Loading...
1996-02-14 adjFebruary 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) (Page 1) 000054 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 14, 1996, at 4:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was ad- journed from February 7, 1996. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. and Mr. Walter F. Perkins. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Chief of Community Development, David Benish. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by the Chairman, Ms. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said the last work session ended discussing the Utilities section. Today, the work session will begin at that point and then proceed to the Land Use section discussing the Growth Areas. Ms. Humphris said at the last work session, the Board had discussed location of utilities south of 1-64 and the fact that there is a proposal to add to the Growth Area in that vicinity. She thought Mr. Bill Brent said it would be relatively easy to extend utilities into that area, but she has heard since that it poses a difficulty. She asked Mr. Brent to explain. Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Brent to also compare what is meant by "difficulty" as opposed to the expense that is faced if expansion goes to the north along Route 29. Mr. Brent showed to the Board members a map. He said it was only five years that the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) extended water supply to the south side of the interstate highway. That supply is capable of serving further extensions, with additional storage, into the southern growth area. A 30-inch sewer line has already been extended under 1-64. Further extensions of both the water and sewer lines will be required to serve that area. The observation he made at the last meeting is that the addition to the growth area if proposed, needs to be located much further south. Extending existing lines to that area requires going a fairly significant distance. In the Sunset Avenue area, there is the interstate highway and a railroad separating the existing utilities from the proposed addition to the growth area. If the area closest to the lines does not develop first, it will be very costly for utilities to be extended into the furthermost south are. If the area develops in an orderly fashion from the existing developed area southward, then it will not be a problem. Mr. Martin asked if land were developed further south leaving in-fill space, would the developer have any responsibility for providing finances for running the line. Mr. Brent said whoever develops the area furthermost south will have that expense. He said the ACSA went through this same thing in the 1980s when developers said there were no utilities in the growth areas and they could not afford to extend the utilities through large undeveloped tracts. If the area furthermost south were developed first, the developer would be facing prohibitive costs for getting utilities through the undevel- oped portion into that area which is scheduled for development. Ms. Thomas asked how the ACSA deals with this type of situation now. Does the developer pay? Do all of the water users pay at the same time? Who actually pays for any large extension of a major feeder line? Mr. Brent said the developer would be required to install a line to meet his needs, whatever size line it took to serve his property. If the ACSA determined that in order to serve the ultimate development in the area it would take a much larger line, the ACSA would pay the difference in cost. Ms. Thomas asked if the current customers of the ACSA pay that cost. Mr. Brent said "yes." ACSA customers pick up the ~0st of getting the line from one point to another so the property can be developed. Ms. Thomas said the Board has been told there are alternatives, but sewer line extensions from Piney Mountain to the Moores Creek Treatment Plant February 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) 0000~ (Page 2) are necessary to serve the northern area. She asked how that cost compares with what is being faced in the southern part of the growth areas. Mr. Brent said he can identify what the cost will be in the southern area. As for the northern area, there is adequate capacity in the Ri~anna Interceptor up to Hollymead. It was designed to accommodate the waste from Crozet that was intended to go around the northwest edge of the City and connect to the Rivanna River and the Treatment Plant. Since the ACSA does not have that flow, there is additional capacity in that line. It is not known what will ultimately have to be done at Camelot. There has been a sewage treatment plant there for the last 30 years. It has been expanded twice. It's capacity is currently at 365,000 gallons per day. Only 120,000 gallons of that capacity is being used per month. There are 700 homes, one of the County's largest employers, another factory and the Airport using that plant and that is still only one-third of the plant's capacity. Unless something drastic happens there in the near future, it is conceivable that plant will serve for many years to come. During this review of the County's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission was presented with a development plan for Advance Mills. If at some point in the future Advance Mills develops 1000 or 2000 acres, that could obliterate anything planned at Camelot. At some point in the future, something will need to be done in Camelot by putting in a differ- ent facility. What would that facility serve? Mr. Brent said if the size of the growth area is known, the ACSA can give the cost to serve that area. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Brent's statement still does not give her much on which to base a decision. Mr. Brent agreed. Ms. Humphris said at the last meeting she had noted that the newly planned growth areas to the south do not have adequate public water and sewer. She asked if the problem is that there is adequate water and sewer, but the lines would have to be run, and it is question about the intervening undevel- oped property in Neighborhood 4. Mr. Brent said the only inadequacy in the existing system is the Moores Creek interceptor. It is now accommodating the waste from Crozet which was not intended to go to that'~interceptor. The original design for the Moores Creek interceptor considered little growth south of 1-64. In fact, Mill Creek used up all of the capacity that was envisioned for the entire southern area, ever. Ms. Humphris said she remembers that the ACSA planned to enlarge that line. Mr. Brent said that is correct. From Route 20 up to Quarry Road, that section has been completed. The next section will be from Quarry Road to Biscuit Run. When the Biscuit Run interceptor was installed five-plus years ago, it was sized to serve the entire drainage basin. The bottleneck is in the existing Moores Creek interceptor which was installed in the mid-70s. That is the only adequacy problem. Mr. Tucker asked if that line will not have to be improved for Crozet and not necessarily for the southern urban neighborhoods. So, it will have to be done regardless of what is done south. Mr. Brent said water is more than adequate. As the ACSA extends further into the southern area, additional storage tanks will be needed. Ms. Humphris said it seems that water is adequate and sewer will be adequate after the upgrading of the interceptor. Mr. Brent said that is correct. Ms. Thomas said he is referring to capacity, but the lines to get to these areas are not in place. Mr. Brent said that getting feeder lines from the existing service to the area being discussed is the problem. Ms. Thomas asked if the section of the Moores Creek interceptor closest to the City is going to have to be enlarged for Crozet, or could Crozet be constricted in growth and then the interceptor not have to be enlarged. Mr. Tucker said the decision to upgrade was based on the County's growth area plans for Crozet. In order for the ACSA to