Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP199900067 Action Letter February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) Fisheries Department. No action is required by the Board regarding this item. (Ms. Thomas remarked that she appreciated receiving this memo. She noted that there is no action required of this Board at this time, but she hopes everybody is ready to answer the types of questions that citizens asked last year. Mr. Tucker answered that he believes everybody is prepared for these questions.) Item No. 5.7. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, was received for information. The 1998/99 Audit has been completed and is submitted for your review. The field work and audit testing was completed by Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, the County's external auditors. Certificate of Excellence This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting. This award has been received by the County for the last four years and is coveted by localities throughout the United States and Canada. We anticipate approval and expect to receive notification within six months. General Fund The General Fund balance of $16,729,162 increased during FY 1998/99 by $1 ,854,405, resulting from a combination of revenues in excess of budget and expenditures being less than budget. The current FY 199912000 appropriations anticipate using $1,517,303 of this amount. School Fund Due to reporting requirements that require that school activities be shown as a component unit of local government, it is very difficult to compare the audit amounts to our actual records. A number of Federal Programs and what we consider self-sustaining activities are combined in the audit for reporting purposes. The fund balance for what we consider the School Fund increased by $1,464 in FY 98/99. Fund Balances The Combined Balance Sheet on pages 4 and 5 in the Financial Section details the assets, liabilities, and fund balances for various funds as of June 30, 1999. The schedule below is intended to reconcile these funds balances to those used in the monthly reports presented to you. General Fund CaDital - General School Fund CaDital- School Per Audit 06/30/1999 $ 18 122 595 $ 6,336763 $ 161 664746 $ 0 Fixed Assets 151692133) Debt Service (1644600) Jail Reserve Fund (300 000) Capital Proiects (3 453,973) 3 453,973 Fire Service Fund (2000,000) Cafeteria Fund (763,396) Storm Water Fund (763 707) Combined Funds 654 253 Inventory (28 878\ 227 176 Sales Tax Reserve (862,055) 630 428 Prep Advance 688,677 Reserves - VDOT (500000\ Reserves - Waldorf (2500) Adjusted Balance $16,729,162 $ 3,273,056 $ 1,910,110 $ 3,453,973 Fund Balances Staff recommends acceptance of the FY 1998/99 annual report and for a better understanding of the County's financial status that you review the letter of transmittal included in the Introduction Section and the Notes on pages 13 - 48 of the Financial Section. Item No. 5.8. Memorandum dated February 3, 2000 from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, to members of the Board of Supervisors, regarding support of TransDominion Express, was received for information. (The following two items were held simultaneously.) Agenda Item NO.6. ZMA-99-14. Hvdraulic Dental Center (Sian #581. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone 1.23 acs from R-4 to R-10 to allow construction of professional offices. TM 61, Ps 36 & 36A 1. Located on Hydraulic Road (Rt 743) across from Albemarle High School. (The Comp Plan designates this property as urban density, recommended for 6.01-34 du/ac in Development Area 1.). Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 24 and January 31,2000.) ~ Agenda Item NO.7. SP-99-67. Hvdraulic Dental Center (Sian #621. PUBLIC HEARING on a February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) request to allow construction of professional offices in accord wlSec 18.17.2.2.11 of the Zoning Ord. TM 61, Ps 36 & 36A1. Property contains 1.23 acs, and is located Hydraulic Road (Rt 743) across from Albemarle HS. Znd R-4. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 24 and January 31,2000.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report for ZMA-99-14 relating to the Hydraulic Dental Center. The request is for the rezoning of approximately one and one-quarter acres from the current R-4 to R-10. He distributed copies of the actual proffer form offered by the applicant, and he pointed out that SP-99-67 is associated to allow for professional offices. The proposal is to have in new construction, and in an existing house on the property, approximately 12,500 square feet of professional offices. The applicant is requesting R-10 zoning because the R-4 zoning category does not permit professional offices. The commercial zoning category is not being requested because the proximity of the existing house to the property line would not meet the setback requirements of a CO district. The applicant would like the option to retain the house with the development of site. The proffer states that should the property not develop according to the special use permit for professional offices then the rights to develop the property shall revert to R-4 which is permitted in the current zoning district. The property is located on Hydraulic Road across from Albemarle High School in an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan for urban density residential use. There are existing medical offices to the north and town houses and single family detached homes to the south and east of the site. As proposed, the site would be integrated into the adjacent office site, and office use is considered an appropriate transitional use adjacent to residential areas in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan will incorporate an existing house into the new dental office by constructing a 4,000 square foot addition to the existing house. He pointed out that the second building is 5,000 square feet with 2,500 square feet on each level. It will be closer to Hydraulic Road and will be roughly in line with the existing adjacent structure. The property has limited sight distance along Hydraulic Road, and because of that and the fact that the owner to the south on Hydraulic Road has not been cooperative in providing an easement for sight distance, this proposal would provide alternative access through the existing adjacent office complex. The applicant will also improve the sight distance at the existing Hydraulic Road entrance to the office complex. He emphasized that staff recommends approval of both the zoning map amendment and the special use permit and offered eight conditions for the special use permit, as well as accepting the proffer. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, in its review ofthis matter last week, was concerned with the intensity of the development and the relationship of that intensity to the adjacent office development. The Commission members were also concerned about the consistency of design between this site and the adjacent offices. They worried, too, about grading and the loss of significant trees due to intensity of development. For that reason the Commissioners recommended twelve conditions for the special use permit rather than the eight originally offered by staff. In addition, the Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with acceptance of the proffer. Mr. Cilimberg noted that one of the substantive changes in the conditions was to reduce the amount of square footage allowed to 9,000 square feet. Originally, 14,000 square feet were being considered although the applicant has now indicated a need for 12,500 square feet. Mr. Cilimberg then called attention to an analysis which Ms. Thomas received. He has made copies of it and has distributed it to the other Board members. The analysis indicates the comparison of square foot coverage in building and parking for the subject site and the adjacent sites to the north. The area in building and parking, which is basically shown as impervious cover, is at a greater percentage than the area on the adjacent site where there is one office building and two parking areas, and it is at a greater percentage than over the entire office area to the north. He noted that within the office space to the north a couple of areas that are not developed have been included in the analysis. The area behind the parking spaces, which is actually a gravel lot that has been determined to be illegal and is not being used now, is not included in the analysis. However, there is a house that is being used as an office with a small parking area that is included, but it includes an area of woods around it which was purposeful because the original owner wanted it this way. He said because these are sealed properties a comparison cannot be made, and it is not known whether these properties could have additional office development on them, so their intensity today is less than what is on this site. There is always the possibility under CO zoning without restriction, other than site plan ordinance requirements, that they could submit a request for additional office development in the areas not currently developed. This means the percentage of cover in this area could increase. Mr. Bowerman inquired about the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for gravel parking lots. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this area includes the recommendation for commercial office use. He pointed out an area that is a community service designation, but an office service designation goes with it. If the area actually being developed is compared to the immediate developed areas it is rather similar, but if areas that have not been developed are considered, there is a much lesser intensity on these sites than on the site in question. This was one of the concerns of the Planning Commission in recommending a lower square footage for the buildings. There are other conditions the Commission recommended such as having the parking along Hydraulic Road moved back from Hydraulic Road to a distance equivalent to the parking in the adjacent development. This is because of the grade requirements for the cut slope along Hydraulic Road, since it could not be closer without a retaining wall. However, he is unsure ifthe parking lot could be as close to Hydraulic Road as is shown once development occurs. He commented that he noticed on site that the elevation on this part of the development is going to have to be raised to get an allowable grade of road into the parking area. Mr. Bowerman asked if the allowable grade of road is two and one-half percent. Mr. Cilimberg February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) answered that there can be as much as ten percent grade on the travel way between parking areas. Mr. Bowerman then inquired about the grade for a parking area. Mr. Cilimberg replied that parking areas can have a fIVe percent grade. He reiterated that there will be an increase necessary in the elevation which will require the parking area to be set back some distance from Hydraulic Road unless a retaining wall is constructed. This is something that could be a result of the ultimate development, but it will not be known until the site plan is submitted. Mr. Cilimberg then mentioned the concern about loss of trees since there are a number of older hardwoods on the site. He said a lot of the existing trees will have to be taken out because grading will have to be done for the parking area and the new building. However, there is an opportunity to save trees toward the back of the property where the house is located, since this area will probably not have to be disturbed for the development. He then pointed out the area where the Oak Forest homes are located. He said residents there have expressed concern about the parking area, and he noted the location of the lots and houses in Oak Forest. He said one ofthe conditions for development ofthe site will be fencing on the back side of the development between the offices and the homes. Mr. Dorrier asked for an explanation of the percentage differences shown for building and parking in Areas A, Band C. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out Area A which is the subject site for the rezoning and special use permit. He said Area B is the property next door where the one office building and two parking areas exist. He added that Area C involves everything to the north, including the area in question. Mr. Dorrier called attention to the plan where it shows 144 percent building and parking density difference from Areas A to C, and he wondered if it means that Area A's building density is 144 percent of Area C's building density. He also asked if the 211 percent between Areas A and B means that A's building density is twice as great as C's. He wondered, too, if Area C includes B's and C's density. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively to all Mr. Dorrier's questions. Mr. Dorrier then mentioned the 14'9 percent parking difference between Areas A and C, and he wondered if this means that Area A's parking is denser than Area C. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it means Area A's parking is 149 percent more dense than Area C. Ms. Thomas inquired if there is a fence currently along the back of the Oak Forest homes. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out an area where privacy fencing is located. Mr. Bowerman asked if the elevation would slope up and then down if a cross section was done from Hydraulic Road through the road in Oak Forest. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. He noted that the high point of the property is where the house is located. Mr. Bowerman then inquired if Hydraulic Road is at a ground level zero elevation. Mr. Bowerman answered, "yes." He said Hydraulic Road is at an elevation below the site in question because there is some cut at Hydraulic Road. The elevation rises up, and the knoll where the house is located, as well as the big trees behind the house, are at the highest elevation. The elevation then drops down into Oak Forest, and the homes are at a lower elevation. The street level in Oak Forest may actually be lower than the street level at Hydraulic Road. Mr. Bowerman commented that he never actually walked the property, but he knew there was a ridge there. Mr. Cilimberg noted the location of the ridge for Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Dorrier mentioned that the Planning Commission had included twelve conditions with the special use permit, but the staff only recommended eight. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this is correct. He explained that the twelve conditions from the Planning Commission are shown in the action letter as well as the draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was held last Tuesday, so the minutes have not yet been approved, but they are fairly accurate. Mr. Martin stated that the applicant would be given a chance to speak at this time. He next reminded the speakers of the rules of the public hearing. He explained that the applicant will have up to ten minutes at the beginning of the presentation to make remarks, and each member of the public who would like to speak, will have three minutes to do so. He explained that the applicant will have fIVe minutes at the end of the public hearing for any type of statement or rebuttal. Mr. Michael Matthews, of Matthews Development Company, stated that his company is based in Albemarle County, and he is also a County resident. He is speaking on behalf of the applicants, Drs. Scott Knierim and Thomas Kangur, and both are present at this meeting. He mentioned that Mr. Leonard S. Mailoux, the property owner, is also present. He noted that detailed information from the Planning Commission has been given to the Board members, and they have had a chance to review it. He said Drs. Knierim and Kangur have been practicing next door to this property for many years, and they are out of space. Two other dentists in the same office building are also out of space, and next door is the solution for both groups of dentists. The 1.23 acres is essentially undeveloped currently, and it will accommodate the needs of Drs. Kangur and Knierim and will free up space in the existing building for the other dentists. This solves both problems and keeps the dentists at the same site in the County. He commented that the complexity comes from the various administrative and legal requirements in the ZMA and special use permit. He added that he has spent a great deal of time working this out with staff, and he does not want it to appear the applicant is hiding behind residential zoning. This is not what is happening. He stated that a special use permit in a residential zone is far more restrictive than a blanket commercial zoning. There is also the complication of a house which has a corner sticking over a setback in commercial zoning, and it seemed as though this was the best way to go for the County. He noted that the applicants would have been happy to adhere with the other zoning, but this seemed to provide the County the most protection. He called attention to the applicants' condition that they will adhere to all of the commercial February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) setbacks, so although it is residential zoning, it will become a Commercial Office zone, and this has been assured through the proffers. He referred to Mr. Cilimberg's remarks that should they not develop according to the special use permit, the land is effectively not in a rezoned category. This allays the fear that if the applicants do not do what they say, another person could do something else. He mentioned that the Commission added some conditions