Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-04-12April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 1) 475 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 12, 1989, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 9:04 A.M.), Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:04 A.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T, Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John; and Director of Planning and Community Development, Mr. John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:07 A.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. Mrs. Cooke offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Item No. 4.11, and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda 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. NAYS: None. Item 4.1. Copy of memo dated March 23, 1989, from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development, addressed to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., re: Review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan - Lewis Mountain water storage tank. The memorandum stated that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 21, 1989, unanimously found the proposed water system improvements to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Item 4.2. Letter dated April 3, 1989, fzom Mr. H. W. Mills, Maintenance Highway Manager, concerning the Highway Department's intent to repair the bridge over Piney Creek on Route 667, was received as information. Item 4.3. Notice dated April 4, 1989, f~om Mr. D. E. Ogle, Assistant District Highway Engineer, of a willingness t~ hold a public hearing concern- ing the proposed improvement of Route 240 in Albemarle County, which includes the replacement of the existing substandard ~idge over Slabtown Branch and the necessary approaches, was received as information. - Item 4.4. Notice dated March 31, 1989, i~f an application filed by Appalachian Power Company with the State CorI~ration Commission to revise its tariff pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-~9.6, was received as informa- tion. 7 Item 4.5. Notice dated April 4, 1989, of an application filed by Vir- ginia Power with the State Corporation CommisSion for an increase in electric rates. The schedules of rates and terms and ~onditions filed are to go into effect on May 1, 1989, subject to refund pendSng investigation and hearing, and after such investigation and hearing to a~prove the proposed rates and allow them to become permanent. Item 4.6. Copy of notice dated March 21~ 1989, of revised income limits for FY 1989 for Arbor Crest Apartments, was r~ceived as information. 476 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 2) Item 4.7. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes for March 28, 1989, was received as information. Item 4.8. 1988 Annual Report of the Albemarle County Planning Commis- sion, was received as information. Item 4.9. Notice dated April 5, 1989, from Mr. D. E. Ogle, Assistant District Highway Engineer, concerning a public hearing to consider the pro- posed location and design of Route 660, from 0.13 mile south of the South of the Rivanna River to 0.18 mile north of the South Fork of the Rivanna in Albemarle County. The public hearing is scheduled for May 4, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., at the Cooper Industries Training Room, in the old Earlysville Fire- house. Item 4.10. Memorandum dated April 10, 1989, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, entitled "Special Benefits for Public Safety Employees" concerning House Bill 1477 which provides for retirement 'of public safety employees at age 50 with 25 years of service. BeginningJuly 1, 1990, unless the County chooses to maintain the current 55/30 service coverage. The cost data for this will be provided by VSRS at the beginning of 1990. No action i~ required until that time. Item 4.11. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sher- iff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of March, 1989, were approved as presented by the vote shown above. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: March 9, APril 6, April 13, April 20, April 28, June 1 and November 30, 1988; Januaryiil8 (A), February 1 (A) and February 15 (A), 1989. Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes of April 28, 1988; and June 1, 1988, page 8 (beginning with Item No. 8) to the end, and found no corrections. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of March 9, 1988, page 32 (beginning Item No. 6a) to the end; April 20, 1988, page 19 (beginning with Item No. 14) to the end; January 18 (A), 1989; and February 1 (Afterndon), 1989, and found them all to be in order. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of April 20, 1988, ipage 10 (beginning with Item No. 13) to page 19 (ending at Item No. 14), andi~found them to be in order. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie,!to approve those minutes which had been 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. 6. Discussion: Disposition of Surplus Real Property. Mr. Agnor said the School Board took action on January 9, 1989, to declare a 1.015 acre parcel of land with an old brick schdol building in the Town of Scottsville, as surplus property, and then conveyed the property to the County. The property is off of Route 795, adjacent t9 the Union Baptist Church, was abandoned as a school many years ago, then ocqupied as a resi. by a school custodian for many years. Staff recommends tl~at the Board assign this matter to the Board's Building Committee for disposition in the proper manner. (Property described as: "Ail that certain lot or parcel of land situated in ~he vicinity of Scottsville in Albemarle County, Virginia, containin~ 1.015 acres, more or less, described on .plat of Hugh F. S~ms, dat~ November, April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 3) 477 1925, and recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 202, page 47, and being in all respects the same property conveyed to the County School Board of Albemarle County by deed dated October 30, 1926, by Francis H. Dunkum, et. al., recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's office in Deed Book 202, page 43." Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to accept the County Executive's recommendation. 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. Appropriation: CAC3. Mr. Agnor said the 1988-89 County budget carried a revenue item of $7,000 from a State grant for the Clean Community Commission. The actual amount received was $7,891, and an additional approPriation is needed before transfer of the additional funds can take place. Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve an appropri- ation as follows: Fiscal Year: 1988-89 Fund: General Purpose of Appropriation: Additional funding received on CAC3 Grant. Expenditure Cost Center/Category 1100090400930300 Description Amount CAC3-Grant $891.00 ~Total $891.00 Revenue Description Amount 2100024000240505 CAC3 Gran~-State $891.00 .Total $891.00 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. Revisions to the Vis~itors' Bureau Agreement. Mr. Agnor said the new agreement for ope~,ration of the Visitors' Center was last year and revisions were requested by~the Board. The Chamber of Commerce has now agreed to fund convention activities with Chamber funds, but the City and Chamber would not accept Bureau-'generated funds being used exclusively for tourist activities since a maj~ority of, these funds are gene- rated by groups attending conventions or conddcting tours. To resolve the funding of convention activities versus tourist activi- ties, the City and Chamber propose that the Center-generated funds be allo- cated to the two activities on a ratio of their derivation, which is estimated to be three-fourths from large groups, and on~-fourth from tourists and lobby advertisements. The Visitors' Bureau would t~en be supported by County and City funds, plus one-fourth of Center-generatgd revenues for tourist-related activities. Convention activities would be s~pported by Chamber funds, plus three-fourths of Center-generated funds. All~!other parts of the agreement remain as origInally presented to the Board. ~iMr. Agnor then recommended approval of this counterproposal from the Cit~ and Chamber. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the funds g~erated by the conventions and tours should be devoted to individual tourists~i, to help them find their way through the crowds of visitors brought by tour's and conventions. 478 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. Bowie asked that staff verify the estimated ratio of conventions and tour groups to individual tourists, and adjust the ratio if it is incorrect. Mr. Agnor said the County could insist, as part of the agreement, that the Center keep records of the fees it collects. Mr. Bain then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to accept the County Executive's recommendation and to approve the revised agreement, but request verification of the ratio used for funding the convention activities versus tourist activities. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters. Mr. Way asked members of the Board to inform the Dogwood Parade Committee if they plan to participate in the parade this year. Mr. Bain said he would like to discuss Item 4.8 of the Consent Agenda, the 1988 Annual Report by the Planning Commission. He noted that the number of preliminary and final plats have decreased from 48 in 1986 to 40 in 1988. Mr. Horne agreed that the Planning staff has seen a decrease in subdivision plats and rezoning requests over the past two years. However, he said, the recent requests for plats and rezonings are for larger parcels of land than before, and more complicated as well. Mr. Bain asked how much time it takes to review a site plan. Mr. Horne said he will get this information. ~ Mr. Agnor said the County has received a donation of~$50 from the Monticello Garden Club to be used toward landscaping at ~he Rivanna Park. Mr. Agnor said the Town Council of the Town of Scot~sville has asked the 911 Center to be the dispatching agency for its policemen. He said represen- tatives of the 911 Center have agreed to this request, with the Town Council contributing to the cost of the Center according to the formula used for users of the service. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Way will attend a hearing held by'~the State Compensa- tion Board in Richmond next week concerning a request to Continue the funding of the Deputy Sheriff in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. He said representatives of the State have informed the County that it will not fund this position after June, 1989. Mr. Agnor said Senator Frank Nolan of Augusta County is calling a meetin of local officials interested in preserving the CSX railr6ad from Waynesboro to Clifton Forge, Virginia. This meeting will be held in'~the Augusta County Courthouse. Mr. Agnor said this part of the railroad lies outside Albemarle County. Mr. Bowie said he thinks the Board should send a letter to Senator Nolan expressing the position of the Board on this question. M~s. Cooke agreed. Members of the Board agreed to discuss this item later in, the meeting. Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Christian Aid Mission G~esthouse Site Plan Amendment. This matter was brought to the Board by letter from an adjoining owner,-Mr. K. K. Knickerbocker, dated March 9, 1989. Mr.