change its plans, the whole Crozet area would have to be reconsidered. That would then alter whether anything is changed on the southern part of the growth areas. There might still be a need to upgrade for the southern area, but then it would be for a different reason. Mr. Benish said if there would be no growth in Crozet, theoretically that growth would have to go somewhere else. Any area that is not already desig- nated as a growth area will not have utilities serving it. For the most part, it will be outside of the service area boundaries of the ACSA. Service lines will always have to be extended. Neighborhoods 4 and 5 are only about half developed so development has not reached the fringes of those neighborhoods. That makes it a longer distance to the proposed addition to the growth area. February 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) (Page 3) 000056 Mr. Brent said the ACSA has committed a great deal of capital to Crozet. They just completed a large project getting water to the western edge of the Crozet growth area. A lot of money has been spent in anticipation of growth in Crozet. Ms. Thomas said she believes those kinds of facts need to be in the Comprehensive Plan. She asked if the waterline to Western Albemarle High School has been completed. Mr. Brent said it has been completed. Ms. Thomas asked if the planners would address when the Board will have to make decisions that will affect the wastewater interceptor coming from the north. She said the Board was told that was something it should be thinking about and be prepared to make some sort of decision about. Mr. Brent has just suggested that is a long way off so she would like to have a definite answer. Mr. Benish said in terms of looking at a twenty-year plan, this is an opportu- nity to look at where growth is envisioned to occur so long-term decisions can be made about future expansion areas. Staff felt this was an opportunity to determine in what general direCtion the County will go. He does not think a decision will have to be made in the next five years, but he thinks that the sooner it is made, the more predictability there is in the plan. The ACSA looks at basically a 50-year time frame, so from their planning perspective it is helpful to have directions from the County. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it works the other way around. Where the lines are drawn will determine where the growth takes place. It is not just the County telling the authorities where the Board thinks the growth will go. Mr. Tucker said staff's perspective has been that the Board will determine where the growth will occur, and the ACSA responds to that growth area. Otherwise, it is back to the way it used to be 15 years ago when the service areas were huge. The service area boundaries were amended in the late 1970's to mirror the growth areas in the plan. From the government's perspective, the County has envisioned that it should determine where development actually occurs, and the ACSA responds to provide utilities within that growth area, rather than the County following them. Mr. Benish said looking for the best expansion areas, the areas were chosen based on where facilities exist now. Staff knew that eventually a decision would be needed concerning the Camelot Treatment Plant, therefore, because the plant is there, the question of how to address sewer capacity in that area would need to be answered. Staff also looked at issues of open space, traffic considerations, etc. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board was to tackle the question of what kind of an interceptor. Mr. Benish said that is not a question for the Board. What is important for the ACSA to know is what level and what type of development is envisioned in an area. A decision as to whether to use a pump station to replace Camelot, to upgrade Camelot, or have a gravity line down the North Fork Rivanna River to the Powell Creek Interceptor will be decided based on where those long-term expansion areas will be located. If it is a small expansion area, or no real expansion, then the issue of build-out in the existing growth area has to be addressed. He does not believe that is for this Board to decide, but the County's plan is an essential component that goes into the ACS~s utilities plan. It helps them decide. There is the same issue for transportation. Staff is going through a traffic modeling process now, looking at an additional five years. For infrastructure improvements, transportation and utilities are the obvious, but schools and community facilities are important as well. Mr. Brent said there is no foreseen problem for the next five years, unless some large operation wants to locate in the area in the near future. The ultimate solution is to continue the interceptor up the River, and whatever happens in that area can be served at the time it happens. That is the most expensive way to expand, and it also would open up everything for development that would flow into the North Rivanna River drainage basin. The ACSA can probably deal with anything east of Route 29 in an orderly fashion over the next 20 years. An interceptor could probably be built part of the way down the River, put in a temporary pumping station, and pump back to Hollymead. That might take care of any growth expanding off of Route 29 for a period of time. If a decision should be made to make Advance Mills a village, that could wipe out everything that has been planned to date. The ACSA might have to sell 30-year bonds for whatever solution was needed for that area. People buying those bonds would expect the facility to be serviceable for 30 years. They would not expect it to be inundated and its capacity wiped out in February 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) (Page 4) 00O05? 15 years with another 15 years of debt still owed on whatever facility were built. He does not believe the ACSA is at a crisis situation now. There are quite a few years before having to make a decision, but it will be a difficult decision. Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Art Petrini, Executive Director, Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, the safe yield of the Sugar Hollow Reservoir. Was it decreased by last year's storm? Mr. Petrini said it is decreased slightly. The amount of sedimentation in Sugar Hollow, which was confirmed by a survey, was much less than originally feared. Visually, it looks worse than it is. There is still 85 percent of the original capacity. Most of the 15 percent lost was lost before the storm in June, 1995. Ms. Thomas said it was not 15 percent of 5.4 million gallons per day because that is what the plan shows for both the Ragged Mountain and the Sugar Hollow Reservoirs combined. She asked what is left in the Sugar Hollow Reservoir. Mr. Petrini said he is working with Mr. Gene Potter to have an actual safe yield done on the system. Ms. Thomas said she thinks that figure would be useful to have in the Utilities Master Plan, as well as the assumed yield of the proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir and its cost. What Black & Vetch said about the James River, or a similar consultant, should be included in the plan also. If it is not included, people will always ask '~what about going to the James?" Mr. Tucker said there have been a lot of studies concerning options that would be available and Buck Mountain was the top option. The James River may be the only other alternative once Buck Mountain is at capacity and use of its water. There are many other areas of potential reservoirs that could be considered, and those studies have been done and there is data available that could be listed in the Comprehensive Plan as options. Ms. Thomas said the land better be bought and protected if the area is going to think that way. She asked what is being done to protect Chris Greene Lake now that it is being thought of as a drinking water source. Mr. Tucker said the Rivanna Authority will be