Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200100065 Action Letter APPROVED FILE FOUND: BOS LETTER MISSING May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) moving people around. Ms. Thomas said no financing costs are included in the projected costs. She said when it was a bigger project which included all the courts, the Board called in bond counsel. She assumes this will be done without bonds, but wonders if there are financing costs that should be included. Ms. White said all of the costs are in the CIP which was revised to reflect these new costs. Debt service costs have been incorporated into the CIP. Ms. Thomas said asbestos and lead paint were mentioned as being in the Old County Jail. She asked if there are the same issues in the existing Juvenile Court building. Mr. Moore said the lead paint generates a need for certain procedures for removal. Sometimes asbestos has to be removed. He would be surprised if there were enough of those materials in this building to be a problem. Mr. White said this plan works well because it allows this work to be done in phases so everyone does not need to be moved out ofthe building. Money is being saved in relocation costs Ms. Thomas said a motion is needed to approve the project. Mr. Moore said he had a computerized "fly-around" model of the proposed project to show to the Board, and apologized for waiting so long in the presentation to do so. At the end of the presentation, motion was offered Mr. Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the request to move forward with the design phase for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court expansion and renovation project. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item NO.8. Appeal: ARB Sign 2002-13, Toys "R" Us Sign. Application to replace wall sign for Toys "R" Us loc on front faf;:ade of bldg. Loc on E sd of Rt 29 at Branchlands Blvd., adjacent to Wood Grill Buffet. TM 612, Sec 3, P 12. 2nd PUD & EC. Rio Dist. Letter dated April 30, 2002, had been received from SignProject Management asking that this appeal be removed from the Board's agenda without prejudice. Motion to accept the applicant's request to withdraw appeal of ARB-(Sign)-2002-13 without prejudice was offered by Mr. Martin, and seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No.9. SP-2001-065. Mosby Mountain Stream Crossing (Sign #82). Public hearing on a request to allow earthen fill and culvert crossing in the flood plain. 2nd R-1 & FH. TM90, P1 B. Loc on Rt 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd) across from Southwood Estates Mobile Home Park. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 15 and April 22, 2002.) Ms. Thomas said she has been asked by staff to express their apology for the delay caused by staff not advertising this request in a timely manner, and for holding the public hearing at a daytime meeting. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said Evergreen Land Company has requested a special use permit to allow a stream crossing in order to create a single-family residential subdivision off of Route 631. This would create 107 lots in both the Development Area and the Rural Area not all of which would be served by the stream crossing, but many lots would. He said the applicant proposes to construct a 42-foot wide, nine and one-half foot high prefabricated bridge system with wingwalls to raise the proposed road above the one hundred year flood plain limits. This type of structure functions in a manner similar to a standard culvert with earth fill placed above the structure before the asphalt road is laid. Mr. Cilimberg said concerns were expressed to this request by adjacent owners. Engineering staff looked into those concerns, and responded saying flood levels will remain the same and impoundment of flood waters is not part of this proposal. Construction of the bridge will be managed under the County's required Erosion & Sediment Control Plan which will be reviewed during the final subdivision platting process. If approved, the special use permit will carry a number of conditions that specifically address water quality issues. Recommended Conditions 2, 3 and 4 specifically address those issues. Mr. Cilimberg said the actual stream crossing is located within the Development Areas portion of the site. The stream to be crossed is a tributary to Biscuit Run. It is classified as a Major and Locally Important Stream Valley on the Open Space Plan which acts as a buffer between the Development Areas in Neighborhood 5 and the Rural Areas in Rural Area 3. The character of the area that will be subject to development is from a zoning standpoint, R-1. That will not be changed by this proposal. He said staff May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) looked at alternative entrance locations and concluded that the alternatives would be more environmentally detrimental to this and surrounding properties. Mr. Cilimberg said staff identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1) The use will not cause an increase in the one hundred year flood level on adjacent properties or on the subject property; 2) The use will not cause the stream channel to be relocated; and, 3) The proposed stream crossing/entrance location is the best location to serve the proposed development. factors unfavorable are: 1) The proposed use will cause a development that is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan (higher density development in a designated Rural Area), and 2) The proposed use is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Open Space and Natural Resources elements ofthe Comprehensive Plan. However, conditions will insure that the stream buffer will be restored and that water quality measures will be implemented. Mr. Cilimberg said staff had recommended approval of the request subject to six conditions. On March 26, 2002, the Planning Commission, unanimously recommended approval subject to the same six conditions. i:>> Ms. Thomas referred to Condition NO.6 and asked why no soil shall be removed. Mr. Cilimberg said there is no one present from the Engineering Department and he cannot address that question. Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Hal Jones with The Cox Company was present to represent the applicant. He said they have worked with staff to address any concerns mentioned to date, and he offered to answer questions. Ms. Thomas asked for an answer to her question. Mr. Jones asked that the question be more specific. Ms. Thomas said she did not know why it was a concern that no soil be removed from the stream. Mr. Jones said in general, they do not want to disturb the stream. Mr. Richard Hewitt said he lives on Old Lynchburg Road. He asked if this meeting is just about the stream crossing, and the development has already been approved. Mr. Cilimberg said a subdivision plat is in process to allow for the development; it will be approved administratively. He said for a large part of this property, the applicant will seek a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow for expansion of the Development Area boundary which could incorporate all of the area which would otherwise be subdivided by right. That idea is in the very early stages of discussion. There would be public hearings at some ultimate point if that idea proceeds forward. Ms. Thomas asked what the public can expect for this property. Mr. Cilimberg said he would