~Knickerbocker said he finds that the proposed turn lane into the property fo~ the eastbound traffic on Route 250 West dangerously limits the view from the farm entrance to Windsor Hill Farm across from Route 677. Vehicles tur~ing from this April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) 479 driveway into the westbound lane will not be able to clearly see oncoming traffic if a vehicle is sitting in the turnlane. Mr. Horne presented the following addendum to the Christian Mission Site Plan Amendment: "The Commission may recall their recent review of the above-noted site plan amendment. This request was deferred from further Commis- sion review after the applicant indicated his desire to submit a revised access proposal. This request is for direct access to 250 West. If the Commission grants access to Route 250 West, the applicant proposes the following: The existing entrance serving the Christian Mission development on Route 677 will be closed permanently. Virginia Department of Transportation has identified the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 677 as being heavily congested. Closing the entrance to Christian Mission on Route 677 will remove a friction point at that location and modestly reduce congestion at that intersection. The applicant will construct a short taper and third lane across the entire frontage of this.property which will tie into the existing right turn lane for Route 677. The effect of this improvement will be to provide a total of 775 feet of third lane improving traffic flow on Route 250 West and access to Route 677. ~ Access to Route 250 West would' be established about 500 feet east of Route 677. This would provide adequate separation from a Route 677 crossover should Route~250 West be four-laned in the future. The separation is also: adequate to avoid confusion and conflict of turning movements in the third lane. d. An access easement will be established across Parcel 23G so that Parcel 23E may have access to !the proposed entrance. The prior staff report, consistent with ~established County policies, recommended that access be restricted tOi~Route 677 and that no aCcess be permitted to Route 250 West. i~he revised access proposal in staff opinion would represent an imprDvement to existing condi- tions. For this reason, both the Virginlia Department of Transporta- tion and the Planning staff recommend approval of the revised access NOTE: Based on topography, availabilityiof utilities, and existing zoning, staff does not anticipate further development to generate substantial traffic. As with any other proposal, access will be subject to review with future intensification of development." Mr. Horne said at its meeting on February 28, 1989, the Planning Commis- sion, by a vote of 5-1, recommended approval of the Christian Mission Guesthouse Site Plan Amendment subject to the!ifollowing conditions: 1. The final site plan amendment will not be signed until the following conditions have been a. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water plans; b. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements and ~ssuance~ of a commercial entrance permit to include: 480 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 6) Approval of required guardrail location; A minimum deceleration lane of 235 feet with a 200 foot taper lane; Staff authorization to increase the deceleration lane while reducing the taper lane after review of final grading plans; Submittal of plat showing the establishment of an access easement between Parcels 23G and 23E. Mr. Bain said he is concerned that approving this request may cause more traffic congestion, as vehicles exiting both the Christian Aid Mission prop- erty and Route 677 will have to make left turns on Route 250 West to reach Charlottesville. Mr. Horn, said the proposed entrance from Route 250 West would also serve other parcels surrounding this property and would, in the long run, cut down on the number of entrances onto Route 250 West. Mr. Horn, added that some citizens are concerned because they think this joint entrance may increase the potential of the surrounding property for development. He said these parcels are included in the service area for the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service onlY~ not sewage. Since this property lies outside the growth area and inside the South Fork Rivanna watershed, he said, it is unlikely that staff would recommend extending the service area to include sewage service. Mr. Bowie asked if staff has made it clear to the applicant that approv- ing an entrance for this property does not guarantee that.i~ future requests for rezoning of the surrounding property will be approved. Mr. Bowie said he would like this disclaimer made in writing to the applicant. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mrs. Dorothy C. Knickerbocker, an appellant, addressed the Board and sai( she owns property across Route 250 West from the propertyi' owned by Christian Aid Mission. She thinks it will create a dangerous situaCion to have two entrances onto Route 250 as close together as the entrance into the Christian Aid Mission property and Route 677 will be. She said it ~is unrealistic to believe that the other parcels will not be developed even~ually, creating eve~ more traffic on Route 250 West. She asked that the Board~.!grant her appeal Mr. Chris Chapman addressed the Board and said'he lives across the street from the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 677. H~ thinks having two entrances onto Route 250 West so close together will make'accidents more likely. He presented to the Board a report on the accidents at this intersec- tion during the past year, given to him by Commander Tom ~axwell. Mr. Chapman said most of the accidents involved deer with cars, not c~rs with cars. He said the proposed auditorium might generate so much traff~c~, that a police officer may be needed to control traffic at the entrance ~o the property. Mr. Robert Finley, Chairman of the Christian Aid MisSion, addressed the Board. He said the Christian Aid Mission owns two parcel~, 23E and 23G. Parcel 23E has an entrance; Parcel 23G has not. He said would like to have the entrance access Parcel 23G and then the Mission woul~ rant an easement for the roadway to access Parcel 23E. He showed a video _6~esentation of the plans the Christian Aid Mission has for the entrance into?its property. Mr. Ben Dick, legal counsel for the appellee, addressed the Board. He said the Planning Commission and staff originally recommended that the appellee build the entrance from Route 677 into Parcel 23gI at the rear of the property. Mr. Dick said this alternative would require e~tensive· grading on steep slopes, substantially disturbing the watershed. Mo~.~over, this roadway would lie on a northern slope and would be impassable during the winter. He said the current situation is dangerous, because the entrance into the prop- erty is too close to Route 250 West. He said his client proposes, at the expense of the Christian Aid Mission, to improve a public highway, by extend- ing the deceleration and taper lanes to the length of the ~roperty's road frontage. Mr. Dick said his client is concerned that the Christkan Aid Mission's guest house, visited by people from all over the world, ha~ no street address April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 7) 481 because it has no entrance. He said the Christian Aid Mission is not a big business, like the activities conducted on other parcels in this area, such as the Sieg Distributing Company and the Boar's Head Inn. The Christian Aid Mission is a group of missionaries and a long-time member of the community. The entrance Mr. Finley proposes for the property, Mr. Dick said, is the safest alternative for the public, as well as in the best interests of the Christian Aid Mission. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Dick how many vehicle trips a day were generated by the Christian Aid Mission. Mr. Dick said he does not know. Mr. Bain asked if the Christian Aid Mission had drawn up the plans showing a proposed administration building and auditorium. Mr. Dick said "yes", but these buildings will not be constructed for a while. Mr. Bowie said he is concerned about th~se future plans. He asked Mr. Dick if the applicant is willing to place a third lane across the front of the property for the sole purpose of providing an address for the guest house. Mr. Finley said "yes". In response to an earlier question, he said there are less than one hundred vehicle trips per day generated by the guest house. He said the Post Office has changed the address:.for the Christian Aid Mission several times within the past few years, because of the problem with the entrance. He said the Christian Aid Mission receives about $3,000,000 a year, largely through the mail, and he thinks it should have a permanent address. He said a donor has given $125,000 to the MiAsion for the purpose of building an entrance to the guest house. At the present time, the Christian Aid Mission has no plans beyond providing an entrance to the guest house. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Finley if he is aware that the third lane and entrance may have to be closed if the Christian Aid Mission decides to develop this property. Mr. Finley said "yes". Mr. Jeff Echols, Assistant Resident Engineer for VDoT, addressed the Board. He said the entrance from Route 677 ~S approximately 50 feet from the intersection of Routes 677 and 250 West. Asitraffic increases on Route 677, the shortness of this distance becomes less ~nd less desirable. He said the entrance on Route 250 West would have adequate sight distance. With the improvements shown on the site plan, Mr. Echdls said, the proposed entrance from Route 250 West would be better than theicurrent access from Route 677. Mr. William Finley, the engineer who developed the site plan, addressed the Board. He said if the Mission were to fdllow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and build the roadway frqm the rear of the property along the railway and then south to the guest house, the roadway would lie along a grade of 20 percent, two percent steeper tha~ the grade of roadways allowed in subdivisions. Such a roadway would also be ~uch longer than the entrance proposed from Route 250 West. He said the p~oposed entrance from Route 250 West would require little excavation. Mr. F~nley said he recommended an entrance from Route 250 from an economical, ~vironmental and technical point of view. ~ Since no one else wished to speak concerning this appeal, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Bain said it does not make sense for: the Christian Aid Mission to spend $150,000 for an entrance to serve only i~00 vehicles trips per day. He said he is concerned about future plans for this property. He thinks an entrance from Route 677 to the rear of the property would be in the best long-term interests of the public and any future development of this property may require such an entrance instead of the entrance onto Route 250 West. He said the proposed entrance may be safer in thM current circumstances but he wants to make sure the appellee understands that approving this request gives the Christian Aid Mission no vested rights toifuture development. He added that the appellee is guaranteed access to a s~ate road, not to U. S. Route 250 West. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said it is unrealistic to ~hink this property will not be developed someday. He is concerned that eventually a lot of people will be turning left onto Route 250 West from this prpperty, which could be dangerous. No matter what the appellee has said for the ~ecord, it will be difficult to 482 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 8) deny any future requests for development after the Christian Aid Mission has gone to the expense of building this deceleration lane. Mr. Bowie said he supports the site plan as presented, but he wants to make it clear that he may not consider this entrance to be adequate in the future. Mr. Perkins said he supports the site plan because it will make it for visitors to the area to find the guest house. Mrs. Cooke said she has a problem with considering future plans that are not before this Board. She does not think the Board should worry about whether the appellee is spending the Mission's money wisely. She said she react only to the plan currently before the Board and she supports the recom- mendation of the Planning Cormnission. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to overturn the decision of the Planning Con~nission. For lack of a second to the motion, the Chairman ruled that the Planning Commission's decision stands. (Note: The Board recessed at 10:40 A.M. and reconvened at 10:45 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 10. Appeal: Crossroads Village Center Preliminary Site Plan. This appeal was brought to the Board by a letter da~ed March 2, 1989, from the applicant's representatives, Gloeckner & Osborne'., Inc. Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: ~- "Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct '30,600 square feet of building area and 200 parking spaces on 3.9~! acres. Pro- posed uses are financial institution, food store, b~aUty salon, medical/dental, laundromat, office and retail. The isite is to have access from Routes 29 and 692. A central well and ~.ackage treatment plant are proposed to serve this site. Location: Property, described as Tax Map 99, Parcels 1, iA and 5, is located at the northeast corner of the intersect~0n of Routes 692 and 29. The site is currently occupied by Crossroad~ Store and Crossroads Wrecker Service. Zoned C-i, Commercial. ~..White Hall Magisterial District. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes two entrance~? on Route 29. Section 32.7.