comes to a cul-de-sac, it is meant to stop at that point, The property owners do not object to the rearrangement of the lots. It is more development than they would like to see in the area, but it.seems to be a reasonable plan. The property owners urge the Board, in any approval, that a condition be put in that the road be a State road throughout. Whenever an area is opened up from two roads it means more vandalism and more problems. In addition, thi~ is a very expensive proposition and any work to be done should be properly bonded. The property owners do not want to see part of the road put in and the rest of the work not accomplished. Mrs. Carol Kupke, owner of the fourth house on Club Drive, next addressed the Board. Sh~ stated that last Spring when the swimming pool at the Club was filled, their well wen~ dry temporarily until they stopped filling the pool. She would like to inquire as to what plans are being made for the existing wells near the clubhouse? Will those wells be used at all? Mr. Tucker said that question will be dealt with in the next application, but the Commission in its conditions of approval, did not require the capping of those wells, but simply indicated no further use other than the existing use being made of those wells now could be continued. The Planning Commission did not require capping. Mrs. Kupke asked if that meant the wells would not be used for any new structures in that area. Mr. Tucker said the intent of the Planning Commission was that the wells could be used for the same purpose they are presently being used for, but not for any additional use. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roudabush if the intent was any different than what Mr. Tucker just stated. Mr. Roudabush stated that Mr. Tucker's answer is correct. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at 8:35 P.M.) Dr. Hans Riddervold addressed the Board. He stated that he does not want the wells capped. His property is connected to the well and he does not. want to loose the water. Ther, is quite a bit of water in the vicinity. He stated that his property is a farm and the farmhouse is less than one-third mile northeast of Rt. 616. They had to drill a new well; they went 100 feet down and had more than 20 gallons per minute. The water is there if you can find it. He also requested that the Board approve a State road through the development. The road will help the property owners to get out to 1-64. The Fire Department needs a road through the development. Mr. Peadar Little next addressed the Board. He lives next to the Kupke's on the existin~ Club Drive. He would like to add his support to the upgrading of the existing Club Drive to State road. The existing Club Drive would not be able to support additional traffic coming from 1-64 going to the parking lots at the club. Also, if Club Drive is not connected to the new State road, the Fire Department would not have access to the two lakes on the property, which are to supply the Fire Department with the majority of its water. On the issue of water the Keswick residents are placing a lot of faith on the current geological statements which have stated that the two wells drilled in the acquifer near 1-64 are in a significantly September 4~ 1985 (RegularN~t Meeting) different acquifer from where most of the residents live and will not cause any draw-down. It is a significant burden on the County Engineer to insure that this is in fact the case, and to alert the residencts as soon as possible concerning any deviation he might find from the stated results. At the Planning Commission meeting, the issue of the existing well near the clubhouse came up and Dr. Riddervold made the plea that the wells not be capped. It was agreed that the existing wells would not be drawn on any more than they are at present, however, no metric has been offered at this stage to identify the use of those wells at present and the developer clearly does intend to use those wells to some extent. A way needs to be found to measure current use and give the residents some base line to work from in the future. Mr. Little said he feels the Keswick Country Club is a valuable asset to the County and he thinks the applicant has done a lot of work which is certainly a step forward and he wishes him well with this plan. Mr. Fisher stated that there is no one who will guarantee anything about groundwater. He does not think it is fair to state that the County Engineer is responsible for making sure that the water on one side of a creek isn't affecting the water on the other side of the creek. No one will be able to prove that. Groundwater is a concept. Some people would say it is like paternity, you believe it, but you cannot always prove it. Mr. Lanny Moore said he lives at Boyd's Tavern, which is on the other side of 1-64, and is a member of East RiVanna Volunteer Fire Department. He would like to see a road put all the way through so that the Fire Department can have access to both sides of the property and access to the lakes from either side of the property. The two lakes are located about in the center of the property, so that if there was a fire on the property the Fire Department would get its water system from these lakes. In reference to the wells, the wells are in a different acquifer, and nothing is guaranteed forever, but the wells were tested and will be tested again. (Mr. Henley returned to the meeting at 8:54 P.M.) With no one else to speak on this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if the Planning Commission had approved a particular plat initialed by a member of the staff or if the plan presented tonight will be kept in the files as the official plan? Mr. Tucker said he thinks the plan presented tonight should be kept because of the changes the applicant has proposed regarding the road. Mr. Tucker suggested that a fifth condition he added to wit: "Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval and acceptance of proposed public roads with specific requirement that Club Drive from Rt. 731 to Rt. 616 be built to State standards and accepted by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation." Mr. Bowie commented that water has been a concern for over a year, but the provision to cap those wells and the installation of central water was part of the proposal that was denied. He thought he was clear on the fact that that was the risk of not having central water; there would be use of those wells. He thought it was agreed by everyone present at that hearing that was the risk. He agrees there should be a State road all the way through, that the Fire Department have access for fire protection and easy access, and he accepts Mr. Tucker's wording for condition 95. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to approve SP-85-53 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and a fifth condition as stated by Mr. Tucker. Those conditions follow: Prior to any subdivision plat review by the Planning Commission the applicant shall obtain the following: Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic drainfield locations on each proposed lot; be County Engineer review of pump tests for two wells in southeastern portion of the property in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Albemarle County; e Prior to subdivision plat review by the Planning Commission for lots southeast of Carroll Creek the applicant shall obtain the following- County Engineer approval of construction activity in the flood- plain of Carroll Creek in accordance with 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; be County Engineer approval of public and private road plans to provide connector road from Club Drive to Rt. 616; Ail lots northwest of Carroll Creek shall be served by a central water system supplied by the two wells located in the southeast portion of the property or such alternative well locations as may be approved by the Board of Supervisors; Development shall be in general accord with the preliminary plan submitted as a part of this petition and marked "Board of Supervisors; September 4, 1985" and initialled "RSK"; Se Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval and acceptance of proposed public roads with specific requirement that Club Drive from Rt. 731 to Rt. 616 be built to State standards and accepted by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion. Mr'. Way said it is hard to separate these two petitions (SP-85-53 and SP-85-54) because there has been considerable concern expressed about the use of the two wells near the clubhouse. Mrs. Cooke said it was her understanding from the Planning Commission meeting that the wells, as has