addressing that question soon. Mr. David Hirschman has done some analysis on that, so this Board will ultimately have to decide what to do with Chris Greene. Is the impoundment area protected? Water would not be taken from Chris Greene, but the water has always gone from Chris Greene down the creek to the North Fork, and the intake is actually at the North Fork. The issue then becomes one of whether to protect the North Fork upstream from the intake. Ms. Thomas said there is the quality issue and in that case the North Fork might be protected. She was also thinking about siltation which is why the Rivanna Reservoir is protected. Ms. Humphris said she was surprised by Mr. Tucker's statement about alternatives. She had always believed that Buck Mountain was the last alternative other than the James River. She did not realize there are others. Mr. Tucker said there were other alternatives looked at. The Authority may want to look at those alternatives again before considering the James River. Ms. Humphris asked if Preddy Creek was one of the options. Mr. Tucker said he believes Preddy Creek is not in a good location and is too far distant to be viable. There were others. Mr. Brent said there is Buck Island Creek, but the largest would have been on the North Fork of the Rivanna, but most of the ponding area would have been in Greene County. There was also one on the Mechum River. Ms. Thomas said none of these were satisfactory, and that is why Buck Mountain was chosen. Mr. Tucker said after Buck Mountain and beyond those just mentioned, the James River was being looked at. He believes the Rivanna Authority will take one final look at the areas just mentioned. Other than for protection, there is no particular urgency. Mr. Petrini said taking into account the general growth predicted by the Commission, with the Buck Mountain Reservoir going on line possibly by the year 2003, which is probably early, there is enough safe yield to cover all of the projected growth to the year 2040 under the worse case scenario. A best case scenario would take the system to the year 2050 of 2060, with the existing systems plus Buck Mountain. Ms. Thomas said the chart in the Plan is useful. She would find such a chart helpful in the Master Utilities Plan. Mr. Tucker said he brought that up because people ask those questions. He does not think they know other February 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) (Page 5} 000058 studies have been done in the past. It is also an historical record, and maybe that needs to be in the plan. Ms. Thomas said that on Page 85 it says a study will be conducted, and it speaks to telecommunications and towers. This is something the Board needs every time it has to make a decision on one of these requests. She said people keep insisting that satellites are going to be an alternative. She said that having one company come for one tower every three months is not good planning. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has discussed having one company present the County with an overall plan for what they envision doing county-wide. Staff is not expert on telecommunication issues, and it is not something staff would be able to draw up. Ms. Humphris asked if the County could require such a plan before approving any more of these requests. Mr. Cilimberg said he has read that nationally counties are requiring some sort of plan indicating an overall plan of development be submitted by the telecommunication company looking for tower sites. Mr. Davis said that is not a part of the County's application require- ments. Whether or not such a plan could be required as a condition of the special use permit would depend on the circumstances of that permit and whether or not it was necessary for that location to offset adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Davis if he knew what Congressman Bliley is attempting with Federal legislation concerning towers. Mr. Davis said he has read that zoning powers are preserved for localities in the Telecommunications Bill. He does not think the preemption occurred in the bill which was adopted a couple of weeks ago. Mr. Benish said the "tower study" is seen as a high priority by Planning staff. They anticipate beginning that study in the next fiscal year. Ms. Thomas said she tried to figure out the magnitude of utility improvements being looked at and it is difficult. Taking the capital improve- ment plans of both the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority, it looks like in the next 10 years, their capital improvements will be bout $10.0 million. That does not include the Buck Mountain Reservoir which is about $26.1 million. She thinks that makes it more important to have a good utilities plan in the Comprehensive Plan. That is the only place where all of these plans are drawn together. Otherwise, they appear in the studies and plans of separate entities. Mr. Benish said a Utilities Master Plan was begun more than four years ago. The draft was completed about one and one-half years ago. What staff foresees is that when the revised Comprehensive Plan for the next five years is adopted, staff will update the Utilities Master Plan and it will become a free-standing study adopted by reference, but which will allow as much detail as is needed to be included. That includes the history of utilities in general, terminations on alternatives for water supplies, and future potential water supplies. That information has never been covered in either the Comprehensive Plan or the Utilities Plan, but it is appropriate. Some of the information provided to the Board is out-of-date, and staff does expect to bring that information up-to-date and bring it that back to the Board to be adopted. Mr. Bowerman asked what assumption is being used for the growth rate to determine water usage. Mr. Benish said it is 1.3 percent. He said staff is using VEC growth rates. Their official population projections go to the year 2010, so staff has to interpret that to 2015, and they just straight line the same rate they assume up to 2010 which is 1.3 percent. Ms. Thomas asked if information on the groundwater being withdrawn and protection of that groundwater is dealt with only in the rural areas. She said 3.0 million gallons were being withdrawn from the groundwater supply several years ago. Mr. Benish said groundwater is normally covered in Chapter 2, Natural Resources, and staff does intend to cover it there again. There will be a new subsection focusing in on well head protection initiatives. Ms. Thomas said it would be good to reference that in the Utilities Plan because it is the sort of thing that is part of the whole picture, and it is impacted by where the growth areas go. Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Benish what the Board is to discuss next. Mr. Benish said he is prepared to go through the Land Use Plan Maps and discuss the changes to land uses. He will mention the recommendations for expansion February 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) (Page 6) oooosa areas. He said the residential categories have changed somewhat. There are four residential land use categories: village residential which was roughly 1 du/ac gross density; low density ranged from 1-4 du/ac; medium density ranged from 4-10 du/ac; and high density was from 10-34 du/ac. The Commission recommended that the residential areas be cut to two. Village Residential was eliminated, but the Commission recommended that villages be served by public water and sewer. They also want a more compact village-style of development. The Commission felt it would be more appropriate just to use a low-end residential designation for villages. There is only one village left in the Comprehensive Plan based on the Commission's recommendation. They are calling it Neighborhood Density Residential. That designation generally replaces the low density and part of the old medium density residential categories. The Commission also had the low, medium and