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires t~at entrances onto multi-lane divided highways be at crossovers or~.500 feet from a crossover, both of the proposed entrances are locate~d less than 500 feet from the intersection of Routes 29 and 692. St~ff requested that the southern entrance to Route 29 be closed. The applicant requests that both entrances be allowed as it is 'a vast improvement over existing conditions.' While the proposal is an improvement, the intensification of the use requires compliance With the ordi- nance. Staff is of the opinion that only the northernmost entrance on Route 29 should be allowed. Staff can support this single entrance on Route 29 located approximately 373 feet north of Route 692, as it provides reasonable access for the high speed traffic on Route 29. In addition, the northernmost entrance provides a recog- nizable entrance to the site for non-local patrons, i The southern- most entrance on Route 29 should not be allowed as ii~ is inconsis- tent with the public health, safety and general welfare. The applicant is proposing fuel pumps on this site. -~iStaff first recommended that the pumps be removed or realigned s~ as to elimi- nate the diagonal access. The applicant did not mak~ either revi- sion and staff has now requested that fuel pumps be ~imited to the center island shown on the plan and that curbing aro~d the fueling area be extended so as to channelize traffic and restrict vehicle overhang into travelways. The applicant states that~,i~pumps will be limited to the center island at this time. April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 9) 483 However, the applicant states that restricting the location of the fuel pumps does not allow him flexibility for future expansion. The applicant does not feel that extending the curbing will protect parked cars to any measurable degree. This plan proposed grading within the 20 foot buffer from residential land. Staff believes that the proposed screening trees will provide an effective buffer and recommends a waiver of Section 21.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Virginia Department of Transportation and the County Engineering Department both recommend a 100 foot by~100 foot right turn and taper lane for the eastern entrance on Route 692. The applicant proposes the regrading of Route 692 near the eastern entrance. However, there is not sufficient right-of-way due to the cut slopes to allow for the regrading and turn andtaper lane. Staff recom- mends that the eastern entrance be closed or sufficient right-of-way obtained to allow for the construction 6f a turn and taper lane. The proposed development is to be served by a central well and package treatment plant. The package treatment plant is to be enclosed and have a vegetative screen. Discharge is to be carried under Route 692 and under property owned by the Virginia Department of Transportation to an unnamed branch Of the Hardware River. The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated a permit for the installation of the line can be issued. The State Water Control Board must approve of the method of treatment, and discharge point. At this time the method of treatment has not been determined. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny this site for the following reasons: Access on Route 29 should be limited to one access point as far north of the existing crossover as!Possible in compliance with Section 32.7.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fuel pumps should be limited to the center island of the fueling area and curbing should be axtended near the pumps in order to provide for safe on-site Circulation in accordance with Section 32.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. A 100 foot by 100 foot turn and tapper lane should be installed for the easternmost entrance on Route 692 in order to provide for safe and convenient access. Should the Planning Commission disagree ~ith staff's recommendation staff offers the following conditions os approval. Recommended Conditions of Approval: The final plan will not be signed until the following condi- tions have been met: ~ a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; ~ b. Department of Engineering approval of retaining wall design; c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of full frontage improvements on Route!692 and Route 29 and issuance of commercial entrance permits for two entrances on Route 692 and Route 29; e. Planning Department approval of landscape plan, A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Health Department and State Wager Control Board approval of sewage treatment system; ~ b. Health Department approval of ~entral well. 484 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the follow- ing condition has been met: a. Fire Officer final approval. 4. Administrative approval of final site plan." Mr. Horne said at its meeting on February 28, 1989, the Planning Co~is- sion unanimously denied the Crossroads Village Center Preliminary Site Plan. In a letter dated April 6, 1989, from Ms. Marcia Joseph of Gloeckner & Osborne to the Chairman, the applicant attempted to address several of the issues raised by staff and the Planning Commission. She wrote that Gloeckner & Osborn~ has prepared a revised plan which eliminates the northernmost entrance onto Route 29. Mr. Horne said the staff believes that the southern entrance is much too close to the intersection of Routes 29 and 692. If the Board chooses to approve an access onto Route 29 North, Mr. Horne said, the staff recommends that it be the northern entrance, even though ~this entrance is closer to the crossover than staff recommends. Mr. Home said this proposal would normally require an undisturbed, 20-foot buffer between the commercial property and the adjoining residential property. According to this proposal, this 20-foot strip would be graded and a double, staggered row of evergreen trees planted to buffer the commercial use from the residential area. Mr. Home said the staff agrees with the applicant's claim that the buffer described in the proposal would provide a better screen than the vegetation currently in this 20-foot strip. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission was also concerned about the lack of curbing around some of the islands in the parking lot.' He said the appli- cant now proposes to add this curbing in the revised site! plan. Mr. Home said the remaining issues are grading within the buffer, ithe necessity of a turn lane instead of a taper lane and the location of the access onto Route North. Mr. Horne said members of the Planning Commission< also expressed concern about the long-term maintenance and location of the sewage treatment plant, although the Zoning Administrator has stated that ~{he plant complies with the Zoning Ordinance. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked how many privately maintained sewage treatment exist in the County. Mr. J. W. Brent, Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, said there are approximately one dozen~ such plants in the County, all of which are monitored by the State Water Con~rol Board. Mr. Bain asked if the County could require that the .i~perator of the sewage treatment plant report every six months to the SerVice Authority as well as the State Water Control Board. Mr. Home said "ygs". Mr. Bain asked if any of the other private sewage treatment plants follosed this procedure. Mr. Brent said "no". ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked what improvements the applicant ~lanned for Route 692. Mr. Horne said the applicant proposes to grade a hill on Route 692 that blocks sight distance. He said VDoT also recommends that~the applicant build a right turn and taper lane on Route 692, but the applicant cannot get the necessary right-of-way. Mr. Bain said if the project is ~o be built in phases, conditions about the right turn lane on Route 692~could be added when the building to the rear of the property is built. Mr. H~rne agreed. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. ~ Mr. Werner Hambsch, the appellant, addressed the Board and introduced wife, Mrs. Barbara Hambsch and said the two of them own a~d operate the Crossroads Store. He also introduced Mr. Jeff Hale, an a~[joining landowner, and Ms. Marcia Joseph and Mr. Mark Osborne of Gloeckner a~td Osborne, Inc. He said he strongly feels that the site plan presented to th~ Board makes more sense than the revisions recommended by the staff. He sa~.d he is very famil- iar with the traffic patterns on Route 29 in front of his property and his site plan and proposed entrances will be safe. He-said al,out 75 percent of his customers in the morning come from Route 29 South. C2.osing an entrance onto Route 29 will force these customers to make a left-h~nd turn from Route April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 1i) 485 29 South onto Route 692 or make a U-turn using the crossover, which will worsen the traffic. Mr. Hambsch said he would build a taper and turn lane on Route 692 if he could get the right-of-way. He said he does not believe the traffic on Route 692 will warrant this measure. He added that having two access points on Route 29 would allow one to be used as an entrance and the other as an exit. He said he has shown the Planning staff that he is willing to compromise. He said the residents of North Garden support this project and believe it will improve the safety of Routes 29 and 692. He said he has a petition signed by 600 residents of the North Garden area who support his proposal. He urged the Board to approve the site plan as presented. Mr. Bowie asked if the applicant plans to build the project in stages. Mr. Hambsch said he planned to build the L-shaped building first and then begin immediately on the other two buildings. Mr. Bob Paxton, the architect for the project, addressed the Board. He said the project will be built according to the vernacular architecture of rural Virginia. He said the buildings would be sided with a mixture of clapboard and brick and would boast wooden railings and a green roof. He said the scale of the buildings will be residential to harmonize with the small houses in the surrounding area. He said the buildings will be constructed to accommodate the site rather than the site graded to accommodate the buildings. He said he designed the project so it would not present an ugly back, with dumpsters and cinderblocks, to the adjoiningilandowner. Mr. Paxton said the businesses that move to the back building will. want a convenient access to their businesses, which would be provided by!~the second entrance on Route 692. Mr. Paxton said Mr. Hambsch is willing ~o give up the northernmost entrance onto Route 29, but the original pla~ presented to the staff and the Planning Commission with two entrances onto Route 29 allows better traffic circulation within the site. In reference to the sewage treatment plant, Mr. Paxton said, the State Water Control Board requires that the operator of the plant submit a monthly report on the quality of the discharge. Mr. i~owie asked if there would be an objection to sending this information to the iCounty as well. Mr. Paxton said he does not think this would be a problem. Mr. Mark Osborne addressed the Board and said travelers on Route 29 South experience a sight distance of about~]10~o~t.as they approach this property, almost twice the sight distance required by VDoT. He does not think the proximity of the southernmost entrance to the intersection of Routes 29 and 692 should be unsafe, considering how much time motorists have to react, given the sight distance. He said the current situation is unsafe, because people back out onto Route 29. He thinks the applicant should be allowed the entrances shown on the site plan in return for the substantial investment in the public safety Mr. Hambsch is willing to Make with the planned improvements on Route 692. Mr. Osborne said the scale of the projedt is appropriate to the area. He said the Health Department has instituted new-,, regulations for drainfields. In order to have a drainfield instead of a sewage treatment plant, the project would have to be reduced by one-sixth. He s~$d the mix of businesses, includ- ing a laundromat, will provide much-needed services to the area. He estimated that the project would generate 20,000 gallon~ of sewage per day. He said the effluent discharged from the treatment plant gill exceed the standards of the State Water Control Board and will not affect?the~ quality of the groundwater. He said the sewage treatment plant would be p!:~aced on the site in a way to minimize the impact on adjoining landowners, i!~Fences and landscaping would also be placed around the plant for screenings[ He said the State Water Control Board requires that an operator visit~ this sewage treatment plant every day, make weekly reports and run monthl$ tests. Mr. Bain asked how much of the 20,000 gallons of sewage would be created by the laundromat. Mr. Osborne said a laundrgmat with 20 washing units would generate about 10,000 gallons of sewage per d~y. If the laundromat were excluded from the project, Mr. Bain asked, could a drainfield handle the sewage instead of the treatment plant? Mr. O~borne said "no". 