that he needs to discuss because the applicants have difficulty with two of them. The square footage reduction gives the applicants basically the same situation they have now. They do not have enough space where they are currently located, and it would be foolish to move and not have enough space again. He then asked that Condition #7 be modified to the original request of 14,000 feet. In the Commission meeting, a question was asked of him about the minimum square footage requirement of the applicants. He said he responded that 12,500 square feet plus or minus is shown on the plan. He stated that one of the Commissioners informed him that the applicants could have 9,000 square feet. Mr. Matthews emphasized that this is too small, and if there is not some relief from this condition, they will be unable to proceed with the transaction. Mr. Matthews next called attention to Condition #12 regarding the setback from Hydraulic Road. The adjacent parcel, which is a separate parcel entirely, is set back significantly from Hydraulic Road. This is because there is a cliff in the front yard 15 or 20 feet in the air, so there cannot be a building any closer to Hydraulic Road. The applicants do not have this constraint, so they request that they be held to the standard of CO zoning. They will adhere to all the setbacks and will develop the property according to the densities and the normal practices of that zone. He noted that he did not have the benefit of seeing the density map, but a couple of points need to be made. He said as a developer he tends to look at any commercial property under a low rise development scenario as supporting approximately 1,000 square feet an acre. This is the base line most developers consider. It is worth pointing out that the adjacent dental offices have another building area behind their site, which is the illegal gravel lot. He commented that he has seen site plans for buildings there, but they have never been built, because parking is more important to the dentists currently. They will be submitting a site plan to rectify the situation and to build a parking lot, so the density shown is irrelevant because the property is not at its full development potential. This is a tiny site, and the proposal is to develop it to its full potential under the zone that is effectively being applied to it. According to his figures and conversations with staff, the other three dental offices as well as the Republic Center are close to 70 to 80 percent of coverage based on their site. He stated that it is not appropriate to mix a house with woods surrounding it, as well as the back of an undeveloped site, so he would like to have this site viewed in the same context as the other sites. The applicants are not making excuses or trying to hide the fact that they are developing their sites to full density because that is what is necessary for the dentists to practice. The site is in the growth area, it is an infill parcel, its proposed use is exactly the same as the use next to it, and the density being proposed is the standard density for CO property. He pointed out that the neighbors favor the project, and he has met with all of them. He then submitted some petitions signed by every one of the owners of the adjacent professional dental offices. He also mentioned that he has a letter of support from the neighbor of the largest common boundary behind the site in Oak Forest, as well as a letter that was the result of a meeting he had with the Old Oak Court Association, who are adjacent property owners. The applicants made a lot of promises to the neighbors, and they are in writing. He remarked that there are also some neighbors present who might want to speak to the application. He said staff supports the application, and he asked for the Board's support with the changes to the conditions he outlined earlier. He next asked Dr. Kangur to speak to the Board from his perspective as a dentist, and the person who will be occupying the site, as to why this application should be approved. Dr. Thomas Kangur stated that he has been practicing oral surgery across from Albemarle High School for 24 years, and he requested the Board's assistance so he and his associate will be permitted to continue practicing in this location in the future. This area has already become a center for dental services with 16 separate dental offices in the area, if the three dental offices are counted in Sachen Village. He added that he and Dr. Knierim have outgrown their space and would like to build new offices adjacent to their current location and still keep their location where it is presently. The property with the rezoning request has been shown to be unsuitable for residential development due to access problems off of Hydraulic Road, and it would be an ideal extension of the existing dental complex where it is currently located. The adjacent residential and professional neighbors have supported their plans and prefer the dental office to any alternative types of development. He noted that the Planning staff has also supported the request and have noted that the request for a 12,500 square feet development is within County Code requirements. He then explained why this amount of square footage is so important rather than the 9000 square feet. He said he currently has 2,000 square feet of office space, and he has to rent storage space in an adjacent building. He stated that Dr. Knierim has 1,000 square feet of office space, and both offices are severly handicapped due to inadequate space for treatment as well as for storage. He commented that his plan is to build a 4,000 square foot office that would take care of patient treatment areas and retain the existing residential residence which is approximately 3,000 square feet for the use of storing patient records, supplies, equipment, library space, private office space and a business office. He said Dr. Knierim needs 2,500 square