high densities go to two categories: a neighborhood density which is 3-6 du/ac, and an urban density which is 6.01- 34.0 du/ac. That provides more flexibility for gross densities of develop- ment. It allows staff and the County to not be as precise about determining whether it is low, medium or high. That is often a hard decision to make and sometimes can be arbitrary. Mr. Benish said in the neighborhood density, the Commission raised the low end of the recommended gross density from 1 du/ac to 3 du/ac to show the intent to maximize development within the growth areas. The notion of one- acre lots in the growth areas was not seen as productive. It was considered sprawl development and does not maximize utilities in those designated growth areas. He said that in the urban areas, the average is 2.5 du/ac. The more recent, larger-scale developments such as Forest Lakes, Mill Creek and Redfields actually grossed at less than 2 du/ac, about 1.7 du/ac. Mill Creek is just over 2 du/ac. Mr. Benish said the other change to the land use categories is a recommendation for a new designation called "transitional" which has been applied in four locations: Hollymead along Worth Crossing which is behind the Food Lion Shopping Center; west of Berkmar Drive Extended; an area between Cale Elementary School and the Route 20/Avon Street Connector Road; and, an area between Claudius Crozet Park and an Industrial Service area. The Comprehensive Plan has tried to delineate between non-residential and inten- sive commercial and industrial areas. A use that would provide a good transition between residential and non-residential areas has typically been Office Service, High Density Residential, or occasionally, Limited Commercial. This "Transitional" category simply creates one category which allows the, flexibility to use any of those in combination. The development along Worth Crossing is in the form of a day care center, doctor's offices, a church and townhouses would be a good example of what would be perceived for a transi- tional area. The other application for that transitional area would be where a high flexibility of land uses is needed to accommodate changing circum- stances. In the case of Berkmar Drive West, that is the reason that designa- tion is recommended for the area. Due to the proposed construction of the Route 29 Bypass, much of the property in that area has been rendered either undevelopable, or more limited in its opportunities for development. Mr. Benish said those were the major changes. One other is that the typical uses of the Industrial Service designation have been broadened to more directly imply that office type of uses are permitted in an industrial service district. The intent is still for employment-based businesses, but realizing that new industries are sometimes office related and look no different than any other office building, the categories of uses were broadened. Ms. Thomas said she would like to comment on what Mr. Benish just presented. As to the office use issue, the "boom and bust" of Northern Virginia was related to the overbuilding of office space, so if the industrial category is enlarged to include office space, does that affect the County's ability to say it has enough office space already? The County can't tell a person that what he is about to do is irresponsible, but the County can say the land is meant for industrial and not for an office building if that is what the category is. Mr. Benish said in terms of the Comprehensive Plan designations as they relate to zoning, many of the areas are already zoned based on approvals, or they are properties which are under zoned and would have to go through a rezoning process. The intent is to broaden the types of structures and the types of uses would still allow for basic employment types of uses. Staff hopes that through the rezoning process, the County could still monitor the character of the development. The intent is not to open industrial service areas to doctor's offices, but to open them up to types of February 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) (Page 7) O000GO structures often referred to as "flex structures" that could be broken down into any facet as an organization expands. Mr. Cilimberg said a couple of years ago, staff went to Northern Virginia and toured projects in Loudoun County which were in construction. Some of the Commission members, along with staff members, also met the Fauquier County Planning Commission two summers ago. The problem that Loudoun experienced was that office buildings were not being leased. The problem was not the building of the offices, but a problem created by over zoning. In a matter of just a few years, Loudoun had approved millions of square feet of office uses, along with commercial, residential and major mixed-use planned developments. All of these uses were competing with each other for the few office uses that wanted to locate in Loudoun. What normally happens is that the overbuilding corrects itself. Mr. Cilimberg said in Loudoun, developers were coming back to the county and asking for a downzoning in some cases, or to rezone from office into residential and/or commercial uses. They wanted to downgrade proffers which had originally been based on an expectation that they would have millions of square feet of office. Loudoun had so much available in their Comprehensive Plan that they were zoning to that by sheer acreage and square footage, and the market couldn't begin to fill it up. When a developer doesn't get a return on that investment after three or four years, he has to turn it into something else. That is what the developers were trying to do and at the same time get out of proffer commitments that were tied to those major office developments. Some of the same thing has been happening on the Route 28 corridor going into Dulles. The General Assembly passed special enabling legislation for a tax program along that corridor because they were not getting enough into the coffers for the Route 28 improvements. Again, it was based on expectations of office development that just could not happen. Ms. Thomas asked if any of those problems are being dealt with in this updated Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said over designation is the real question. Ms. Thomas said she does not want an over designation of office space if the County ends up doing that because of combining industrial and office space all in one category. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has determined that Albemarle does not have close to that area designated or that magnitude of potential. Basically in the Office/Industrial combination, there is the Pantops area, and Hollymead for what can still development. That is it for a twenty-year plan. And, the land in Piney Mountain which was designated several years ago. Mr. Martin said he thought during the period when they were overbuilding in Northern Virginia, there was a tax break so that even if there was an empty building, the tax laws were such that it was okay to have an empty building. He understands that law has been changed and that is no longer the case. He is not a tax expert, but that is what he understood was happening. Mr. Benish then proceeded to explain the recommended changes in the neighborhoods. He said that in Neighborhood One, the major change is: 1) The undeveloped portion of the Sperry site along Hydraulic Road is recommended for Regional Service use. It has been previously recommended for Industrial Service use. The property provides an opportunity to support future commercial development with (very near) existing commercial corridor. Major concerns with develop- ment of this site will be the ability of existing roads to accom- modate traffic and impact to adjacent residential areas. This is a public request. Mr. Benish said this is the residue property of the Sperry site. Most of the area is off of Hydraulic Road. The Sperry site actually has a ~'U" shape of vacant land around