486 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) Mrs. Belle Woodson addressed the Board and said the sewage treatment plant would be located less than 100 yards from her home, which is against regulations of the Health Department. It is her understanding that the treatment plant will not be enclosed and she is concerned about the odor of the plant during the summer. She said she visited the sewage treatment plant at Stone-Robinson School and noticed an odor. She noted that the treatment plant would be placed on a residential lot which the applicant owns next to the lot upon which the proposed shopping center would be built. She ques- tioned the legality of using residential land to provide space for the systems needed for adjacent commercial property. She said she is nOt opposed to Mr. Hambsch expanding his store, but she does object to expanding the business to the point where a sewage treatment plant becomes necessary. Mr. Way asked Mr. Osborne to respond to Mrs. Woodson's claims about the sewage treatment plant not meeting the standards of the Health Department. Mr. Osborne said the treatment plant would be enclosed and is allowed by the Health Department to be within 100 feet of a residence. ~He said the proposed sewage treatment plant meets these requirements. Ms. Sutherland addressed the Board and said she owns property across Route 29 from the applicant. She objected to the size ox the project, saying it is too large to serve the needs of the community. Sh~ said she is also concerned about the impact of the proposal on the quality and quantity of water in the area. Since no one else wished to speak concerning this appeal, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Boa~. Mr. Bain said he is reluctant to approve a request i~or a commercial operation of this size in light of the problems with accessing the property. He said he agrees with the Planning Commission that the~ should be one acces.~ on Route 29, the northernmost one planned by the applicant. He samd he visited the site and understands the concerns of the applicant, but he is concerned that traffic will increase on Route 29 South i~ the future and this section of the highway may become unsafe. He believes ~e taper lane on Rout~ 692 will be needed and suggested that the second entrand~ onto Route 692 coul~ be closed until the applicant has completed the back bu~iding and built the taper lane. Mr. Bain asked Mr. St. John if the Albemarle Count~ilService Authority could rectify any problem found w~th the operation of th~ sewage treatment plant instead of waiting for the State Water Control Board to act. Mr. St. John said he does not know of any statutory authority that has been granted the Service Authority to empower the Authority to force ~ private sewage to comply with State law. He said the Board could add a~ a condition to approval of the site plan that the sewage treatment plan~ be subject to the orders of the Service Authority. He thinks such a condition would be enforce able and justiciable, but he knows of no case that aPplies to this question. He said it would be difficult to force the applicant to ~xceed the standards set by the State, as long as the Service Authority is m°~itoring the reports to be certain that the plant complies with State standar, ts. Mr. Lindstrom said he prefers that the County Engin ~.ering staff assume the responsibility of assuring that the sewage plant mee ~s State standards. He said he is also concerned that these monthly reports nay go unread at the State level and any violations unnoticed. He suggested ~hat the following condition of approval be added: "Compliance with State later Control Board standards for effluent". Mr. Home said he thinks a co~ [ition should state that monthly reports on the sewage treatment plant will ~e submitted to the County Engineering Department which will have the author .ty to enforce the standards of the State Water Control Board. Mr. Bain an Mr. Lindstrom said they supported including such a condition. Mr. Way said he thinks this property is unique beca ~se of the amount of sight distance along Route 29 at this location. He said he is concerned having two entrances on Route 29, but he thinks the prop ~sed development provide valuable services to the residents in the area. He said he thinks entrance is dangerous now and what the applicant plans tp do will improve situation. April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 13) 487 Mr. Lindstrom said the spacing of access points on Route 29 is related to traffic congestion, not sight distance. He does not think this standard should be changed. He also thinks that a condition should be added stating that the sewage treatment plant will be enclosed. He said he is also con- cerned that the treatment plant may be too noisy and a condition should be added concerning attenuation of the noise. Mr. St. John warned against the County trying to assume too much of the State's enforcement authority, because the State may stop enforcing its regulation in the County altogether. After some discussion, Mr. Lindstrom suggested: monthly reports be sent to the County Engineer and the County Engineer will,monitor these reports in terms of compliance and. take prompt action to notify the State Water Control Board of any violation of the State standards". Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowie agreed to this wording. Mr. Bowie said he visited the site and believes that grading the hill on Route 692 will substantially improve sight distance along the roadway. He said he does not have any problem with the site plan and considers the pro- posed entrances an improvement over the current situation. Mr. Bain said he is concerned that the proposal will increase traffic on Route 29, but he can support the revised site plan if appropriate conditions are attached. He said he does not think that the turn and taper lane must be built right away; instead, they could be deferred until later in the project. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the staff draft:iiconditions based on the Board's discussion and the Board take action later t~is afternoon. Mr. Lindstrom asked i~ the sewage treatment plant would be completely enclosed, with no external vents. Mr. Osborne said "no". Mr. Perkins said he thinks all sewage treatment plants are vented. Mr. Brent said he thinks the only odor resulting from this type of plant will occur if the plant breaks down. Members of the Board decided to return ~o discussion of this item later in the meeting. Agenda Item No. 11. Request to set a p~lic hearing to include in the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County ~rvice Authority a Limited Service Jurisdictional Area, in the Crozet a~iea, for either sewer to existing structures only, or water and sewer to existing structures only. This item was not discussed and will ben'included on a later agenda. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: ~ ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 17, Solicitors, of the County Code, bY amending Section 17-4 to change the word "sheriff" to "chief of poliCe'' and ~o add a new Section 17-7 to make the ordinance subject to Chapter 5 of Title ~7 of the Code of Virginia, Section 57-63. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 28 and April 4, 1989.) {~ Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Sin~ no one wished to speak to this amendment, Mr. Way closed the public hearing ~and placed the matter before the Board. ~ Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by M~. Bain, to adopt the ordinance as advertised and set out below: ~ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ,AND REENACT CHAPTER 17, SOLICITORS, OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Sup visors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 17 SOLICITORS, of~ the Code of Albemarle, be amended and reenacted, by amending SectiOn 17-4 to change the word "sheriff" to "chief of police" and to adh a new Section 17-7 to make the ordinance subject to the provisions ~f Chapter 5 of Title 57 of the Code of Virginia, to read as follows~ 488 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) Sec. 17-4. Same-Fees. A fee of ten dollars to cover the costs of investigation of the applicant and processing of the application shall be paid to the chief of police when the application is filed, and shall not be returnable under any circumstances. Sec. 17-7. Conformance with Code of Virginia This ordinance is subject to the provisions of Chapter 5 of Title 57 of the Code of Virginia. See Code Section 57-63 for authority of local governments and provisions of local ordinance. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carrie, by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. At this time, the Board returned to Agenda Item No. 10, Appeal: Cross- roads Village Center Preliminary Site Plan. (Mrs. Cooke left the meeting at 12:33 P.M. and ret~ned at 12:37 P.M.) Mr. St. John said this item may not even be an appeal, since the site plan before the Board is different from the site plan presented to the Plan- ning Commission. He said the applicant could return to ~he Planning Commis- sion with this revised site plan. Mr. Home said the applicant has stated that the project would be unfeasible if the Board attaches a requirement tieing th~ construction of any phase of this project to the acquisitiOn of the property!ilnecessary for the right-of-way to construct the turn and taper lane on Route 692. As a compromise, Mr. Horn, recommended adding the following s~ntence to condition l(d) in the staff's report: "The easternmost entrance oB Route 692 shall include the maximum possible full-frontage turn lane consistent with VDoT standards and an increased radius on the proposed entrance to be approved by County staff." He showed on the map a taper which would~]run straight from back of the curb to the property line. He suggested extending the full frontage to a point about 36 feet from the edge of the p~operty line and then building a taper lane at that point. The radius on the ~ntrance could then b widened to facilitate entry. These improvements would create between 25 and 30 feet of 12-foot turn lane, which would provide stacking for two cars. He said this is the maximum improvement the applicant can m~ke on his own prop- erty and the applicant agrees to this amended condition.i~ Mr. Way asked Mr. Echols if this recommendation is ~greeable to him. Mr Echols said "yes". Mr. Bain and Mr. Lindstrom also agreed that the proposed condition ~s satisfactory. Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to Village Center Preliminary Site Plan, dated August 22, 1 April 5, 1989, subject to the following conditions: The final plan will not be signed until the fo tions have been met: pprove the Crossroad~ 88, and revised lowing condi- Department of Engineering approval of gra~ plans and calculations; Department of Engineering approval of ret~ design; Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; ~ Virginia Department of Transportation approval of full frontage mmprovements on Route 692 and Route 29 and issuance of commercial entrance permits f~r one access on Route 29 to be limited to a point as far dorth of the !ing and drainage ining wall April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) 489 existing crossover as possible in compliance with Section 32.7.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance and two entrances on Route 692; The easternmost entrance on Route 692 shall include the maximum possible full frontage turn lane consistent with Virginia Department of Transportation standards and an increased radius on the proposed entrance as approved by County staff and agreed to by the applicant and Virginia Department of Transportation; Planning Department approval of landscape plan to include adequate fencing and landscaping of the sewage treatment plant to attenuate noise levels and completely screen the facility. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Health Department and State Water Control Board approval of sewage treatment system. Submission of the required State Water Control Board reports to the Department of Engineering who shall monitor~icompliance with State Water Control Board standards and promptly notify the State Water Control Board of any violations. The treatment plant shall be completely enclosed; b. Health Department approval ofi'central well. A certificate of occupancy will no~ be issued until the follow- ing condition has been met: a. Fire Officer final approval. 