feet for patient treatment and would use the basement level for storage also. When these numbers are added together, they total the 12,000 square feet that is being requested. If the space is restricted to 9,000 square feet of office space, the same amount of parking will still be needed, and the building's footprint and site plan would change only minimally. He said parking is based on the number of patients being treated rather than the total square foot area. The only effect the limit of 9,000 square feet would have is to ensure inadequate useful space. He emphasized that it would not make sense for him to go from cramped quarters to a new space that would be outgrown in a short period of time. He said it would be like building a house without closets, attic or garage. February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Mr. Bowerman noted that Dr. Kangur did some oral surgery for him very professionally. There were no questions for Mr. Matthews nor Dr. Kangur from Board members. Mr. Martin then opened the public hearing. Mr. Duane Jones, an Oak Forest resident, stated that his home backs up to the gravel lot which has been referred to by the applicant. He is in support of this commercial development if the developer, as he has promised, will correct the drainage and parking in the lot above his home, as well as provide proper screening. He commented that the applicant is in agreement that a fence will be erected behind the requested development with a continuation of the fence between that development and the adjoining gravel area. He stated that basically the adjoining area proposed to be used for an entrance will allow traffic to flow in and out of the current dental office area and into the new development. He said in essence as far as traffic flow is concerned, the general space will be shared. He remarked that all the residents in the back of the current existing office space feel that a fence should be erected to act as a barrier between the residential area and the commercial development. He hopes the Board will actually require the fence, since he has nothing in writing stating that this fence will be erected all the way across the two properties. There is too much rental property around this area, and duplexes would not be appropriate on this site. If anything is going to be allowed for this site, he would prefer that there be a commercial use there to serve as a buffer for the residential area. No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing. He asked the applicant if he had anything further to say. Mr. Matthews responded that one of the conditions is that the fence will be constructed, and the applicants have agreed. He mentioned the time and energy the neighbors spent as far as attending the meetings with him and the applicants. He believes the neighbors and applicants have been able to work together to answer all of the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the plantings will actually be on the residential side of the fence. Mr. Matthews answered that the plantings will probably be on both sides of the fence, although there is already a significant amount of vegetation on the residential side in some areas. The fence will be put in the best place that makes use of existing screening. He explained that there are some significant trees that it will be important to save. He reiterated that the thinks the applicants and residents have reached a good resolution with this issue, and the applicants stand by their promises. Mr. Dorrier called attention to a point on the map and asked if that is the location for the fence. Mr. Matthews responded affirmatively. He said, though, the neighbors' issue also involved the adjacent site, and that is where the lot is located which has caused the prOblems for many years. The new fence will hook into the fence that is there for the house, and it will continue across the other property. He mentioned that if the fence was stopped at the corner, it would move all the trespassers to the next person's yard. This will not help anybody so the whole fence will be built at one time when the dental offices are developed. He stated that should the application, as amended, not be approved tonight, he is not sure what will happen to the fence. He said perhaps it would be built along the parking lot, and that will be the end of it. Mr. Bowerman wondered how the gravel parking lot and the ownership of it ties into the proposed development in connecting it to the existing fence beyond the parking lot. Mr. Matthews answered that the ownership is completely separate. He has met with the owners, and site plan amendments will be submitted to legalize the lot. He explained that there is nothing illegal about the use, but it is not part of the site plan, and modifications need to be made to the grading. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the owners had any problems with the continuation of the fence. Mr. Matthews replied, "no." There is no problem. speak. At this time, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing, since there was no one else who wanted to Ms. Thomas mentioned to Mr. Matthews that she had not seen the charts before this evening, either. She was the one who set in motion their being made, but she was out of town all day today, so she had not seen them. She thinks this area should have commercial development, and she thinks it ought to continue the development that is there currently. She said, though, that is where she has a problem, because she would like for the very nice feeling in the existing development to continue. She remarked that she drove around the area recently even though she had already been there in the past for dental surgery. She could see what a bind the dentists would be in without the additional gravel parking lot, and she noted that cars go into certain areas there, and they have to back out of them. She is quite certain