the building itself. This is focused primarily along Hydraulic Road and directly behind the building. The Commission felt this was a reasonable change, however, there are significant concerns about accommodation of traffic and addressing nearby residential areas. One of the advantages the Commission and staff sees in this change is that it does in some way support the in-fill concept of allowing future regional service- commercial areas to be located along the existing commercial corridor. He said there are significant concerns with traffic and any development would have to address those concerns. February 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) (Page 8) Ms. Humphris said she understands the Commission feels this would be a good designation for in-fill. Given the major concerns about the traffic in that area, why did the Commission think it was a good thing. When the property had been left as industrial service, the traffic problem would have been less than what is going to happen under the regional service designation. Mr. Benish said there was some sympathy to the realistic developability as presented by the applicant for an industrial service designation. The Commission was clear that what will impact traffic the most is the scale of development. This area may be a good location for some level of commercial, but that commercial has to be dictated by the ability to accommodate traffic. It may not be the scale of development that is hoped for on that amount of land. Mr. Cilimberg said for the in-fill concept the Commission was looking at the idea of utilizing the infrastructure that is in place. There are some committed improvements to Route 29 including sidewalk construction and there is the existing CTS service. There is some infrastructure available, and transportation service that does not exist further out on Route 29 North in the Hollymead area now. There is a zoning decision that needs to be made if development is going to occur on that property. The Commission and the Board both have to be satisfied that the transportation impact of that development has been met. People by the thousands travel by this property every day, so the Board could take advantage of providing the service where people are already traveling. Mr. Benish said staff and the Commission discussed the condition of the existing commercial area on the corner of Hydraulic Road, and the concept that within a unified development of that area, there could be improvement in access and orientation of that corner. There would be additional traffic, but there could be a benefit to the organization and channeling of that traffic. That was another positive seen to designating a larger area and trying to get that through planning. Ms. Thomas asked if there is the concept of in-fill in the commercial areas, as well as residential areas, because that land is not used very efficiently. She is talking about everything along Route 29 North, and not just that corner. Mr. Benish said the Commission was adamant from the beginning that when discussing in-fill development and increasing intensities of development, it should be for both residential and nonresidential. They have focused more on residential because that is the greatest bulk of land, but the Commission is very interested in nonresidential. Ms. Thomas asked if there is anything other than the word "in-fill" such as techniques or strategies. Mr. Benish said one of the things staff wants to do is take an in-depth look at how to implement in-fill development. It is something that has not translated to model documents for counties very well, but other counties are beginning to do it. There are standard things that can be done. Parking requirements are an obvious one. Parking takes a relatively significant amount of the developable land area. The County has no maximum parking requirements. There are minimums. It is more difficult to do joint parking areas under the present ordinance than to share parking spaces. Ms. Thomas said she worries about a plan that says there should be in- fill and yet how to do it is not known. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has dis- cussed with the Commission issues relating to in-fill, such as: costly urban- scale improvements which are public commitments will be part of making in-fill work; creating urban-scale streets; expanding bus systems to provide public transit that is more readily-available; and, going to the concept of lower parking requirements, or maximum parking requirements, and/or shared parking. The city-type problem of having convenient parking has to be faced; this is one of the things that led to the parking garage construction in downtown Charlottesville. Mr. Bowerman asked the definition of "urban-scale street." Mr. Cilimberg said this is a street which is designed to urban standards (curb and gutter, sidewalks, potentially bicycle lanes). Bike lanes are proposed in the County's Bicycle Plan now. When Rio Road and Hydraulic Road are widened, there will be a need for sidewalks and bike lanes. There were no sidewalks included on the east side of Rio Road during the last improvements. At the time, it was not thought of as a city street. Now, both are becoming city streets. Do people really know when they leave the City and go'into the County? In a sense, urban-scale is actually city-scale streets. Mr. Tucker said there would not be on-street parking as there is in the City. Mr. February 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) (Page 9) O000G Cilimberg said not on collector roads or arterial roads. Mr. Benish said Mr. Bowerman asked where sidewalks were.~-included on East Rio. Mr. Cilimberg said there are sidewalks on one side only. Mr. Bowerman asked if urban-scale would indicate sidewalks should be on both sides. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes". Mr. Benish said any road with four lanes or more would have sidewalks on both sides. Urban-scale roadways can also imply the level the road is constructed to. The roads in a city are typically designed to a level of service "D", so it allows less traffic to flow through so the roads could be somewhat smaller in scale. The CATS Committee for the urbanized area is discussing what level of service is expected, because county roads are basically built to a scale that would be seen in a rural area, with higher speeds and wider roadways to channel more traffic to a city. Staff wants the CATS Committee to recognize the County's urban area as part of the City, Ms. Thomas said when she was chairing the CATS Committee in 1977, they were trying to protect city neighborhoods and said the roads should go to a Level of Service '~C" in order to protect neighborhoods in the City. Nobody was thinking about neighborhoods in the county at that point, and everyone was expecting that roads should be built so you could zip along everywhere. Basically, a city is being planned from Rio Road to where G.E. is on Route 29 North. She thinks there is no more than a five-year window of opportunity in which to do the planning. Most people think Route 29 has been lost up to that point, so she was distressed when she realized that Neighborhood 1 and 2 stopped where she thought the County should be thinking in urban terms. Mr. Benish said that right now the terms ~urban" and '~community" are irrelevant. He said urban-scale development will apply to Hollymead and Piney Mountain and it should apply to Crozet as well. The citizens in Crozet have already established (so he understands), what they want. Ms. Thomas said the County has not been paying any attention to that. Mr. Benish said to the extent possible, staff has tried to take their recommendations into consider- ation. Mr. Cilimberg said last week the Board endorsed seeking Airport Access Funds for Airport Road (Route 649). In discussing that project with VDOT, staff tried to convince VDOT that Airport Road is now an urban road and not the country road it has been in the past. It was a