4. Administrative approval of final si~e plan. There being no further discussion, rolls,was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Request to set a public hearing from Mr. J. L. Hartman to consider his property, located we~it of Hunter's Way Industrial Park and to the east of 1-64 and the Quality Inn Motel, for inclusion in the service area of the Albemarle County Service ..Authority for public water and sewer. ~ This matter was brought to the Board byiiletter, dated March 27, 1989, from Mr. J. L. Hartman. Mr. Hartman made th~s request because of the growth in the area of the Shadwell exit from 1-64 a~d because it was his understand- ing that these services had to be available ~efore rezoning for development would be allowed. The property is located jqst to the west of the Hunter's Way Industrial Park, and to the east of 1-6411and the Quality Inn motel. Mr. Home said Mr. Hartman's property i~ not currently in any designated growth area nor in any proposed growth area ~n the recommended Comprehensive Plan. Extension of water and sewer services i!to this area would encourage additional development outside a designated ~rowth area and, in the opinion of the staff, would open up the entire corridor ~between the urban area and Shadwell for inclusion in jurisdictional areas. Approval of this request would be inconsistent with other actions of ~he Board of Supervisors to limit jurisdictional areas to designated growth ar~as except in cases of demon- strated environmental problems. Staff reco~ends denial of the request. Mr. Hartman addressed the Board and said~ hms property is surrounded by developed properties and he would like to de~lop his land. He needs public water and sewer service if he is to develop h~s property. Mr. Bill Hartman addressed the Board an~"i said he does not understand why this is not a growth area when the followmng ~evelopment has been approved for nearby properties: the expansion of the Qua!~ty Inn and the Hunters Way 490 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 16~ Industrial Park. He said he does not understand how the industrial park was approved without public water and sewer. He said identifying this area as a growth area would help attract people' away from the congested traffic on Route 29 North. Mr. Way asked when Hunters Way Industrial Park was approved. Mr. Horne said the property was approved as a commercial district prior to 1980. The owners claimed they could not market the property as commercial property and the Board converted the land to industrial zoning. Mr. Bowie said he is concerned that extending water, service would cause development along the new waterline. He said he does not support taking this matter to a public hearing because he thinks public sewer and water service should not be extended to any property outside a growth area. The Board took no action on the request. Not Docketed: At 12:54 P.M., motion was offered by,Mr. Bain, seconded b Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters 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. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:00 P.M. Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: A resolution ~uthorizing the issuance of general obligation school bonds of the Count~ to finance the purchase of equipment through the Governor's Educationali!iTechnology Initiative Procurement and Financing Program for school purposes. ~!Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 28 and April 4, 1989.) Mr. Agnor said the equipment to be purchased would )rovide satellite capabilities at the two high schools and computer equipm!~nt related to the educational program. The School Division is to request ~he equipment, the Virginia Public School Authority will issue bonds, and t }e State will pay the debt service on the bonds Mr. Papenfuse said the bonds will finance the purch, se of 85 Apple computers for the middle schools. He said there will be three sets of satel- lite equipment purchased to allow students to take class,~s via satellite when the enrollment is too low to justify hiring an instructoR. The public hearing was opened. There being no one ~resent to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. ~owie to adopt the following resolution: Authorizing the Issuance of Not to Exceed $123~i930.08 General Obligation School Bonds, Educational Technology Ser!ies, of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to be Sold to the Virginia Public School Authority and Setting Forth the Form and Detai~s thereof and Authorizing Participation in the State Non-arbftrage Program The Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") ~'f the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "CountY") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow not to exceed $123,930.08 and to issue its general obligation school bonds for the financing ofi the purchase of equipment for school purposes through the Governor'S Educational Technology Initiative Procurement and Financing Progtam. The County held a public hearing on April 12, 1989 on the issu- ance of the Bonds (as defined below) in accordance with the require- ments of Sections 15.1-171.1 and 15.1-504, Code of ¥$rginia 1950, as amended. ,~ April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 17) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER- VISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: 491 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board of County Supervisors hereby determines that it isadvisable to contract a debt and issue and sell bonds in the amount of not to exceed $123,930.08 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing the purchase of equipment for school purposes through the Governor's Educational Technology Initiative Procurement and Financing Program. The issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution is hereby authorized. 2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to sell the Bonds to the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") at par, upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. The appropriate officers of the County are hereby autho- rized and directed to sell the Bonds to~¥PSA. 3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in fully registered form; shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "County Qf Albemarle General Obligation School Bonds, Educational Technology Series"; shall bear interest payable semi-annually on June 15 and December 15 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), beginning December 15, ~989, at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution; and the principal amount of the Bonds shall be payable in~-semi-annual installments on the dates (each a "principal Payment Da~e") and in the amounts esta- blished in accordance with paragraph 4 ~f this Resolution. The Bonds shall be issued as a single, typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. Interest Rates; Principal Inst~llments. (a) The Executive of the County is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rate or rates on the Bonds established ~y VPSA, provided that no such interest rate or rates shall be more th~n sixty-five one hundredths of one percent (65/100 of 1%) over the annqal rate to be paid by VPSA for the corresponding maturity on the bonds ~i~o be issued by VPSA, the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds (the "%rPSA Bonds"), and provided further, that no ihterest rate or rates of the Bonds shall exceed nine percent (9%) pe~i annum, and the execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in S~tion 6 hereof shall conclu- sively evidence the same as having been !~pproved and authorized' by this Resolution. ~ (b) The principal amount of the Bqnds shall be payable in nine (9) semi-annual installments the first ~f which shall be due December 15, 1989, and the remaining installment~:, semi-annually thereafter. The Executive of the County is hereby aq~horized and directed to establish the principal amount of the Bo~ds not to exceed $123,930.08 and to accept the amortization schedule !on the Bonds established by VPSA, provided that debt service on the ~Bonds from their dated date until the end of the first fiscal year (i1989-1990) shall not exceed the amount appropriated by the General A~sembly from the Literary Fund therefor, and provided further, that deb~t service on the Bonds from the second fiscal year to the fifth fiscal year shall be approximately level, subject to the actual rate or rat~s of interest on the VPSA Bonds, and the execution and delivery ofi= the Bonds as described in Section 6 hereof shall conclusively evidgnce the same as having been approved and authorized by this Resolutipn. 5. Payment; Paying Agent and Regis~ County is hereby designated as Bond Regi~ Bonds and the following provisions shall (a) all payments of principal of a! be made in immediately available funds t. on the applicable Interest Payment Date ~rar. The Treasurer of the trar and Paying Agent for the apply: ~d interest on the Bonds shall VPSA at or before 11:00 a.m. ~nd Principal Payment Date, or if such date is not a business date for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or befgre 11:00 a.m. on the business day preceding such Interest Payment Date!and Principal Payment Date; and ~ 492 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 18) (b) all overdue payments of principal or interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds. 6. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $123,930.08 and to affix the seal of the County thereto. 7. Use of available moneys~ pledge of full faith and Credit. (a) The Board hereby appropriates and directs that all income realized from the investment and reinvestment of the proceeds of the Bonds and not required to be rebated to the United States pursuant to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as'amended ("Invest- ment Income"), shall be credited to a sinking fund for the Bonds. The Board hereby further directs that, as directed by ai~designated repre- sentative of VPSA, on each Interest Payment Date, the Treasurer shall apply, or cause to be applied, such Investment Income to the payment of interest due on the Bonds. (b) The Board further appropriates and directs that immediately after the application of the Investment Income as p=ovided in subpara- graph (a) above, the Treasurer shall apply, or caus~ to be applied, so much, if any, of the funds appropriated by the General Assembly from the Literary Fund or otherwise for such purpose to, ~or for the benefit of, the County to the payment of .principal and interest due on the Bonds on the next Principal Payment Date and IntereSt Payment Date. (c) The full faith and credit of the County axe hereby irrevo- cably pledged for the payment of principal of and i~terest on the Bonds as the same become due and payable. There sh~ll be levied and collected annually on all locally taxable property ~n the County an ad valorem tax sufficient to pay such principal and interest as the sam~- respectively become due and payable unless other funds, including, wmthout lmmltatmon, those funds referred to mn subparagraphs (a) and (b) above, are lawfully available and appropriated ~or the timely payment thereof. 8. School Board Approval. The Clerk of the B~ard is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy o~ this Resolution to be presented to the School Board of the County. !iilThe Bonds hereby authorized shall not be issued by the Board until t~e School Board of the County shall have adopted an appropriate resolution consenting to the issuance of the Bonds. 9. Non-arbitrage certificate and Tax Covenant~.. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of ~e Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in or~er to show compli- ance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Co~e of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations re~ating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bond~i or on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County ithat the Proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Non-Arbitrage Certificate and ~ax Covenants and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representa- tions contained therein. Furthermore, the Board co~enants on behalf of the County that the County shall comply with the ?rovisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA ~°nds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax ~purposes. 10. State Non-Arbitra~e Pro,ram. The Board h~eby finds and determines that (a) the Board has received and revi ~e~ed (i) a draft of the Information Statement dated Februar~ 17 1989 (~e "Information Statement"), describing the State Non-Arbitrage Program of the Common- wealth of Virginia ( SNAP ) and (ii) a draft of the ~Contract dated January 16, 1989 (the "Contract"), creating the Sta~ Non-Arbitrage Program Pool I ("SNAP Pool I"), and (b) the County ~s been afforded the opportunity to discuss SNAP with the investment ~anager of and special counsel to SNAP, and the Board hereby furthe~ determines that April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 19) 493 it is in the best interests of the County to authorize the Treasurer of the County to participate in SNAP. The Contract is hereby approved, and the Treasurer is hereby authorized to execute and deliver the Contract on behalf of the County. The Board acknowledges that its decision to authorize the participation in SNAP is based solely on the information set forth in the Information Statement and in the Contract, and the Board hereby acknowledges that the Treasury Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia i~ not, and shall not be, in any way liable to the County in connection With SNAP, except as otherwise provided in the Contract. 