Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-04 October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) 57 (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 4, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived 7:32 P.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived 7:32 P.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the consent agenda items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the folloWing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. Item 4.1. Letter dated September 22, 1989, from Mr. J. S. Hodge, Chief Engineer, Department of Transportation, acknowledging the Board's letter on the evaluation of the State's Tree Trimming Pilot Program was received as information. Item 4.2. Planning Commission Minutes for September 19, 1989, received as information. Item 4.3. Letter (with petition attached) from inmates at the Joint Security Complex requesting that the ban on smoking be lifted in the Jail, received as information. Mr. Way said he believed that the Jail Board has had some discussion concerning this request, and he asked Mr. Bowie to comment. Mr. Bowie reported that in August the subject of the County's ordinance came up at the Jail Board's meeting, since the Joint Security Complex is in the County and therefore governed by the ordinance. He said the instructions from the Jail Board to the Jail Administrator'were for the Complex to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Bowie pointed out that this particular petition is addressed to the Board of Supervisors and, to,his knowledge, was not given to either the Jail Administrator or the Jail Boa~. He suggested that the petition be noted for information, but he said that the Jail Board has made a decision to comply with the ordinance. He added that he supports the decision to comply with the ordinance, and believes thJt any problems can be handled by the Jail Administrator. If the Jail Administrator cannot handle the problems, the problems will be brought to the Jail Board. Item 4.4. Letter dated September 21, 1989, from Mr. R. A. Erchul, Virginia Military Institute, offering the services of theVMI Research Labora- tories to conduct a study of illegal disposali~including littering) sites in the County was received as information. ~ Mr. Agnor informed the Board that the st~ff had responded to VMI that more information is needed concerning the sur9ey as to the cost associated with the time involved. He said that the staff had also inquired as to the type of information that will be derived from the survey. October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) 58 (Page 2) Item 4.5. Copy of letter dated October 3, 1989, from Mr. Peter T. Way Mrs. Elizabeth B. Waters to the Rector and Board of Visitors at the ~iversity of Virginia relating to the proposals for a Route Z9/250 Bypass route, received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. Request from Ronald T. Castelino concerning tormwater Detention Basin in Camelia Gardens. Mr. St. John reported that he had had two meetings with Mr. Castelino and one other neighbor, along with Mr. and Mrs. Lee. He said they had visited the te on two occasions with Mr. Richard Moring, the County Engineer. Mr. St. John cited a letter from Mr. Lee dated October 2, 1989, stating that the association had been formed, had elected officers, collected dues from all except one homeowner. He said a contract to eliminate all the problems was anticipated to be completed by October 9, according to Mr. Lee's letter. After that, maintenance would be done on a regular and continuing basis.. Mr. St. John continued that Mr. Castelino is not satisfied because of the decision not to clean up anything until the entire job could be done, and he had asked Mr. St. John to make the Board aware of that in his absence. Mr. St. John suggested that this item be left on the agenda until the job has been completed. Mr. Way then asked Mr. Lee if he is in ajreement with Mr. St. John or if he had anything else he would like to say to the Board. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. St. John's statements and said that the work would be done as soon as possible. Mr. Way asked that this item be on the agenda for the November day meeting. He asked if there were any objections to putting this item on that particular agenda, and there were none. Mrs..Cooke asked if the work on the basin was supposed to be completed by October 9 or November 9. Mr. St. John replied that the cleanup work on the basin shohld be completed by October 9, 1989, if the weather permits. He said that MX. Lee indicated in his letter that he is arranging with a contractor to hav&i!the work completed by that time. He added that some brush and trees hav&!'already been removed. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-89-42. Marion R. Buswell. For a home occupation Class B. Property on West side of Owensville Road. (Deferred from July 19, 1989.) i~ At the applicant's request, in a letter from her attorney dated Octo- ber 3, 1989, motion was offered by Mr. Lindst~om and seconded by Mr. Bowie to allow the petition to be withdraw without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs.. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-89-14. University Corporate Center (Willoughby East Joint Venture). To rezone approximately 12.77 acres, with proffers, from R-6 Residential to LI, Light Industrial. Property is located on the east side of Fifth Street Extended (Rt. 631) in the Willoughby Corporate Park. Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels 1 and 2A. Scottsville DistriCt. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 19 and September 26, 1989.) At the applicant's request, in a letter ~ated October 3, 1989, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to defer this public hearing to October 18, 1989. Roll was called!and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-89-50. University Corporate Center (Willoughby East Joint Venture). To allow for a pond in the flood plain of Moores Creek. Property is located on the east side of Fifth Street Extended (Rt. 631) in the October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 59 Willoughby Corporate Park. Tax Map 76M(1), Parcel 2B. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 19 and September 26, 1989.) At the applicant's request, motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to defer this public hearing to. October 18, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-89-66. Broadus Memorial Baptist Church. To allow for fill and culvert in the floodway fringe Of an unnamed stream of the Rivanna River. Property on the east side ofiRt. 20 North approximately 600 feet south of Franklin Drive. Tax Map 62, parcel 25. Rivanna District. (Advertised' in the Daily Progress on September 19 and September 26, 1989.) Mr. Bain said he would abstain from this discussion since a member of his law firm is doing some work for this group. ~He left the room. Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows: "Character of the Area: This site is ldcated within the Rivanna District and is located on the east sid~ of Rt. 20 approximately 600 feet south of Franklin Drive. This property as well as adjacent properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas. ~he site has flood plain in the area near Rt. 20. A large area with slopes in excess of 25 percent exists along the northern property line~ The majority of the site is gently to moderately rolling and wooded~j Staff Comment: The Engineering Department has reviewed this request and has stated the following: i~ "We have reviewed the flood plain ~zossing proposed by Broadus Memorial Baptist Church. The location of the proposed crossing is on a branch of a tributary stream to the Rivanna River. The flood plain which has to be crosse~ is a portion of the flood plain fringe and is actually a result of back water from the Rivanna River. It is not a direct ~esult of the tributary stream where the location of the crossing ~is being made. In our opinion the impact of this crossing on the ~levation of the 100 year flood level will be negligible. WE recommend approval..." The Virginia Department of Transportatioh has stated that the proposed stream crossing should not affect drainage on Rt. 20. Cason Farm Road, which lies on the northern property line of this development, does not provide access to ~his site. The topography in this area would require any proposed roa~ to cross a stream which is in the flood plain and then climb a banklwith grades in excess of 25 percent. Therefore, to allow reasonableiusage of this property, crossing of the flood plain and intrusio~ into steep slopes is neces- sary. Staff recommends approval of SP-89-66 fo~ Broadus Memorial Baptist Church subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: Department of Engineering approval of final design of the stream crossing; e Department of Engineering issuance df an erosion control permit as applicable; Compliance with all Federal, State, and local permit requirements pertaining to construction, reconstruction or alteration of any perennial streams, creeks or rivers." October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 60 Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 7, 1989, unanimously recommended approval of the petition subject to the conditions set out in the staff's report. Mr. Way suggested that Mr. Cilimberg give the staff report for the special use permit request so that public comments could be taken on both requests simultaneously. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-89-63. Broadus Memorial Baptist Church. For a church facility to be located on a vacant 9.269 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located on the east side of"Rt. 20 North approximately 600 feet south of Franklin Drive. Tax Map 62, Parcel 25. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 19 and September 26, 1989.) Mr. Cilimberg then gave the staff report for SP-89-63 as follows: "Staff Comment: The applicant has submitted information regarding the proposed church and its design. The applicant has stated that they plan to request use of this site for a day care center in the future. The applicant is hereby put on notice that any additional uses, including day care, will require an additional Special Use Permit. The proposed church location is such that it will not have an impact on adjacent properties. No letters have been received from adjacent property owners regarding this petition~i It should be noted that the 9.3 acres covered by this Special Use Permit was recently designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a low density residential expansion of Neighborhood 3. The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that this devel- opment can obtain an adequate entrance and construct the necessary 200 foot long turn lane and 200 foot long t~per lane within the existing right of way. Staff has reviewed this special use permit for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, and iJ. lof the opinion that this request complies with Section 31.2.4.1 ~nd recommends approval subject to the following conditions: ~ Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1) Planning Commission approval of site plan; 2) Any future uses, to include day ca~e, shall require an additional special use permit." Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 7, 1989, unanimously recommended approval of the petition subject to the conditions set out in the staff report. Relating to a comment that Mr. Cilimbergmade in his staff report in which he stated that the proposed church location would not have an impact on adjacent properties, Mr. Lindstrom wondered if there would be a direct view of the proposed church from Route 20. Mr. Cilimberg answered that, based upon the staff's initial analysis, he does not believe that there will be a direct view of the church from Route 20 or from adjacent properties because the area is wooded, and although the property is elevated, it should not be the type of visibility that is greatly apparent. He saidithat the church could be sited to have minimal visual impact on Route 20 and!adjacent properties. He added that the staff would be considering this durihg site plan review. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Cilimberg feels the staff has adequate author- ity at site plan review to handle the visual ~mpact, or should this condition be considered by this Board. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the condition could be added to the conditions, but he feels the staff can address it during site October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 61 plan review. He said the Planning Commission recommend approval of SP-89-63 with the two conditions that are listed in the staff report. Mr. Bowie wondered what instigated the Route 20 visibility issue. Mr. Cilimberg responded that in this particular location there is an elevation of approximately 350 feet at Route 20. The elevation proposed in the siting, however, is approximately 410 to 415 feet. He added that, because Route 20 is a State Scenic Byway, the staff felt that one thing to be considered in developing that site was to maintain natural vegetation and limit any visibi- lity of the site from Route 20 as well as from adjacent properties. He went on to say that it would seem this opportunity would exist in a wooded area. He said that the applicant may want to comment further on this matter. Mr. Bowie remarked that this property is now classified for low density residential zoning, and it would be impossible to put houses in that area without them being seen from the road. Mr. Cilimberg agreed and said that if the area developed residentially, screening Could be~done and natural vegeta- tion could be retained, but the houses wouldibe seen, in most cases. There were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg from the Board, so Mr. Way opened the Public Hearing for SP-89-66 and SP-89-63. Mr. F. A. Iachetta, the Site Committee Chairman for the Broadus Memorial Baptist Church, stated that he would be glad to answer any questions on either of the Special Use Permits. He commented, however, that he does expect the church to be seen. He said that natural vegetation would be retained as much as possible, but the church would not be hidden in a hollow. He said the church would not be offensive, and, architecturally, it should be a contribu- tion to the area. He added that the church ~ould not be hidden at that elevation, and that he has been on the site ~nd has looked west from the site. He said that the cover on the site is mostly~Scrub brush, except for some walnut trees on the higher ground. He stated'that he did not want to leave the impression that the church will be hidde~, because it will not be possi- ble. He said the church will be blended intg~the surroundings so that it is not offensive. ~. Mr. Bowie asked if the staff's comment regarding future uses was accept- able to the church group. Mr. Iachetta agreed that this condition was accept- able. He went on to say that the day care uS~ was included in the original information at the request of the planners. He said that, at that time, he did not realize that this use would require ~n additional special use permit, but he had wanted this use on record. He ad~d that one day, the church may also want to operate a senior adult center. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the 10,000 feet that is shown on the sketch is the entire developed area, or is it just the building. Mr. Iachetta responded that this sketch is a first drawing that the staff had requested. He stated that at this point his group has received no professional advice on the site as far as architecture is concerned. He mentioned that it is hoped that the church will house a congregation of 500. He ~dded that the building will probably be shaped differently from the rectapgle shown, and he hopes that the building can take advantage of the contours o3 the land so that no more soil will be disturbed than is necessary. He said!that he is very conscious of the need for the building to blend into the side 9f the hill. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that he drives Rpute 20 frequently and he is aware of the backdrop of the Southwest Mountains behind that site. He said that coming from the west, except for the development at Franklin, there is not much visual intrusion in that area. He believes that everything should be done to soften the impact of a building of thSs size. Mr. Iachetta responded that the building will not be a rectangle because the land does not lend itself to constructing the church in that man~ler. He indicated that the part of the building facing the road would probably be two and one-half stories in height, and will look like a church, with a mddest steeple. Ms. Judy Vermillion commented that she l~ves at Franklin and is happy that the church has made this request. She a~ded that she knows the church group will do a good job in building the churdh, and she looks forward to having the church in her neighborhood. She m~ntioned that since that area has been rezoned, she hopes that the Board is as donscientious in the future when October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 62 the rest of the land is developed. She said,her main concern is that there never be lights in the Rivanna Park. Mr. Bowie asked Ms. Vermillion, since she will be the closest resident to the church, to comment on the screening from Route 20. Ms. Vermillion respon- ded that she is a member of the church, and she said that it is important to the church members that they blend