been stated here, will not be used for anymore than what they are being used for right now. She asked if the clubhouse itself, and the swimming pool, will be serviced by the new wells. Mr. Fisher said these questions really refer to the next item on the agenda. The condition of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission is that all clubhouse facilities shall be served by a central well system supplied by the two wells located in the vicinity of the Rt. 616/I-64 interchange, or such alternative well locations as may be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Usage of existing wells at clubhouse will not exceed present usage. Mr. Way stated he knew that was stated in Sep_____tember 4, 1985 (Regular N~tMee~ing). the next application, but he wondered if that statement should be a part of this application, also. Mr. Fisher then asked if the Board would prefer to defer action on this motion and hea~ the next application and have-the two applications together in mind. Mr. Way said he thinks the two applications are very closely related. Mr. Fisher stated that there is a motion and second on the floor, but if there is no objection the vote will be held until after the publi( hearing on the second applicatiOn. Mr. Bowie said he has no objection with holding the vote after the second application is heard. Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with holding the vote later. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-85-54. Tom J. Curtis. To allow six guest rooms in two existing cottages and 36 guest suites in a new structure adjacent to clubhouse. Total acreage of site is 24.3'95 acres zoned RA. Property on east side of Rt. 744 at intersection with Rt. 731. Ta~ Map 80, parcels 8 and 8Z. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 20 and August 27, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: 42 additional guest rooms. Acreage: 24.395 acres Zoning: RA, Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 80, parcels 8/8Z (part), houses the existing country club building. History: A 1975 Circuit Court decree placed limitations on areas of the country club which could be open to the general public. Piedmont Vineyards, Inc. (SP-78-76) sought and obtained, special use permit approval to open all facilities to the public. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: 1. In Clubhouse Buildinq (existing) 19th Hole, bar and grill Six guest suites (to be renovated) Restaurant, banquet and dining facilities Conference and meeting rooms. 2. In Two Existinq Detached Cottaqes (new). Six guest.rooms 3. On Grounds (existing) Nine existing tennis courts Three existing swimming pools Existing cabannas 4. Proposed Detached Structures (new) Thirty-six (36) guest suites New development would involve renovation of two existing 'carriage' buildings into six guest rooms. A wing with 16 suites would be added to the clubhouse. Twenty suites would ring the 18th green. Similar Requests Two similar requests were reviewed in recent years for 'country inns' in rural locations (SP-83-38, John and Elizabeth Wildermuth at Wavertree Hall; SP-85-8, Edgar Robb at Colston). Keswick is seeking expansion of an existing use, while Wildermuth and Robb sought establishment of new uses. In both the Widermuth and Robb petitions, staff expressed concern as to remoteness from 1-64/other major highways, and precedent for similar requests. Remoteness from 1-64/other major highways: As currently developed, access from Keswick country club to major highways would be over non-tolerable secondary roads. The accompanying SP-85-53 (RA subdivision) proposes extension of Club Drive to Rt. 616 at the 1-64 interchange. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that 'highway service businesses which primarily rely on the interstate traveller as a market, including hotels, motels, restaurants,' and other uses be considered for location at selected interchanges of Interstate 64. While the Rt. 616/I-64 interchange is not proposed for highway service business development, direct access from the Keswick country club to 1-64 is desirable. While the golf course will receive substantial local patronage, the inn usage will rely primarily on tourism. Precedent for similar requests: Substantial interest has been shown in recent years for conversion of larger dwellings in rural locations to country inns and restaurants. In this case, since the country club exists and this request is for expansion of an existing use, this petition could be distinguished from most other cases. Therefore, precedent should not be a significant concern. Se_tember 4, 1~85 (Regular ~'.~ Meeti:ng) STAFF COMMENT: During review of ZMA-84-2,0 Keswick PUD, issues were raised as to the physical ability of t'he property to support development. Staff will address these issues in terms of intensification of the clubhouse use. Roads: Access to the clubhouse is currently from Rts. 731/744, both non-tolerable roads. The applicant proposes construction of a public road to connect Club Drive, a private road to Rt. 616 in vicinity of the 1-64 interchange. In the past, staff has expressed concern about mixing residential and commercial uses on private roads due to equity in maintenance. This should be addressed at time of site plan approval. Staff opinion is that establishment of a connector road to Rt. 616 could offset or possibly reduce traffic to Rts. 731/744. Sewage Disposal: Current septic facilities are marginal for the existing clubhouse. If adequate on-site drainfields cannot be located, the applicant proposes usage of a package sewage treatment plant. Such a plant would not serve the 26 vacant platted lots northwest of Carroll Creek. (Mr. Tucker said that statement was made at the Planning Commission meeting.) Water: The applicant proposes serving the existing and expanded clubhouse facilities by a central water system using two wells located near the Rt. 616/I-64 interchange (these wells would also serve the 26 plated lots and 7 lots northwest of Carroll Creek). This is an attempt to allay concerns of existing lot owners.as to overdrafting. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Expansion limited to renovation of six (6) existing suites in the clubhouse, six (6) guest rooms in two existing cottages, and establishment of thirty-six (36) additional suites; Prior to Planning Commission review of the site plan, the appli- cant shall obtain the following: a. Health Department approval of method of sewage disposal; County Engineer review of pump tests for two wells in southeastern portion of property in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Albemarle County; Ail clubhouse facilities shall be served by a central well system supplied by the two wells located in vicinity of the Rt. 616/I-64 Interchange or such alternative well locations as may be approved by the Planning Commission; Bonding and/or construction of the connector road from Club Drive to Rt. 616 and the central well system shall be required prior to issuance of building permit for the new guest rooms/suites; provided that the six existing suites in the clubhouse may be renovated without compliance with this condition; o Compliance with the following conditions of approval of SP-78-76, Piedmont Vineyards, Inc.: Se Hours of operation are limited to sunrise until 11:00 p.m. for golf pro shop, swimming pools and tennis courts ~and all other outdoor recreational activity. All indoor activities, dining, special parties, etc., to end at 1:00 a.m.; bm Ail buildings to be subject to Building Code and Fire Code inspections; No outdoor public address system including amplified phonographs, radios and the like, and including musical groups employing amplified instruments shall exceed 40 decibels at the nearest property line; this condition is subject to restrictions of condition A for outdoor uses; No off-premises licensed sale of alcoholic beverages to be permitted." Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 20, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-54 subject to conditions 2, 4 and 5 as recommended by staff. Conditions 1 and 3 were changed to read as follows: Expansion limited to renovation of six (6) existing suites in the clubhouse, six (6 guest rooms in two existing cottages, and establishment of thirty-six (36) additional suites; location of thirty-six (36) additional suites will be no closer to existing private dwellings than current clubhouse; Ail clubhouse facilities shall be served by a central well system supplied by the two wells located in vicinity of the Rt. 616/I-64 Interchange or such alternative well locations as may be approved by the Board of Supervisors; usage of existing wells at clubhouse will not exceed present usage." '72 September 4,~ 1985 (Regular kti~tMeetin ) Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Tucker, in reference to condition 4, if the bonding is changed by fact that the developer is now proposing that the entire road from Route 616 to Route 731 be Club Drive and brought into the State system. Mr. Tucker said this condition ties the bonding of the road to any new construction of suites other than those within the existing clubhouse, and the well system. Planning Commission is attempting to tie some bonding for improvement to this road in the event the applicant chooses to develop this facility before he developes the subdivision. For just subdivision approval, the applicant would not have to bond the road until the subdivision plat were approved by the Planning Commission and he was ready to start selling lots. Without this condition the road would only have to be bonded prior to the recordation of the lots. This condition ties some bonding to Club Drive with the construction of new suites. Mrs. Cooke stated this is only with the new suites, but the applicants can start renovating the existing suites without the bonding of the road. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Mr. Fisher said in condition ~4 where it now reads "connector road from Club Drive to Rt. 616" should read "from Rt. 731". Mr. Tucker replied that is correct. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Roudabush representing the applicant addressed the Board. Mr. Roudabush presented a drawing to the Board and pointed out the proposed new structures that will contain the 36 guest suites. One location is an extension of the existing building, and the other is a free-standing structure. The application which indicated the proposed uses for the club facilitieS had designated "conference and meeting rooms" in the clubhouse building. The conference rooms are actually to be located in an extension of the existing building. The Planning Staff report shows the "conference and meeting rooms" under Item No. 1, in Clubhouse Building, existing, and a separate Item No. 4, Proposed Detached Structuresr 36 guest suites. The applicant wants to clarify that the conference rooms will be in the exterior to the existing building when the applicant brings in a site plan, he does not want any misinterpretation of the intent in this case. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roudabush where the two existing detached cottages are located? Mr. Roudabush pointed ou~ the location of the structures to Mr. Fisher on the drawing. Mr. Roudabush said he thought, by implication, in as much as the 36 guest suites are a separate item, if the conference rooms were shown~beneath some of these 36 rooms, it could be misleading. There will be 16 rooms in. the addition, and 20 rooms in the new structure. Mr. Fisher asked what 16 rooms are going to be in the new addition? Mr. Roudabush said the 16 rooms are part of the 36 guest suites; sixteen rooms and the conference rooms will be in the extension, and 20 rooms will be in the free-standing building. Mr. Roudabush stated that another clarification is needed. At the Planning Commission meeting, it was stated that the extension of the clubhouse building would not be closer to any existing buildings than the existing clubhouse. The applicant's interpretation of what he said at the Planning Commission meeting is that the extension would be no closer to any other structure than-any other present buildings on the clubhouse tract, not specifically the clubhouse building. Mr. Roudabush said he feels this building will be closer than the nearest building. With respect to the water, the applicant's intent is that the clubhouse will be served with water from the wells on Rt. 616 as primary usage, but he would continue to use the existing well up to the limit of what is currently being used. The output of the well will not exceed its$ present usage. That usage would need to be measured somehow in order to determine exactly what the usage is. With the above clarifications, the plan is in agreement with the staff report. Mr. Roudabush stated that Mr. Henry Browne is present to explain what the renovations to the existing building will consist of and the elements of the new structure; extension to that clubhouse building. Mr. Henry Browne, the architect, addressed the Board. Mr. Browne stated that the '!Villa Crawford" or the "Keswick Country Club" as it is now known is eligible as an historic structure under the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission. An extensive evaluation of the existing structure has been done and through a series of removals in the building, the architects have determined not only what the configuration was, but some interesting aspects. For instance, the light fixtures and the doors knobs were all silver, so they have been removed for safekeeping. The building will have to be restored in accordance with. the Department of Interior standards in order to receive the historic tax designation. The awnings and things the architect is showing on the plan for renovation, are found in a picture taken out of Roy Wheeler'.s book on Historic Virginia, showing Villa Crawford in 1947. In the research the architects have gone through, they have attempted to isolate all of the architectural mill work. Up to this point, new cooper roofs have been laid over the porches to make the porches weather tight. The building has had a fire sprinkling system added. They have been working very closely with the building inspectors on this. The 20 rooms will sit out at an angle looking down on the pool, across the golf course and back toward the mountains. The appearance of these rooms will be similar. The style of the chimney, the chimney caps, porch railings, all of those architectural features are taken, as well as the pitch of the roof. The building is Georgian style and is stucco. Paint research shows that the original coat of paint was a very pale ivory and not white. The pale ivory is being put back. The windows on either side of the door in the front have been opened up. Paneling was removed to find that the old windows were still in the wall. Plastic cornices which were water damaged will be replicated. Major roofing work has been done. The approach is to put the building back in such a manner that it does follow the Department of Interior standards for historic restoration. Mr. Fisher asked if the contention is that all of the additions and all of the modifications to existing structures will be in the style and quality of the original building. Mr. Brown replied that is correct. The new building will be stucco over masonry block. The building will be complementary, both in structure and quality. He does not believe he can afford to put sterling silver hardware back on the doors. In trying to make the setting cogenial with the original building, this is what they are striving to do. At this moment, the erosion and degradation of the main structure has been stopped. Mr. Ed Bain, representing the applicant, next addressed the Board. The applicant heard the concerns regarding sewage disposal at the previous hearings. They are therefore showing a system serving the clubhouse and these rooms.so that if something should happen, no member of the public or general homeowner would be affected. If the system fails, it shuts down. He thinks they have addressed the concerns that were expressed last.time. In terms of the overall layout of the clubhouse and the amenities and the surroundings, they think the additional rooms gives this an aura but yet maintain what has been there. That is critical to the completion and development of the overall project, that these rooms be there for tourists rather than just what was existing there previously. In terms of specific conditions suggested by the Planning Commission, he thinks the Board should define better whether the 573 September 4, 198~ (Regular ~i~htMeeting) condition refers to the existing private dwellings simply on the Keswick property or other dwellings. Obviously that 20 room addition will go closer to Rt. 731/744. There may be houses there it will be closer to. He does not think it was tied down to dwellings on the Keswick property and maybe that needs to be done by the Board tonight. Mr. Gordon Wheeler, a property owner, Chairman of the Keswick Homeowners Association, and a board member of the Keswick Hunt Club, addressed the Board. He does not think anyone objects to the restorating of the clubhouse, the pool, the existing units or anything existing there now, but the property owners do have questions about any additional guest rooms. The Planning Commission stated that additional rooms could be no closer to existing dwellings than the clubhouse. The clubhouse is the main building there. If another building is used instead of the clubhouse as distance, the result will be that the additional rooms will be closer to certain buildings, so they can't meet the criteria of the Planning Commission in that instance. When the units are built as shown, they are directly across from the Hunt Club, one of the oldest buildings in the area. The residents feel these additions will certainly change the character of the area and the residents question the additional rooms. One other thing is that all are concerned about water. He questions whether putting another load of 36 rooms on the wells is wise. This will also increase traffic and road problems. It might be more sensible at this time to approve everything except the additional rooms and see how the water holds out over a few years to see how things work. It looks like the owners are preparing to put too much of a load on the system. Adding these rooms dramatically changes the character of the area. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Wheeler what the people feel about the conversion of the other building. Mr. Wheeler replied there is no complaint about the conversion of the existing structure. Anything existing, the resident.s applaud the applicant in upgrading. Their only concern is the additional rooms, which will be directly across the road from the showgrounds and the Hunt Club. He is really concerned about the water problem. Also, in talking to the Health Department, the existing septic tank will only serve the golf shop and the swimming pool, so some type of package treatment plan will definitely be needed. Dr. William Orr, a property owner, next addressed the Board. When he comes out front door, his view is directly at the clubhouse. He has a house and little cotta¢ of the closer buildings off the club property. He feels the entire project is very ambitious and will be done with quality and taste. Most of the residents approve of the project and the project will be an asset to the community. His concern all along has been water because there is a very limited water supply in this area. He was told by a geologist that the ground rock formation runs northeast which means it runs towards where he lives. He gets only a gallon and a half of water per minute, and there are a lot of wells to the north and northwest of this property with a limited supply of water. There is a lot of dependence being placed on these two wells that were tested for 48 hours, to be able to supply the entire project. In the former PUD presentation, the applicant proposed to cap the four wells that are around the clubhouse. It is a very nebulous thing as to how much the present use is. The use could not be much because the building is not occupied. Dr. Orr said to him, it would seem reasonable for Dr. Riddervold to tap onto the central system and to cap those four wells. Several years ago when the swimming pool was filled, several of the wells on Rt. 744 went dry. He would applaud the general scope of the project, but it makes him uneasy about what would happen if the new wells go dry and the applicant has four other wells, and how long the water supply of the surrounding owners would last. As a nearby resident, he asks the Board to add a condition on the proposal that those four wells around the clubhouse be capped. Dr. Hans Riddervold again addressed the Board. His family moved to Keswick 14 years ago and it was a great place at that time. One year ago the area was more like a jungle, but fantastic improvements have been done since that time. He hopes for further improvements and really hopes the present plans be approved. Mr. Peadar Little next addressed the Board. He stated that the two cottages previously inquired about are hardly a beauty, but are an eyesore. Any improvement to those dwellings would be a great improvement overall. He does not feel Mr. Browne's presentation dealt adequately with the manner in which those two cottages might change and the quality and nature of the 20 free-standing cottages on Rt. 731. Those cottages could be very straggly and contain neon signs. This has not been covered to his satisfaction and he WOuld like Mr. Browne to elaborate. Mr. Fisher stated that should be a concern. This application is not being given to just the present owners or Mr. Browne; this is a zoning action. This action will run with the land. The words of these conditions will be all that will control what happens and now there is nothing in the conditions about architecture, or styles or quality, or anything else. That is all verbal and outside-of the conditions of approval so far. Maybe the Board will decide to take some of the statements as commitments as to intent for the improvements and add those as conditions, but right now architecture is not in the conditions. Mr. Little urged that the Board consider laying down some standards of quality in regard to the structures and compatibility of the architecture, and such things as neon signs or flashing signs be eliminated. He does not think these things are in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Fisher said a number of different people and different owners have attempted to make viable use of this property. He feels the Board should be concerned that whatever is done, is done for this owner and future owners. Mr. Little said the additional dwellings will lead to a requirement for additional parking lots, and these parking lots should be bonded at the same-time the rest of the road work is bonded. Otherwise, the access to his home might be obstructed by cars. Mr. Browne stepped forward to say that the 20 units are all in one building; it is not 20 cottages. Architecturally the units are mere images of ones shown on the drawing. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Browne, if the historical landmarks society does not have certain requirements and restrictions on what can be developed around an historical landmark. Mr. Browne replied that they do not, but they do look at the exterior facade of the existing building. The exterior facade of the existing building must be kept as it is. There are very strict regulations as to what can be done to the existing building. The applicant is spending much money on the two additions so it would be ludicrous to put something "trifling" there. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Browne if he would comment about the other two cottages that has not been commented on. Mr. Browne said those cottages, the cart shed, and the golf starter's shack, will all be improved because part of the rooms look right out on them. All of the buildings will take on the tone of the original house, the ivory color with white trim and dark green~ .Everything will tie together. /~w~/~ .~ September 4, t985 (RegularN~h~t Meeting) Mr. Bain again addressed the Board. He stated that the reduced number of dwellings, etc. require that for the economic viability and feasibility of the entire project that the rooms blend in with it and be a part of the project or they will not be able to do what the applicant wants done. At this point the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke stated that she has set through the Planning Commission hearing and now this hearing and she has no problem with SP-85-54. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion that SP-85-54 be approved with the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion and stated that he wanted to make a change to the Conditions of SP-85-53, add to the end of condition 93, for both SP-85-53 and SP-85-54 words to make both compatible on the use of the wells: "usage of existing wells at clubhouse will not exceed present usage". Mr. Fisher also suggested that the BoarE speak only about SP-85-54, the permit on which the hearing was just concluded, and he suggested as an amendment to the motion that condition 94 be changed as discussed earlier to read: "Bonding and/or construction of the connector road from Rt. 731 to Rt. 616. . ", so it is clear that this includes the entire length of the road. Mr. Fisher also suggested another amendment that a new condition ~6 be added to SP-85-54 to read: "All additiOns and alterations to existing structures shall be accomplished through architectural design and construction quality comparable to that of the main clubhouse building". Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with that condition being added to her motion. She also stated that something like this is necessary because in the future some person may acquire the property and want to add the flashing lights and this will put that to rest. Mr. Fisher restated condition 96 and said this is necessary so that in the future someone does not build a one-story flat roof motel because he cannot build the units near the road the way the idea has been presented here tonight. Mr. Henley stated that he thinks the units should be something that will blend with the present building but he does not know if "same quality" means silver door handles, etc. Mr. Fisher said he had said "comparable", not "equal". Mrs. Cooke stated that she accepted both of those amendments to her motions as did Mr. Bowie to the second. Mr. FiSher suggested the Board go ahead and vote on the motion on SP-85-54 at this time. He has some concern about the new construction on this property, but he is compelled by the argument that it will take resources to make this project work and this is probably the best proposal he has seen for the property for a long time and he supports the request. With no further discussion, roll was called on the motion to approve SP-85-54 subject to the following conditions: Expansion limited to renovation of six (6) existing suites in the clubhouse, six (6) guest rooms in two existing cottages, and establishment of thirty-six (36) additional suites; location of thirty-six (36) additional suites will be no closer to existing private dwellings than current clubhouse; am Prior to planning Commission review of the site plan the applicant shall obtain the following: a. Health Department approval of method of sewage disposal; County Engineer review of pump tests for two wells in southeastern portion of property in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Albemarle County; Ail clubhouse facilities shall be served by a central well system supplied by the two wells located in vicinity of the Rt. 616/I-64 Interchange or such alternative well locations as may be approved by the Board of Supervisors; usage of existing wells at clubhouse will not exceed present usage; 0 Bonding and/or construction of the connector road from Rt. 731 to Rt. 616 and the central well system shall be required prior to issuance of building permit for the new guest rooms/suites; provided that the six (6) existing suites in the clubhouse may be renovated without compliance with this condition; Compliance with the following conditions of approval of SP-78-76 Piedmont Vineyards, Inc.: Se Hours of operation are limited to sunrise until 11:00 p.m. for golf pro shop, swimming pools and tennis courts and all other outdoor recreational activity. All indoor activities, dining, special parties, etc., to end at 1-00 a.m.; b. Ail buildings to be subject to Building Code and Fire Code inspections; Ce No outdoor public address system including amplified phonographs, radios, and the like and including musical groups employing amplified instruments shall exceed 40 decibels at the nearest property line; this condition is subject to restrictions of condition A for outdoor uses; d. No off premises licensed sale of alcoholic beverages to be permitted; Ail additions and alterations to existing structures shall be accomplished through architectural design and construction quality comparable to that of the main clubhouse building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher stated that at this point the Board will return to SP-85-53, which is a special permit for the subdivision of 37 single family residential lots. There is a standing motion for approval already on the floor, and a second· Mr. Bowie said he would like to amend that motion to add the words: "the usage of existing wells at clubhouse will not exceed present usage." to condition 93. Mrs. Cooke accepted this to her second. Se tembe~~g)~ 575 With no further, SP-85-53 was offered for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to any subdivision plat review by the Planning Commission the applicant shall obtain the following: a. Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic drainfield locations on each proposed lot; b. County Engineer review of pump tests for two wells in southeastern portion of the property in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Albemarle County; 2. Prior to subdivision plat review by the Planning Commission for lots southeast of Carroll Creek the applicant shall obtain the following: a. County Engineer approval of construction activity in the floodplain of Carroll Creek in accordance with 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; b. County Engineer approval of public and private road plans to provide connector road from Club Drive to Rt. 616; e Ail lots northwest of Carroll Creek shall be served by a central water system supplied by the two wells located in the southeast portion of the property or such alternative well locations as may be approved by the Board of Supervisors; the usage of existing wells at clubhouse will not exceed present usage; Development shall be in general accord with the preliminary plan submitted as a part of this petition and marked "Board of Supervisors; September 4, 1985" and initialled "RSK"; 5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval and acceptance of proposed public roads with specific requirement that Club Drive from Rt. 731 to Rt. 616 be built to State standards and accepted by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Roll was called and the motion to approve SP-85-53 carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. Not Docketed: At 9:45 P.M. the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 9:52 with Mr. Lindstrom present. Mr. St. John did not return when the Board reconvened; he returned at 9:55 P.M. Agenda Item No. 11. Resolution for Disaster Relief. has requested that this item be taken up at this time. Mr. Fisher stated that Mr. Henley Mr. Agnor stated that in April of this year, the NPI-SU Extension Service office provided the State a damage report from the January 1985 freezing temperatures, that was experienced in the area. The staff understood that was all that was required to declare the County a disaster area for disaster relief for fruit growers. Now, the staff has found that a resolution is required by the Governor's office. Mr. Agnor summarized the following letter dated August 22, 1985 from Ray B. Jones to the Board: "If the County is declared a disaster area, it allows the fruit growers to apply for low interest loans, and serves as a basis of extending existing loans. According to a report made in April 1985 by the County Agent, Albemarle County has: 0 275 acres of peaches which suffered a 100 percent loss; 1000 acres of apples which suffered a 50 percent loss; There are approximately 75,000 apple trees and 27..000 peach trees in the County which incurred about ten percent damage due to the weather; There were 15 commercial apple orchards, and six commercial peach growers. The damage occurred on January 20, 1985 when the temperatures were recorded at 20 degrees below zero in several areas of the County, with extended period of about ten days where temperatures were sub zero. As I understand the situation from talking to the County Agent, the necessary information has been submitted to the appropriate state agencies awaiting official action by the governing body." Mr. Henley then offered motion that the following resolution for disaster relief be adopted. Mrs. Cooke 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. Henley left the meeting at 9:55 P.M.) Septembe~r~.~ ~. 4,198.5_ ~ar ~.'~t Meetin_~Q_______~. WHEREAS, Albemarle County'experienced unusually cold weather in January, 1985 with temperatures dropping to ten or more below zero for an extended period of time, and WHEREAS, this cold weather resulted in 100 percent loss of the 1985 peach crop and over 50 percent of the apple crop, and WHEREAS, the destruction of a major portion of the fruit c~op_has placed a substantial hardship on the fruit growers of Albemarle County. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County does hereby petition the Governor of Virginia to declare the County of Albemarle a disaster area due to the severity of the weather conditions Agenda Item No. '9. SP-85-52. Virginia Land Trust (C. W. Hurt). To allow construction of a bicycle racing track for children ages five years and older, on a two-acre site zoned C-1 located behind Riverbend Shopping Center. (Deferred from August 21, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Bicycle race track (22.2.2.1; 30.3.5.1.1.2) Acreage: ~2 acres. Zoning: C-l, Commercial. Location: Property described as Tax Map 78, parcel 17E, is located on south side of Riverbend Shopping Center at Pantops. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes establishment of a 'BMX' track in the floodplain of the Rivanna-River. Use of the track would be limited to children aged five years and older with non-motorized bicycles. Races would be sanctioned by the American Bicycle Association (ABA). ABA is a national association with about 800 member tracks. ABA sanctioning includes 24 hour liability insurance for the track as well as insurance coverage for children members. The proposed track would be U-shaped with the start and finish at the same point. The 10 foot wide track would be about 1/4 mile in length and follow natural terrain. The only 'improvements' would be safety measures and sets of 'whoopdedoos' (series of small 'thrill hills' about two feet in height). No grading or tree removal is proposed. Races would be held on Saturday and Sunday on a seasonal basis. About 100 children are anticipated to participate each weekend. (Mr. Tucker stated that at the Planning Commission it was commented that there would be training and practice on Wednesday evenings.) STAFF COMMENT: Under ZMA-83-2 Riverbend Limited Partnership (AKA Riverbend Shopping Center), the 100 year floodplain of the Rivanna River is intended to be designated as 'open space'. While this has not been accomplished to date, staff opinion is that the proposed BMX track would be consistent with open space designation. Staff recommends approval subject to the folloWing conditions: No motorized vehicles; Use to be limited as outlined under 'Applicant's Proposal'; County Engineer approval of improvements in floodplain in accordance with 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District." Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held on August 20, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-52 subject to the conditions recommended by staff and a condition ~4 to wit: "Signs posted: 'No motorized vehicles allowed'." Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if all of the land designated is to be available for use of the track. Mr. Tucker replied just a two-acre area. Mr. Fisher asked if the land is going to be delineated so that it can be determined where these acres are located. Mr. Tucker replied that a condition could be added to delineate the area. The plat of the property does not show exactly where the two acres are located. Mr. Lindstrom asked how condition ~1, as recommended, can be enforced. Mr. Tucker replied that the enforcement would be left up to the Zoning Administrator. It is very difficult to enforce. Mr. Lindstrom asked if violations occur, if it would be normal for the permit to be revoked? Mr. Tucker said if there are violations, the Zoning Administrator can recommend that the permit be revoked. This will be difficult to enforce because the applicant has little control over that enforcement and over prohibiting access of motorized vehicles. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Larry Lippincott, speaking for the application, addressed the Board. He stated that they have permission from Dr. Hurt and Virginia Land Trust, owners of the property to use the property for a bicycle race track. The track is approximately 1/4 mile. It is a narrow, twisting, turning track. They also have a concern about motorized vehicles. They do not want to invest a lot of time and effort to build a track for children, and have motorized vehicles tear the track apart. The property will not have access by road. The property will have only footpath access from Pantops Shopping Center parking lot. The property is open, flat land and very visible from the owner's building, so there will be observation of the area during times when there is not racing. The track will be used on weekends and one night a week for training purposes. This is a small track, basically a speed race not an endurance race. The race is an all ouu event for one minute. September 4 1985 (Regular N.'~-~Meeting) 5:77 Since the track is very narrow, turning, and the jumps small and close together, the use of motorized vehicles would be difficult. Mrs. Lippincott said the American Bicycle Association (ABA) is the largest~bicycle racing association nationwide. The association has 90 thousand members and a little over 800 tracks. This group is interested in ABA mainly for the insurance which it offers to the track operators (right now that is a group of gentlemen like himself who are interested in getting bicycle racing in Charlottesville). They.chose the ABA because it offers liability insurance, which covers seven-days a week type, liability insurance, 365 days a year. The insurance names all parties involved landowners, track operators, etc. The insurance also covers race days, as well as equipment, participants and spectators. The boys and girls participating are required to be members of the association. Mr. Lippincott said this will be a sanctioned track and therefore bound by guidelines set forth in a rule book. All the boys present tonight are members of the ABA. The closest track to Charlottesville is approximately 60 miles away. There is an annual membership fee which is $22 and for new members there is a tentative membership or 60-day which gives full insurance protection and full racing benefits for $5. They are also very safety conscious and require the boys to have certain safety features on their bicycles and safety gear which they must wear in races. Some of the_gear is available on a loan basis. There are only eight riders to a race. Wednesday night is a training session, sponsored by ABA. They show a video tape and then proceed to the track and apply what is seen on the tape. There is a lot of interest locally in bicycle racing. For every race that the.boys enter, they receive points and the point standings are listed each month and at the end of the year the boys can receive trophies. For-every race, there will be trophies and ribbons given to participants. This is an opportunity for young people to have an organized activity. The safety record nationwide is less than any organized sport as far as injuries are concerned. Mrs. Cooke asked if this program is sponsored by the YMCA. Mr. Lippincott said each track is individually operated. This track will be sponsored by the Optimist Club and Mr. Bill Burke is here to speak about that. Mr. Bill Burke, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Optimist Club next addressed the Board. The Optimist Club was organized in March of this year. They are affiliated with the Optimist, International which has clubs throughout the United States, Mexico and Canada. Their slogan is "friend of the youth". The Club sponsors certain programs to try to help the youth and to make the youth blend in with the community. Recently they put on a program, "Respect for the Law" where individuals from the Police Department were honored and also people in the community who assist the police. In a recent survey, it was found that there are 17,700 youth from age six to age 17 in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. There are 8,900 youth age six and under. Approximately 1,000 of these people are age five. This track proposes to have this age group there and that is what the club is mainly interested in, something for the youth to do in this area. The track is to be supervised by members of the Optimist Club. During the Fall, the club will be working with Mr. Lippincott in learning the process of what it takes to run the track. In the Spring, the Optimist Club intends to take the track over totally with the cooperation of the people that brought the application this far. Mr. Fisher said the intent is to run the track as a non-profit operation. Mr. Burke said that is correct, a non-profit operation to benefit the youth of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Clem Sanford next addressed the Board. He stated that bicycle motor cross (BMX) riding is popular and a growing sports activity in many parts of the country today. There presently 20 to 30 committed young adults in the Charlottesville area who travel to other cities, such as Lynchburg, Richmond or Hampton, in order to race their bikes. The vast majority of bikes sold today to people between the ages of five and 16 are BMX bikes. Many of these kids would like a place nearby to race and experience the thrills of jumps and a dirt track. A BMX track behind Riverbend Shopping Center would give those kids a place to ride without having to drive '50 or more miles to another city. The racetrack on Pantops would be ideal for several reasons: Virginia Land Company, owners of the property, have given permission