11. Filing of Resolution and Publication of Notice. The appro- priate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County and, within ten (10) days thereafter, to cause to be published once in a newspaper having general circula- tion in the County a notice setting forth (a) in brief and general terms the purposes for which the Bonds are to be issued and (b) the amount of the Bonds. 12. Further Actions. Each member, of the Board and all other officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 13. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immedi- ately. There being no further discussion, 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. Public Hearing: T~ consider increasing the fees charged for entry to and use of Albemarle CoUnty parks, recreation areas and swimming facilities. (Advertised in the Dai~y,. Progress on April 1, 1989.) Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of the Depar present. The public hearing was opened. There b public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconde~ following resolution: RESOLUTION PARKS AND RECREATI05 CHAPTER 14, ALBEMARLE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Sup Virginia, that fees shall be charged fol Albemarle County parks, recreation area~ Sec. 14-11. Same--Fees. ~ment of Parks and Recreation, was ing no one present to speak, the by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the FEES DUNTY CODE rvisors of Albemarle County, entry to and use of and swimming facilities: Residents KS 35.00 adults 'i children }!~ 20.00 family 70.00/5 ~$ 15 each over 5 (1) Season rates. Season passes will be honored from Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day..[ 494 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 20) Non-Residents adults $ 50.00 children $ 30.00 family $105.00/5 +$ 20 each over 5 (2) Picnic shelter reservation fees. No fee will be charged for picnic shelter reservations during the period that park entry fees are being charged. However, shelters still must be reserved on a first come, first served basis. a. $ 25.00 flat fee. (b) A copy of rates shall be posted at points where such fees are to be collected. Fees for rental of county-owned boats and recreation programs or activities shall be determined by order of a county official so designated by the county executive. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carrie~ by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstro~, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 16. Appeal: The Gardens Phase II Freliminary Site Plan. This was brought to the Board by letter dated March?~i24, 1989, from Mr. George H. Gilliam, attorney and agent for The Gardens Pa~tnership. The Gardens Partnership is aggrieved by the decision of the P~lanning Commission in denial of the referenced site plan. Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a 13,370 square foot office and restaurant space on 1.67 acres served by 118 parking spaces and 3,200 square feet of retail space on .77iacres served by 40 parking spaces. A 22,450 square foot cinema on ~.28 acres served by 300 parking spaces is also proposed. ~ Location: Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel~ 104 (part) and Tax Map 61, Parcel 123E (part), is located on the east side of Route 29 North, just north of Albemarle Square Shopping Center. Zoned C-l, Commercial, PD-SC, Planned Development-Shopping'i Center and R-2, Residential. Located in the Charlottesville MagistS~ial District. Staff Report: On September 13, 1988, the Planning qgmmission approved Sections A, B and E of The Gardens. The application currently under review has minor changes to buildin~ size and reallocation of square footage for uses of those bu~!dings. At that time, the Planning Commission allowed the applicant ,to grade the entire original site due to a large amount of unsuitable fill located on the site. Comment on Sections C, D, and F will concentrate on i~hree main issues: 1) Development on Critical Slopes; 2) Impact on Woodbrook Subdivision; 3) Parking location. Development on Critical Slopes This site has four areas of critical slopes. Those areas located nearest the Albemarle Square parking lot appear to have been created during the construction of the parking area. In the approximately ten years since the creation of those slopes they haee assumed natural characteristics due to vegetative growth. The area near the cinema is a natural area of critical slopes. Development on this area would consist of parking, grading and replacement of an April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 21) 495 existing sanitary sewer line. A portion of the area near the cinema will have to be disturbed, in any case, to replace the sewer line in an effort to increase the line's capacity. Development on this area is limited to a relatively small area,'and a large wooded area is not being disturbed. The Engineering Department has stated that they can support development on critical slopes due to limited encroachment on natural slopes (approximately 5500 square feet) and the fact that slopes near Albemarle Square appear to be man-made (approximately 15,400 square feet). Encroachment on critical slopes near the cinema to allow for replacement of the sanitary sewer is in the public interest. The Planning Department agrees with Engineer- ing staff and recommends that the Commission allow development on critical slopes. Impact on Woodbrook Subdivision Directly adjacent to Woodbrook on Tax Map 61, parcel 123E, a 50-foot undisturbed buffer will be preserved as required in the Albemarle Square site plan approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 18, 1975. All proposed parking will be located 150 feet from Woodbrook. This 150 foot setback from parking is due to a condition of ZMA-243 approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 4, 1972. At that' time a 150 foot strip abutting Woodbrook remained residential while the remainder of what is now Albemarle ~quare was zoned business. In the opinion of the staff, this condition was clearly intended to protect the Woodbrook area from adversei~i~effects from nearby commer- cial development. The applicant has proposed various meas6res to limit the impact of this development on the Woodbrook Subdigision. The applicant proposes to screen the cinema from Woodbrook by the following means. 'At the top of the slope near the ~inema a row of 10-foot ever- greens with another row of six- tojeight-foot evergreens staggered between the first, midwa~ down the slope a row of six- to eight-foot evergreen trees.i!alternated every third tree with a hardwood, and near the property line what would amount to a single row of four-to five-f~ot evergreen trees staggered among the existing vegetation.' i~' Two large existing deciduous trees are [o be saved and will provide additional screening. The parking areal! double staggered row of evergreen shrub~ Ail lighting shall be directed away frol from vehicles and patrons will have a 1 due to distance and vegetative buffers. applicant's proposed landscaping meets t Ordinance. The Planning Commission shoU is to be screened by a and existing vegetation. adjacent properties. Sound ~ited effect on Woodbrook Staff believes that the ~e letter of the Zoning id review this section and decide in their own minds whether the i~tent is being met. Parking Location a. Section 4.12.3.3(b) of the Zoning ~rdinance, requires that no parking shall be located more than i~ive hundred feet from the entrance of the use such spaces se~e. This distance may be increased in such cases where the C~mmission shall determine that the public interest or convenCence would be equally or better served by such increased distance; that the allowance of a greater distance would not be a ~parture from sound engi- neering and design practice; and t~at the allowance of a greater distance would not otherwisD be contrary to the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Four (4) spaces are locate five hun the entrance to the cinema. These of 520 feet from the entrance and t these parking spaces will be design [red feet or greater from ;paces are located a maximum ~e applicant has stated that ~ted for employee parking. Staff believes that modification of contrary to the purpose and intent ~f the ordinance. t ~Section 4.12.3.3(b) is not The 496 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 22 public interest is served by the designation of parking for employees in areas least likely to be used by patrons. Section 4.12.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that all parking shall be provided on the same lot with the use to which it is appurtenant. Where practical difficulties prevent location as required in section 4.12.3.1 or where the public safety or the public convenience would be better served by the location thereof other than on the same lot, the commission may authorize such alternative location of required parking space as will adequately serve the public interest. The applicant is proposing to locate 226 parking spaces on an adjacent parcel to serve the cinema. Parcel C is receiving ten parking spaces from parcel D. Parcel A is receiving six parking spaces from Parcel B. Staff supports the applicant's request to allow off-site parking as it is reasonable to assume that in a development of this nature people would patronize more than one establishment per visit. General Comment Many of the proposed uses have low parking requirements. The applicant is put on notice that future uses may be ~imited by available parking. The applicant is proposing new property lines for Parcel F and staff requests administrative approval of the subdivision plat. ~0 This site plan will meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and staff recommends approval of the site plan subjeCt to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval The final site plan will not be signed until t~e following conditions have been met: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Department of Engineering approval of gra~ing and drainage plans and calculations; ~ Department of Engineering approval of sto~mWater detention plans and calculations; Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; ~ Planning Department approval of landscapeiPlan; Approval of subdivision proposed on the s~{e plan; Staff approval of easements for off-site ~arking and grading; ~ Albemarle County Service Authority approv~t of water and sewer plans; ~' Administrative approval of proposed subdivision, as shown on the site plan; Administrative approval of final site plan; A certificate of occupancy will not be issued Uhtil the follow- ing condition has been met: a) Fire Officer final approval." !~ Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meetiBg on March 21, 1989 unanimously recommended denial of the site plan. Mr. HorBe said members of the Commission were concerned about the applicant's intention to grade on critical slopes, even though the slopes are man-made slopss. Members of the Commission felt that the slopes have existed long enough to begin to assume the characteristics of natural slopes and to benefit the environment. Mr. Home said members of the Planning Commission also worrier about the impact o the cinema on Woodbrook Subdivision. April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 23) 497 Since the Planning Commission met, Mr. Horne said, the applicant has made a few changes to the site plan. The applicant now plans to build an earthen berm three feet high between his property and the Woodbrook Subdivision, in addition to the landscaping already mentioned in the staff's report. Mr. Horne said automobile headlights should not be visible to the residents of Woodbrook once the berm and landscaping have been installed along the boun- dary. Moreover, the applicant has agreed to reduce the size of the cinema to 20,420 square feet and to shorten the structure to about 22 feet to make it less obtrusive to the residents of Woodbrook Subdivision. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the proposal would be affected if the critical slopes were not violated. Mr. Horne said the parking lot would have to be smaller, which would mean the developer would have to reduce the square footage of the buildings as well. He thinks the cinema could not be built without the amount of parking spaces currently allotted in the site plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Zoning Ordinance provided any standards for the kind of waivers that would be inherent in approving this site plan. Mr. Horne said "yes" and he plans to read these Standards later in the meeting. Mr. Horne said members of the Planning Commission also discussed the 150-foot setback between the subdivision and~the parking area. He has con- ferred with the Zoning Administrator, who has statedthat the parcel zoned R-2 Residential should be treated as a component.~of the PD-SC district, and should therefore have a setback of 150 feet, ratherlthan the setback of 20 feet required of parcels zoned Residential. Whil~ opponents of the site plan argue that the setback should be 170 feet to satisfy the requirements of both residential and PD-SC zoning, Mr. Home said~the staff recommends requiring a setback of 150 feet. ~ Mrs. Cooke noted that drainage is a problem in this area. Mr. Home said the storm drainage currently passes through ~ creek on the property. The applicants propose to remove that creek and P~ipe the drainage underground, through a series of graduated stormwater detention pipes. Mr. Horne said members of the Planning Commission and the r~sidents of Woodbrook Subdivision are concerned that this system will not drai~ the property adequately and that drainage will be worsened by the increased l~ervious surface created by the development. Mr. Home said the Engineering ~!istaff has determined that the rate of stormwater runoff will not increase ~fter the development has been built. He added that the underground stormwmter detention system will not correct any drainage problems that may exist .i~due to surrounding development. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Board. ~ Mr. George Gilliam, the legal counsel f~r the Gardens Partnership, said the applicant believes the proposal before t~e Board is the most desirable plan for this property. This property is owned by several parties, one of which, Rio Associates, owns the parking lot area. He said Rio Associates originally planned to build a self-storage w~rehouse on this property. He said the property upon which the cinema woul~i~ be built, owned by Michael Mellon, ~s zoned for hmgh-denslty retail use and could be developed w~th larger commercial buildings than the cinema. !! Mr. Gilliam said the plan before the Board proposes a development of lower density than what would be allowed by- right, ii Mr. Gilliam displayed some photographs ~ adjacent residential areas and nearby commercial development. He highlighte~ the deficiencies in screening between the residential and existing commercial developments. The photographs also showed the critical slopes and stream. ~r. Gilliam read from a report prepared by Mr. Gordon LaRue, Soils Consultan% for E. O. Gooch and Associates, which concerned the man-made critical slopes.~!i According to Mr. LaRue, the soils in the slopes are only fairly well compacted. Some borings into the slopes indicated that the soil had not compac{ed at all. It is Mr. LaRue's opinion that backfilling against these slopes'!~will stabilize the existing slopes, making them less likely to slide or m6ve. Mr. LaRue also believed that cutting and resloping the upper portion ~f these man-made slopes will make them less likely to erode. Mr. Gilliam ~ave the Board copies of the report and said Mr. LaRue is present to answe~ any questions. Mr. Gilliam then introduced the following people to the B~ard: Mr. John Greene, Civil 498 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page Engineer; Mr. Gordon LaRue, Soils Consultant; Mr. Kurt Wassenaar, architect; Mr. Rick Thompson, representing the company who would own the cinema; and Mr. Michael Mellon, general partner of the Gardens Partnership. Mr. Michael Mellon addressed the Board and said the!site is a disaster: the detention ponds are not maintained and have become breeding grounds for mosquitoes; the critical slopes have increased the runoff. He said the Planning staff has insisted that he adhere to, and at times exceed, the County's regulations concerning stormwater management and detention, and landscape buffers for Woodbrook Subdivision. He said he'is a County resident and will see that this property is developed in a responsible manner, adding to the tax base without causing problems to the Woodbrook Homeowners' Associ- ation. He said the theatre would be considered a dedicated~use for the two of parking for the 21-year term of the lease. He said the buffer between the cinema and the subdivision would be heavily vegetated and undisturbed for 21 years. He thinks this would be a better use of the property than some of the by-right uses. He said he has met with the Woodbrook Homeowners' Association and has tried to address their concerns, but the sewer and the drainage problem, are out of his.control. He said his development will not worsen the problem and he is willing to work with both the Planning staff and the Woodbrook Homeowners' Association to do anything he can t~o improve the situa- tion. Mr. John Greene addressed the Board and said this p]%oject proposes to collect the fifty acres of drainage gathered by the site~ transport the drainage through the site and discharge it at the confluence of the two streams. The surface water falling on the paved surface~ of the development will be detained in underground stormwater detention pipes and discharged, at the pre-development rate of runoff, into the large pipe running under the property. A stormwater detention pipe would also underlie the two-acre ~parking lot area. This detention pipe would discharge ihto the small stream running from Rio Road, a stream that does not cross the ~esidential property of Woodbrook Subdivision. Mr. Greene added that all drainage from the devel- opment will be discharged at a rate not to exceed the pre,development rate of runoff. Mr. Greene said a new sewer line will be built ~0 replace the terra .cotta line. The Albemarle County Service Authority has i~ncreased the size of the pipe, which combined with the steeper slope of the like, should facilitat. ,the flow of sewage. Mr. Kurt Wassenaar addressed the Board and said the .~inema has been move. forward on the site to create a larger buffer. He said 1~ also reduced the square footage of the building and shortened its height. ~. He said the Zoning Ordinance allows the building to be 35 feet tall; the proposed cinema would bE between 25 and 27 feet tall. He said finish-quality smd%~g will be used on all sides of the cinema, not just the front. Mr. Bowie said the statement Mr. Wassenaar just mad~i about the siding is not included in the written list of concessions made by ~he applicant. Mr. Wassenaar said the applicant agrees to have finish-qualitF siding on all side~ of the movie theatre. The appellant having made his case, Mr. Way asked ill anyone else wished to speak concerning this site plan. Mr. Mike Boblitz, owner of Lot 5 in Woodbrook subdiV~ision, which lies directly behind the cinema, addressed the Board on behalf~iof~' the residents of the subdivision. He agreed that the redesigned cinema wohld be more attrac- tive than the one originally planned. He said the use of~ the cinema still concerns the residents of Woo~brook. He said he has longl been prepared for some type of development on this property, buthe and other residents had hoped it would be commercial development of the sort already in the area, the kind of business that closes no later than 10:00 P.M. He!~isaid children already cut across his property to reach the shopping cen~er and he worries that the trespassing will worsen if a cinema is built. H~ said the residents are also concerned that people will loiter and socialize in the parking lot. Mr. Boblitz said the residents are also concerned abQut a potential drainage problem and he commended Mr. Mellon for his atte~pts to deal with April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 25) 499 this issue. He said the confluence of the two streams, which will receive the stormwater drainage, lies behind his property. He said this area has flooded in the past and he thinks it more likely to flood in the future. He said he realizes the flooding is not Mr. Mellon's fault and thinks the Albemarle County Service Authority should further upgrade the sewage lines in this area. Mr. Fred Hain, owner of Lot 3 in WoodbrOok subdivision, addressed the Board. He said he is concerned about the size of the theatre, which would seat 1200 patrons in six units, and the noise and lights the cinema would bring to his neighborhood. He added that there is a time limit set on the 150-foot buffer. He said he is also concerned about security. He said he appreciates the proposed landscaping, but would also like the applicant to consider building a tall fence around the back of the cinemm to forestall would-be trespassers. He is also concerned about the possibility of flooding and the overloading of the sewage system in the area. Mr. Eugene Powell, resident of 2701Brookmere, addressed the Board. He said his property has flooded several times within the past four years and he is concerned that the development may worsen the problem. Mr. Sam Kaplan, President of the WoodbrOok Community Association, ad- dressed the Board. He said the Association does not oppose the development of this property, but the particular use planned for this property. He said the Association would prefer to see office buildings built on the property. Using the property for office buildings would allow the residents of Woodbrook to enjoy their property in peace on evenings and weekends. He said Mr. Mellon has pointed out that this property is zoned Gommercial-Industrial, not Commer- cial-Office. Mr. Kaplan said the residents ~f Woodbrook would give Mr. Mellon their full support if he requested rezoning ~his property to Cox~ercial- Office. Mr. Kaplan asked that the developer be ~ound by the Zoning Ordinance and not be granted the waivers he has requested.i~ Mr. Kaplan said members of the Planning Commission were concerned about critical slopes and the applicant still proposes to grade on those slopes. He!~said the residents of Woodbrook are concerned about the slopes as well. The~ilresidents of Woodbrook are also concerned that the parking lot will become a~ilgathering place for loiterers and the flooding and drainage problems will worsen. He thinks many problems will result from running sewage into an eight-inci pipe from a ten-inch pipe. He fore the problem becomes worse, thinks the County should detain the runoff bE opening the County to the possibility of leg~ Mr. J. W. Brent addressed the Board and Authority has investigated the sewage system .quate. He added that a steeply sloped, eight liability. ~said the Albemarle County Service in this area and found it ade- inch pipe carried as much sewage as a more mildly sloped, ten-inch pipe. He s .id this sewage line can carry two and one-half million gallons of sewage a iday and it has not yet reached this limit. Mr. Way asked Mr. Hain about the time l~it on the 150-foot buffer. Mr. Hain said 50 feet of the buffer were granted !~by a deed restriction, which may expire in 1995. Mr. Gilliam said his client !iagrees that the 150-foot buffer may remain as long as the cinema is on the property. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that a 150-foot buffer be required as a condition of approval, if the Board wishes to grant the appeal. Mr. Gilliam added that Mr. Mellon also a~rees to erect a chain-link fence between the cinema and the adjoining resident~al~ lots. Mr. Gilliam said Mr. Mellon is willing to meet the requirements ofi~ the ordinance and he urged the Board to grant his client's appeal. Since no one else wished to speak to thi~ appeal, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before tl~e Board. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John to describe the justification for waiving the critical slope requirements. Mr. St. John read from section 4.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "As part of the review of any plat or subdivision or site development plan, the Com ~ission may modify any regulation and requirement of this section in a particul .r case subject to the following limitations: the applicant shall demonstrate to the Commission that such 500 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 26) modification is consistent with sound engineering and design practices and that' the public interest and intent of this section would be served to at least an equivalent degree by such modification. No such modification shall be granted until the recommendation of the County Engineer, the Virginia Department of Health and other appropriate officials with regard to such modification shall have been considered by the Commission." Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned about the problems with drainage and runoff in the area. She said she is less concerned about the effect of this proposal on the problem than the effect of future development on the other side of Route 29 North. NevertheleSs, this proposal would contribute to the drainage problem and she is not willing to make a decision on this appeal until she the County has a plan to control the drainage in this area along Route 29 North. She cited the flooding problems in Berkeley subdivision that have resulted in one house being completely washed off its foundation. Mr. Agnor said the Stormwater Control Ordinance hadi~not been adopted Berkeley was developed, so no stormwater management techniques were planned part of the development. Now that the Stormwater Control Ordinance is in effect, he said, systems to manage the stormwater will be installed as devel- opment occurs. Mr. Bain said he believes the important issue is wh~ther the Board will waive the critical slope requirement for this site plan.~ He said he cannot support overturning the Planning Commission's decision i~ this case, because of the importance of critical slopes. Mr. Way said the County Engineer and the Planning s~aff share the that these slopes can be graded. Mr. Bowie said one of ~he four critical slopes will have to be disturbed when the improved sewerii!line is built. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Bowie said they need more time tS review the documen- tation and proffers on this appeal, much of which was just made available to the Board. If the Board decides not to waive the critical slopes requirement, Mr. ~Lindstrom said, the whole site plan will have to be reworked, because there ~will not be enough parking area to support the proposed ~ses. He said he ~thinks the Board should resolve the critical sloPes issu9 now and save the Staff and applicant some time. Mr. Lindstrom said he ha~ not yet made up his mind. He thinks it is important to consider whether the= public interest be served as well by allowing the development to proceeding'as planned as by safeguarding the critical slopes. Mr. Bowie said the one natural slope will have to b~ disturbed if the Service Authority builds the sewer line necessary to handle the growth pre- scribed for this area by the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks a distinction should be made between critical and man-made slopes. Mri~: Horne said only a small portion of the natural slope would be disturbed by~'~ithe sewer line and added that the Zoning Ordinance does not distinguish between man-made and natural slopes. He said the staff believes that a modification of the steep slopes in this case meets the intent of the ordinance. He said he does not believe waiving the requirement will set a precedent because of the small involved and the fact that the slopes are man-made. Mr. Lindstrom said he is inclined to agree with theiistaff's recommenda- tion that this is an appropriate case in which to grant a waiver, given the fact that the slopes are not substantial natural slopes value. Given the measures that will be undertaken to ma said, disturbing these slopes will not make a difference interest will not be affected. Mr. Bain said he thinks the language in the Stormwa concerning the definition of slopes should be clarified. f any aesthetic age the runoff, he and the public er Control Ordinance Mr. Way said he thinks the critical slopes requirement should be waived. He said he does not object to having the agreements by t~e applicant and recommended conditions of approval clarified before maki9g a decision. April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 27) 501 Mr. Bowie said three formal agreements have been elicited from the appellant during this appeal: the rear of the theatre will be of the same material as the front to the satisfaction of staff; there will be a buffer of 150 feet remaining for the length of the theatre lease; and, the developer will agree to build a fence along the back property line. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks the developer has tried to address the con- cerns raised by the residents of Woodbrook subdivision. She agrees with the staff's recommendation concerning the critical slopes. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board defer action on this appeal until the staff, applicant, and homeowners can work out satisfactory language for the conditions brought up at this meeting. He also suggested that members of the Board indicate whether they supported granting a waiver of the critical slope requirement. Mr. Lindstrom said he supports granting this waiver based on the staff's recommendation. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way also supported granting a waiver for the critical slope requirement. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer action on the appeal until April 20 and during the interim, for staff, appli- cant, and homeowners to work out satisfactory conditions on the treatment of the facade, screening that would encompass both security and visual concerns, and the 150-foot buffer to be part of approval. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ? AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain. i'~,~ The Board recessed at 4:16 P.M. and recgnvened at 4:24 P.M. Agenda Item No. 17a. Highway Matters: ~Route 674. In a letter dated March 23, 1989, to th~ Board, Mr. Roosevelt stated that last fall the Highway Department advertised ~he Route 674 project for con- struction. One property owner, who had recently purchased property in the area, took exception to the right-of-way sta~e out and challenged the Depart- ment's deed to right-of-way along his proper~y frontage. The property owner has threatened inverse condemnation proceedings against the Department should construction proceed along the alignment as ~taked. Mr. Roosevelt said he has reviewed this matter with the Department's a~torneys and they have advised him that the property owner's chances of winning~such a suit are verygood if the Department proceeds with construction. Ther~ are two options that the Depart- ment can pursue. The first option would be to shorten the project to a point where construction would not affect the dispqted property. The second option would be to negotiate with the property owne~' for the right-of-way which was originally dedicated. Mr. Roosevelt said alC~ough this problem is a result of the inadequacy of the Department's deed form~ this form and procedure have been used for countless years in this residency and throughout the state with no major problems. He is, therefore, concerned about the cost increase which would occur should the Department modify its.lprocedure and the preceden which would be set should the Department agree to ~rchase the right-of-way in this case. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, se~gnded by Mr. Bain, to authormze the Highway Department to shorten the projec~'if right-of-way cannot be obtained. There being no further discussion,i roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: 11 AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. " Agenda Item No. 17b. Highway Matters: Route 614 at intersection With Route 766. Deferred to May 10, 1989, without discussion. 502 April 12, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page Agenda Item No. 17e. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Bowie said he has heard complaints about the safety of a bridge on Route 649, Proffit Road. He also asked about the status of the improvements planned for the one-lane bridge on Route 20 North above Stony Point. Mr. Roosevelt said bids for the project will be received next month; the bridge should be under construction by July 1, 1989. Mr. Roosevelt said the first bridge referred to by Mr. Bowie is maintained by the railroad company, which he will contact and alert to the problem. Mrs. Cooke noted that she has also received a complaint about the bridge on Proffit Road, which she relayed to the railroad company. She said the bolts as well as the-boards are loose on this bridge. Agenda Item No. 17c. Highway Matters: Capital Improvement Program Amendment. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Roosevelt has submitted a schedule for funding four highway improvement projects through the Highway Department's Revenue Sharing Program. Ail of the projects are funded in the County's!Capital Improvements Program, but the County did not anticipate needing preliminary engineering all of the projects in FY 88-89. The funding for the pr~ects will need to shifted to different fiscal years, but the total project!allocation will not change. A public hearing is not necessary since the pro~ects currently exist in the CIP. The recomended amendments are as follows: Project 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 Rt. 810 $ 5,000 $ $ 42,750 58;888 0 -8- Rt. 708/631 5,000 19,000 23,750 -8- 47~588 -8- Rt. 654 17,500 0 299,250 -8- ~3£~588 -8- 0 Rt. 729/250 7,500 9,500 ~ 78,375 -O- 0 95;008 L -0- Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.! Bowie, to adopt the proposed amendments to the 1988-89 CIP budget and to amend the appropriations as set out in the following resolutions. 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. Fiscal Year: 88/89 Fund: Capital Purpose of Appropriation: Amendments to 88/89 CIP Budget for Road Construction Projects. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1900041020703013 1900041020703016 1900041020703017 1900041020703018 STATE ROUTE 810 STATE ROUTES 708/631 STATE ROUTE 654 STATE ROUTES 729/250 ($45,000.00) 5,000.00 17,500.00 7,500.00 TOTAL ($15,000.00) REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2900051000510100 APP. FROM FUND BALANCE ($15,000.00) TOTAL ($15,ooo.oo) April 12, 1989 (Regular M~eting) (Page 29) 503 Agenda Item No. 17d. Highway Matters. Revisions to the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Deferred to May 10, 1989, without discussion. Agenda Item No. 18. Presentation: Blake Hurt - Analysis of Personal nome and Taxation. Mr. Blake Hurt addressed the Board and said he is present on behalf of the Albemarle Planning Task Force, a group interested in land use in the County. He presented a report on government spending, exclusive of education, compared with per capita income in the County. He said total per capita government spending in 1985 was roughly in line with other Virginia counties of similar size and income level. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that Mr. Hurt work with a member of the County's staff to insure the accuracy of the figures listed in the report. Agenda Item No. 19. Discussion: Proposed Smoking Ordinance. Mr. St. John said the smoking ordinance before the Board follows the smoking ordinance adopted by the City, rather than the model ordinance pre- sented by ~irginians for Clean Air. Mr. Way asked if representatives of Virginians for Clean Air cared to comment on the ordinance. Mr. Tom Leinbach addressed the Board. He said there are some areas not covered by the City's smoking ordinance that he thinks should be addressed in the County's ordinance. He thinks the County's ordinance should also prohibit smoking in indoor recreational facilities, such as the YMCA, enclosed shopping malls, courthouses and restaurants seating fewer than 75 people. Mr. Bowie said he supports the proposed ordinance, but he has a problem with including under this ordinance businesses'that have only five employees. He thinks the owners of a business this small can handle the problem without government interfering. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks enclosed sh~pping malls should be included on this list of public spaces in which smoking~is prohibited. Mr. Way said he is not sure it is wise to try and adopt this ordinance before July 1, 1989, just to circnmvent the changes in the state legislature. He said he also agrees with Mr. Bowie's reservations. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to set the ordinance for public hearing on May 3, 1989, a~ 7:30 P.M. 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. 20. Appointments. There .were no names submitted. 504 April 12, 1989 (RegUlar Meeting) (Page 30) Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Agnor asked if members of the Board planned to attend the meeting in Staunton, Virginia, concerning the CSX rail line. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the section of railway considered for abandonment is a critical link of railway. Members of the Board were unable to reach a consensus on .this matter, so it was decided to send neither a representative nor a letter to the meeting. Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. At 5:16 P.M., motionlwas offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn this meeting until 8:00 A.M. on April 17, 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.