discussion that centered on designing that road with sidewalks on both sides, bike lanes, and, possibly street lights. That is the kind of design talked about when moving toward urbanizing. Mr. Tucker said it is important to talk in those terms, but the Board has to remember that the developer is required to put in those roads. That can have an impact on the level of housing, the affordability of housing, etc. The City shares in the construction of streets. There is a difference in the standard the County may require, and the impact that imight have °n other things such as affordable housing. Mr. Cilimberg said part of the concept of in-fill is that there is more public involvement in what happens. The "public" in this case is the county potentially. Mr. Benish said he would now discuss Neighborhood Tw© where the changes proposed are: 1) 2) The area north of Rio Road (across from CATEC) between the rail- road and the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway is recommended for Urban Density Residential use (previously recommended for Low Density Residential. The area east of Rio Road between Pen Park Road and Pen Park Lane is recommended for Urban Density Residential use (previously recommended for Low Density Residential). Mr. Benish said in Neighborhood Three the change is: 1) A general redesignation of areas Previously recommended for Medium and High Density Residential to Urban Density Residential. A Portion of' the area on the north side of Route 250, west Of westminster canterbury, has been designated to Neighborhood 00006 3 February 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) (Page 10) Density Residential (from High Density Residential) to reflect a recent rezoning or property. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 5:22 p.m. and returned at 5:25 p.m.) Mr. Benish said the two neighborhoods seeing the most changes are Neighborhoods Four and Five. He mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan used to carry a Public/Semi-public designation on the Land Use Map. That same area is now shown as Parks/Greenways as one category, and the old category of Other Public Structures are shown as Institutional Uses. In Neighborhood Four the changes recommended are: . ~ l) 2) 3) The area purchased for the high school site and other public uses is designated for Institutional use along with the PVCC property. The area south of the Avon Street/Route 20 connector road previ- ously recommended for Low Density Residential is now recommended for Urban Density Residential. A new Community Service designation is recommended on the east side of Avon Street south of the Lakeside Apartments site. This area replaces the commercial area previously recommended in the Land Use Plan, essentially across Avon Street from the proposed site. Some commercial/service area is seen as important to support a rapidly developing residential area and reduce the need to travel to more distant commercial areas. Ms. Thomas said when this presentation was made before the T.J. Planning District Commission, a question was asked as to whether the Board takes into account commercial areas just inside the City when it decides to designate areas as commercial. Also, there was a question of traffic generation inside the City when the County puts certain uses just on the edge of the city. Mr. Cilimberg said staff does take that into consideration. In the case of Avon Street, there is a lot of residential in the area, and no commercial area until one gets close to downtown Charlottesville. There is no easy way to get to the commercial on Fifth Street from Avon Street. It is hoped that the right kind of commercial services on Avon will draw people to shop in that area rather than driving through City neighborhoods to get to other locations. That shopping area may also draw people from the City out to that point, but it is not far from City neighborhoods. There are already numerous houses in Mill Creek and Lake Reynovia. 4) 5) The area between the proposed Community Service area and Cale Elementary School is recommended for Transitional uses, replacing Medium Density Residential. This would allow for the existing structure in this area (construction company office and yard), and the area in general, to be developed with uses which are more in keeping with the adjacent school site to the south and commercial area to the north. Expansion of the Neighborhood boundary south of the existing boundary and west of Route 20 to just north of the Wolverly Subdivision. Wingfield Brook is the southern boundary. This area would be shown for Neighborhood Density Residential. The Neigh- borhood Profile text indicates that some internal portions of this area could be developed with Urban Density Residential and commer- cial uses under a planned development concept for the area. Mr. Benish said the changes in Neighborhood Five are: 1) 2) The Virginia Power site is recommended for Office Service designa- tion (previously designated Regional Service) to reflect character of actual development. The area between Fifth Street Extended and 1-64 is recommended for Regional Service uses. This would provide for regional scale shopping/service opportunities south of the City (public request). Mr. Benish said the area to be designated for Regional Service is approximately 30 total acres. The property is less developable due to topography. This change was discussed during the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Jefferson National Bank site. One of the concepts discussed was to create some higher level of commercial opportunities on the south end of town without creating a significant commercial area. It would create a core area for commercial, employment and office opportunities in the area. The location by the interchange has reasonable access from other parts of the community. 000064 February 14/ 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) (Page 11) This is a situation that is more debatable in terms of its relationship to the City's development. There is a similar community of regional development in the City. He said staff talked to the City's Planning Department about this proposed change. He does not think there was any significant concern on the City's part. They understood the concept, but did recognize it could be debatable from the public's concept as to whether this is advantageous or not. From the Willoughby area down to Lynchburg Road, it creates a corridor in the City and the County that has commercial and service opportunities. 3) Expansion of the Neighborhood south and west of its existing neighborhood boundary. This area is shown for Neighborhood Density Residential. For the expansion area east of Lynchburg Road, the same recommendation regarding potential for Urban Density Residential and Commercial use is provided in the text. Mr. Benish said the most obvious change in Neighborhoods Four and Five is the designation of an expansion area (expanded growth area). It is west of Route 20 in Neighborhood Four and goes over to Lynchburg Road until it reaches the intersection of Route 706; then it goes westward and generally follows the power line that runs along the ridge to the west of Lynchburg Road. It includes what has generally been referred to as the "Jessup" property. This was a public request. There was another public request in the area west of Route 631. Mr. Benish said within the expansion areas, particularly in the south part of Neighborhoods Four and Five, the text language indicates that the character of the road corridors to limit the impact to the frontage of the streets should be protected. Also, under "Planned Development", the opportu- nity to achieve urban densities or some commercial development in that area is discussed. It is focused more on providing a mix of uses and achieving the highest use of the land while providing some immediate service needs that might reduce the overall traffic back into the City. Conceptually, a connec- tor road has also been shown