Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-12September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 12, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Christopher J. Dumler, Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda. Ms. Mallek suggested moving Agenda Item No. 13 to follow Agenda Item No. 7. Mr. Snow said that he would like to talk about a traffic study for Garth Road. Board members concurred and the agenda was accepted as amended. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members. There were none. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. Mr. Philip Anderson addressed the Board, stating that according to the National Energy Agency, the globe has already reached peak oil and there is an impending liquid fuels crisis. This crisis will dis- empower the current oil-dependent transportation system, especially the automobile. Mr. Anderson stated that the massive task of rebuilding society’s infrastructure for the new paradigm is being neglected, and the time and resources to build it cheaply and efficiently are rapidly running out – especially cheap oil. He said that the government is paralyzed by old paradigm thinking and vested interests, and has ignored this impending energy and quality of life crisis. Mr. Anderson said that Officials must take independent action now at the community levels to secure local mobility by creating a local transportation system that is not dependent on fossil fuels, and not dependent on the automobile – both of which will soon become prohibitively expensive for daily local transportation. Instead of building the Route 29 Bypass, he asked why not use the precious funds to secure local mobility by building a new paradigm transportation system. We could call it The Liberty Way, a system of multiple local transportation modes that will liberate us from forced dependence on oil and the automobile. He said that the primary transportation modes will be bike and walkways that are truly safe so that people will use them, parking decks with car and bike parking and bus stations at Hollymead Center and Polo Grounds Road, a subway-style rapid transit bus system with elevated prepaid stops and multiple two-way doors and a rush hour express lane. Mr. Anderson stated that a two-lane through expressway in the center of Route 29 North with simple construction, with sidewalk expanses and an interchange at the Route 250 Bypass – and access and egress only there and at Polo Grounds Road. He suggested that expressway intersections could be managed with automatic boom barriers, biased to the express lanes for faster traffic flow and for emergency vehicle passage. He said there could be a light rail service for distance commuters, using existing CSX and Norfolk Southern tracks and VRE rail cars. Mr. Anderson stated that the Liberty Way would secure local mobility and also provide the north/south through transit efficiency that the Route 29 Bypass is meant to provide, by replacing 40% or more of car traffic with bicycles and busses – and likely at a lower cost and without the disruption of neighborhoods that the bypass portends. He said that the Liberty Way would also give UVA students convenient, efficient, affordable and safe access to all of Charlottesville that they need and deserve – and will bring needed patronage to more local businesses. He said that the days of happy motoring are coming to an end, and we are not ready. Mr. Anderson encouraged the Board to support construction of Liberty Way now, while construction materials and energy are still relatively affordable and while the Route 29 Bypass funds are available for construction. He noted that he had provided several award-winning documentaries and printed information – including cost considerations – for each of them. __________ Mr. Charles Boldt addressed the Board, stating that he lives on Piney Mountain Road and was here to comment on their July 11th special use permit for New Hope Church. Mr. Boldt said that he and his wife own property adjacent to the church site, and all neighbors spoke in opposition to the church plan at the May 8 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that he would have spoken in opposition at the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 11, had their request been granted for the County to alert them as to when they would take action on the item. Mr. Boldt said that he and his wife would have requested deferral on the item until which time their concerns had been resolved, and those issues are not being addressed in the plan the Board approved. He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Randolph said that residents of that area enjoy a high level of privacy and security, which sets the bar higher than other parts of the County. Mr. Boldt said that Mr. Randolph stated at that meeting that the County staff report he had received did not adequately describe the situation, and that his personal visit to the site was critical for him to understand what was planned and why the neighbors were concerned. He added that a visit from their Supervisor last week had a similar result, and clearly there’s a disconnect around the scope of this project that remains unresolved. Mr. Boldt stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, no date for action was set – and neighbors asked the Supervisor and County staff when the date for the action would occur. He said that the Supervisor specifically requested the information from two County staff members on June 14 with no response and after 14 emails over three months to the Supervisor and County staff he was surprised to learn that the Board had acted on the item on July 11. Mr. Boldt stated that the next step for neighbors is to continue to work to try to find a way to have concerns addressed, and would like some help from the Board in this effort – in order to get the church to make changes to address their concerns. __________ Mr. Bill Tunner addressed the Board, stating that he lives on a small farm in Esmont. Mr. Tunner said that the Planning Commission has proposed that the closed Keene Landfill become a major training facility for police weapons training – with thousands of rounds of pistol, shotgun and rifle fire resonating into the community throughout the week and nights as well. He stated that there would also be a burning building with noxious smoke and hazmat material, as a training center for firefighters. Mr. Tunner said there were plans for a high-speed police training track also, and such a training center would have a very damaging and detrimental effect on the quality of life and the Green Mountain Historic District. He stated that wildlife would just vanish, and there would be a very damaging effect on adjacent farms and animals – and an unbelievably damaging effect on homes, people, children, clubs, and churches within a one to two- mile radius on Fortune Road and other adjacent roads. Mr. Tunner added that the range would have a measurable negative effect on all of southern Albemarle. He said that there would be high-volume police and fire truck traffic on a single-lane Fortune Road, which is already challenged by school busses, and a threat to the Greer watershed. Mr. Tunner stated that some of the County’s studies and reportings are flawed, and asked that the Board rethink what they are doing – there are much broader ramifications and consequences which would certainly adversely affect the rural quality of life in historic southern Albemarle. He added that people in southern Albemarle are increasingly disturbed as they learn that the County is planning to bring this damaging commercial enterprise into our rural landscape. Mr. Tunner said that there are a number of other options to achieve their objective. __________ Mr. Charles Battig addressed the Board, referencing an article in one of the local papers from a month ago that talked about the nearly $1 million livability grant from HUD. He said that the grant was awarded back in 2010 to implement plans that foster sustainable communities based on the 1998 Sustainability Accords. In June 2011, he stated, the County approved participation and there was a kickoff event in April. Mr. Battig noted that Charlottesville Tomorrow reported last month that the number one priority for residents of both the County and the City is limiting rural area development, but he had questions as to how many people responded, how they were selected, how their answers were categorized, and whether there was another ranking not mentioned. He said that the livability survey is open-ended, and only 244 people responded – or less than one-fourth of one percent, with the City including about one-half percent. Mr. Battig pointed out that there were no statistical adjustments and original sampling selection process to provide an unbiased, statistically valid cross-section public opinion result. He said that protect private property rights was number eight out of ten in terms of importance, with decrease regulations at number nine. Mr. Battig said that the grant requires public participation, and there was a pre-selected menu of items based on the 1998 sustainability accords. __________ Ms. Carol Thorpe addressed the Board, speaking as a representative of the Jefferson Area Tea Party and stating that they strongly support passage of the eminent domain bill – which would appear in Virginia on November’s ballot. She asked that the Board vote to adopt the resolution supporting that bill, which they will discuss later in their meeting. Ms. Thorpe said that private property rights are one of the cornerstones of a successful and thriving republic, and the U.S. is one of few nations in the world where citizens from any walk of life or economic class may invest their hard-earned money to purchase or contract the legal responsibility to finance a piece of property for which they are deemed the owner. She stated that this gives the individual the ability to lift himself and his or her family out of poverty without the benediction of – or interference from – the state. Ms. Thorpe said that the history of America is filled with examples of citizens bettering themselves in this way, and many in the room have seen or know of those who have risen one or more rungs on the economic ladder, sometimes within just one generation. She stated that Americans are exceptional for many reasons, beginning with citizen empowerment through private property ownership to chart and control our financial destiny. Ms. Thorpe said that there are times when private and community interests intersect at a single piece of property, and as towns and cities expand there is need for new roads and schools. But because of the critical importance of private property rights to the individual, she said, the bar to compel one to give up his or her property should be set very, very high. She stated that property should only be allowed to be taken when it is judged to be deemed for the public’s use only, and asked the Board on behalf of the JATP to act in support of individual liberty by passing the eminent domain resolution. Ms. Thorpe said that the JATP believes VACo’s position on this matter is wrong. __________ Ms. Julia Whiting addressed the Board, stating that she is here to thank the Board on its wise and correct decision on July 25th to vote no to chloramines, adding that the decision will be looked upon in years to come as an incredibly intelligent one. Ms. Whiting said that she appreciates the Board for September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) listening to comments, meeting with constituents, and answering calls on the matter. She stated that no one wants to pay more than they need to for the granular-activated carbon process, so citizens will continue to follow this process to ensure that ratepayers do not pay an excess amount. __________ Ms. Nancy Carpenter addressed the Board, stating that she lives in southern Albemarle County and thanking them for their collective decision on August 1 to help nine individuals at the Crossings. Ms. Carpenter said that she continues to see those individuals, and they thank the Board for their funding and support. She added that she also feels great about their decision on chloramines back in July. __________ Ms. Audrey Wellborn addressed the Board, stating that she is speaking on the eminent domain resolution and agrees with Ms. Thorpe’s points on the issue. Ms. Wellborn said that she is very concerned about private property rights, and is aware of incidents in Virginia where properties have been taken for commercial uses and not public use. She stated that the Constitutional amendment in November would help citizens with their property rights, adding that surrounding counties have also voted in favor of it. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Mr. Rooker moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler. NAYS: None. __________ Item No. 7.1. Approval of Minutes: July 11 and August 1, 2012. Mr. Dumler had read his portion of the minutes of July 11, 2012, pages 28 (begin w/Item #11) – 71 (end at Item #17), and found them to be in order. Mr. Boyd had read his portion of the minutes of August 1, 2012, pages 21-end, and found them to be in order. By the above-recorded vote, the minutes were approved as read. _____ Item No. 7.2. Adopt Resolution Supporting the 2012 Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. The executive summary states that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) have approved the 2012 Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for member localities of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC). The purpose of the plan is to prepare for natural disasters before they occur, thus reducing loss of life, property damage, and disruption of commerce. Adoption of an active hazard mitigation plan is required by FEMA/VDEM in order for localities to access Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Assistance funds and the Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. For example, FEMA has recently approved Governor McDonnell’s request for federal disaster assistance in the wake of the June 29 - July 1 storms. Roughly $4 million for hazard mitigation will be available to Albemarle County and other affected areas statewide over the next year. An adopted and active plan is required before these funds can be disbursed to a locality. The Hazard Mitigation Working Group, consisting of planning and emergency operations staff from each member jurisdiction, has guided this update to the TJPDC plan. Throughout this planning process public input has been actively sought and collected by members of the working group. Albemarle County representatives were actively engaged in this process through participation on the Working Group, involvement in two public workshops, review by the Albemarle-Charlottesville-UVa Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) on two occasions, and final review by department heads and the County Executive Office. The final plan is available online at: http://www.tjpdc.org/environment/hazard.asp The inclusion of action items in the plan provides the opportunity for our region to seek federal grant funding options to address the recommendations contained in the plan. However, the County will not assume any obligation to fund or complete action items in the plan. Local approval of the plan is required by FEMA; therefore, it is recommended that the Board adopt the attached resolution supporting the Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution: September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) RESOLUTION ALBEMARLE COUNTY ADOPTION OF THE REGIONAL NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as amended, requires that local governments develop, adopt and update natural hazard mitigation plans in order to receive certain federal assistance; and WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District’s Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan has been prepared in accordance with FEMA requirements at 44C.F.R. 201.6; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County has been involved in the preparation of the Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan through participation on the Working Group, participation in two public workshops, review by the Albemarle-Charlottesville-UVa Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) on two occasions, and final review by staff; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have deemed the submitted plan satisfactory with no changes recommended; and WHEREAS, hazard mitigation is essential to protect life and property by reducing the potential for future damages and economic losses resulting from natural disasters. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby adopt the Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. _______________ Agenda Item No. 13. PUBLIC HEARING: ZTA-2012-00011. Highway Commercial Wall Signs. Amend Sec. 4.15.12, Regulations applicable in the C-1, CO and HC zoning districts, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 4.15.12 to increase the maximum area allowed for wall signs in the Highway Commercial zoning district from 100 square feet to 200 square feet, which was the maximum area allowed for such signs prior to a recent text amendment. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 27 and September 3, 2012.) Mr. Ron Higgins, Deputy Zoning Administrator, said this is a small amendment resulting from work ending in March when the Board adopted a series of amendments to the sign ordinance. Mr. Higgins said that among those were sign regulations that were making consistent the regulations about the area of signage on walls in commercial districts, and one of those was to make CO, C1, and HC all be one and one-half square feet per linear foot of building. In doing that, he said, staff moved HC standards into the chart with C1 and CO – and unintentionally limited the maximum to 100 square feet instead of 200. Mr. Higgins stated that this was not discussed in any of the roundtables, it was not anticipated, nor did they propose it – so this particular ordinance would correct that and allow up to 200 square feet in the HC district. Ms. Mallek opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Rooker then moved to adopt ZTA-2012-00011 as presented. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler. NAYS: None. (The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:) ORDINANCE NO. 12-18(5) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1, CO and HC zoning districts Chapter 18. Zoning Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1, CO and HC zoning districts The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the Commercial (C-1), Commercial Office (CO) and Highway Commercial (HC) zoning districts: September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area (Maximum) Sign Height (Maximum) Sign Setback (Minimum) Directory 1 or more per establishment, as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet Freestanding 1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot with 100 or more feet of continuous street frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than 4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance on its frontage 32 square feet, aggregated, plus bonus tenant panels as provided in section 4.15.16(b); if more than 1 sign at an entrance, no single sign shall exceed 16 square feet 12 feet 5 feet Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet 30 feet, but not to exceed the top of the fascia or mansard Not applicable Temporary 1 per street frontage per establishment 32 square feet 12 feet, if freestanding sign; 30 feet if wall sign, but not to exceed the cornice line 5 feet Wall* As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20 In the C-1 and CO zoning districts,1.5 square feet per 1 linear foot of establishment structure frontage, not to exceed 100 square feet; in the HC zoning district, 1.5 square feet per 1 linear foot of establishment structure frontage, not to exceed 200 square feet Not to exceed the cornice line Same as that applicable to structure *Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign. If the establishment has both such signs, the allowed sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign (which may not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet). (12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.5; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 12-18(2), 3-14-12) State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2010-00036. MonU Park (Signs #49&52). PROPOSAL : Creation of an athletic club with 4 soccer fields and 96 parking spaces (changed from previous description of 7 soccer fields and 168 parking spaces). ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding; EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access. SECTIONS: 10.2.2.4 Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Southeast corner of US 29 and Polo Grounds Road (Route 643). TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 46 Parcel 18C. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 27 and September 3, 2012.) Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said that this is a proposal to establish an athletic club with four soccer fields and 96 parking spaces on a 79.5-acre parcel, located on Polo Grounds Road between the Hollymead development area and the urban area around the City. He said that it is bounded on the west by US29, on the north by Polo Grounds Road, and on the south by the South Fork Rivanna River. Mr. Benish said that the site consists of grass fields with wooded buffers along the river and Polo Grounds, and the proposal is for four grass fields, a paved driveway and surface parking area, with no lighting or structures proposed and no amplified sound. He stated that the use would be on daylight areas and only from March-June and September-November, with conditions for hours of operation as 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, and from 4:00 p.m. to sunset Monday through Friday. Mr. Benish presented a conceptual plan for the project, noting the entrance as being 3,500 feet from US29, and pointing out the parking area as being in the floodway – with the only fill activity being for the entrance on Polo Grounds Road, which is outside of the floodplain. He pointed out the location of the four fields. Mr. Benish said that the site is near the existing SOCA facility on Polo Grounds Road, and there had been some comparisons with the prior review that took place for an expansion at the SOCA facility in 2006 – which was denied. He showed a comparison of the two proposals, noting that there are no facilities planned for the MonU park proposal versus a 30,000 square foot indoor soccer facility proposed for SOCA. Mr. Benish said there was also outdoor lighting planned for the SOCA facility, and the distance to the nearest residence was 300 feet versus 1,200 for MonU Park. He said that the SOCA facility was planned for year-round use, and this site is seasonal; the trip generation is estimated at 115 vehicle trips per day at MonU versus 515 for the prior proposal at SOCA. Mr. Benish said there are 96 September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) parking spaces planned for MonU, with the same number planned for SOCA but adding onto an existing 216 spaces there. Mr. Benish said that in the Planning Commission’s review, neighbors of the area expressed concern with this proposal – primarily increased traffic on Polo Grounds Road, especially during peak times related to SOCA activities, and noise spillover as well as environmental concerns related to impacts to the river. He said that one specific concern related to the presence of the portable toilets, and the Planning Commission recommended a condition related to that. Mr. Benish stated that there were also concerns about archeological sites, and they have requested a condition requesting a survey of archeological artifacts on the site. He said that there are a total of 12 conditions provided to the Board that address a number of the issues identified by the residents, and the applicant offered to restrict activities on their site so as not to undertake them during peak activities on the SOCA facility to help avoid increased traffic impacts. Mr. Benish noted that staff had added a condition reflecting that, which he would elaborate on later. Mr. Benish said that favorable factors include staff’s belief that impacts of the use would be limited due to the absence of lighting and lack of sound amplification; the proposed use of the site is consistent with the rural areas in terms of treatment of the site and that the use is reversible in the event it would cease, with the parking lot being removed; and the proposal meets demands for facility needs in the County for soccer facilities. He said that unfavorable factors include additional traffic generation on Polo Grounds Road, which is a rural road that serves both the rural area and the development area – but staff feels the proximity to Route 29 and the scale of the activity will mitigate that impact. Mr. Benish stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval, and directed staff to craft a condition that would provide for an annual traffic management plan to be approved by the Planning Director, and that was requested in part to put into conditions the offer by the applicant to restrict use of the facility at certain times. He said that the applicant also requested a modification for the second condition, to ensure that the portable toilets would only be there at the times the fields were in use. Mr. Benish stated that staff evaluated the concept of establishing a traffic management plan and realized there were complications to that, given the type of information that would be necessary for that kind of plan – as it would be subject to its availability from some other entity, and staff is unsure of the timing of that. He said that it also raised expectations for an annual review of that condition at a time when staffing is somewhat limited, and the direct enforcement after the fact is also difficult as most of the activities take place on the weekends. Mr. Benish stated that staff has instead recommended a condition that simply reflects the applicant’s offer to not utilize the site at the times the major events occur at the SOCA tournaments – specifically the Labor Day tournament and tryout event. He noted that even that condition is difficult to enforce, and raises some problems with being able to monitor these events. Mr. Benish said it would be difficult over time to interpret these as they change in names and times, and to enforce this during rain events. He stated that it’s the best possible condition staff could come up with to address the Commission’s concerns, but wanted the Board to know that conditions of this type are difficult over time to interpret and enforce. Mr. Benish said that staff has provided a number of conditions and they speak to the hours of operation; limitations of certain activities that would potentially generate noise; and the condition that attempts to restrict the use of the MonU site to not be used at the time when SOCA is used for major events. Ms. Mallek said that she understood that the special permit would stay with the land, and wondered if there was a way to say that the use is for this particular group – because many of the favorable factors are based upon the scale of this operation. Mr. Benish responded that Mr. Davis could follow up in more detail, but as a rule special use permits run with the land and staff have tried to treat the conditions based on the impacts of that proposed use with limitations they feel is reasonable for this particular operation – and any future operation would be subject to those same limitations. He added that another approach would be to set a certain time limit on the operation, but that method has been discouraged and creates complications for the applicant in terms of investments. Mr. Davis said there is no enabling legislation to require a special use permit to be applicant- specific. The General Assembly on a limited basis has allowed that for certain jurisdictions – but Albemarle doesn’t have that authority. Mr. Rooker noted that the conditions of a special use permit would also still apply. Mr. Boyd said that the applicant couldn’t expand the use of the facility. Ms. Mallek said the applicant would need to come back for an amendment, which would be the same thing as starting over. Mr. Davis stated that a special use permit is a land use regulation, so the activity is what’s regulated and not the person doing the activity. Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant would still have to remove the pavement for the parking lot and driveway once they vacated it. Mr. Davis and Mr. Benish said that was the case. Mr. Boyd asked why staff is requiring paving rather than just graveling. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Benish responded that staff is not requiring that necessarily, as it will be determined at the site plan level, but there will be some level of surface treatment necessary. Mr. Dumler asked if the proposed parking area is in the floodplain. Mr. Benish replied that the whole parking area is in the floodplain. Mr. Rooker said that he didn’t see a big advantage to paving, and Mr. Boyd agreed. Mr. Boyd said that he thinks gravel would be the least disturbance to the land itself. Mr. Thomas said that there is going to be an archeology study of the piece of property and he knew that there are arrowheads on the site because he has found them himself there, and asked what would happen if archeologist found artifacts – would the owners not be able to use that piece of property. Mr. Benish replied that it depends on the assessment, but what typically happens is a phase one analysis – a general survey of the site – and the assessment focuses on the areas of the site where there will actually be development activity. He said archeologists would assess the types of artifacts and make a recommendation as to how to address those, and often that suggests leaving them alone and covering them up to protect them. Ms. Mallek asked who would do that type of assessment and how does it happen – is it a whole year’s worth of work such as archeologist have done in Morven and Greenwood? Mr. Benish responded that it can be done fairly quickly, and staff has been in contact with representatives from the Historic Preservation Committee, which is trying to find resources to help with the process. He said that their focus is in the one area that is subject to potential grading activity and the time frame for phase one can be fairly quick once someone is found to do the assessment. Mr. Snow asked about the stacking of cars with the traffic flow, stating that the emails he has received have indicated there will be 15-20 cars waiting to get out onto Route 29. Mr. Benish explained that those were the number of vehicles stacked on Polo Grounds Road trying to enter onto Route 29 at specific study times, but that was during lower activity levels at SOCA and was the only assessment available during June and July. He said that this was an observation from a time when there were two adult games taking place at staggered times at the SOCA facility, and may be reflective of a more moderate use. Mr. Rooker said that the assessment doesn’t seem to be necessarily representative of anything, because it’s a 15-minute period of time, and people are not coming and going when they’re playing a game. Mr. Benish said that the backups more typically occur when there are games, and cars are stacking up as they are queuing out. He reiterated that staff did not see major stacking issues because there were no major events, but the residents have indicated that it does occur from time to time. Mr. Benish noted that it was a bad time to judge the traffic because it was summer, adding that the traffic information staff has is annual average data with the average being 2,400 vehicle trips per day on Polo Grounds Road. Mr. Rooker asked how many of those actually come to the intersection with Route 29. Mr. Benish responded that the 2,400 is a traffic count done with a hose test on the segment from Route 29, which goes all the way back to SOCA. Mr. Rooker commented that that is quite a few cars. Mr. Boyd said that he had spoken with a resident of Polo Grounds Rd and the worst condition is when there is a rain event in the middle of the game, because everyone leaves at once. He also said that he understood there would be some tree disturbance because there is a line of sight issue for people turning out of the site. Mr. Benish responded that the sight distance issues will be addressed, and that’s the only area where there is grading activity so the sight distance will have to be achieved at that site. He said that the discussion of tree removal was related more to the buffer that’s available to the larger site. Mr. Boyd said that people had also expressed concern about chemicals such as fertilizers used on the field, and the runoff from those. Mr. Rooker said there would probably be substantially more depending on what the owners do, but soccer fields have to be replanted regularly because of the use – and the flooding on the site since it’s in a floodplain would be washing a lot of chemicals into the river. Mr. Benish stated that the applicant can best speak to how they will maintain it, but his understanding is that the applicant wants to minimize the amount of maintenance done on the site. Mr. Boyd said that the biggest problem with this site is the light on Route 29, and asked if the intelligent lights being used at Pantops would not work here as he has heard. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Benish responded that VDoT is not considering that as part of their initial exploration of that in the Route 29 corridor, and the applicant had contacted them about it, finding out that signalization was not going to be an option at this intersection. He said that from a public standpoint, the County would pursue that as part of the larger Route 29 corridor issues because of the existing facilities on there. Mr. Boyd said that when Route 29 is widened, hopefully there will be improvements made at that point – which might be a compromise to the opposition to this site. Mr. Benish said that he asked VDoT whether the intersection would be incorporated in the six- lane widening since that is the transition point, and particularly because of the quarry traffic on the opposite intersection, but he hadn’t received a response yet. Mr. Rooker stated that he didn’t understand why VDoT isn’t considering the ITS system for lights because the company had indicated they could do about 18 intersections along Route 29, including side roads like the Whole Foods light, for a total of about $600,000 – which is the cost of building less than 1,000 feet of sidewalk. He said that his concern is that when the bypass gets under construction, there are road closures that would take place along Rio, Hydraulic, etc., and that traffic would be driven over to Route 29 while people avoid Georgetown Road and Hydraulic. Mr. Boyd stated that the Polo Grounds and Route 29 intersection is designed for that type of technology because it identifies the queuing up. Mr. Rooker commented that the current design there doesn’t include three lanes, and he wasn’t sure if VDoT would address that later. Mr. Boyd responded that it would definitely be addressed. Mr. Thomas asked about the location of the portable toilets on the fields. Mr. Benish said that the toilets would probably be convenient to where the fields are, but the applicant has not specified that in the plans. Mr. Thomas noted that there were 90 petitioners in favor of having the soccer fields go in there, and asked if the signatures were all parents of participants. Mr. Benish responded that he did not know but perhaps the applicant would. He also said that the toilets would likely be near the parking area so they can be serviced and maintained. Mr. Boyd mentioned that there is a huge tree line between the river and the fields, which should help with erosion control. At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing. Mr. Pat Reilly, President of Monticello United Soccer Club – or MonU, thanked County Senior Planner, Scott Clark and his staff for putting a lot of time and effort into the project. He said that MonU is a small, nonprofit youth soccer club, and over the past six years they have averaged 98 members and six teams; this fall MonU will have 105 members and seven teams, and their home schedule for the season will be 28 games with the spring season slated to have two teams and eight games. Mr. Reilly said that all MonU is asking to do is put some goals down on a flat piece of farmland and let kids play on it. He stated that there would be no structures, no irrigation, no lights, and no sound system – with the only changes being those mandated by either VDoT or County staff. Mr. Reilly stated that the request is for four fields, and it is doubtful whether all four fields would be used, with two used at a time. He said that the fields would have time to rest. He reported that VDoT is requiring them to put a 100-foot right turn lane into the park, and the original plan submitted to the County was for a gravel driveway and gravel parking lot. Mr. Reilly said MonU could not get the project to move forward until they changed the plans to read paved driveway and paved parking lot, but MonU is 100% against any paving on the property. He stated that the property currently has amazing natural drainage, and MonU would like to keep it that way with a porous surface for the driveway and parking lot. Mr. Reilly said that MonU would prefer to simply modify the existing gravel driveway and a slight widening, and there is a large area they would like to use for parking. He stated that MonU would like to park on the grass and then reseed it at the end of each season, which is what was done in the 1960s when the field was used for UVA polo matches. Mr. Reilly said that if that isn’t acceptable then MonU would be willing to have a gravel parking lot or another pervious surface that would allow for natural drainage and limit storm water runoff. Mr. Reilly said that he is aware of traffic concerns, and they were addressed at the Planning Commission meeting, at which MonU agreed to conditions A, B, C and D as outlined in the staff report. He stated that dealing with traffic issues, however, should not rest solely on MonU’s shoulders simply because they’re the last ones in, and MonU feels they have done their part to mitigate the concerns pertaining to their park’s impact on traffic. He said that condition E was not discussed at that meeting, and MonU does oppose it. Mr. Reilly stated that MonU have already agreed to help manage the traffic situation on SOCA’s current big day events by not scheduling conflicting events, but MonU should not be responsible for managing SOCA’s traffic should they decide to add more events in the future. He said that MonU is requesting not to have E as a condition should the SP be granted, as it could have significant impact on the use of the park. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Regarding noise concerns, Mr. Reilly said that the MonU Park property has 79 acres – with 44 acres being tall trees and dense woods encircling the fields – and it is situated 100 feet lower than any surrounding properties in Carrsbrook or Montgomery Ridge. He said that MonU feels that there will be no impact on surrounding properties. Mr. Reilly said that for the last seven years MonU has used the field at the VFW post on River Road, and read a letter from their quartermaster stating that during that time there have never been any issues with traffic, parking, noise, or litter. The letter stated that, MonU has maintained the field and surrounding area with weekly mowing, trimming, and general grounds maintenance. Mr. Reilly stated that Montgomery Ridge residents would be welcome to use the park for walking, jogging, kicking a ball around, flying a kite, or just picnicking and enjoying the park. He said that several years ago, Albemarle County Parks and Rec met with all local sports organizations and acknowledged the tremendous shortage of fields in the area and told everyone in attendance that staff didn’t anticipate any new county fields for 7-10 years – leaving it up to the private sector to find land, finance, and build new fields – that’s what MonU is trying to do. Mr. Snow asked about the need to seed and fertilize the fields. Mr. Reilly explained that damage would be limited because of MonU’s rotation plan, and the use would be 28 games this fall over 11-12 weeks. Mr. Dumler asked about the proposed placement of the portable toilets. Mr. Reilly responded that MonU has planned for them to be in the proposed parking area, and the Planning Commission had recommended one portable toilet, not multiple. He said that the property owners, who have owned it since the 1920s, have said it would only flood in a hurricane. Mr. Reilly said that the drainage on the site is excellent, and the river is still usually 30 feet away even after days of torrential rain. Ms. Mallek pointed out that if the river comes over its banks the width of the field slows the velocity down so it would be a puddle, not a raging torrent. Mr. Gerald Long said that he had written to each Board member expressing three sincere concerns for the residents of Benivar, where he lives. Mr. Long said that the first concern is for the increase in road traffic, as Polo Grounds was designed and built to be a rural road – and should remain that way. He stated that he was driving west on the road recently at about 4:00 p.m., and the road was blocked near MonU so it took him 13 minutes to get from there to past the traffic light. Mr. Long acknowledged that he wasn’t certain of the cause of the traffic, but said it provides a data point. Mr. Long also said he was disappointed to see how easy it was for the Comp Plan or zoning to be considered for change, adding that he moved to the area 12 years ago from Northern Virginia – where it became very easy to change zoning. He stated that he sees example of that now in Albemarle in Charlottesville, adding that he moved to the area in order to have relatively rural environment, and his goal is to see that is maintained as much as possible. Mr. Long also expressed concern that the use runs with the land, as he wanted it to be over and done when MonU is finished and not used for something else. He said that he supports soccer and has children and grandchildren playing, but does not support the MonU use of the field. Ms. Abigail Forsyth said that she plays for Monticello United Soccer Club and is proud to play for such a caring, cooperative, and truly loving club. Ms. Forsyth said that right now, MonU does not have a true home, and that’s what they are in search of. She said that MonU has finally seemed to have found one – and are here today for one simple thing: permission to grow grass and let kids play. She quoted Gandhi, “Be the change you wish to see in the world,” and said that MonU has come tonight to be the change. Mr. Bob Forsyth addressed the Board, stating that he has been a volunteer soccer coach in the community for the last nine years as well as serving as a coordinator for the Virginia Youth Soccer Association Olympic Development Program. In 2008, he said, he was recognized by the VYSA as Girls Recreational Coach of the Year. He said that in the past he has come before the Board to request expansion for SOCA Park above their current location, and for Belvedere. Mr. Forsyth said that he believes adults have the responsibility to help the children of the community fight the growing epidemic of childhood obesity, and he feels that having MonU Park would greatly benefit the residents of the community. He stated that approval of the park would modestly lessen the burden of the currently overused fields within the County, and it is important for families to have a choice as to where their children play soccer. Mr. Forsyth said that there will also be modest increased revenue to the community, as teams from outside the area spend money at local restaurants and retail establishments. He added that approving MonU Park can only benefit the community, with no costs to taxpayers. Mr. Joe Kolbach, President of the Montgomery Ridge Owners Association, said that traffic is their biggest concern with this proposal although opinions overall differ within the 60-family community. Mr. Kolbach said that a clear majority of residents do agree that any additional soccer development must include improvements to Polo Grounds Road, especially at the intersection with Route 29. He stated that Polo Grounds is a rural road that connects with a major highway, and neither the road nor its intersection with 29, are designed to handle even traffic. Mr. Kolbach said that SOCA already causes long traffic backups in the area, and approving an additional soccer facility is only going to make the present situation much worse. He stated that unless the County and VDoT can commit to improving the situation, he requests that the proposal be denied. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Ms. Donnie Long said that everyone in her family supports the game of soccer and MonU seems to be a fine association. She said that her family has great concerns, about the addition of recreational fields and parking spaces off of Polo Grounds Road, which would bring even more traffic to a winding two- lane road in a designated rural area. Ms. Long stated that her family doesn’t support the Board granting a variance to the existing plan for the County, which would be required in order for the fields to be created. She said that the road is already carrying more traffic than it was ever designed to do, and the Comp Plan designated the land to be rural area – so a variance would mean the designation would be permanently altered. Ms. Long said that the planners asked the MonU coach to provide a traffic study prior to this request, and the study completed reveals that the real problems with the road begin and end with the soccer season as played by SOCA. She stated that MonU has the option of choosing another site that won’t use Polo Grounds Road, but residents don’t have that option. Ms. Long emphasized that a true traffic study needed to be done for the road, as the previous study didn’t address what happens when SOCA is in session. Mr. Stephen Levine addressed the Board, stating that this boils down to a land use issue and these soccer fields are not in a good place. He said that the fields would exacerbate an already serious traffic problem and not really mitigate the shortage of soccer fields in the County. He said that the County needs to step up and do something about this problem – this is not the solution. Mr. Nathaniel Howell said that he lives on Polo Grounds Road. He said that what the rural community is dealing with are two County roads that are the only means of access and also the main street of the community – Polo Grounds Road and Proffit Road. Mr. Howell said that SOCA is not the only problem, as there is a rising tide of traffic coming from Route 20, but this adds to it. He stated that despite asking the question about the health of the river, he got very little satisfaction until he contacted the DEQ. Mr. Howell stated that the executive summary solutions are illusory, and everything the Commission suggested was either too hard or too expensive, and the remedies are ineffective, non-enforceable. He said that residents don’t base their travels on when SOCA is having tournaments they just know there’s a bulk of traffic. Mr. Howell stated that on the night of the Planning Commission meeting, there were 43 cars backed up on the road at 5:00 p.m.; at 7:00 p.m. last night there were 31 cars backed up. He said that the decision the Board is having to make is whether to favor the views of the residents who live there, or those from outside our area who want to come in for recreation. Mr. Gary Hatter said that he is the parent of two teenagers who play soccer as well as a coach, assistant coach and team manager – first with SOCA and now with MonU. He stated that he takes issue with the notion that the proposed MonU facility was in a rural area and thus would be compromised by such activities, adding that if the people bought a home in a subdivision then by definition they’ve been an agent of the area’s development and transformation from rural to suburb. He added that the road may be rural, but the area – that’s arguable. Mr. Hatter stated that the objections expressed for the most part pertain to long ago decisions regarding SOCA, specifically the extended traffic backups, and tonight’s meeting is about the present and the future – not the past – it’s about MonU Park, not SOCA. Mr. Hatter said that at less than 1/25 the size of the other club, even if MonU had not offered to avoid SOCA’s peak use times, the incremental impact would be under 4%. Mr. Hatter said that the state of grass fields in the County is deplorable, and last year the goalie on his son’s team sprained his ankle during warm-ups because of an outrageous clump of grass ruining an otherwise smooth dirt field. He added that this is a small nonprofit organization willing to provide a privately supported, partial solution to this public sector problem – reducing demand for County fields while providing better facilities for soccer- playing use. Mr. Hatter stated that MonU operates with the highest standards of ethics – and they say what they mean and do what they say. Mr. David Schmidt said that he lives in a rural area off of Polo Grounds Road. He said that the issues that have been put forth regarding traffic, environmental preservation, archeological interests, etc. have not been answered by the Planning Commission’s reviews. Mr. Schmidt pointed out that at 5:10 p.m. today, there were 22 cars backed up on Polo Grounds Road at the light with Route 29, which is not unusual, and the only other egress from that area from the park would be to the east, which goes through the one-lane underpass under a bridge. He said that the traffic problem there is pretty much insoluble. He said that in looking at revisions for the intersection with Route 29, that road would be further blocked, and there were no facts put forth by the petitioner regarding the traffic issue that will settle the problem – it is what it is, and it is pretty much contrary to their and our interests. Mr. Schmidt said that MonU is a growing organization, and will would likely come back to the County asking for additional fields and additional use – there is no way, as was pointed out, to coordinate the activities of SOCA and MonU so tidal waves of events are likely to cause problems. He added that there is commercially zoned property just to the north of Polo grounds Road at the intersection, and he sees commercial enterprises trying to service them developing at that corner also. Mr. Schmidt said it would be reasonable for the Board to require MonU to post a bond to reverse the impacts to the land, should the SP be granted. Ms. Tracy Higginbottom said that she is in favor of MonU’s park, adding that her daughter plays with them and it is a wonderful organization and is very small. Ms. Higginbottom said that she is directly behind the other soccer organization, and you will hear some light noise on big tournament days – but at the end of the day it’s children playing. Mr. Thomas asked about the 90 signatures received on the petition were parents. Mr. Reilly responded that about half were members, and half were not. Mr. Thomas asked how someone would go about counting vehicles. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Mr. Reilly said that he wasn’t sure how that was done other than just estimating. He added that on the same evening the gentleman mentioned all the cars backing up – 15 minutes later he was there and there were no cars at the light. Mr. Snow asked Mr. Reilly to clarify the schedule of when the games would be held. Mr. Reilly responded that in July and August, games are limited to pick -up games with about a dozen people, for an hour or hour and a half. In the fall, he said, the games are on Saturday and Sunday – with practices going on weeknights at the VFW and at MonU. With no further comments, Ms. Mallek closed the public hearing, and the matter was placed before the Board. Mr. Snow asked if the traffic problem was more a function of business traffic during the week or on the weekends. Mr. Benish said that staff’s observation has been that it’s both, and when there’s heavy activity at SOCA there’s heavier activity in this segment of roadway. He added that Proffit Road functions as an eastern bypass of sorts, and Polo Grounds is an offshoot of that so there is some activity related to through traffic. Mr. Benish stated that the overall numbers and traffic counts don’t depict excessive numbers, but for a rural roadway the 2,400 tends to be the average. He said that the problem with a one- time road count is that it doesn’t capture the peaks, but the traffic seems related to both SOCA and through traffic. Mr. Rooker asked how many houses are served by Polo Grounds as the primary way of traveling. Mr. Thomas said that there were about 60 in Montgomery Ridge, with 40 in Bentivar. Mr. Benish added that there is some scattered rural development along those roadways also. Mr. Rooker mentioned that VDoT estimates about 7-10 vehicle trips per day, and the houses generate a whole lot more traffic than this type of use. He said that if that land were turned into houses, there would be a whole lot more traffic daily than MonU’s use would generate typically when it has an event. Mr. Snow asked if MonU and SOCA would have varied schedules to help avoid problems. Mr. Benish explained that condition 12 is intended to restrict the applicant’s use of their facility during the four major SOCA events held each year. Mr. Rooker commented that this is a rural area and no one wants to see traffic on the road they live on, but you have to put rural area in perspective as there are some in the middle of the country and some on the edge of the developed areas. He noted that he lives off of Hydraulic Road, in the rural area, and Albemarle High School, Jouett, Greer and Ivy Creek schools are all in the area – with 3,000 students using that complex daily. Mr. Rooker said that he would probably not have supported this except for the exceptionally restrictive conditions that the applicant has agreed to, to limit the traffic problems that might occur there. He stated that the applicant should be commended for doing that, adding that this is not a variance – it is allowed by special use permit. Mr. Rooker emphasized that recreational uses are one of the listed uses allowed in the rural areas. He said that if the Board approves it, they should take the impervious parking requirement out, and leaving it as grass or having it as gravel would be better for the environment as well as having less impact if the use ever stopped. Mr. Rooker stated that he voted against the SOCA use, in part because it included a 30,000 square foot building – which Board members at that time felt was out of character with the rural area. He said that he does not see anything with the MonU proposal that is out of character with the rural area, and the Board has taken a position that they want people to become self-initiators in taking care of themselves and their needs in the County. He stated that what is before the Board is a private group that has stepped forward to do that in a very low-impact way and have bent over backwards with conditions to make certain that the rural character in that area is maintained. Mr. Rooker said that he agreed with the speaker who said the sound of playing children should not be a noise the Board seeks to stifle. He stated that the use is limited to daytime – no later than 6:00 p.m. on weekends and not before 11:00 a.m., with no amplified sound or lighting. Mr. Rooker noted that in his neighborhood, residents like hearing the activity from the nearby schools. He said that the Commission did a good job with this issue, on balance. Mr. Rooker said that there is an issue on Polo Grounds Road, on Rio Road, and on Hydraulic Road – every place that intersects with 29 has a problem, and he would actually call upon the Board today to say that they will support installing an in-sync system – which is the best traffic movement, intelligent transportation system out there – on Route 29 to deal with issues like this as well as Hydraulic and Rio Road. Mr. Snow said that the Board would look into it, and he would like to hear the pros and cons of the system and the cost rather than just saying he would support it. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) Mr. Rooker stated that the cost would be about $600,000 to cover all of Route 29, and it has been used in many areas of the County. He said that the worst results he’s seen in an area like 29 have been a reduction of 10% in travel time, with the best results being 75-80% in travel time. Ms. Mallek suggested coming back to that discussion at a later time. Mr. Rooker said that the Board needs to do the best job it can as a community to use reasonably inexpensive tools to improve that situation. He stated that he would support the application with the conditions as presented, with the removal of impervious surface requirements. Mr. Thomas said that until Polo Grounds Road and the intersection with Route 29 are improved, he cannot support the application. He said that he has met with 40 people from Carrsbrook, and all of them are against the soccer field being put in the rural area. Mr. Davis noted that regarding the parking lot condition, with special use permits you can put in more stringent conditions but you can’t create a lesser standard unless the ordinance specifically allows that. He said that under the zoning ordinance currently, the surface of a parking area must be approved by the County Engineer based on the intensity of usage and VDoT pavement design guidelines and specifications. Mr. Davis said that if the County Engineer determines that gravel is sufficient, a condition prohibiting the applicant from having a surface that’s more intense would be acceptable. Mr. Davis said that the Board can’t excuse a requirement of the zoning ordinance unless the zoning ordinance has a provision that allows you to do that. He added that under the cell tower ordinance, there is a standard that allows for specific requirements to be excused by special use permit, but this is not one of those case s. Mr. Rooker asked why a condition was even needed, because the County Engineer could make a determination as to what’s appropriate. Mr. Davis explained that the Board can make requirements that are more restrictive than what the County Engineer might require – if the County Engineer determined that it only needed gravel, the Board could have a condition that says no it should be paved – then that would be an appropriate condition. Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, said that the condition did not require that parking and driveway be surfaced in any particular manner, it just says that whatever surfacing might be there would be removed. He stated that it alludes to the potential of surfacing, but did not require paving. Mr. Boyd said that he would like to hear from Mr. Brooks, as the applicant has a different impression. Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, said that the decision would be made at the site plan level. He explained that alternative surfaces could certainly be used, and the VDoT standard referred to is a pavement design standard and doesn’t typically go below something that’s surface treated. Mr. Brooks said that typically with SPs for rural churches applicants use gravel surfaces if the lot is not used frequently, and that’s what he envisions with this site also. Mr. Boyd said that a lot of events in the community have parking on the grass. Mr. Brooks said that most special event uses involve parking on grass, and the intent of the ordinance is to not end up with something that will not overly compact or erode. He also noted that gravel surfaces can become impervious, as they compact, and they do tend to erode. Mr. Brooks said that often if a lot of gravel is used at an entrance it can spread onto a public road, which can be a hazard. He stated that these types of details can be addressed at the site plan level, but he would take the Board’s guidance as to the desired treatment. Mr. Boyd said it would be good if it could be easily removable. Ms. Mallek stated that there were many more cars on that site in the 1950s, hundreds of cars every Sunday afternoon, and that history in the rural area has long been in existence. She said that she has tried for many months to contact VDoT about the synchronization of that light, adding that the rural road she lives on in Earlysville has about 8,000 vehicle trips per day. Ms. Mallek said that she understands the traffic concerns, but the County does have to find a balance and the applicant and Commission have worked very hard to find that. She agreed with previous comments about the noise of children, noting that the rules allow people to shoot guns at any hour of the day or night with complete impunity. Ms. Mallek added that the only lingering concern she has is lack of details about the archeological study, and wondered if there was a better way to say there’s an interest in learning about it but not saddling MonU with an extended period of time they can’t move forward with their plan. Mr. Boyd said that his interpretation was that the study would only pertain to areas being disturbed. Mr. Benish clarified that it would pertain to areas being graded, which would mean only the parking and driveway at this point – it’s basically a field assessment. He said that the condition does speak to recommendations from phase one being taken under consideration by the planning director. Mr. Boyd said that despite his love of soccer, soccer fields are not a real popular subject with him. He explained that several years ago, some Board members had a difficult decision to make regarding approval of soccer fields on Polo Grounds Road – although that was a very different project and different situation, with a year-round schedule, amplified sound and a large building planned. He stated that on that September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) night, he voted against the fields and the residents deserved not to have that kind of pressure put on their roads. Mr. Boyd said that tonight, he is going to go the other way – the Monticello Soccer Association has stepped up to the plate. He said that the Board has challenged them as a County to say “we’re not going to be able to afford fields, so we’d like for you to do public/private partnerships” – MonU has found a location that is not ideal maybe, but it’s perfectly within the Comprehensive Plan for recreational services to have there. At this time, Mr. Boyd moved that the Board approve SP-2010-00036, MonU Park, subject to the conditions as presented, with removal of the proposed condition 12E as it will be out of MonU’s control to anticipate what other events a competing organization might have and restrict themselves based on that. Mr. Davis also suggested that if Mr. Boyd wants to address the parking area issue, he should amend condition 10 to state that the driving and parking area shall be a pervious surface unless otherwise required by the County Engineer pursuant to Section 4.12.15.A of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Mallek asked if the word gravel could be added, and Mr. Davis said that Mr. Brooks could require something greater than pervious if necessary – it will be the least permeable surface that meets safety standards. Mr. Rooker said that there may even be areas where grass parking is appropriate. Mr. Boyd said if that’s what the Board can do legally then he would add it to his motion. He also said that when he voted against the SOCA item, he also promised he would do everything possible to find an alternative site for them – which the Board did. Mr. Boyd said he would promise everyone in the audience that he would do everything possible to alleviate the traffic situation, whether it’s Mr. Rooker’s approach or some other mechanism. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler. NAYS: Mr. Thomas. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) 1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled “Concept Plan for Special Use Permit Application for MonU Park” prepared by Meridian Planning Group LLC, and dated 04-25-12. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features essential to the design of the development: a) Number of fields b) Number and location of parking spaces c) Absence of structures Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Games and practice sessions shall only be held during the months of March, April, May, June, September, October, and November. In addition, during July and August, no games shall be held, but practice sessions solely for club members are permitted. Portable toilets are permitted on site during all months when soccer activity is permitted. 3. Hours of operation for events on Saturdays and Sundays shall be no earlier than 11:00 a.m. and no later than 6:00 p.m. 4. Hours of operation for events Monday through Friday shall be no earlier than 4:00 p.m. and no later than sunset. 5. No overnight parking shall be permitted on the site. The entrance to the property shall be closed by a locked gate when the fields are not in use. 6. No outdoor lighting shall be installed for this use. 7. No artificial irrigation shall be used or installed for the soccer fields. 8. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system permitted for this use. 9. No fill shall be placed within the portion of the property within the Flood Hazard Overlay District. 10. The driveway and parking area shall be a pervious surface unless otherwise required by the County Engineer pursuant to §4.12.15(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. Upon termination of the soccer-field use, the surfacing of the driveway and parking area shall be removed and the previously-disturbed land surface shall be returned to vegetated cover or an unpaved accessway. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 11. A Phase I archaeological survey shall be completed for areas to be graded for this use, followed by appropriate mitigation measures as approved by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a grading permit. 12. No games or practice sessions shall be held at MonU Park on the same dates that the following tournaments and tryouts are held at the SOCA sports complex on Polo Grounds Road: a) U11/U12 (combined) tryouts and U13/U14 (combined) tryouts, which are currently held at the end of April or during the month of May. b) The Spring recreational tournament, which is currently called the Sunburn and which is currently held on one weekend in June. c) The Labor Day weekend tournament, which is currently called the College Showcase and which is currently held on the Saturday and Sunday of Labor Day weekend. d) The Fall recreational tournament, which is currently called the Frostbite and which is typically held on one weekend in late November or early December. This condition shall no longer apply if the Planning Director determines in writing that road improvements or other changes to the existing traffic conditions on Polo Grounds Road, including its intersection at U.S. Route 29, make this condition unnecessary. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: ZMA-2011-00010. Albrecht Place (Sign #101). PROPOSAL: Request to include a required application plan on 3.398 acres for property zoned PDSC which allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; residential by special use permit at a density of (15 units/acre). No dwellings proposed. No change in zoning district proposed. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. PROFFERS No. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) – retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space in Neighborhood 1 in Places 29. LOCATION: Directly behind the north section of Shoppers World shopping Center and directly behind 2111 & 2115 Berkmar Drive. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061M00012001E0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 27 and September 3, 2012.) Mr. Cilimberg reported that this property is located behind the existing Shopper’s World shopping center on 29 North, and was a property included in the planned development – shopping center zoning that led to Shopper’s World, but was not an area shown for development under that zoning. He said that this is a request to approve the application plan for this property to bring it under a plan as the rest of the shopping center is currently, and there is also a special exception for a critical slopes waiver. Mr. Cilimberg presented an illustration of the building behind the main section of Shopper’s World, on the west side between that center and the Berkley subdivision. He said that it shows the building as well as parking in that location, and there are also illustrations included showing depictions of the new building to be constructed and the sight lines into the location of the building from adjacent areas. Mr. Cilimberg reported that staff found factors favorable including consistency with the Comp Plan and with uses permitted in the zoning district; an appropriate application plan for the zoning that it has; provision of employment opportunities and additional services in that area; and expansion of tax base. He said that there are transportation impacts anticipated, and there was not a detailed traffic analysis provided – or proffers to alleviate potential transportation impacts – which were concerns for staff. Mr. Cilimberg stated that while the scale of the building is larger than what is recommended for the general type of use anticipated in this location, guided by the Places 29 plan, it is consistent with existing adjacent buildings. He stated that staff was not able to recommend approval because of the traffic impacts not being adequately addressed, but the Commission did recommend approval with the expectation that the applicant would provide a letter from the traffic consultant reiterating what the applicant had presented regarding traffic impacts at the Commission’s July 17 public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg said that the letter has been provided and is included with the Board’s executive summary, adding that the consultant did not do a detailed analysis but took no exception with what was cited by the applicant at the Commission’s public hearing. He stated that the Commission also recommended approval of the special exception for disturbance of critical slopes. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff now recommends approval of the ZMA, and should the Board agree staff has provided associated motions. He stated that staff’s concerns about traffic were what types of increase might occur at the intersections serving the general area, and there are three access points that are the same as Shopper’s W orld – from Berkmar Drive, Route 29 across from Fashion Square, and Dominion Drive. Mr. Cilimberg said there was some question also as to what the circulation of truck traffic would be onsite and how it might be handled coming into this particular building. Ms. Mallek said that in the information provided there was a description of the traffic pattern that goes behind the former Whole Foods loading dock and around to the north of the building, and then out by Mattress King. She said that you can only go right onto Route 29 at the upper entrance, so most everything would go back to the light and the depiction shows the building bordering the back of Staples with all the parking next to the neighborhood. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) Mr. Cilimberg said that was correct and was part of the original application plan, with the overall site having truck circulation coming in from north to south on the site. Ms. Mallek also asked about the location of the retaining wall. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the retaining wall was to make up grade on the west side next to Berkley, adjacent to Williamsburg Road, and there is some bio-detention on the south side as well as a retaining wall between the access aisle and the bio-retention there. He added that there appears to be a retaining wall on the north end also, next to the commercial activities on Berkmar Drive. Mr. Cilimberg said that the circulation would be coming in from Berkmar Drive into the back side of Shopper’s World next to the new building and out behind the old Whole Foods, then out to Route 29 at the main entrance. Ms. Mallek commented that the main entrance would be the one between the Dog House and Starbucks – which is really an alley, not a road. Mr. Cilimberg responded that trucks would definitely use that, and it would come in from Berkmar using that access and then bear right to go behind the existing Shopper’s World. Mr. Rooker said that the applicant anticipates most of the traffic coming into the site by entering at Williamsburg Road or off of Dominion. Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is no connection with Williamsburg Road and since staff didn’t get a traffic study they cannot yet say how the splits would be between Berkmar, Route 29 and Dominion Drive. He said that the existing Shopper’s World entrances could all be access points for this development – it’s essentially an extension of what Shopper’s World already has. Mr. Rooker said if you are coming through the back of the shopping center, you enter the parking lot and drive through it if you are headed north. Mr. Cilimberg explained that if you are coming from Berkmar, you would come in and turn right into the parking area and go on the west side of the building; if you are coming from Dominion, you would come in from the south and turn left and go behind Shopper’s W orld into the parking area; coming from 29, you would have to circulate around the existing shopping center to get to that location. Mr. Rooker asked if staff felt the access and traffic flow in this area was adequate. Mr. Cilimberg responded that staff had hoped to get that in a traffic study so it could be further analyze, with information on how the intersections were affected and how the circulation would work for the generation. He said that the applicant’s traffic generation would be determined by the amount of parking they can accommodate on the site, and this is going to be parked at a lower level than what zoning might allow because of the size of the building and the area available for parking. He said that the applicant is not going to have the generation of traffic that could occur with a higher-level use there, [such as] a retail use. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that there is a letter from Seegers Engineering that notes there would be 183 spaces provided based on this plan, and the square footage for retail space would require 240 spaces. He added that the applicant is not going to be able to occupy the building at the highest level of potential use because the parking is limited, and that will affect their traffic generation. Mr. Rooker said that VDoT is talking about the traffic volume at the entrance of Dominion onto Route 29, but he has concerns about the internal flow of the traffic and asked if a traffic study was expected to deal with that issue also. Mr. Cilimberg responded that staff would be analyzing how the traffic flows as part of the site plan, and there’s work going on out there now – with the flow changed somewhat by the buildings being built. He said that he didn’t know whether it would be a circulation problem, other than to say Shopper’s World has been somewhat of a challenge over the years for circulation, just because of the way it’s been developed previously. Mr. Rooker said that, that is his concern and he wondered how the site might impact the existing flow, which is not real great. Mr. Cilimberg said that practically speaking, the additional traffic using the facility would be using the same aisles that are there now. Ms. Mallek commented that it’s only one lane wide by the loading dock, and there is no space between the property line and the back of the old Whole Foods. Mr. Thomas noted that the service road is 36 feet wide. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the applicant will use the service road for their loading, but there is a two-way aisle behind Shopper’s World’s current building and the proposed building – behind Staples – a 24-foot aisle in addition to the loading docks which are accessible for trucks. He noted that trucks backing into loading docks would certainly block that aisle, but otherwise it’s a two-way aisle open to traffic. Ms. Mallek commented that the space behind the old Whole Foods is not free-flowing. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) Mr. Cilimberg said that he assumed that coming from Dominion Drive people would pass in front of the existing retail establishments and use the aisles in the shopping center to get around to the back on the north side, rather than going behind Whole Foods. Ms. Mallek said that she wasn’t sure why the other circulation pattern was presented. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the applicant could provide more information, but the intent of that was for the tractor-trailer trucks only. Ms. Mallek said that tractor-trailers would be going nose to nose with no place to back up. She said that when the project was originally planned, the area was left undeveloped – and wondered if that was by design. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he thinks the property was zoned PDSC because it had a site plan, but that plan back in the 1970s had only been approved for part of the total area to be developed. He noted that the same circumstance existed with the new Giant shopping center at Pantops, which had part of it zoned PDSC without a plan. Mr. Cilimberg added that there were PDSC decisions in the 1980 rezoning to reflect properties that had a site plan, but the site plan did not show full development of the property. Mr. Rooker said that the agenda item isn’t a rezoning – it’s a zoning map amendment. Mr. Cilimberg said yes, it is a zoning map amendment for the application plan. Mr. Rooker said that the question is what the applicant can do here as a matter of right, under the current zoning, if this is not approved. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the whole consideration of this rezoning started with that question – what can I do – and the answer was, you need to submit a plan so that staff knows what the development is going to be and can include that in the zoning as an application plan. He said that theoretically right now, the applicant has no use because it doesn’t have a plan attached to the zoning. Ms. Mallek said that it could be office or warehouse or combination, or some small retail to fit within the number of parking places. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the applicant anticipates the building to be used for the types of uses that are supported by the parking. Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant had a by-right use, in the absence of an approved application plan. Mr. Davis explained that there are by-right uses under the PDSC, but the uses can’t be implemented until there’s an approved plan, so the applicant cannot use the by-right uses until the Board approves a plan. He stated that the Board cannot deny a plan unreasonably, but can if there is a reasonable basis. Ms. Mallek asked if this was the minimum amount of information needed for the applicant to submit. Mr. Davis responded that there are minimum submittal requirements, and the applicant has met those. Mr. Thomas said that it looked like there was a fairly large buffer between Williamsburg Road and where the parking lot would possibly be. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the applicant left an area there that will have to have a retaining wall, and the applicant is showing the retention of a 20-foot buffer and a screening fence – and also would have planting in their parking lot. He noted that the fence is above the retaining wall and about five feet to the west of it, according to the plan provided. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Woody Parrish, the Project Architect, addressed the Board. Mr. Parrish said that he is representing Sue Albrecht and Anvince Land Trust, the applicant. He stated that Mr. Mark Keller of Terra Concepts, who would be working on the site plan, is also in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Parrish said that the parcel has been zoned PDSC since 1980, and the current owner purchased the property 16 years ago with this project having been in development on and off for most of that time. He stated that he began working on it in 2006, and the Planning Commission had seen two earlier versions of the plan – both in 2007. Mr. Parrish said that the earlier versions were under the influence of Places 29, and were more ambitious in scale and intensity; in their review of those submittals, he said, the staff and Commission made several recommendations that were incorporated into the current scaled back application. Mr. Parrish presented a diagram of the property, showing their location behind Shopper’s World and the two properties on Berkmar Drive, as well as abutting seven residential lots in the Berkley subdivision. He said that the applicant expects traffic to enter and leave the site from Berkmar via the existing service drive and also via the main Shopper’s World entrance, adding that the applicant does have a right of ingress/egress over all the travel ways there. He stated that because you can’t make a left September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) turn onto Berkmar from northbound lanes the applicant is assuming that northbound traffic will primarily enter through the main Shopper’s World entrance. Mr. Parrish added that southbound traffic would probably be using Berkmar, and practically no one would enter the site from Dominion Drive. He stated that the applicant planned to locate the parking on the backside, allowing them to share the existing service alley with Shopper’s World, and there is a two-way travel way running through the site which the applicant does have an easement to use. He added that the applicant doesn’t expect cars to use the service alley at all, as that is not what it’s intended for, and autos will enter and leave the site on the front corner. Mr. Parrish said that there was some discussion about traffic issues generally, and what the applicant presented to the Planning Commission was sort of an abbreviated traffic study based on some trip generation figures that the applicant’s transportation consultant generated which indicate that as a commercial development this is very low impact. He stated that the consultants determined there to be about 567 trips per day, which is less than one percent of the current volume on the adjacent stretch of US 29, and given that the parcel is already zoned for commercial development there won’t likely be a project with a lot less traffic than that. Mr. Parrish added that it is constrained by the amount of parking on the site, and the more traffic-intense uses ordinarily permitted in the PDSC are not feasible for them anyway. He stated that another point of confusion has been the truck circulation in the site, and the schematic the Board has was submitted after the fact – before the Planning Commission meeting in July – and reflected observations that he had made on the site watching a delivery being made to Staples. Mr. Parrish said that he spoke with the inventory manager at Staples, who indicated that their trucks often make a turn in the back corner of the site and exit back onto Berkmar Drive. He explained that the applicant is working as they get into the site plan to make it an easier turn to make, and the applicant expects that their truck traffic will enter off of Berkmar, make deliveries to the loading docks, and then turn around at the back corner of the site and exit back to Berkmar. Mr. Parrish said that the applicant would never expect to have a truck run counterclockwise around the site. Mr. Rooker asked if the Staples trucks go up to that area and turn around. Mr. Parrish responded that the trucks that are delivering to the back corner turn around and go back out the way they came in, and the ones that have to come all the way down to service the former Whole Foods exit out that way because they can’t turn around. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Pharrish if he thought that there is adequate room at back corner of staples for a truck to turn around. Mr. Pharrish said that it was tight right now for trucks to turn around in the back corner at Staples, and in the site plan process the applicant is hoping to add some pavement to help facilitate that. Mr. Parrish noted that the applicant has an alternative that would actually enable them to do the turnaround entirely on their property, and one way or another the applicant would make it work. He concluded by asking the Board to affirm an existing zoning designation and enable a fairly low- impact infill project in the development area that’s fully consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Mallek asked if Mr. Pharrish could help explain the grades as it comes up against the neighborhood on both sides. Mr. Parrish explained that the applicant is fairly close to existing grade along the property line, and there is an existing improved drainage ditch that will receive drainage from the biofilter on one end of the site. He said that the piece of land was cleared and graded back when Shopper’s World was built even though there was no development shown, so it left a fairly steep cut slope up against the Berkley neighborhood at the end of Williamsburg Road and a fairly steep fill slope on the Berkmar end of the site. Mr. Parrish said that the applicant would be replacing the cut slope with a retaining wall, and that in conjunction with the fence would be fairly effective in screening the view of the parking area from the end of Williamsburg Road. He said that it was a little over 20 feet from the property line to the fence and another two or three feet to the wall, and the 20 feet is a mandated buffer. Ms. Mallek said that buffer area could be thickly planted, and Mr. Parrish said in order to do that the applicant might have to request a waiver to disturb the buffer, which would be addressed at site plan – but currently the plan is to do nothing. Mr. Parrish said that only one person came to the public meeting the applicant held about plans for the property, and one of the things the applicant discussed – as suggested by Mr. Fritz – was giving the neighbors an easement on the site but on the neighbors side of the fence. Mr. Snow asked if there was any type of pedestrian path from the neighborhood into the area. Mr. Parrish responded that the applicant had talked about it in the earlier iterations of the project, but the applicant’s sense from the limited input received from the neighborhood is that it’s actually not desired. He said that opportunities for pedestrian connection here are limited by the location of the site, but the applicant is creating a small connection to the property on Berkmar. Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant had considered a walkway from Williamsburg to access the back of the property. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) Mr. Parrish replied that the applicant would, as JAUNT had suggested it, but the applicant would need an easement from the residents. There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was placed before the Board. Mr. Rooker said that this is a terrible circumstance because of the traffic flow to and from this site, but he isn’t sure it can be improved upon given the location of the property. He stated that the existing circulation in that shopping center is not good, and this is basically an outparcel of the shopping center that was left undeveloped but has the zoning. Mr. Rooker said that the question is whether a different plan would be more palatable in terms of the traffic pattern. Mr. Snow said that he doesn’t see that – you can’t go in through the residential area, and so that’s the only other two outlets. Mr. Rooker said it sounds like there were numerous concepts for this property considered over the last 10 years and Places 29 era. Mr. Cilimberg explained that it originated during the work on Places 29, and the Commission held a work session on concepts – so this is the result of input that the applicant received, and some of what the applicant heard from the neighborhood. He said that staff was looking at something that had more connectivity, and there was not an interest in Berkley to have that. Ms. Mallek said she wasn’t sure if the existing vegetation was worthy of really being a buffer or whether it needs to have more added to it. Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is an undisturbed buffer requirement of 20 feet, unless there is a request from the applicant to supplement, which can occur through waiver. He said that some of the residents on the other side had concerns about them taking the vegetation away, and that’s why the easement discussion came in. Mr. Rooker pointed out that there is no one from the community present to express a preference one way or another and some people would probably want it maintained in a way that’s more aesthetically appealing than currently exists as rough, undisturbed vegetation. Mr. Snow said that this approval was just for the concept, and the applicant would come back with the total site plan. Mr. Rooker stated that he wasn’t sure at that point what staff could impose in terms of a planting requirement. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff could require the undisturbed buffer, and there wasn’t a landscape plan, so if at the site plan stage there is a feeling that there needs to be supplemental planting that can be a part of that process – and there is a waiver required to do that. He noted that part of the interest of the Berkley side on Williamsburg Road is that residents view that area more as theirs than this property owner’s, because that’s what the residents are going to be left with seeing and the residents have some interest in how that gets maintained. Ms. Mallek said that she was considering adding to the buffer, not cutting any of it down, so it would help screen the fence and make it look more like the woods than a fence. Mr. Boyd commented that this proposal is the best use of a bad situation. Mr. Thomas added, a very bad situation. He also said that the site plan would have to be more attractive than what is there now. Mr. Thomas then moved to approve ZMA-2011-00010. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Ms. Mallek asked if there were any conditions. Mr. Davis said there are no proffers, and since this is a zoning map amendment the Board can’t place conditions on it. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the application plan will be a part of the action. Mr. Rooker said he would vote for this, but wanted to point out that this development will generate 100 times the traffic than the application the Board agonized and expressed concern about earlier with the soccer field. He said that in talking about the scale of uses, this is a m uch smaller piece of property. He stated that he would never zone the property as it is today, but it is the best plan that has emerged from a long period of discussion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler. NAYS: None. Mr. Thomas then moved to approve the special exception for disturbance of critical slopes associated with ZMA-2011-00010. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler. NAYS: None. Note: At 8:53 p.m., the Board took a brief recess, and reconvened at 9:03 p.m. _______________ (The next three agenda items were heard concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: ZMA-2009-00001. 5th Street-Avon Center (Signs #2,3&5). PROPOSAL: To amend the proffers, application plan and development framework of approved rezoning ZMA-2006-00009, (changed to include application plan and development framework) which rezoned 81.94 acres. PD-SC - Planned Development Shopping Center zoning district allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/acre). Approx. 470,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses proposed. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service/Mixed Use- community-scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) Neighborhoods 4 & 5. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Northeast intersection of Interstate 64 and Fifth Street Extended (Rt 631), bounded on the east by Avon Street Extended. Access is Bent Creek Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076M10000002A0, 076M10000002B0, 076M10000004A0, and 077000000011E0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 27 and September 3, 2012.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2010-000003. 5th Street - Avon Center - Parking Structure (Signs #2,3&5). PROPOSAL: Parking Structure. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center - shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) SECTION: 25.2.2(3) Parking Structure. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service/Mixed Use-community- scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) Neighborhoods 4 & 5. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Northeast intersection of Interstate 64 and Fifth Street Extended (Rt 631), bounded on the east by Avon Street Extended. Access is Bent Creek Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076M10000002A0, 076M10000002B0, 076M10000004A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 27 and September 3, 2012.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. SP-2010-000003. 5th Street - Avon Center. Critical Slopes Waiver. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Board has a letter from Albeston Associates, the landscape architect, on behalf of the Willoughby homeowners regarding the critical slope waiver, and a letter from DEQ to Allen Taylor regarding the landfill. He reported that the project is located south of the City, on the north side of I-64 between 5th Street and Avon Street, and the proposal is for an amendment to previously approved proffers – the application plan and development framework approved previously – and a special use permit for the parking structure, as well as a special exception for critical slopes waiver. He said that the application plan, which would be part of the zoning, shows two areas of building – a building zone A and a building zone B, north and south, that include the building envelopes. He provided a rough comparison of the proposed application plan versus the previously approved plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the favorable factors include the connection of 5th Street and Avon through the extension of Bent Creek Parkway, and it is a consistent land use with recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. He said that there is funding provided for greenway construction and provision of transit; the proposal provides shopping and service alternatives for residents south of the City and in the City, and also provides employment opportunities and tax revenues to the County. He said that unfavorable factors include staff’s finding that the application plan lacked detail regarding building locations and architecture that would assure full consistency with the form recommended in the Comp Plan, but the currently approved plan for the development’s property doesn’t meet all of the expectations of form either but does provide more specificity as to architecture, building locations and building scale in particular areas. Mr. Cilimberg said that commitments for transit are substantially decreased from the prior rezoning, and cash in lieu of construction for the greenway park, greenway trail and Willoughby pedestrian bridge and trail is provided – so they’re providing cash rather than building those facilities. He said that there are storm water facilities shown in the floodplain, and there still is a special use permit for fill in the floodplain necessary for stream crossings to assure the development can take place. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval if the following are addressed, including outstanding technical issues, with proffers, removal of the storm water BMP facility shown in the floodplain, development framework revised to not include items that are already applicable per the zoning ordinance, remediation commitment made as recommended by staff for the landfill, and additional funding commitment to adequately cover the anticipated costs of a Willoughby pedestrian bridge and trail. He said that those provisions have been addressed by the applicant, with the exception of the location of the storm water BMP facility in the floodplain – and the applicant has also added proffer language to address the Monticello view shed concerns regarding the roof design. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff can recommend approval of the ZMA inclusive of the proffers, but would ask that the Board clarify that the action is not implicit approval of the location of the storm water BMP facilities and they would need to be addressed subsequently in the site planning process. He stated that the applicant may be applying for an adjustment of the floodplain boundaries in that area, and if that were to be approved the facilities may no longer be in the floodplain. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff also recommends approval of the special use permit for the parking structure, and the Commission has recommended approval of the special exception for critical slopes waiver. Mr. Rooker asked if the staff is comfortable with proffers as they address the environmental remediation of the landfill. Mr. Cilimberg responded that there was a lot of discussion regarding that, consultation with DEQ, and staff feels that they have the proffers in order to address the issues identified. Mr. Rooker commented that there were some difficult issues and some common sense approaches taken to address them. At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing. Mr. Rooker noted that there was a young woman at the meeting – Ms. Joan Albeston of the Willoughby Homeowners Association – holding a small child, and asked if the applicant would permit her to speak first so she could get her child home. Ms. Joan Albeston said that she is a landscape architect and a resident of the Willoughby subdivision as well as a board member of the property owners’ association. She said that her property backs up to Moore’s Creek and can see the lights of the existing building at night, so it will definitely impact her view shed. Ms. Albeston said she would like the Board to think carefully about the critical slopes waiver, and had sent them a letter in this regard. She stated that the Willoughby homeowners have signed a petition on that matter, and there seems to be a general consensus on this point. She said that the property owners association is concerned about the potential environmental impact that may be permitted to occur to Moore’s Creek, Biscuit Run, and the surrounding forested land if the Board approves the critical slope waiver prior to review and approval of a more detailed plan than has been submitted to date. She asked the Board not to approve the critical slope waiver before the County engineering staff has an opportunity to review the waiver in conjunction with a more detailed plan, as staff had requested when the Commission considered the waiver. Ms. Albeston stated that approving the critical slopes waiver at this point in the design process would make it exceedingly difficult for the County’s engineering staff to have input or control on the amount, location, or degree of disturbance. She said that the engineer’s report prepared for this meeting refers to a critical slope plan that is included with the report, and it states: “This is a very general plan, allowing all disturbances within the envelope of the development”. According to a chart submitted with the report, she said, 28% of the site exhibits critical slopes – and 62% of those slopes are proposed to be disturbed; thus it appears that the waiver would permit the disturbance of critical slopes over nearly 20% of the site. Ms. Albeston emphasized that the water quality of Moore’s Creek is already considered compromised due in part to sediment load, and the development is already expected to deal with environmental concerns surrounding the old City dump, which is on very steep slopes overlooking a sharp turn of the creek where erosion is most likely to occur. She said that grading above the floodplain in steep slopes associated with Moore’s Creek can have serious environmental impact, and all storm water pipes will ultimately and quickly lead to the creek with little opportunity for infiltration. Ms. Albeston said that she and other Willoughby members are asking the Board not to approve the waiver until they’ve had time to look at the site plan. Ms. Valerie Long, of Williams Mullen law firm, representing the owners and applicants of the project, addressed the Board. Ms. Long presented a conceptual site plan, which is how the applicant hopes the project will develop, with the Wegman’s store as the anchor tenant. She said that the job opportunities that store alone will create are extremely exciting, as is the tax revenue that it will generate. Ms. Long showed a slide of the outline of the conceptual plan overlaid on the application plan to illustrate the relationship of the two, adding that that applicant have the flexibility with the application plans building envelopes to adjust accordingly based on the markets and tenant mix. She said that a connector road would be built as part of the project prior to any of the stores opening, and showed the general location of the pedestrian connection to Willoughby that the applicant is proffering cash for. Ms. Long said that the applicant is also proposing a pedestrian connection between the two primary building zones to enhance the accessibility within the project. She said that the applicant is excited to be able to add a sidewalk and bicycle lane, but are not yet sure how that will be achieved – either with a 10-foot wide shared use pathway or a more typical 5-foot wide sidewalk with bike lanes in the shoulders of the road. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) Mr. Snow asked if the sidewalks and bike lanes will go all the way around the main roads. Ms. Long responded that the sidewalks and bike lanes will go the entire span of the connector road, and those elements combined will dramatically improve the transportation flow to the center and through it. Ms. Long reported that the applicant is happy to have been able to resolve the landfill issues with staff, and approving the project will enable the owners of the property to move forward with the landfill work plan that has been underway for the past four or five years – covering up the exposed waste and picking up the trash there, while fixing the slope area next to the creek. She noted that the landfill work will be underway and will have to be completed pursuant to the proffers before any of the stores can open. Mr. Dumler said that the DEQ on the letter said, upon adequate submission of additional details, and asked what was still out there. Ms. Long replied that they want a little more detail about the road that would need to be built to access the site, as there is only a path currently, and DEQ wants to ensure that it is done in an environmentally sensitive manner. She said that DEQ also wants more information on the plan to use landscaping instead of a fence in one area, as DEQ had initially wanted. Ms. Mallek asked if there would be mats instead of grading to get down to the work zone. Ms. Long responded that that’s part of the challenge, and the applicant is hoping to start work in six months or so. She said there would have to be a grading plan submitted to the County as well, and none of the work can take place until staff has approved that. Ms. Long stated that the applicant increased the amount of the cash proffer for the pedestrian connection to the Willoughby neighborhood from $25,000 to $100,000 at staff’s suggestion, and the applicant is proffering $250,000 for the trails and a park. Regarding the critical slopes waiver, Ms. Long said that the applicant is asking for the Board to take action on that – and again the staff is recommending approval. She said that the project can’t really be developed without the waiver, and most of the slopes that are proposed to be disturbed are internal or to build the connector road. Ms. Long noted that a lot of the slopes are along the road, and thus are manmade slopes, and in the entire site 51% of the slopes are manmade. Of the slopes to be disturbed, she said, 76% are manmade because the majority of the areas being disturbed are within the building envelope areas, which were previously disturbed or created when the existing grading took place many years ago. She said that when the Grand Piano warehouse was built and the existing road was built, a lot of those slopes were constructed. Ms. Long said that the applicant has many other measures in the proffers and on the application plan to address the concerns that were expressed by Ms. Albeston regarding the health of Moore’s Creek, adding that the applicant does not want to make the situation worse but instead wants to help improve the water quality. She said that the applicant has a number of measures in the plan that will do just that. She said that they have a proffer that commits to using enhanced erosion and sediment control measures during construction, going above and beyond the standard County requirements – including using wire- reinforced silt fencing, double rows of silt fencing, and diversion dikes. She stated that the applicant has a proffer that requires them to capture and treat a large area of storm water that’s coming from offsite that currently is not being treated and flows into Moore’s Creek, and constructing the storm water management facility will help clean up the water that runs off the interstate into the creek untreated. Ms. Mallek asked if that would stay as a pond when the work is finished. Ms. Long responded that it would, and is on the application plan. She said that implementing the DEQ work plan for the landfill will stop the existing erosion and sedimentation that’s taking place at the base of the landfill. Ms. Long reiterated that the applicant can’t build the project without disturbing the critical slopes, adding that both staff and the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the waiver. Mr. Dumler said that the WPO requires the applicant to submit an ENS plan anyway. Mr. Rooker noted that he didn’t see staff’s recommendation of the critical slopes waiver. Mr. Cilimberg clarified that the Planning Commission did, and staff’s memo made reference to the analysis. Mr. Rooker stated that the determination of whether something qualifies for a critical slopes waiver is basically a ministerial decision, and the Board has to make it now because of the Sinclair ruling. He said that the plan could be approved without the critical slopes waiver, and he doesn’t see why it would make a difference to the project schedule because there are other things that need to be done in the interim before grading and dirt moving. He said that he has never seen a critical slopes waiver approved on this little amount of information about what those critical slope changes will result in. Mr. Rooker stated that in the past, how the applicant will address the critical slopes issues is presented. He said that the Board doesn’t have that – the Board has a general request to disturb 30% of the land or something like that on a site, with no guidance at all as to how it meets these criteria. Mr. Dumler asked if there was a more substantive plan submitted in 2008 when this was originally voted on. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) Mr. Cilimberg responded that there was a more substantive application plan, but he wasn’t sure about the critical slopes waiver. Ms. Long indicated that there was one granted in 2008. Mr. Dumler asked if there had been modifications to the plan since then that would differ from that. Ms. Long said that this is essentially the same plan, and the development area continues to be within the same footprint. She showed the approved plan from 2008, noting that as it’s currently proposed the buildings are all in the same area – and the critical slopes that are proposed to be disturbed were also proposed in 2008, when the waiver was granted. She added that the limits of disturbance are the same. Ms. Mallek asked if the applicant had re-submitted the old plan to show their intentions are the same. Ms. Long responded that staff asked to submit a current exhibit, which is the one she had shown them, but essentially it’s the same limits of disturbance. She added that from her experience, it’s the same level of detail that’s typically provided on critical slopes waivers. Mr. Thomas mentioned that the Board looked at the same critical slopes years ago when Jim Murray had planned to put a Wal-Mart there, and asked if the road was following the same path as the original road. Ms. Long replied that the proposed connector road follows along the existing roadway as much as possible, in an effort to minimize the disturbance as much as possible. Mr. Rooker pointed out that that plan for the property was never approved, nor was there ever a critical slopes waiver applied for. He said that he isn’t necessarily saying he will oppose the waiver, but he questions the timing of bringing it forward now with what appears to be a paucity of information about the various categories that are supposed to be looked at by staff and recommended in the critical slopes waiver process. Mr. Rooker said that if the waiver is approved now with limited information, it calls into question what kind of precedent it sets for the future in considering critical slopes waivers where they have been debated at length based on much more detailed information. Ms. Long said that the proffer that requires the use and implementation of enhanced erosion and sediment control measure will be enforced at the site plan stage, so they have to design the site plan and the ENS plan to conform with the proffer and comply with that. She said that the County has the assurance and comfort of knowing that not only is the applicant going to have to meet the standard requirements for erosion and sediment control, but in fact enhanced measures that will speak to some of those issues. Ms. Joelle Michel said that she is a property owner in Willoughby and she is present to urge the Board to watch the YouTube video she sent them which portrays the abandoned landfill. Ms. Michel urged the Board to wait on granting the steep slope waiver, noting that there is a chance that the EPA will designate the landfill as a Superfund site. She said that Matt Kolup of the EPA and the Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division has corresponded with Graham Zimmerman of the DEQ’s Harrisonburg office, and has reviewed the DEQ findings from 2008. She said Mr. Kolup along with his EPA team met and discussed the DEQ findings from 2008 and forwarded it onto the EPA’s Superfund Committee. Ms. Michel said that it was to be reviewed August 8, but she does not yet know the outcome. She said that it is a wonderful opportunity to get the funding to make it a safe environment. She said that the landfill sits on some major critical slopes, and a lot of the manmade steep slopes happen to be the landfill. Ms. Michel said she is a proponent of the development and is excited about Wegman’s, but she wants the Board to be cautious in deciding the waiver tonight to give staff time to review it in more detail. Mr. Stu Smith addressed the Board, stating that he is a City resident but he does support the Wegman’s coming to town. Mr. Snow asked for confirmation from Ms. Long that the dump site was actually to the east of the development. Ms. Long noted on the rendering provided that it is, and said that any of the work done with the landfill as part of the work plan is just to clean it up – except for the connector road, which will cross over the landfill area. She said that the applicant will proceed with extra care to do the minimal amount of work there and cover up the waste whenever possible, stating that there was a survey done as part of the work plan whereby the applicant’s team went out to the site with DEQ and detailed the exposed waste. Ms. Long stated that the applicant’s team broke the site up into five areas for analysis, and some were worse than others – with the worst area being right next to the creek. She said that the standard practice in the past was using a concrete barrier to keep the waste in place, but the applicant’s new solution is to use a Filtrex system whereby an area is flattened out and worked with compost socks that grows vegetation to form a living wall to help stabilize the area. Ms. Long stated that in some other areas, the applicant would just cover it with fill; and in the third type of area, the applicant would work with DEQ to find a way to stabilize and screen it. She said that the proffer the applicant has crafted says that the applicant would consult with staff on areas it doesn’t make sense to cover. She stated that it depends on the actual area, but all of the trash that’s exposed that’s seen in the video will all be picked up; the wall of the bank right next to the creek will be stabilized using the Filtrex product; other areas will be picked up or covered or screened with vegetation. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) Mr. Rooker said that that’s not really part of the waiver request – it has to do with the remediation issue, which nobody has raised an issue about. He said that the approach to dealing with the landfill issue seems sound. Mr. Snow said that he brought it up to address the comment from the member of the public. Ms. Long mentioned that there are some slopes that are within the limits of disturbance because that is where the connector road will bisect that area. She said that the applicant’s engineers distinguished the areas that are manmade versus the natural slopes, and distributed a rendering showing this. Ms. Mallek asked if there would be rip rap or stone at the water’s edge by the creek to protect it against high water velocity, especially on the corners. Ms. Long pointed out which areas are manmade and which are natural, noting that the goal is to leave the slopes alone wherever possible and only disturb those that are absolutely necessary for construction of the connector road and the buildings themselves. Mr. Rooker asked how the manmade slopes got created on a site that had no improvements. Ms. Long responded that her understanding is that the slopes were built when the existing access road was built, and perhaps when the landfill was closed there was one created. Mr. Thomas said that when the dump was there, it sloped down to Moore’s Creek, and perhaps with the settlement of the landfill the slopes have been created. Ms. Long noted that the slopes are fairly stable, as they have been undisturbed for 35 years. She said the applicant wants to stay out of them as much as possible, and will take the appropriate cautions to ensure that any additional erosion and sedimentation is not created. Mr. Dumler asked if the applicant plans to move the storm water facilities out of the floodplain in the revision submitted to the Board. Ms. Long replied that the applicant has to submit a special use permit for fill in the floodplain, and has to have the engineers do a detailed analysis of that so it can be done without increasing the flood levels. She said that the applicant would then work with FEMA to establish consent, and there is a note on the application plan that states that explicitly – along with a sentence in the proffers that has been there since 2008. Mr. Rooker said that there is a special use permit that must come forward for fill in the floodplain. Ms. Mallek added that there would need to be one for the stream crossings also. Mr. Rooker asked for clarification that a further action is required on this development in order for it to move forward. Mr. Graham responded that there will be a need for a special use permit for the fill in the floodplain, and that hasn’t been applied for yet. Mr. Rooker asked if there was any reason why the critical slopes waiver request could not go forward at the same time the special use permit is moving forward, because there would probably be more information than about the critical slopes being disturbed and the impacts. Mr. Graham said that Mr. Rooker was essentially correct, but the applicant had outlined why they wanted to move forward. He said that the level of detail you would typically get about critical slopes would be higher, and Mr. Brooks outlined that in his memo – with the five criteria under the ordinance that are supposed to be considered – what Mr. Brooks said was that he had trouble with a couple of those, evaluating those – because of the level of detail that was available to him. Ms. Mallek asked if the slopes were amplified in the 2008 application that was approved. Mr. Graham said the difference was that the 2008 application plan was much more detailed, and it was much easier to identify those limits and the associated impact. Mr. Boyd asked if there had been any development in the information between the time the Planning Commission looked at the critical slopes and now that might have impacted staff’s decision on that. Mr. Graham responded that no one has approached staff with anything, and Mr. Brooks provided a memo recognizing that the Planning Commission had made a recommendation without that information. Ms. Mallek said that regarding Mr. Rooker’s earlier comment about precedent, this case is different because it has already been through and been approved once – which gives it a uniqueness compared to the average permit process starting from scratch. Mr. Snow said that from what he has heard, the Board has been through it before and is now taking adequate precautions to ensure that things proceed properly. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) Mr. Rooker stated that he wouldn’t support the critical slopes waiver at this time, but probably would support it if it had the detail staff would typically get in their review. He said that it sets a bad precedent, and he doesn’t think it holds the development up because he doesn’t think it would take any longer to bring this back when the applicant gets the special use permit to fill in the floodplain than it would be to get it done today. He added that when he was on the Planning Commission, he never voted to approve a critical slopes waiver request where these were the comments from staff in each of the categories. He said that it’s really unusual. Mr. Rooker added that the project is a great project and he would vote for the rezoning, although there have been reductions in contributions to transit by $100,000 per year. He said that the applicant’s request isn’t unreasonable in light of the scope of the entire project and what the applicant is doing, and he’ll support that – but this is a detail that becomes important simply because of the timing and the lack of information. He said that the Board has generally had comments from staff as to how those concerns have been addressed. Mr. Boyd said he was in favor of moving forward with both the waiver and the project. Mr. Dumler said that given that it was approved in 2008 and is proposed to be substantially similar to that plan, coupled with the fact that staff is recommending approval now and has no problem supporting the critical slopes waiver and the project. He stated that he has had numerous meetings over the last nine months with the applicant and Community Developm ent on this project, and he is very pleased with the speed and attentiveness that staff has given this project – and the flexibility of the applicant. Mr. Dumler said that the applicant has also been attentive to working with neighbors, residents of Willoughby, Monticello, etc. Mr. Rooker asked if there is a recommendation from staff to approve the critical slopes waiver request at this time. He said if there is, he doesn’t see it. Mr. Brooks responded that Mr. Rooker is correct. He said that he carefully talked around that in the report. Mr. Brooks said that he felt obligated to follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Mr. Rooker commented that usually it’s the other way around. Mr. Dumler then moved to approve ZMA-2009-00001 inclusive of the proffers dated September 4, 2012 and signed September 6, 2012. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler. NAYS: None. Mr. Cilimberg asked if that was to include the clarification regarding the location of storm water facilities that was noted. Mr. Dumler responded that it was. (The proffers are set out in full below:) September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 27) September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 28) September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 31) September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 32) September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 33) _____ Mr. Dumler moved to approve SP-2010-0003 with the condition as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler. NAYS: None. Mr. Cilimberg said that the vote was for the parking structure (there was confusion that this special permit regarded the critical slope waiver). Mr. Rooker initially voted no but said his vote should be changed in that event, to support the parking structure. (The condition of approval is set out below:) 1. The special use permit approval shall not expire but shall remain in effect so long as the approval of ZMA-2009-00001 remains in effect. _____ September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 34) Mr. Dumler then moved to approve the special exception for the critical slopes waiver. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler. NAYS: Mr. Rooker. Board members thanked the applicant for a good project. _______________ Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Resolution in Support of the Commonwealth of Virginia Constitutional Amendment on Eminent Domain. Ms. Mallek said that Mr. Boyd had circulated a resolution in support of this a week ago. Mr. Boyd said that the resolution was somewhat self-explanatory. Mr. Rooker commented that this amendment was something that he would personally vote for at the ballot, but he would not support the amendment because it is basically instructing people how they should vote on something, which is not a road the Board should go down. Mr. Rooker said that the amendment itself is not on the ballot, and it isn’t exceptionally well-worded. He also stated that he thought it would result in massive amounts of litigation. Mr. Boyd said that it wasn’t a resolution telling people how to vote, as the Board doesn’t have that power, but it’s just a resolution to state support. Ms. Mallek said that that’s what people are going to hear, unfortunately. Mr. Rooker said that the resolution read, “Urge citizens to vote ‘yes’ on the ballot in November”. Ms. Mallek stated that her concern is with urging people to vote in favor where the legislation hasn’t even been passed to define what it is. Mr. Boyd said that there is an Attorney General’s opinion that interprets the legislation. Ms. Mallek said that the definitions of lost profits and lost access have not yet been defined. Mr. Davis stated that Senate Bill 437 was adopted, which has been passed effective January 1, 2013, contingent upon the passage of the Constitutional Amendment. He said that the bill defines lost access, lost profits, and a few other issues. He said that that is waiting and will be effective if the Constitutional Amendment passes. Mr. Snow said that he attended a Farm Bureau meeting recently where it was discussed, and he told them at that point he would support the resolution. Ms. Mallek said the Board resolution hadn’t even been discussed then, adding that what someone does in the voting booth is their own personal thing. Mr. Snow emphasized that it was important to the Farm Bureau, and he has expressed his support. He said that there are a lot of people who would be confused about this, and it’s important to let them know this is a good thing. Mr. Rooker stated that there will be people confused by what is being voted on here today, and while he would vote in favor of the amendment in the voting booth – he does not feel comfortable stating a Board position on it. He said that the Board doesn’t tell people how to vote. Mr. Boyd said that the Board encourages people to do things all the time, such as recognizing women’s rights. He said that his interpretation of not voting on it is somebody who doesn’t believe in property rights, because that’s what this is all about. Mr. Rooker said that this resolution is not about personally supporting the amendment. Mr. Boyd said that the resolution states the Board’s position on the amendment, partially because VACo and VML are taking a position against it, and he believes that the Board as a County ought to take a position that’s contrary to that, if that’s what the Board believes. Mr. Dumler stated that he would vote for it personally, but he doesn’t feel comfortable supporting a resolution. He said that this is a complex issue, and this is a values balance that people are going to have to come to on their own. He said that he doesn’t feel comfortable telling residents that this Board officially supports that. Mr. Boyd said that he would remember this next time a resolution comes before the Board. Mr. Dumler said that he wouldn’t vote for one telling people to vote for a Virginia Constitutional version of the ERA either. Mr. Rooker tried to make further comment, but Mr. Boyd called for the question. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 35) Ms. Mallek said to Mr. Boyd this is to cut off debate, that’s what you’re trying to do. Mr. Boyd said that he did not need to hear the rhetoric. Mr. Rooker said that it was a vote to cut off discussion. Mr. Boyd withdrew his motion. Mr. Rooker said that the motion is not what Mr. Boyd is suggesting, as it is instructing people how to vote – not simply whether or not this Board supports or doesn’t support the amendment. Mr. Snow asked Mr. Rooker if there is a word or two that he would like to change. Mr. Rooker said that if the words “and encourages the citizens to vote ‘yes’ on this ballot in November”, were removed then he would support it. He emphasized that when the Board handles issues like women’s equality, the Board doesn’t recommend that people go out and vote a certain way. Mr. Boyd agreed to amend the resolution to eliminate the reference to voting. Mr. Boyd moved to approve the proposed resolution as amended. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler. NAYS: None. (The adopted resolution is set out below:) Resolution in Support of the Commonwealth of Virginia Constitutional Amendment on Eminent Domain Whereas, this country was founded on the principal of private property rights and this has become an important aspect of the American dream; and Whereas, the Supreme Court of the United States has indicated that the use of eminent domain laws are a States’ rights issue; and Whereas, the government taking of privately owned property should be limited to the need for public use projects only; and Whereas, citizens should be adequately compensated when their property is taken for government use including loss of use and/or income; and Whereas, both the House of Delegates and the Senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia has twice passed an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia regarding eminent domain; and Whereas, the constitutional amendment will be on the November 6, 2012 ballot for approval by a majority of voters in Virginia. Now, Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby support this constitutional amendment restricting the use of eminent domain in the Commonwealth. _______________ Agenda Item No. 15. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Mallek asked if the Board wanted to revisit the discussion on the in-sync lighting system, and ask VDoT to reconsider their rejection of the idea – even though it has been proven effective at Pantops. Mr. Boyd said that he goes through there both rush hours every day but has not seen much improvement there, and he would like to see the report from VDoT. Mr. Rooker said that the VDoT report shows a 50% reduction in travel time on Route 250. He said that Jim Rich is very interested in this, and the Board is not voting on this tonight. Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Benish was going to look at the potential for using some matching funds with the VDoT revenue- sharing program to help pay for it, and it is a pretty small investment. He added that the typical improvement in traffic flow with the system ranges from 35-45%, which is a lot of bang for your buck when considering a $200,000 cost to put up one light. Mr. Boyd said he would like to see some more information on this, but also wants to discuss how to improve the feeder roads – because that’s really where the improvement is necessary for roads like Polo Grounds Road – that his main concern right now.” Mr. Rooker said that what’s on Route 29 now is a preset ITS system and it gives no consideration for deviations – whereas the In-Sync system is a camera system that is constantly adjusting the lights based upon actual existing traffic at the intersections. Mr. Dumler commented away games versus home games, for instance. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 36) Mr. Rooker said that it could tell when there are 14 cars at Polo Grounds Road instead of one. Mr. Snow asked if it read the traffic in both directions, including side roads. Mr. Rooker confirmed that it did, stating that the technology lets platoons of cars go through so it can keep traffic flowing. He said that it’s a minimal expense compared to other measures, and it would be coming before them at some point. He said that if the County got a 35 or 40% improvement in traffic flow, normal times – that’s huge. Mr. Foley asked if the Board wanted staff to come back with more information on this. Mr. Snow responded that Board members did. Ms. Mallek said that staff should alert VDoT that someone needs to be present at the meetings and explain why suggested measures are being rejected. Mr. Boyd asked if this is something the Board should mention to representatives on the MPO. Mr. Rooker responded that he had distributed an email to the Board about it, and Mr. Benish may come back with revenue-sharing information for it. He said that there must be a dynamic system that adjusts, as there’s no way VDoT can anticipate traffic on every side road. _____ Mr. Rooker distributed an article that he wanted to share with the Board. _____ Mr. Snow said that he would like a traffic study on Garth Road to see what it says about reducing speed on that road. Mr. Rooker said he would support that. Ms. Mallek said that she recalled when the speed limit was 40 mph, and now there are 100 times more cars with a speed limit of 55. Mr. Rooker stated that there have been a lot of accidents on that road, including some fatal ones. Mr. Foley said that staff would get with VDoT to figure out how to get the process started. Ms. Mallek said she would second a motion requesting a speed study, as it seems VDoT is requiring a more formal request. Mr. Davis suggested a formal motion so the Board is on record for the request. Mr. Snow confirmed his motion requesting a speed study for Garth Road. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler. NAYS: None. _____ Ms. Mallek said that the Board had finally gotten information from Jim Utterback on the 15 roads in the County that had been sprayed, and she wanted to request that Albemarle County be added to the list of counties that gets notification in advance of the roads that are going to be sprayed – with the 1-800 number that allows landowners to pull their property out. Mr. Snow moved to request that the County be added on the list for spraying information notification. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler. NAYS: None. _____ Ms. Mallek stated that she had not received the requested information from VDoT on how to use the chemicals that their workers are using, and it is very clear from how the workers are spraying that they’re not using the chemical that VDoT says they’re using according to the way that it is supposed to be used. She noted that she still has to submit a FOIA request for the investigation that she has requested, adding that there still seems to be a concerning reluctance for VDoT to cooperate. Ms. Mallek said that regarding the impact fee legislation from a few years ago, she had asked David Toscano and Creigh Deeds if it applied to rural area houses and they said yes – but she wanted confirmation that there wasn’t more enabling legislation needed. Mr. Davis responded that his recollection is that the legislation has expired, with the enabling authority no longer effective, and Stafford County had special legislation that pre-existed the legislation from three years ago. September 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 37) Mr. Rooker asked Board members to read the article he had distributed about the correlation of economic success with the preservation of unique qualities of an area. Mr. Boyd stated that he felt it was important to work with the workforce center or some other body to collaborate with Wegman’s and other new businesses, so that the County can start helping to grow the skill sets that are needed for their jobs. He said that the Board ought to be proactive in that, to make sure the County keeps those jobs here locally. Ms. Mallek said that that’s the type of question Susan Stimart would be asking in her Business First initiatives. Mr. Foley said that the County could specifically reach out in a proactive way to these businesses. Mr. Rooker said that if the skills aren’t readily available in the workforce, the Board could work with PVCC to ensure that people are trained appropriately. Ms. Mallek mentioned that County officials had met with the two leaders of the Siemens Group that has moved into the old MicroAire building, and The Siemens Group talked about the challenges in finding machinists for their shop because of the reduced emphasis nationwide on manufacturing skills. Mr. Thomas noted that there were representatives there from PVCC and U.Va. who were very attentive to the comments from Siemens. Mr. Rooker noted that there was an article in the business section of the paper recently, which talked about three or four high-tech companies in the area that were having trouble finding qualified employees. Mr. Foley said that County staff can reach out and find out what the needs are, and then try to match up a program that will help develop local people to meet those needs. _______________ Agenda Item No. 16. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were none. _______________ Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn to September 21, 2012, 9:00 a.m., Woodland Pavilion at Monticello. Mr. Foley said that the Board would need to adjourn to the strategic planning meeting, and also to cancel the October 10, 2012 night meeting. Mr. Dumler moved to cancel the October 10, 2012 night Board of Supervisors meeting. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler. NAYS: None. _____ At 10:27 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, Ms. Mallek moved to adjourn to the strategic planning meeting on September 21, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. to be held at the Woodlands Pavillion at Monticello. Mr. Dumler seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler. NAYS: None. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date: 10/03/2012 Initials: EWJ