in with the community and preserve the rural environment. She has no concerns about the view from Route 20, but she said that she does want the church to be screened, and she wants it to be done right. She added that she would be working with the church group to make sure that the screening, etc., is done appropriately. Mr. Iachetta stated that he did not mention before that along the steep part of the property, next to the branch that flows along the northern boun- dary, there are some magnificent Older oaks.! He said that everything will be done to keep them as screening from the north. He added that there is not much in the way of larger trees elsewhere on'the site. Ms. Mary Wheeler spoke next and stated ~hat she lives approximately one-quarter of a mile from the site. She sa~d that she thinks the church will be pretty located there. She mentioned that'she is also a member of the church, and she believes that a pretty church will be built that will make everyone proud. Ms. Vermillion said that she would like to verify for future reference that the Cason Farm Road is a private road. She stated that, in considering access from Cason Farm Road, property owners~who own the road frontage would have to be contacted. There was no one else who wished to speak, so Mr. Way closed the Public Hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mrs. Cooke commented that she wished that the word "screening" could be taken out of the Board's vocabulary. She thinks that the word "landscaping" is more applicable to the discussion in most cases. She sees no reason to screen the church from view and agrees with the church group. She thinks that a church in a countryside rural setting enhanZes the setting and is beautiful. She pointed out that she had suggested at the last meeting that the word "landscaping" be used in most cases instead of "screening." Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and sec~ded by Mrs. Cooke to approve SP-89-66 and SP-89-63 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commi ss ion. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he believes the people in the congregation are sincere in their concern about the church, however, he thinks that this church use should be considered as any other application on Route 20. He went on to say that Stony Point Road is virtually undeveloped, and there will be consid- erable development over the next ten years. He thinks that from the beginning the Board needs to set good habits as far as dealing with applications no matter how sure the Board is that the applicants will carry out the necessary requirements. He suggested that a condition be added to SP-89-63 regarding the location which would state that the structure shall be in the approximate location shown on the sketch, and that it sho{~ld be located so as to minimize the visual impact of the structure. He said Chat with any other application of this nature that comes before the board, t~e Board should be considering how it can ensure that the structures are integrated into the sites. He mentioned that the hillside is very noticeabl~ and, at this point, is rela- tively undeveloped. He added that he does no~ think this will impose any restraints on the applicant, but he thinks it!Idoes set a good precedent to follow. He then noted that for the future, t~e Board should be aware of significant visual vegetation, particularly o~ roads such as Route 20 North. He assumes that in most cases a staff member w%ll go out and look at the site, and he would like for the staff report to acknowledge the staff member's views so that if there is a particular problem that ~=~eeds to be addressed, the problem can be identified. He said that year~ after a project is underway and trees are removed, it is too late to do anything about the problem. He said again that he would recommend that a conditio~~ be added ·to the special use permit that would stipulate that the location bf the structure be in the approximate location as it is shown on the skeW%ch and that it be located so as October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 63 to minimize the visual impact. He asked that the condition also state that significant existing vegetation, other than scrub brush, be preserved. He said that obviously no one wants to eliminate the sight of the church, and he does not believe that it can be eliminated. Mr. Bowie con~nented that he usually asks Mr. Cilimberg to initial the information, when it is a part of the application, that the project will be done generally as it is shown. He said he has no problem with the location of the church as long as the location is stipulated in the application. He said that proper wording of a statement to this effect is necessary. At this point, Mr. Lindstrom said that the statement should read, "The structure will be located in the approximate location shown on the plat initialed by Mr. Cilimberg." Next, Mr. Bowie said Mr. Iachetta has already indicated that he is not building a huge church with spotlights, etc. He stated that he has no concern about the existing vegetation being preserved because Mr. Iachetta has already stated that the big trees would be preserved, He reminded Mr. Iachetta, however, that the proposed church will be located on a scenic highway. He said that he knows that the church will be visible, but it should be tasteful- ly done. Mr. Iachetta asked if the Board members' conditions will not be covered in the site plan approval. Mr. Bowie explained that once the application leaves the Board of Supervisors, there is no guidance from the Board at the site plan review unless there are conditions l stated. He told Mr. Iachetta that he wanted to be sure that the Board's conditions did not conflict with anything that the church group wanted to do. ~'. He suggested a condition, maintenance of existing major vegetation other than scrub, be added. Motion was again offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve both SP-89-66 subject to the conditiQns recommended by the Planning Commission and SP-$9-63 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and those added during discussion2! Mr. Lindstrom stated that he has never gelieved, at a site plan review, that the staff has a great deal of authority iin telling an applicant where a structure will be located on the site. He said that this was his primary concern, and he thinks that it is especially iimportant for some guidance at the site plan review when the tract is fairly~i large, and it is relatively important where the structure should be located. Mr. Way asked Mr. Bowie if he was incorpbrating Mr. Lindstrom's condi- tions into his motion. Mr. Bowie replied, "y~s, if the seconder agrees. Mrs. Cooke, as the seconder, agreed with~ the conditions of the motion. She then said that, since lighting of the church has been brought out, she assumes that there will be no lighting in the! parking lot for night events. She asked Mr. Bowie if he will include this stipulation in his motion. Mr. Iachetta remarked that it would be impossible to use a parking lot at night without any lighting. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there should be some security lighting. He added that security lighting usually has very low illumination. Mrs. Cooke said that since Mr. Bowie had mentioned the lighting of the church earlier in his motion, she thinks tha~ this matter should be clarified. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the County does not have a requirement for any type of commercial lighting for this kind of church development. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he thinks that Mrs. Cooke has brought up a good point. He said that he drives around territory that is essentially undeveloped, and he sees more and more light ~ollution, with the public institutions as the biggest offenders. He mentioned McIntire Park and stated that he does not understand why the park has ~o be lit so brightly when he has never seen a single person at the park at nigSt. He said that he understands that the church will not have a lot of lights!:~ but Mrs. Cooke's point is not whether or not lighting will be required, but can it be minimized. October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Bowie then said that since Mr. Iachetta and his church group do not plan to have any other night lights besides security lighting, he would add as a Board condition to his motion that night lighting be limited to security lighting. Mr. Lindstrom said that in the future, staff reports should include items such as significant vegetation at the site. There being no further discussion at this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Bain. (Note: The conditions of approval for SP-89-66 read as follows:) 1. Department of Engineering approval of final design of the stream crossing; 2. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit as applicable; 3. Compliance with all Federal, State, and local permit requirements pertaining to construction, reconstruction or alteration of any perennial streams, creeks or rivers. (Note: The conditions of approval for SP-89-63 read as follows:) 1. Planning Commission approval of site plan; 2. Any future uses, to include day care, shall require an additional special use permit; 3. Structure to be located on the site approximately as shown on the plat dated October 4, 1989, and initialed by V. Wayne Cilimberg; 4. Maintenance of existing major vegetation other than scrub; 5. Development in a manner so as to minimize visual impact from Route 20; 6. Outdoor night lighting is limited to security lighting. (On the following petition, the applicant erroneously indicated "Bethel" when the church is actually known as Bethany Baptist ChurCh.) Agenda Item No. 11. SP-89-67. Bethany Baptist Church. To add a social room onto an existing church facility. Property located on the west side of Route 745 adjacent to the Southern Railroad tracks, approximately one-half mile south of intersection with Route 29. Tax Map 89, Parcel 5A. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 19 and September 26, 1989.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows: "Proposal: To construct a social room of approximately 24 feet x 32 feet. Character of the Area: The site contains an existing church and adjacent cemetery. The topography is steep, with limited flat surface for major expansion or vehicle parking. The property is in close proximity to Moores Creek, but is outside the one hundred year flood plain. The surrounding area is rural in character. Staff Comment: This proposal would allow the church to construct a separate meeting room where various social events could take place. The existing church sanctuary serves as a meeting room for church suppers and other social events for the 28 member congregation. However, church pews must be moved for each such social event. This October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) room does, however, have restroom facilities and running water. A building permit (#88-1113) was issued for this purpose on August 16, 1988. Septic facilities were also installed at that time. This special use permit is being requested because of hardship. Due to constraints of the site (steep topography, an irregular shape, and the siting of a church cemetery), the current building cannot be enlarged or changed in any significant way to accommodate the current need. Although State Route 745 is considered non-tolerable, the construction of this facility would not significantly alter the existing traffic on the roadway. Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with Section 10.2.2(35) of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to: 1. Board of Zoning Appeals approval of variance for reduced setback. Approval of this petition shall not be deemed to influence Board of Zoning Appeals deliberations inlany manner; 2. Social hall not to exceed 24 feet by 32 feet or equivalent area; Be Approval is for worship services, ~ocial gatherings, and other church-related activities only. Such uses as day care, private school and the like, shall require amendment to this special use permit." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Septem- ber 7, 1989, unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions set out in the staff's report. Mr. Bain asked if this social room was g'oing to require more parking. Mr. Cilimberg responded that more parking wi%i not be required. He said that the church members would be utilizing the parking area that is already there, and the staff is not aware of any changes in'the parking area. He stated, however, that if there are any parking area dhanges, they would be considered during site plan review. Mr. Bain stated that, because of the steep terrain, it does not look as though additional parking could be accomplished on that property. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the social room will'be supplementing the church congregation's existing activity, and he does not think that any increased attendance is anticipated because of that building. He added that the idea is to try to provide a couple of areas for the church activities instead of having all social events in one building. There were no more questions for Mr. Ciiimberg, so Mr. Way opened the Public Hearing. He asked the applicant to speak. Mr~ Hunter Marshall, representing Bethany Baptist Church, stated that in relation to parking spaces, there is a flat area that can be graveled and used for a parking area, if it becomes necessary. He stated, however, that the Planning Commission, at this time, does not think that this area is needed for parking because of the small congregation. He added that he does not think that the social room will require any additional parking. He went on to say that the social room will be used for covered"dish suppers, fellowship meet- ings, women's auxiliary meetings, etc. He pointed out that each time there is a meeting in the church, all of the pews have to be removed and then put back into the church. He said that it is an older congregation, and it is felt that a social room is necessary so that pews will not have to be removed for every meeting. He asked for the Board's approval of the application. He mentioned, too, that sloping ramps will be put on this building to benefit the members of the church. There were no questions for Mr. Marshall~ and no one else wished to speak, so Mr. Way closed the Public Hearing. October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 66 Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve this petition subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission as set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) Board of Zoning Appeals approval of variance for reduced setback. Approval of this petition shall not be deemed to influence Board of Zoning Appeals deliberations in any manner; 2. Social hall not to exceed 24 feet by 32 feet or equivalent area; o Approval is for worship services, social gatherings, and other church-related activities only. Such uses as day care, private school and the like, shall require amendment to this special use permit. Agenda Item No. 12. SP-89-70. Wendell Wood. To allow for fill within the one hundred year flood zone. Property located on the east side of Rt. 29 North adjoining the south side of the South Fork Rivanna River. Tax Map 45B1, Section 6, Parcel lB. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 19 and September 26, 1989.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows: "Character of the Area: This site is currently occupied by an existing Federal Express building and an additional building which is under construction. The property is deSeribed as Tax Map 45B1, Section 6, Parcel lB, and is located on'the east side of Rt. 29 North adjoining the south side of the South Fork Rivanna River. The site is zoned HC, Highway Commercial, and islocated in the Charlottesville District. Staff Comment: The Erosion Control enforcement officer discovered that the applicant had placed fill in the flood plain in mid-June of this year. The applicant has proceedediiwith a special use permit request in lieu of removing the fill cufrently in the flood plain. The applicant has stated as justificatidn for the request that fill within the flood plain is required in o=der to place a roadway and parking lot on the northeast corner of bhe building which is incon- sistent with the approved site plan. ~ The Engineering Department has reviewed !this request in accordance with Section 30.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Engineering Department has determined that 'due to its amount and character the proposed fill is unlikely to have a significant effect on flood levels of the one hundred year return frequency.' The Inspections Department has stated that the proposed roadway is not required in order to provide adequat~ fire protection. The current approved plan was reviewed by th~ Inspections Department and provides sufficient access. No further measures are required to provide emergency vehicle access. ~ The 'proposed' fill is located over a wa%er line which is owned by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA). The RWSA has prepared a revised easement document and easement~plat and, if this new agreement is accepted by the applicant the RWSA does not object to the revised site plan. However, the RWSA. has stated that 'we would have preferred that the intent of the or{ginal site plan not be changed.' The Planning Department has reviewed this petition as if no fill were located in the flood plain. Staff is of!the opinion that approval of fill in the one hundred year flood plain!is not necessary as the October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) applicant has a reasonable use of the land without approval of this special use permit. The original site plan for this site allowed an equal level of development without fill in the flood plain. Staff is of the opinion that approval of this special use permit would set an unwanted precedent by encouraging developers to proceed with activity and then file a request to allow the activity. Staff has found similarities between this request and a request by A.T. Williams Oil Company, SP-88-07. During review of that special use permit the Board of Supervisors was concerned about the cumula- tive effect of fill in the flood plain.: Staff believes that approval of this permit constitutes the unwise d~velopment of lands subject to inundation discouraged by the intent of the flood hazard overlay district. Staff can find no public benefit to be served by this request and that the request is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends denial of SP-89-70 for Wendell Wood. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff offers the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1. Department of Engineering approval of the amended grading and drainage plans and calculations; 2. Department of Engineering issuanceiof an amended erosion control permit; 3. Staff approval of revised site plan; A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the fol- lowing condition has been met: a. Verification of testing by a soils engineer that the embankment fill (including that which has already been placed) is compacted to a minimum of 95 percent (ASTM D-1557) and within two percent of optimum moisture content, with a maximum loose lift height of eight inches. Any fill material found to have been i~properly compacted must be replaced." ~ Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning CommissiDn, at its meeting on Septem- ber 12, 1989, unanimously recommended denial. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that on May 25, ~1989, the final site plan for Federal Express Phase II was approved administratively. He said that the site plan, as approved, called for the termination of some of the parking area but did not require fill in the flood plain. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Erosion Control enforcement officer discovered that the applicant had placed fill in the flood plain in mid-June of this year. He mentioned that the current fill is estimated at less t~an 500 cubic yards, and the alternate request for fill is before the Board tonight and would require an additional 1000 cubic yards. He said the applicant has stated as his justi- fication for the request that fill within the~flood plain is required in order to place a roadway and parking lot at t~e northeast corner of the building. He mentioned, again, that this is inconsistent with the approved site plan. He told Board members that he wanted them to be aware that what is pictured on the wall tonight is not an approved site plan which would bring the parking in the aisle around the building and into the area where fill is being requested. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the approved plan is suitable and provides the necessary access tO~ithis site. Mr. Bowie asked how emergency vehicles w~uld get into the site under the approved plan. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out theicorrect traffic isles to be used by emergency vehicles for access to the .front and back of the building. Although the Planning Commission recommended idenial of this request, some commissioners did state that they would have an interest in not seeing the October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 68 fill that has already been placed in position removed. He noted, too, that the fill that has taken place has occurred as filling toward some existing mature trees. He said that when fill is put.against trees, it does jeopar- dize those trees over a period of time. He stated that these trees do provide a natural screening of this particular site from the north, including Route 29 North. Mr. Bowie asked why certain commissioners did not want to see the fill removed. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the concern Of some of the commission- ers was the effect of going back into the property and removing fill that has already been placed and which has been seeded and stabilized. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that the County has received considerable rain this year. He mentioned that the fill was a violation from the beginning, and it has been almost four months since it Was discovered. He then asked what kind of recent inspections have occurred to determine what has actually happened at this site. Mr. Cilimberg replie~ that his staff had visited the site a couple of weeks ago, and it seemed to the staff as though the area of fill had stabilized and had not eroded away.~ He said the applicant has stated that there is an erosion problem further down which includes an area around a 60 inch drainage pipe that goes bac~ to the Rivanna River. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant's concer~ relates to a bigger erosion question that has been occurring over a longer period of time and is closer to the river. He said that the applicant's ~ill request is based upon what the applicant believes would be a remedy to that problem. There were no more questions for Mr. Ci~imberg, so Mr. Way opened the Public Hearing. ~ Mr. Wendell Wood told the Board members!~that he would like to give them some background information, and he indicate~ that this situation is not as serious as it seems. He also believes that the drawing on the Board is erroneous. He said that he had received sit~ plan approval on May 25, 1989, and, at that time, the Albemarle County Service Authority was relocating a twelve-inch trunk water line that serves the~hole northern part of the County. He said when the water line was con§~ructed, trees had to be cleared, the bank had to be graded, and heavy~ equipment was used. Work was being done on his own project at the same ti~e that the Authority installed a silt fence for runoff control. He said the flood plain area was already disturbed, and Mr. Wood's foreman mistakenly~had fill placed in that area. He will take responsibility for his foreman's..mistake, and he added that this mistake involves no more than seven to eight~ruck loads of dirt, which could be verified by the County Engineer. Mr. Wood!icommented that Mr. Cilimberg had informed the Board that he is requesting less than 500 cubic yards of fill. Mr. Wood believes that his company's ~equest for the remainder of this fill in the flood plain area would be a bett~ engineering practice and would solve the whole problem. He said that currently there is the equivalent of siX truckloads of dirt in the flood plain, anR he thinks that the whole matter has been blown out of proportion. ~ Mr. Wood stated that he had a meeting wi~h approximately ten people from Albemarle County, and the concern at that timp was that the Authority wanted to be assured that the water line could be mo~ed in the future at no expense to the Authority. Mr. Wood added that this was agreed upon, and he went on to name the representatives of the County's Engineering and Zoning Depart- ments who were at this meeting. He said thati~no one had a problem with this arrangement as long as the Authority was in asreement, and he left the meeting with the idea that the Authority was satisfied. Mr. Wood believes that the real issue involves a five foot pipe.~.that has been in the ground for 20 years, and the ground has washed away at the end of this pipe. He men- tioned that water on both sides of the highway from Jim Price Chevrolet downhill flows into that one pipe. He said that where the water goes into the river, the ground is eroding and washing away. He pointed out that the fill in the flood plain area did nothing to h~lp his firm as far as adding building space, and it does not give him any more use of the land. He men- tioned that in the past he has had to repair ~his drain area with rocks, and he has built a concrete path for the pipe to ~rain. He said that, from an engineering standpoint, he was proposing to b~ild a junction box at the end of the pipe to catch all of the water. (He ndted, that Buddy Edwards, an engineer for his firm, is present at the meeting). He pointed out that now October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 69 the water runs over the bank, and the ground will continue to erode. He said that he could build a junction box and bring the manhole all the way to the top to collect the surface water, and it is his opinion that this will solve the erosion at the end of the pipe. In order to do this, however, his engi- neer says that a total of approximately 200 yards of dirt would need to be installed for this project and to correct the existing problem. He said that this is the reason for his request. He added that he was not at the Planning Commission meeting, and he does not know what happened, but he indicated that the map is very misleading. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Wood what is misleading about the map. Mr. Wood then pointed out the area on the map and showed the Board members what had been filled and the area that he would like to fill. He also showed them the end of the water pipe and where the junction~box would be built. Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Bowie inquired as to where the fill would go, if Mr. Wood is allowed to continue with his request, and Mr. Wood pointed this area out, again, on the map. Mrs. Cooke asked where the junction box would take the water. Mr. Wood responded that all of the surface water would go into the junction box instead of spilling over the bank. Mrs. Cooke continued to inquire as to where the water would go, and Mr. Wood explained, with use of the map, how the water would be collected in the junction box. Mr. Lindstrom asked who prepared the mapl. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the submitted site plan came from the Mr. Wodd's engineer. He said that he thought his office had worked with the enginger in relation to the area of fill that is shown on the map. Board members continued to question whe=e the fill was to be put, so Mr. Way asked Mr. Buddy Edwards, the engineer fom Mr. Wood, to enlighten the Board concerning this request. Mr. Buddy Edwards pointed out the fill area on the map and indicated that there was a steep drop where the drain p!ipe ends with a concrete path in place. He said that the water runs off of th=e path and drops off approxi- mately 10 or 15 feet. He indicated that over~ the years the fall of the water continually erodes the area. He said that ths slope is a manmade slope, and the request is to put back the dirt that was ~riginally there that has eroded away over the years. He told the Board to imagine how the water comes out of the pipe, drops down and then goes to the river. He said that his client wants to build a junction box and exit that junction box at the bottom with a pipe to carry the water to the river. He added that the area where this work is constructed would be filled to hold the work in place. He pointed out that the contours that are outlined with dashes on the map are existing and the solid contour lines are proposed. He showed the Board the fill area on the map, but he said that it is not as though!there would be enormous amounts of fill in that area. He said that there wou~d only be a few hundred cubic yards of dirt that would be put there. ~ Mr. Way asked if the area is accurate on'the map. Mr. Edwards indicated that the area on the map is accurate, but theilextent and depth of the fill in some areas is inaccurate. He added that what~ Mr. Wood has requested will solve the continuous erosion problem. He said that, in the past, all of the surface runoff was going to that one place, and it was causing a swale type of a situation. He stated that by installing'a junction box, the water will be caught, and it will be exited out close tolthe river. He said that due to the erosion, there is an area where there is ~ pool of water. He indicated that the idea is to extend the pipe to that area and then to put fill over the pipe and around the junction box to hold everything in place. He does not believe that there will be any more surface runoff if this is done, and he believes that it will solve the erosion problem. He said that if this runoff problem is left alone, it will cause a iconstant maintenance problem. Mr. Bain asked how many trees were taken iout by the Authority. Mr. Edwards pointed out on the map the area that ~as wooded with poplar, or pine trees and underbrush, but he said that none o~ these were big or of any October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 7O significance. He said that the Authority has already removed most of these trees and underbrush from a rather large area. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to know how violating the ordinance four months ago can have anything to do with the erosion problem. He asked Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer, for thebasis of this argument. Mr. Moring responded that he did not come to the meeting prepared to address this issue. He said that he needed time to look at the site plan. Mr. Perkins inquired as to whose responsibility it is to control the discharge that comes out of the pipe. Mr. Edwards replied that he has been trying to get an answer to this question. He mentioned that at one time it seemed as though the Highway Department thought that it was the Highway Department's responsibility. He said that since that time, a study has been done, and it was found that there is still an enormous amount of capacity left in the pipe. He went on to say that when this site plan was drawn, it was requested that Mr. Wood take some measures to help with this erosion problem. Mr. Edwards asked why Mr. Wood shonld be bothered with the problem since the pipe belonged to the Highway Department, and he was told then that the pipe did not belong to the Highway Department. His client then decided to try to fix the erosion problem and fix it ?ight so that there will not be this continuing problem. He described again'~how the junction box would work. Mr. Bowie remarked that he understands ~ow a junction box works but he thought that the maintenance of the drainage~?asins and drainage basin ease- ments were the responsibility of the }{ivanna Authority. Mr. St. John responded that the maintenance of the drainage basins and drainage easements are the responsibility of the Authority only when they are in the utility system, and he does not believe that this pipe is a part of that system. He believes that the pipe was installed when the highway was built. Mr. Agnor agreed and said that this is a highway drainage pipe. He then answered Mr. Perkins' question by saying thatlthe Highway Department will maintain the pipe as long as the water damages the highway right-of-way. The Department has an easement to run the water across land to get it to the river, but the property owner is expected to'maintain it outside of the highway right-of-way, in terms of any type of~ierosion. Mr. Agnor went on to say that the only time that maintenance will,be enforced is if the lack of the maintenance is causing damage to the highway in some manner. He said, however, that Mr. Edwards has pointed to the basic fact that the Highway Department will not take responsibility for the erosion at the end of the pipe because it is considered private proper~Y. Mrs. Cooke inquired if it is the applicant's responsibility to maintain and control the runoff problem. Mr. Agnor responded, "yes." He said that this is what the applicant is attempting to d6 with the junction box. Mr. St. John stated that the Highway Dep~rtment has an easement and built the pipe, and if it is damaging someone!s property, the Highway Depart- ment will have to pay for it. He said, however, that it would take a court suit to decide this matter. He said that thi~ is not an issue in this instance because this landowner is willing to!voluntarily undertake the project to correct the erosion problem. ~ At this time, Mr. Moring stated that he ~oncurred with the solution to the erosion problem. He said that he has discussed this in the past, and he is familiar with using a junction box to reduce the velocity of the discharge water. He also thinks that it is something that needs to be done. He added that he cannot address the timing of the sitelplan approval. He asked if the matter involving the junction box was broughtiup after the approval of the site plan. Mr. Edwards answered that the mat~er involving the junction box was discussed after the initial site plan. ~ Mr. Moring then said that it would appea~, after looking at the approved site plan, that there has to be some fill installed in order to take care of the junction box. He went on to say that the !pipe is going to have to be re-laid on a flatter grade. October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 73_ Mr. Lindstrom asked if all of the upstream fill is necessary. Mr. Moring replied that all of the upstream fill is not required. Mr. Lindstrom stated that if this is a solution to an existing erosion problem, and the engineering people know how to take care of it, then it does not concern him. His suspicion, however, is that a situation is going to develop that will put a lot more fill into the flood plain area, even though Mr. Wood minimizes the impact. He believes that there will be at least 40 truckloads of dirt put into that area, and he does not think that all of this is necessary to take care of the erosion problem. He added he would be happy to consider just the erosion problem if someone wanted to isolate that proposal and make a specific recommendation, but he is not interested in approving additional fill in the flood plain on the pretext that an erosion problem will be solved. He thinks that the four month violation should be considered first, and then the erosion issue examined. He said it does not seem to him that the fill that has occurred will have any relationship to solving the problem that has been identified downstream. He went on to say that unless some member of the County's staff can tell him that the fill is a necessary part of a solution to the erosion ~roblem, then he thinks that the Board needs to act on the issues separately. He does not think that they are the same thing. Mr. Bowie commented that the staff report inferred that a road was being built with parking places located on the fill area. He asked if this is correct. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the parking aisles do not necessitate filling the flood plain even if they were approved. He said that a retaining wall design could be used. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked if the parking aisl4s have been approved. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the parking aisles ha~e not been approved. Mr. Bowie then inquired as to what the ~pecial use permit will allow. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the special use!~permit will allow for fill activity. He went on to say that the site p~an or a site plan amendment, even if the Board approves the special use permit, would still have to be approved by staff. ~ Mr. Bowie asked who designed the parking layout. Mr. Cilimberg respond- ed that the parking arrangement was done by the applicant's engineer. He said that the staff had tried to estimate th~. area of fill. He added that he believes that Mr. Edwards recognized that, w~ile some of the fill from a depth standpoint might be minimal, the drawing represents the basic area where the fill would take place. Mr. Edwards stated that he wants to make it clear to the Board that filling in the area where the proposed junctiDn box is to be located without filling in the rest of the area is not a good.idea because it could violate the ordinance as it relates to slopes. He said that his client is attempting to solve the erosion problem as well as providing a two to one slope that would be easier to stabilize. He said that his client is interested in doing this work properly so that everything stays i~ place. Mr. Bowie said that he understands. He then asked Mr. Edwards if he is the engineer who drew the map that is before the Board, and if this is the approved site plan. Mr. Edwards responded that he drew the plan. Mr. Bowie next stated that one plan shows parking and the other does not. He then asked why the parking is shown over the landfill. Mr. Edwards replied that the plan could have been drawn w~thout putting the parking over the landfill. He said that the parking lot a~d driveway could be constructed without filling in the flood plain. Mrs. Cooke then inquired if the same amount of parking could be acquired without filling in the flood plain at all. Mr. Edwards answered that the parking lot and driveway could be acquired without filling in the flood plain but the erosion problem would not be fixed. He said that he could prepare a site plan to this effect. October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 72 Mr. Bowie inquired if this site plan would indicate that no fill would be required. Mr. Edwards answered that no fill would be required in the flood plain, if he changed the site plan. At this time, Mr. Way closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Lindstrom stated that between Mr. Edwards' and Mr. Moring's state- ments, he believes that there is an erosion problem of some dimension that could be dealt with by some fill in the flood plain. His concern, however, is that he cannot separate three things. His first concern is the violation that the applicant wishes not to correct. Secondly, he is worried about the proposed de facto amendment to the site plan that has never been reviewed, and thirdly, he is concerned about the proposed solution to an erosion problem. He does not have a problem in letting the County staff look specif- ically at the erosion problem and how it can be solved. He does not see any reason to vote against the special use permit, however, which would prolong the procedure for a number of months. He then suggested that action be deferred on the special use permit for a brief period of time while the staff looks specifically at the erosion problem and how this problem can be solved with a minimum of fill in the flood plain and without considering the viola- tion that currently exists. ~ Mr. Bain commented that, legally speaking, the amendment of the site plan is not before the Board. Mr. Lindstromlthen stated that he is not interested in authorizing a special use permit to take care of a four month violation. He is interested in examining wans to solve ~he erosion problem, if the problem is of a proportion to justifyi!this type of work. Mr. Bowie said that he would like to personally go out and look at the site. He said that he had no idea that ther~ was this much controversy, because it was not indicated in the staff repprt. Motion was. then offered by Mrs. Cooke anted seconded by Mr. Bowie to defer this petition to October 11, 1989, while more, information is gathered as to the legitimate cause of the erosion problem and how it can be corrected, without regard to the applicant's request. R011 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. (Note: At 9:19 P.M., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:30 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 13. ZTA-89-11. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. An amendment to Section 30.5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to redescribe Route 6, and to add Route 151 under the Scenic Areas-Highway Overlay District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on Septembe~ 19 and September 26, 1989.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows: "Staff Comment: At its meeting on July i9, 1989, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved a request ~f the Nelson County Board of Supervisors to have the Commonwealth of ¥irginia Transportation Board renumber existing Route 6 from Avon to R6ute 250 West as Route 151 and to renumber existing Route 151 from Avon to Route 250 West as Route 6. The renumbering is intended to provide b~tter direction and traffic access for tourists attempting to locatell. Wintergreen and truck traffic through the community of Alton. This renumbering, if approved by the Transportation Board, will necessitate aq amendment to the County Zoning Ordinance for the Scenic Area OveMlay District. On July 19, 1989, the Board of Supervisors also adopted a resolution of intent to amend Section 30.5.2.2 of Zoning Ordinan6e as follows: c. Virginia Route 6 from the corporate ilimits of the Town of Scottsville westward through ~everat-d~e~nt~nn~n~-p~r~nm-~f Albemarle County. d. Route 151 in Albemarle County. October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) 73 Staff recommends adoption of this amendment subject to the approval of the renumbering by the Commonwealth of Virginia Transportation Board." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this amendment. Mr. Way opened the Public Hearing, and there was no one to speak concern- ing this matter, so the Public Hearing was closed. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt the following ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Section 30.5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 30.5.2.2, Scenic Areas-Highways, be amended and reenacted in subsection (c) and that a new subsection (d) be added as follows: 30.5.2.2 SA-HIGHWAYS Virginia Route 6 from the corporate limits of the Town of Scottsville through A~bemarle County. d. Route 151 in Albemarle County. Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes~: October 19(A), 1988; Janu- ary 18(N), March 22, April 5(A) and April 12;i 1989. Mr. Bain reported that he had read pages one through fifteen of the minutes of April 12, 1989, ending at Item thirteen. He finds them to be in order except for one typographical error in terms of the sight distance at the proposed business center at North Garden. He said that the distance should be 1,100 feet instead of 11 feet from Route 29. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Education: $100,000 Technology Appropriation. Mr. Agnor said he had received notification from Mr. Overstreet that, after consideration of possible needs and discussion with the School Board, the School Board felt this request to be their top priority for funding. Therefore, the Board is requested to appropriate $100,000 from the School's 1988/89 Carry-Over balance for technology. Mr. Agnor reported that Mr. Overstreet had indicated that he had finished the review of the school opening, and projected costs through the school year plus the impacts of any other changes that need to be considered in lieu of this appropriation, and found that there was no anticipated request for the appropriation for the balance of the year. M~. Agnor said the School Board members have left the matter to Mr. Overstreet s judgment. Mr. Overstreet is, therefore, requesting the Board of Supervisors to authorize this appropriation so that he can proceed with the purchasing of _~some technology equipment. Mr. Way asked if it is implicit in this request that additional teachers, etc., will not be needed. Mr. Agnor agreed. October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) Mr. Bowie stated that he has no objection to the allocation of this money, but he wanted to first make sure that if there was a teacher shortage, that it had been resolved. Mr. Agnor responded that the school system still has problems, but this appropriation is a top priority. Motion was made by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the appropriation request as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. (Note: Wording of the resolution for the appropriation has not been received and will be inserted in the minutes at the time of receipt.) Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor said that there is a need for a work session regarding the Capital Improvements Program and the pending Zoning Ordinance amendments, and he suggested that several Wednesdays be reserved tentatively in October and November. Mr. Bowie stated that notification has been received from the State that the County's 1988-89 audit has been reviewed and accepted. Mr. Bowie then stated that last year the Board indicated that it wanted the Audit Committee's recommendations in October. He said that the Committee had planned to give the Board a report at the third meeting in October. He added, however, that the staff will not have next year's projections until the third week in October, so the report will be presented to ~he Board around the first of November. Mr. Way then asked Mr. Bowie or Mr. Lin~strom if they had anything to report from the Joint Transportation Committee meeting, Mr. Bowie stated that for two and one-half years the Committee has 'i~asked that all options be consid- ered for Route 29 North. He said that all of the information has been received and the Committee has worked with consultants~, however, there has not been a position taken. He said that yesterday the C~ity's Ivy Creek proposal was forwarded for review, without the University'S participation, because the University chose to oppose even asking for i~ormation. He admitted that he had gotten upset because the University officials will not consider ways to solve the traffic problem while the Universit~ is putting 30 to 40 percent of the traffic on the roadways. He then added that the Committee also agreed to ask the State to reconsider the Meadow Creek ~arkway route with the addition that the University officials proposed. He S~ated that this addition makes no sense at all to him, but since the Universityl/officials requested ~hat the State reconsider the proposal, it was sent forward. Mr. Lindstrom informed the Board that Mr~i Cox had read a statement to the Committee that was an explanation of the reason as to why the University had taken the position of not wanting any information on the Ivy Creek proposal. He said that the reason given was because of ~ contractual arrangement between the University Real Estate Foundation and the!Marriott Corporation which provides that the University oppose any new r~ad or the Marriott would not go ahead with the Colonnades project. He went on to say that this allows private enterprise to be elevated to the dignity, status and authority of a State agency. He stated that if the University Real Estate Foundation were consid- ered as an individual, they would have a conflict of interest which would not have allowed them to participate even in the discussion. Mr. Agnor stated that the University officials did try to place the Ivy Creek proposal a minimum of 2000 feet away frc~n the Colonnades project with no interchange into the North Grounds, but this ~as not agreed upon. Mr. Bowie said the motion for the Ivy Cr~k proposal was amended in two places. He stated that one amendment called f~r three options to be consid- ered. He said that the first option would ex:.a~ine access to the North Grounds, the second option would consider the ~ossibility of no access to the October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 75 North Grounds, and the third option would explore the possibility of having the North Grounds controlled by the University. He said that the University officials would not support this amendment either, and he pointed out that anyone going in that direction would, most likely, be going to the University. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if it has been determined whether someone might speak to the Board of Visitors. Mr. Way stated that the request has been made, and he and Mayor Waters will speak to the Board of Visitors if they are given the opportunity. He believes that if they are allowed to speak, it will occur within the next couple of days. Mr. Bowie next mentioned that the Committee had asked that a letter also be written to the Board of Visitors, signed bY the Chairman of the~ Mr. Lindstrom stated that the key element in any presentation to the Board of Visitors has got to be that the location of this proposed road is very flexible. He said that even without intruding significantly onto the adjoining property, the road will still be at least 400 feet away from the buildings. He said that the vegetation there includes very mature trees and very heavy vegetation with a design speed of~45 miles per hour and no through truck traffic. He thinks that it is going to be hard for the people in the buildings to notice that there is even a road there. He said that they may hear the cars, but it will have less of an i~pact than the existing bypass. He does not think that aesthetically, enviro~entally or from a noise stand- point there will be any significant impact, iilMr. Agnor agreed that the road could be an asset. Mrs. Cooke remarked that it is time the~University assumed some responsi- bility for the traffic that is being created2 Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session:i Personnel Matters. Mr. St. John stated that he would like to discuss with the Board at the Executive Session the pending suit in which ~he Zoning Administrator is the plaintiff and David and Mary Jean Spradlin a~e the defendants. He went on to say that this is the suit in which an~injunc~ion was granted in March and has been pending since that time. At 9:48 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. iBain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel and legal matters pursuant to Virginia Code Sections 2.1-344.A.1 and 2.~-344.A.7. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded lvote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 18. Reconvene in Open Session for Adoption of Certifi- cate. At 10:35 P.M., the Board reconvened i~to open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom pursuant to Section 2.1-344.1 as follows: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUT~VEMEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board.!of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant ito an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of! The Virginia Freedom of Informa- tion Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the CSde of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County BoArd of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that~the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowl- edge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law wer~ discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification reso].ution applies, and (ii) only October 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 76 such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. None. Not Docketed: Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to direct the County Attorney to file a petition in the name of the Board of Supervisors for the Board to intervene as party plaintiff in the pending case of the Zoning Administrator versus David and Mary J. Spradlin. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. At 10:40 P.M. with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.