like to ask the applicant to give the status of the subdivision plat they have submitted. Mr. Jones said the preliminary subdivision plat for this property is under review. The applicant has addressed all issues with respect to the special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg said he can explain the process now. He said the preliminary plan can be approved when this special use permit is approved. The final subdivision plat follows, and the conditions of the preliminary plat will also be imposed on the final plat. Once the final plat is approved administratively, it is subjectto recording. Ms. Thomas asked where there is time in the process for any further public input. It seems the answer to that question is that there is no time allowed for that. Mr. Cilimberg said that is the process for every plat whether or not there is a special use permit associated with the plat. Every plat requires that staff notify all adjacent owners to that property. When they are notified, they are told the date and time of the Site Review Meeting and offer them the opportunity to get information. They are also told that if they feel it is necessary, they can request that the Commission review the preliminary plat. final plats are almost always handled administratively. Mr. Dorrier asked what percentage ofthe 107 lots will be in the Rural Area. Mr. Cilimberg said in the Comprehensive Plan, land on the east side of the stream is in the Development Area and land on the west side of the stream is in the Rural Area, but the whole area is zoned R-1. Mr. Rooker said the applicant has indicated an intention to request a Development Area boundary change, so he asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain the process. Mr. Cilimberg did so, and ended by saying that at this time, nothing has been scheduled for discussion at a Commission meeting. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2000-65 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (Note: The conditions, as approved, are set out in full below.) . .. May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 1. Albemarle County Engineering Department and VDOT approval of final grading plans and bridge and road plans and computations; 2. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to include stabilization of fill; 3. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of mitigation plans for disturbance of the stream buffer; 4. The CON/SPAN bridge system must be installed per manufacturer's specifications; 5. The final subdivision plat should reflect any changes to the flood plain and f100dway limits, and the applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of the correspondence demonstrating FEMA approval of the revised floodplain or no changes in flood plain levels can occur; and 6. In an effort to minimize environmental degradation, no soil shall be removed from the stream to compensate for any fill. (Note: At 10:32 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:44 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 10. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman. Mr. Steve Koleszar, Chairman of School Board, was present. He said the School Board has been involved in redistricting of the middle schools. One issue has been the long-term redistricting plan reflected in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). There will be a report from the Middle School Task Force on May 9. They have serious questions about the CIP which will need to be addressed before addressing the redistricting. School Board members feel there needs to be an examination of Comprehensive Plan recommendations in terms of school issues and school sizes. The School Board needs to decide how large of an expansion should occur at Monticello High School. Under the old model, the school would be expanded to handle 1500 students. If it went to 1500, it would allow some students to be redistricted from Albemarle High, and that would get Albemarle below 1700. A number of citizens have recommended that Monticello not be expanded at all. This is causing the School Board to think about what the master plan should be for school size, for school growth, and where new facilities should be located. Mr. Martin said he only knows what he has read about this question, he does know that redistricting is a very emotional issue. Every time a line is changed, another group of people will be upset, so the School Board needs to do the right thing, and not the political thing. Mr. Koleszar said he has been through four redistrictings, and he learned that lesson on the first one. He said the issue of school size and school location is something that needs to be addressed. Some School Board members want to hold up this entire process for that discussion. Personally, he does not think that needs to be done. But, he thinks the Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended to account for the next 10 to 15 years. He thinks that would take a couple of years, and the decision about Monticello High cannot wait that long. Ms. Thomas asked what the School Board wants this Board to do. She thinks the UNJAM meeting will help. After that meeting, the Board could meet with the School Board to have this discussion. Mr. Koleszar agreed that the Boards could meet and set up a process by which they will do the thorough review of the CIP. Mr. Martin said he is afraid that the School Board, which is now elected, will want to take the pressure they are feeling and get this Board involved. He does not want to see that happen. The School Board is elected to make the decisions about the School System. When the School Board makes a recommendation about School CIP projects, this Board just needs to decide if the County can afford the project. He does not want the Supervisors to get involved in saying "educationally speaking" what size a school should be. He does not think that is right. Mr. Koleszar said he can make a decision on an educational basis, but the School Board does not want to be "out of tune" with the direction the County is taking long-term. Mr. Martin said he is only speaking for himself, but he thinks the School Board should make its best recommendation to the Supervisors and then they decide if the County can afford what is being requested. He does not want to be a part of the discussion as to whether or not it is the right thing to do educationally. Ms. Thomas said where these things cross is when the Supervisors talk about the impact of a school on the surrounding neighborhood. She does think Mr. Martin is right that the Supervisors should not be a part of the debate about what size of school is educationally the right size. Dr. Kevin Castner said the School Board is not as informed as they could be about development in Crozet. The idea is that they be more informed about the discussion by DISC. It is just sharing of information so the School Board can increase its understanding of how the master plan works. The Redistricting Committee was looking at a plan that was created in 1990, and which has not been kept up-to- date with current planning. While they were talking about capacity issues, they asked those questions because many people did not see the whole picture. He thinks this is positive, and a sharing of information, rather than advocating "putting it in your court." Mr. Tucker said the School Board is beginning its work on the CIP. They have heard the