drivers will consider the new property and its parking lot as the U shaped travel way which will allow them to get out of the area. She stated that it is a nice area partly because it has trees and also because of the way it is set back from Hydraulic Road. She said a person sitting in the parking lot hardly knows Hydraulic Road is there because of the way the property is set back. The mountains can be seen beyond Albemarle High School, and it is a very nice setting. She does not want to make a decision tonight that makes this additional project less attractive than the part that is already there nor that would make the current property less attractive. She wondered what conditions or agreements this Board and the applicants can reach to ensure that the project is a continuation of a very nice set of professional offices and special property. She does not have February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) answers yet, but she has a goal, and she hopes others can tell her whether or not they agree with it. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he was confused by the Planning Commission's discussion. He stated that County officials are underway with development of an infill pattern for the urban area which encourages attractive residential areas and residential services to the people in those areas. This is a stone's throw from the County's only urban park in a densely populated area. He commented that it is a function of a population to need dental service, and this is recognized as such a place, without traveling a long distance. He does not want to use the word, "intense," as far as density is concerned, but most sites are cleared for this type of use. The best use is made of the site, and the Zoning Ordinance dictates the amount of square footage and parking in terms of the relationship between the two. There are setbacks in the ordinance, and the staff is working with the applicant and the adjacent property owners who arrived at a plan allowing for the continuation of a use there that has been established at a greater density. He does not think this is a bad thing, and he said there are trees at the back that can be preserved. He recalled a project behind Minor Hill where Whitewood Road and Greenbrier Drive join, which is not dissimilar to this proposal except the nature of the offices is more of a mixed use. He is flabbergasted that this type of discussion has come up when it is exactly the type of thing County officials are trying to encourage. This is the type of urban service that is desired, and there are profeSSionals who are indicating they have more patients than they have space for them. He commented that 5000 square feet is not a lot of space, and he noted that it is not so different from his small office of 3,300 square feet. The square footage is dictated by the requirements of the ordinance in terms of the slope and parking lot, as well as the square footage of the use and how many parking places are needed. If there is enough parking space for the square footage, he does not have a problem with the proposal, especially with the amenities at the rear and with the ability to save some of the large trees on the ridge line. The fact the rest of the area is built around trees and is not as dense could be wasted space. He thinks the proposal makes sense. He reiterated that the total amount of space requested is determined by the site characteristics and the ability to meet parking requirements, and it will be self limiting. He said it is a site plan issue and everything that was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting discussion are site plan topics. Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Bowerman. He explained that as he was reading the Planning Commission minutes he kept wondering why there was a conversation being held about the danger of the parking lot as people move throughout, because people are not going to be able to travel fast there. He added that when people propose a high density situation in a rural area, they are told that this type of density is not desired in a rural area, but that it is desired in urban and growth areas. He cannot understand why someone would be told that a lower density is desired when he is proposing to use density in a growth and urban area. Mr. Bowerman stated that the type of use has to also be considered. Mr. Martin mentioned that the neighbors are supportive of the proposal versus the alternative, so it seems as though it is a winlwin situation. He believes the project will be attractively done, if the County staff does as it normally does with site plans. Mr. Bowerman remarked that County officials went to great lengths to protect Whitewood Park because there was already a dense area there. There are not many places left to develop in the whole crescent of Hydraulic Road, Rio Road and Route 29. Ms. Thomas stated that the whole point of infill is that County officials have to be very careful to make sure an attractive infill is being done. There is a danger, when working with infill, that a mistake could be made and the infill might be too dense for the site, and it might not be attractive. She noted also that residential development is always going to prefer an office complex beside it rather than more residential communities. She appreciates very much that the applicant has talked with the neighbors, and she is glad it has worked out. She emphasized that she thinks this should be an office development. However, in this situation the density is being greatly increased over what is an attractive but automobile centered complex, and real density is when people can walk to services. She noted that this is not a walkable place, and it is not even a public transportation place. She said public transportation could not get into the area. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there are bike lanes and sidewalks already there. Mr. Dorrier stated that he is persuaded this is a good plan because there are no new cuts coming onto Hydraulic Road from this site, and there will not be another traffic hazard coming onto Hydraulic Road. There are entrances already there for the other office buildings. He is very sympathetic to the fact that something built for 9,000 square feet cannot be made to work, if 3,500 more square feet is needed as the minimum. He stated that 12,500 square feet does not appear to be overloading the site too significantly. This is an area where there are profeSSional office buildings. He has traveled this area, and he has been in an out of the office site on the hill. He thin ks this is an attractive office site and putting other offices in that area is in keeping with the development that is already there. He commented that he would favor giving the applicants what they want. This is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, it is in an infill area, it is a good use of the site, and he would much rather have an office building there than some other residential use or a more intense commercial use. He is also in favor of making adjustments to Conditions Number Seven and Twelve to allow the developer to go forward with his plans. Mr. Perkins remarked that he knows of no developer who wants to create something ugly. Hopefully, with the County staff helping with the site plan, something attractive will be created. Mr. Bowerman stated that Condition Ten is not an inappropriate condition. He would like an opportunity for staff to incorporate some language which reflects the Commission's desire to have some site plan amenities included involving additional plantings where they can be done. He suggested that the staff be given a chance to work on this point, and he asked that it come back to this Board as a Consent - February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Agenda item. He supports this proposal without Condition #7, because he thinks it limits itself, and without Condition #12 because either that or existing ordinances need to be changed. Condition #10 needs to be reworked to be consistent, although he can't suggest the wording tonight. He would like to support the proposal after striking Conditions #7 and 12, and rewording Condition #10. Mr. Martin said he believes Mr. Bowerman is indicating that he would like to approve the proposal without Conditions #7,10 and 12 with the concept that Condition #10 will come back to the Supervisors as a Consent Agenda Item. Mr. Cilimberg stated thatthe Planning Commission actually worded Condition #10. There were several different issues involved such as how close the parking would get to Hydraulic Road which relates to Condition #12 and how much square footage would be developed, which relates to Condition #7. He explained that the Commissioners reworded several other conditions and added conditions to address landscaping and tree preservation on the site. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that he wanted to make sure Condition #10 did not interfere. Mr. Cilimberg responded that Condition #10 was intended to give more staff review of such things as the requirement of the conservation plan for existing trees. Mr. Martin reminded the group that the Board had discussed the ZMA as well as a special use permit. He asked if there was a motion for ZMA-99-14 At this time, Mr. Bowerman made a motion for approval of ZMA-99-14, Hydraulic Dental Center, as recommended by the Planning Commission with acceptance of the applicants' proffer. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Ms. Humphris. (The proffer is set out below:) Date: 112112000 ZMA # 99-14 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 61-36 & 61-36A1 1.23 Acres to be rezoned from R-4 to R-10 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) If the property is not used for professional offices as authorized by a special use permit pursuant to section 17.2.2.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, then the uses of the property shall be limited to those identified in section 15.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the property shall also be subjectto the requirements of sections 15.3, 15.4,15.5, 15.6, and 15.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. The referenced proVisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall be those in effect on February 9, 2000, copies of which are attached hereto. (Sianed) Leonard Mailloux Signatures of all Owners Leonard Mailloux Printed Names of All Owners 1125/00 Date (Sianed) Grace Mailloux Signatures of all Owners Grace Mailloux Printed Names of All Owners 1125/00 Date Ms. Thomas inquired if the staff could discuss Condition #12, dealing with parking, as it relates to SP-99-67. The applicants have indicated they do not like this condition, and she would like to know the result if the condition is removed. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the minimum setback is ten feet for parking from the road right-of-way. The setback for a Commercial Office district is being used. Ms. Thomas asked about the amount of setback referred to in Condition #12. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this is unknown, because it still has not been determined exactly where the right-of-way is located. He said if this condition is included, the distance will have to be determined by survey at the time the site plan is being reviewed. Mr. Bowerman commented that he hopes the distance determined for the setback will be screened and buffered on the site plan as the staff works with the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg responded that this is the intent of Condition #5. This condition gives the County a requirement for excess screening particularly along Hydraulic Road. Next, Mr. Bowerman offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-99-67, Hydraulic Dental Center, as recommended by the Planning Commission striking Conditions Number Seven and Twelve and accepting the other ten conditions. Ms. Thomas remarked that she is going to vote against the motion, although she believes it will be a fine and attractive project when it is finished. However, she thinks a bad precedent is being set. She is February 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) sure both the applicants and the County staff will make an attractive project. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Ms. Thomas. ABSENT: Ms. Humphris. (The conditions are set out below:) 1. All new structures and parking shall conform to Sections 21.7.1,21.7.2 and 21.7.3 ofthe Zoning Ordinance; 2. The applicant shall provide a sight distance of 425 feet, as required by VDOT, at the existing entrance to the professional offices on Hydraulic Road (Route 743). 3. In addition to Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance, all outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent streets; 4. SP-78-09 for a day care center on this property is revoked; 5. Setbacks for new structures shall be as described in Section 21.7, except a waiver to permit grading and clearing in the 20 feet setback adjacent to the parkingltravelways on the south side of the site (adjacent to Old Oak Court) may be requested for the purpose of construction of the travelways and parking. Screening shall exceed that required by Section 32.7.9.8 ofthe Zoning Ordinance according to the discretion of the Design Planner and existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements will be supplemented or replaced as deemed appropriate by the Design Planner to provide good screening for the adjacent residential district and along Hydraulic Road. No portion of the permanent parking or travelways shall encroach on the 20 foot setback; 6. Ifthe existing house on site is removed and replaced with a new structure, the new structure shall be governed by setbacks per Section 21.7 ofthe Zoning Ordinance; 7. The site shall be developed in general accordance with the concept plan known as Hydraulic Dental Center Conceptual Site Plan Sheet 1 of 1 by Muncaster Engineering dated 12120/99. Locations of buildings, parking, and travelways are approximate and may change but indicate the general intent for site use and density; 8. A wooden fence shall be built between the subject property and the adjoining residential properties of at least six (6) feet in height. Screening vegetation shall be planted on the residential side of the fence; 9. The site shall be developed in a manner so as to preserve as many existing trees throughout the site as is reasonably possible consistent with the development of the property according to the conditions set forth herein. A conservation plan for the existing trees shall be submitted at the time of preliminary site plan submittal. Particular attention shall be paid to tree preservation and screening along Hydraulic Road; and 10. Massing materials and building configuration shall be in harmony with the existing complex on the site adjacent to the north, and shall be subject to the review of the Design Planner. Agenda Item No.8. Public Hearing on FY 2000/01 to FY 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 30 and February 1, 2000.) Ms. Anne Gulati, Budget Manager, reported that at the January 5,2000 work session, the Board reviewed the Technical Committee's recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY 2000/01 _ 2004/05. The recommended CIP totaled approximately $84,200,000 with $34,000,000 in general government projects, $636,000 in Tourism Fund capital projects, $822,000 in stormwater improvements and $48,600,000 in school projects. She noted that at the direction of the School Board, the School Division CIP has been revised to defer completion of the Northern Elementary School project from FY 01 to FY 02. She next called attention to the spreadsheets attached to the Executive Summary which show the impact of deferring this project. Since it is a project funded by the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) bonds, both the expenditures and the bonds will be moved from FY 01 to FY 02. The impact of doing this will be to defer approximately $1,000,000 in debt service expense to FY 03. This information is being provided for the public hearing and does not require any action by the Board at this time. However, the Board will have the opportunity to discuss the CIP funding recommendations during one of the budget work sessions in March. She then mentioned the expanded funding proposed for stormwater control and the related additional operating costs requested to establish a County-funded stormwater program. This is an issue with an immediate financial impact on the FY 2000101 budget. She indicated that another issue is the additional funding requested by Region Ten, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS) and the Paramount Theater. She commented that $14,900,000 in unfunded school capital projects is being requested which includes $4,900,000 in additional costs related to capacity changes and differentiated staffing, $3,100,000 in growth-related renovations and expansions and $6,800,000 in additional maintenance and other requests. She emphasized that final approval of the FY 2000101 - 2004/05 CIP Program and adoption of the FY 2000/01 CIP budget is scheduled for April 12, 2000. There were no questions for Ms. Gulati from Board members, so Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. Mr. Martin referred to Ms. Gulati's statement about the School Board's decision to revise its CIP and defer the completion of the Northern Elementary School to FY 02. He thinks it is important to note that the School Board made this decision because the Board of Supervisors has been unable to move forward with the purchase of land in the northern area. The Board of Supervisors shares some responsibility in this decision.