for its use as a bicycle race trac; the layout of the land is almost perfect for a track. The grass will need to be cut and then pile up a few mounds of dirt for jumps and banking on some of the turns; there will be no excavation and no permanent construction or fixtures; Riverbend Shopping Center is a commercial area so more suitable for a track than a residential neighborhood; the merchants of the Shopping Center look forward to the track as a way of promoting their businesses; BMX racing is a well-organized, family-oriented sport and parents usually attend with their children; both boys and girls can race; all race events operate under adult supervision, usually with parents serving as judges and coaches at strategic places on the track; here in Charlottesville, they have the sponsorship and help of the Optimist Club; riders compete in their own age and skill groups and as they improve, the riders move from novelist to intermediate to expert class; point values are assigned and awarded for various finishing places and riders compete for point scores on State and national basis; the leading point scorer in the State in the novelist class lives in Albemarle County and he needs a local track on which to ride on; BMX racing is a fun sport. Mr. Sanford that he sells bicycles, however it is the kids that got him interested in BMX racing. The sport can be fun for the rest of the community also. There being no one else from the public to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher recognized the many young boys present in support of the application. Mr. Bowie said when there is the Optimist Club, parents and young champions involved, with a member of the ~ private sector donating the land, he highly supports the petition. He does not feel someone would be able to ride a motorcycle on the track and the land serves no other purpose. Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve SP-85-52 subject to the conditions recommended by the Commission: 1. No motorized vehicles; 2. Use to be limited as outlined under "Applicant's Proposal"; County Engineer_approval of improvements in floodplain in accordance with 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District; 4. Signs posted: "No motorized vehicles allowed." September 4, 1985 (Reg~Meeting) £© Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion. Mr. Fisher said his only concern is past problems with kids on unlicensed motor bikes who have created more problems in the County over the years. If he thought there was any way this could ever tUrn into a problem like that past, he would not vote to approve the petition. The youth must be on their toes to make sure the track does not get such abuse. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-85-17. Dr. Charles Hurt. Rezone a total of 19.309 acres from R-6 to HC. Property on west side of Rt. 29 North, adjacent to Rivanna Amoco Service Station. Tax Map 45, part of Parcels 109 and 108A. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 20 and August 27, 1985.) Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 20, 1985 deferred ZMA-85-17 indefinitely. He suggested that the Board remove this petition from its agenda. The Clerk can readvertise when it is ready be heard again. Mr. Tucker said this action was taken because the Planning Commission is concerned about upzoning commercial zoning on Rt. 29 North. The Planning Commission is waiting for information from the Planning staff on the impact this zoning would have on the Rt. 29 North Corridor. Mrs. Cooke said this petition brought up the need for an in-depth study of the Rt. 29 North corridor so the Planning Commission decided that until such time as more is known as to how to address this rezoning and the Commission wait to act on the petition at that time. Mr. St. John ~em~u=u the Board that this petition is a rezoning and that there is a time limit of one year in which the Board needs to take action. Mr. Fisher said it is not the normal process to defer an item indefinitely. Mr. St. John replied that is true, but he does not know what the Commission meant by indefinitely. If it meant "perpetually" then that is not normal, but if the Commission meant they just could not act on the petition that night and will act as soon as they can, then that can be done. Mrs. Cooke said that is what she thinks the Commission meant, that the petition would be acted on within a reasonable length of time. Mr. St. John said the Board cannot take action on the petition, since the Planning Commission has not act~edo Mr. Fisher asked Dr. Hurt, who was present, if he had any comments he would like to make. Dr. Hurt said he does not own the property, but has an option contract subject to rezoning the back portion of the property. He owns property next door which is zoned commercial to the same depth as he is asking that this property be rezoned. The piece of property next door is long and narrow. He made a contract with the adjoining property owners subject to having this property rezoned to commercial for its entire depth. He would like to have a yes or no on the request as soon as possible. Mrs. Cooke said there is also a road proposal involved and the Commission was reluctant to get into that issue until such time as they know what other roads may possibly be involved on the back side of the property. Mr. Fisher said he does not want to get into the details of the rezoning at this time. Mr. St, John said the only question at this time is whether Dr. Hurt agrees with the deferral. Dr. Hurt said he does not like the "indefinitely" part and would like the petition to be acted on. Mr. Fisher said he does not know what all the issues are, but he does not believe the Board can defer action on the petition'indefinitely. Mr. St. John said the petition is not before the Board at this time. The Planning Commission should deal with the petition one way or the other because this Board cannot deal with this until the Planning Commission acts. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board ask the Planning Commission what action it intends to take and when this action is expected since this petition has been on the agenda. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the Board ask the Planning Commission what it intends to do about this petition and the timeframe involved. If possible, the Board would like a reply by September 11. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Airport Authority Debt - Parking Facility. Mr. Agnor stated that the Airport Authority is developing a parking facility. A memorandum, dated August 8, 1985, from Harry Frazier, Bond Counsel for the Airport Authority, explains why the Board of Supervisors is being asked to approve the issuance of the bonds for the Airport Authority. "Internal Revenue Code Section 103(k), enacted in 1983, requires that the issuance of industrial development bonds must be approved by the 'governmental unit' which issues the bonds or on behalf of which the bonds are issued. Under Temporary Regulations promulgated by Internal Revenue Service bonds issued by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport must be approved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors because the airport is located in the County. Approval by the Charlottesville City Council is not required. The bonds are considered to be industrial development bonds. Rulings promulgated by Internal Revenue Service have held that bonds issued to finance facilities at commercial airports are industrial development bonds where the primary users of the airport are commercial airlines. Under those rulings, the airlines could be considered to be the indirect users of the parking facilities since they could not operate their businesses without a place for their passengers to park. The parking facilities therefore could be considered to be used in the trades or businesses of the airlines. Thus, the bonds issued to finance the parking facilities are likely to be considered industrial development bonds. 