to connect Route 631 and Route 20. Mr. Bowerman said it is clear that all of these people will work north of where they live. Mr. Cilimberg said for the Commission, it came down to a question of balance. There is so much occurring on the north side of town, the Commission felt the southern area was a good balance to that growth. The northern area has a lot of the infrastructure improvements already and it has employment centers, so that was a fundamental discussion the Commission had. As it turned out, they went with the idea of balancing future residential development in the southern area against the trend of the resident development occurring north on Route 29. They were conscious of the survey results where a majority of people did not want to see continuing growth out the 29 North corridor. Mr. Benish said the Commission recognized that in any expansion area there will be transportation deficiencies. They recognized the condition of the roads in the southern area and its level of traffic. There is also the Route 29 North Corridor Study which is not completed and the Meadow Creek Parkway is still under review. That was another issue raised concerning expansion to the north. Mr. Bowerman asked if the City addressed the issue of residential growth in the southern area along Fifth Street. Mr. Benish said there were two joint City/County Planning Commission meetings where the status of the Comprehensive Plan review was discussed. Expansions to the north and to the south, and the concept of expanding in general, were also discussed. There was an exchange of issues regarding expansion to the south and its impact to the southern City neighborhoods. On the Commission level, there was almost as much discussion about how to accommodate and make the areas self-sufficient, as opposed to the inevitable traffic increase through the City. Mr. Bowerman said the area can be made self-sufficient as to conve- niences such as, grocery shopping, dry cleaners, etc. But, it has to be recognized that there would be a daily migration back and forth starting at the University and going up Route 29 North as far as G.E. Mr. Cilimberg said neighborhood preservation in the City has been the predominant issue. Looking at where the jobs are, and where some of the core commercial services are in the City, to get to them from the County, one has to go along streets that go through the City except for Route 29 North which is almost all commercial. February 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) (Page 12) 000065 Mr. Bowerman asked how much industrial land is left at Mill Creek. Mr. Cilimberg said some of it was turned into commercial in the Fox Haven rezon- ing. There are still undeveloped tracts where Carolina Builders is located along the Southern Parkway. Mr. Bowerman said there is no critical mass that exists south of 1-64. Mr. Cilimberg said there is not, and there has not been any great interest in that area from any major employer. Mr. Bowerman said people coming to the area to look for locations for companies always look to the north and not to the southern area. Mr. Cilimberg said one company did look to the south. Mr. Tucker said all of the various industrial parcels of some size are now identified in a brochure. When companies or businesses come to this community, and staff is involved in showing them sites, staff does take these people to the sites on the south such as the one at Mill Creek, and one at Willoughby. Mr. Cilimberg said Willoughby is divided. It has industrial tracts and a road. Mr. Tucker said there have been people interested, but they want to have ties to the Univer- sity research arm. Mr. Cilimberg said there is also a question of topography in Willoughby. Mr. Benish said that future employment centers for this area other then downtown, the University and to the north, is Peter Jefferson Place on Route 250 East which has good access and a smaller area that is already developing on Fontaine Avenue. Ms. Thomas asked if the County has given up getting an interchange on 1- 64 at Avon Street. Mr. Benish said during the joint Planning Commission meetings, the City was adamant that the County commit to both of the connector roads to provide this area with access to two interchanges. Now, the County is focusing on the Route 20/Avon Street connector road. The results of the Southern City Neighborhood Study and the discussions by the City Planning Commission showed greater interest in bringing this road up to a higher priority as the area develops. Mr. Cilimberg said the Southern Transportation Study looked at the Avon Street interchange and decided it would not be as effective as doing the two connector roads. Ms. Thomas asked the reason for taking in the big tract of land in Neighborhood Five. She asked if it is for anything other than just providing the necessary acres for replacing the villages and providing some expansion in the growth areas. She asked for an argument for including that area. Mr. Benish said one argument was the Commission's interest in some of the public's comments about effecting the balance of growth. There were two public requests for expansion in this area. That implied there was the opportunity and the potential for the area to move forward and develop in the nearer term. The tracts of property are sizeable and relatively developable. They are very rolling tracts, but are also aesthetically pleasing. A portion of this is designated in the Open Space Plan for important forestal soils. Staff tried to avoid those areas when they looked for expansion areas, but a portion does show up in the Open Space Plan as did a small area of the other expansion area requested. Several of the Commissioners discussed that the trend of develop- ment to the south should be recognized, and a commitment made in the way of schools and fire protection. Some Commissioners felt there is still an employment center in these areas that is reasonably accessible. Ms. Thomas asked if there is any particular argument for the growth area in Neighborhood Five. Mr. Benish said what would differentiate this area would be interest of a property owner and subsequent developers to move on a piece of property which is essentially adjacent to the Redfields development and could be incorporated into it. There was some discussion that the land does not lend itself to be maximized because most of it is in areas that are not developable. The core of it'is in and around the lake, so a lot of land is being designated for a relatively small development area, about 200 acres. The other notion was that road improvements would be necessitated along Lynchburg Road as development occurred, and the improvement could better be utilized by going to the other side of that roadway. Mr. Cilimberg said the area to the north that staff recommended to the Commission, also included a willing landowner, and developer interest. One thing that was part of the discussion was recognition that there are lands in the area that have been shown in the growth areas for sometime, but have not moved forward because landowners have not been willing. There was some sensitivity to that. Mr. Benish said as to Neighborhoods Six and Seven, there is really only one change: "An area under Virginia Outdoors Foundation Conservation Easement has been identified on the map and in the text for Neighborhood Six. This February 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) (Page 13) O000G6 area was previously shown as Low Density Residential." There are no signifi- cant changes in Neighborhood Seven. Mr. Benish said the changes in the Crozet Community are not significant: 1) 2) 3) 4) Industrial Service designation has been extended west along the railroad to include the Barnes Lumber Company and Crozet Lumber Company sites (public request). This area was previously desig- nated Community Service. A Transitional designation has been recommended between Claudius Crozet Park and the Industrial Service area to the north. A previously