579 September 4, 1985 (Regular Ni~tMeeting) While the bonds may be industrial development bonds, they are not 'private activity bonds' requiring an allocation from the County or the State Reserve. Parking facilities that are related to a publicly owned airport are specifically excluded from the definition of private activity bonds. The Authority does not qualify as a 'governmental unit' because the act creating the Authority does not confer the right to exercise sovereign powers (e.g., taxation, police or eminent domain). Thus, the proposed bonds must be considered as being issued 'on behalf of' the City and the County, both of which unquestionably are governmental units. The required 'issuer approval' may be given by either the City Council or the Board of Supervisors. Temporary Regulations Section 5f.103-2(c) (2) provides that~in the case of an issuer which issues obligations on .behalf of more than one governmental unit, any one of such units may give the required issuer approval. The temporary Regulations also require that each governmental Unit in which the geographical jurisdiction contains the site of the facility must approve the issue. Temporary Regulations Section 5f.103-2(c) (c). This is referred to as 'host approval'. For purposes of the Authority's parking project host approval means the County Board of Supervisors. Since its approval will also satisfy the issuer approval requirement, there is no need to go to the City council. The form of approval is simple. All that is required is that the Board of Supervisors adopt a brief resolution following the public hearing by the Authority. The resolution will merely recite approval of the issuance of the Authority's bonds for the parking facility pursuant to the requirement of the Temporary Regulations. The County will incur no liability or responsibility whatsoever by having given this approval. A statement to that effect would be included in the resolution. The required approval will be in similar form to that given by the Board of Supervisors to the issuance of bonds by the County's Industrial Development Authority for its projects." Mr. Agnor noted that the Airport Authority Board held the required public hearing on this project this morning. He presented for the record a copy of the "Certificate With Respect to Public Hearing" with attached exhibits, which are required to be filed with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Agnor then requested that the Board adopt the bond resolution presented before us. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the Board adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority (the Authority), created by Chapter 390 of the Acts of Assembly of 1984 (the Act), has determined that it is necessary to construct a parking structure (the Project) adjacent to the terminal of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and to finance the cost of the same by the issuance of $1,800,000 Parking Revenue Notes (the Notes) in anticipation of the issuance of $1,800,000 Parking Revenue Bonds (the Bonds); and WHEREAS, the Authority has been advised that under current Internal Revenue Service rulings it is likely the Bonds and the Notes will be considered "industrial development bonds;" and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, to approve the issuance of the Bonds and the Notes to comply with Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and Section 15.1-1378.1B of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended; and WHEREAS, there has been filed with the Board of Supervisors a certi- ficate with respect to the conduct of a public hearing held by the Authority on September 4, 1985, including a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the Project and a resolution of the Authority requesting the Board of Supervisors to approve the issuance of the Bonds and the Notes; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board of Supervisors hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds and the Notes by the Authority to the extent required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds and the Notes, as required by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the Notes, but, as required by Section 2 of the Act, the Bonds and the Notes shall provide that the principal of and the interest thereon shall not be deemed to constitute a debt or a pledge of the faith and credit of the Commonwealth of Virginia or any county, city, district or other political subdivision thereof and the issuance of the BOnds or the Notes shall not directly or indirectly or contingently obligate the Commonwealth of Virginia or any county, city or district therein or any political subdivision thereof to levy or to pledge any form of taxation whatever therefor. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 580 September 4, 1985 (RegularN.~/~_~ Meetinq) Mr. Bowie seconded the foregoing motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: ~None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Sheila Haughey, Assistant City Attorney and Airport Attorney, if she had any comments. Mrs. Haughey stated that she was here only to answer any questions. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: February 13 and February 20, 1985. Mr. Fisher stated that he had read pages 13 through 27 of minutes of February 20, 1985 and found only a few typographical errors. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion for approval of minutes of February 20, 1985. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 13. Appointments. Mr. Way offered motion to appoint Carolyn C. Holmes to the Visitors Bureau Board to replace Charles Granquist; term expires February 28, 1987. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item NO. 14. Other Matters. Mr. Fisher stated he received a package of information from the Governor's office, Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, to emphasize energy awareness. The Governor is setting aside the week of October 20 to 27 ~for .energy awareness. Mr. Fisher passed this material to Mr. Tucker. Mr. Fisher noted the Pedestrian Obstacle Study, Phase I, from the Planning staff, has been sent to the Board members. It appears the report will be going through the Metropolitan Planning Organization, then the Planning Commission and then the MPO again. The process as spelled out in the cover letter indicates that the MPO members will decide on the study before this Board becomes involved. Mr. Fisher asked if this is the way the process is supposed to work or do the MPO members want the Board's direction before getting into the study. Mrs. Cooke said there are two Boards, the MPO Technical Board and the MPO Policy Board. Mr. Tucker said the stUdy has been submitted to the MPO Technical Committee and they have not made recommendations. Staff and the Commission is looking for some direction from the Board of Supervisors, particularly with regard to sidewalk policy for the future. This is on the Board's agenda next week. Mr. Tucker said now that the Highway Department has a new policy not to accept sidewalks as par~'of the Secondary System except within certain distances from schools or major commercial areas, it is creating some very difficult problems. Mr. Fisher asked when the Board of Supervisors is to play a role in this process? Mr. Tucker said the 'reason the MPO is involved in the process is because federal funds were used to draft the report. Mr. Tucker said the County is now faced with the problem of who will maintain sidewalks. Does Albemarle County want to maintain them or figure out some other mechanism through homeowners associations or something of that nature to maintain the sidewalks. That is the real issue. Mr. Lindstrom suggested the Board ask the Planning Commission to review the document and make its recommendations to the Board and then the Board decide what directions it will give. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has already reviewed the document and have asked the staff to try and develop a policy with regard to maintenance of sidewalks. The staff was faced with the issue of whether the County really wants to get involved in that type of business. That is an issue the Board of Supervisors needs to decide. Mr. Fisher said the County has a really big problem, and the Board must come to some kind of consensus on what is to be done. He still does not like the City, the State, the Highway Department and everybody else deciding on the issue before the Board of Supervisors come to some agreement. Mr. Lindstrom restated that the Policy Committee of the MPO will not do anything until this Board has had a chance to review the' study and make recommendations. Mr. Tucker said a work session is scheduled ~or this item on Wednesday, September 11, 1985. Mr. Agnor noted a. meeting with the School Board on September 25, 1985, at 4:00 P.M. Also, Thursday, October 17, 1985, the Board has an invitation from Region Ten Community Services BOard for a meeting with the Region Ten. Board and City Council, place to be announced later. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Bowie stated that they will not be able to attend the meeting with Region Ten. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjournment. At 10:41 P.M., the meeting was adjourned Chair~