recommended Neighborhood Service designation at the proposed intersection of the Park Road and the Route 240/250 connector road has been deleted as recommended in the Crozet Community Plan. Two areas previously recommended for Medium Density Residential (The Crozet Crossing area and the area around Crozet Mobile Home Village on Park Road) are now recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential. As to Hollymead and Piney Mountain, the changes are: 1) 2) The area along the east side of Worth Crossing is recommended for Transitional uses. This area was previously designated Medium and High Density Residential. A small area along the west side of Route 29 has been recommended for Regional Service. It encompasses the area across the street from the two entrances to North Forest Lakes (the main entrance and at McDonalds). This area has been previously shown for Industrial Service. This change connects two Regional Service areas already designated in the Plan. Mr. Benish said when the mobile home park Comprehensive Plan amendment was adopted, the mobile home park site was changed to High Density Residential with Office Service and Regional Service along Route 29. When that was approved, it left a small area of Industrial Service along the frontage of Route 29. He did not believe that acreage was needed in terms of the inven- tory for regional service. It seemed to make more sense to just designate one core area along Route 29. Ms. Thomas asked if this core is for commercial. Mr. Benish said "yes", for Regional Service. It is just a small area of about three acres. Ms. Thomas said there is strip commercial zoning proposed right along the highway in that area. Mr. Benish said most of that was approved with the Comprehen- sive Plan amendment for the mobile home park. Mr. Cilimberg said before the mobile home park, commercial was all focused on the Airport Road/Route 29 intersection. When the frontage was zoned as part of the mobile home park rezoning, it created a little hole between two areas that had been designated. On the part that was designated with the mobile home park (which is about 50 acres), it was limited to three access points along Route 29 to hopefully avoid anything like what has occurred along Route 29 below the River. Mr. Benish said before that amend- ment, everything from that property down to the River was shown for Industrial Service. The Regional Service, the Office Service, and the area which is now Urban Density was part of that amendment. Mr. Benish said that is the extent of the major changes to the Land Use Plan. He mentioned the following text change to the Rivanna Village: 1) The Commission has recommended the deletion of the Village Density Residential land use designation and proposes that Villages should be developed at the Neighborhood Density level (3 to 6 dwell- ings/acre). Based on this proposed change, the current recommen- dation in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan (Rivanna Profile) limiting the type of dwellings permitted in the Village to single-family detached has been deleted. He said that when the Commission recommended that all villages be served by public water and sewer, the Neighborhood Density land use designation of three to six dwelling units per acre was used. When the Rivanna Village was adopted, there was a specific recommendation that the dwelling unit type be limited to single-family detached. That is not consistent with the Commis- 000067 February 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meeting) (Page 14) sion's new concept of how a village should develop, so that recommendation has been deleted from the Rivanna Village. In regards to Glenmore, that develop- ment is conditioned by the rezoning, so they will not have anything except single-family, detached units. Glenmore accounts for about three-fifths of the developable area of Rivanna. Ms. Thomas asked about the Regional Service that was shown in Rivanna. Mr. Benish said the Commission took that off. That was actually a Neighbor- hood Service designation. He said the fire station site is shown for Institu- tional Use. Ms. Thomas asked if the staff recommended that change. Mr. Benish said it actually came in as a public request after the public meetings had occurred. Staff recommended that it not be considered because they had not had an opportunity to take full public comments on the change. The Commission felt that based on their general standards for villages, that it was consistent. They wanted to hear the public comments from that area, and they did not hear anything from the public. Mr. Martin said he understood it would only be requested by Glenmore, if the people wanted it. He does not know if the Commission deleted it, or it was decided not to put it forward. Mr. Benish said that is accurate, nobody pursued it. Mr. Cilimberg said when this application was first reviewed in 1990, there was a recommendation for a commercial core which is typical for a village. That was the first point at which the public in that general area and the Board said they would not do that. Mr. Benish said there was no significant change to Piney Mountain, other than the recommendation to change its designation from a Village to a Commu- nity. Ms. Humphris asked if there were any other questions for staff. Ms. Thomas said she would like to know what the Board will be discussing at the next meeting. Mr. Tucker said this session brings the Board up-to-date with the Commission on the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Utili- ties Plan. The Commission is still working on other sections. The Board can, if it so desires, go forward with a public hearing on this section of the plan. Mr. Cilimberg said there is another section, Community Facilities and Transportation, which the Board can review if it wishes. Once that is done, then it is ready for public hearing. Mr. Tucker said the Board has suggested some things that should be added into the text, particularly in the Utilities Plan. The Board may want to see that language before setting the public hearing. Ms. Humphris said since two Board members are absent today, they should be allowed an opportunity to get caught up on what the Board has discussed concerning the Land Use Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has received three rezoning requests which want to take advantage of the proposed changes. These applications are in process and may be held up if the Board does not want to hear them until the Compre- hensive Plan decision is made. He said one application has already been through the Commission and will be coming to the Board next month (Crozet Lumber). Mr. Bowerman asked if the request for the Sperry property is one of them. Mr. Cilimberg said that request has not been submitted yet. One is a commercial rezoning on Avon Street, and some commercial rezoning to take advantage of the Transitional designation on Berkmar Drive near the Woodbrook intersection on the west side. Ms. Humphris said she believes the Board needs to take the amount of time necessary to do the job right, and not be pushed. She asked that another work session be scheduled for the first week in March. Mr. Tucker said the Board can then try for a public hearing at the second meeting in April. At this time, Ms. Humphris requested a motion to adjourn into executive session. February 14, 1996 (Afternoon Meetin9) (Page 15) 000065 At 5:58 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344A of the Code of Virginia under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff re~ardin9 specific legal matters relatin~ to reversion, and under subsection (1) to discuss a personnel matter relatin~ to a county authority. Roll was called and the motion carried by the followin~ recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. (Note: The Board reconvened at 7:00 p.m., and certified the executive session in public session at the be~innin~ of the regularly scheduled night meeting.) Approved by the Initials ~