Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-19June 19, 2002 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 19, 2002, at 5:30 p.m., Fourth Floor Conference Room, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from June 6, 2002. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. and County Attorney, Larry W. Davis. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Closed Session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to conduct an administrative evaluation, and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to an environmental issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 3. Recess. At 6:59 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened in Room 241 for the regular meeting scheduled for this date. _______________ Agenda Item No. 1. The regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas. All Board members were present at this time, along with staff members: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Certified Closed Session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open = meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 4. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Harvey Wilcox thanked the Board for standing firm on the Bright-Triton tower matter (see Item 6.2 on the Consent Agenda). _______________ Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.6 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. __________ Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: October 3, 2001; January 16 and February 6, 2002. Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of October 3, 2001 (pages 33 beginning with Item #11 to the end) and handed to the Clerk one change for a grammatical error. June 19, 2002 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of February 6, 2002 (pages 1 through 27 ending with Item #12) and found two grammatical errors. Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of January 16, 2002, and found them to be in order. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the minutes which had been read. __________ Item 6.2. SP-2002-004. Bright-Triton PCS - CVR 350E (Sign #75). Request to amend a SUP in order to allow the continued use of personal wireless facility which was installed in violation of a condition. TM 58, P 61A, contains approx 5.144 acs. Loc on the E sd of Tillman Rd (Rt 676) approx 1/2 ml N of intersec w/ Rt 250 W. Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. Public hearing had been deferred from May 15, 2002. Letter dated June 18, 2002, had been received from Ms. Valerie W. Long in which she stated that on behalf of her client Triton PCS, Inc., she requested withdrawal of SP-2002-004 effective immediately. She states that pursuant to an agreement reached June 18 with the Director of Building Code and Zoning Services, Triton will come into compliance with the conditions of approval of SP-2001-008 within 60 days by replacing the entire pole. In addition, Triton will have the pole painted with a paint finish that will result in less visibility. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board granted the request to withdraw SP-2002-004. __________ Item 6.3. SP-2002-006. Four Seasons Learning Ctr (Signs #26 & 27). To allow a total of 40 children at existing daycare facility. Znd PUD. TM61X1, P5. Contains 0.35 acs. Loc at 254 Lakeview Dr at intersec w/Four Seasons Dr. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 2002.) A letter dated June 10, 2002, had been received requesting that this public hearing be deferred until July 10, 2002, since their representative is out of town. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board granted the request to defer this public hearing, but set the date for July 3. __________ Item 6.4. SP-2002-12. 4749 Plank Road Driveway (Sign #32). To allow driveway in floodway fringe. Znd RA. TM99, P10. Contains 3.65 acs. Loc on Plank Rd (Rt 692) approx 0.4 mls from intersec w/Rt 29. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 2002.) At the request of the applicant, by the recorded vote set out above, the Board deferred this public hearing until August 7, 2002. __________ Item 6.5. Authorize County Executive to sign service agreement with North Garden Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., advancing $145,000 to purchase mini-pumper. It was noted in the staffs report that several years ago Albemarle County established a Revolving = Fund to be used by the ten volunteer fire and rescue companies in the County. This fund, currently funded at $2.0 million, provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed firefighting and rescue squad equipment and buildings, interest free, with repayments being deducted from their annual County appropriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund are monitored and approved by the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory Board (ACFRAB). The current amount available in the Revolving Fund is $197,149.48. North Garden Volunteer Fire Department has requested, through ACFRAB, an advance of $145,000.00 for the purchase of a mini-pumper to be utilized for brush fires, auto fires, motor vehicle accidents and to serve as a water supply unit. North Garden has executed the standard service agreement approved by the County Attorney's office. This advance can be disbursed upon approval of this agreement by the Board. Repayment of the allocation will be over an eight-year period beginning in FY 03-04. > ACFRAB has approved this request. Staff recommends authorizing the County Executive to execute the Service Agreement. By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to sign the following Service Agreement with the North Garden Volunteer Fire Department: SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this ____ day of ______, 2002, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision, (the "County"), and the NORTH GARDEN VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., a Virginia Corporation, (the "Fire Company"). WHEREAS, the Fire Company agrees to continue to provide valuable fire June 19, 2002 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) protection services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Communications Center ("Service Area"); and WHEREAS, the Fire Company desires the County to contribute One Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Dollars ($145,000.00) for the purchase of a mini-pumper for providing fire services. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises, the County and Fire Company agree, as follows: 1. The County shall contribute to the Fire Company One Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Dollars, ($145,000.00) to be used for the purchase of a mini-pumper. The funds shall be allocated from the County's Fire Fund ("Fund") and shall be made available upon execution of this agreement. 2. The Fire Company agrees that the County will withhold Eighteen Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($18,125.00) from the County's annual appropriation to the Fire Company's operating budget beginning July 2003 through July 2010. Thus, at the end of eight (8) years, which is the term of this Agreement, a total of $145,000 shall be withheld. This withholding may be used by the County to replenish the Fund for so long as the County, at its discretion, continues such Fund. This withholding is in addition to the withholding for all prior advances under the prior service agreements with the Fire Company dated January 5, 1996, and February 12, 1999. The Fire Company agrees that any amount of this repayment that may exceed the County's annual appropriation will be remitted to the County no later than July 31 of each repayment year. 3. The Fire Company agrees that the One Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Dollars ($145,000.00) contribution shall be used only for the purchase of the mini-pumper to be used to provide fire services in Albemarle County. The Fire Company further agrees that it shall not convey the mini-pumper or any interest therein to any party other than the County without the County's prior written consent during the useful life of the mini-pumper or the term of this Service Agreement, whichever is longer. For purposes of this Agreement, the useful life of the mini-pumper shall be fifteen (15) years from the date the mini-pumper is placed into service. In addition, the Fire Company agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a claim related to any damage to the mini-pumper shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and improvement of the mini-pumper unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for such funds. 4. The Fire Company agrees that at such time as it no longer provides volunteer fire protection services in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County that it shall convey all of its interest in the vehicle described in paragraph 1 to the County at no additional cost to the County upon the County's request. 5. The County and Fire Company agree that the covenants set forth in their prior agreements dated January 5, 1996, and February 12, 1999, to the extent they are not in conflict with this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect. 6. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by the County to the Fire Company, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Fire Company. __________ Item 6.6. Set Public Hearing for July 3, 2002, on an ordinance to change the location of the polling place for the Burnley Precinct in the Rivanna District from the Bethel Baptist Church to the Northridge Community Church of the Nazarene. It was noted in the staffs report that Virginia Code 24.2-307 requires that the Board establish =' polling places by ordinance. Albemarle County Code 2-103(C)(1) establishes the Bethel Baptist Church ' as the polling place for the Burnley Precinct in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The Albemarle County Electoral Board recently recommended that the polling place be changed to the Northridge Community Church of the Nazarene. This change is necessary because the Bethel Baptist Church is not in compliance with the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act. The polling place in the church is in a room accessible only by an interior stairway, and the church does not desire to have the alterations made that are needed to comply with the Act. The Northridge Community Church of the Nazarene, currently under construction, is located at 5100 Dickerson Road which is outside of the Burnley Precinct. However, it may be used as a polling place because it is within 1500 yards of the precinct boundary (Virginia Code ' 24.2-310). Northridge will comply with the Act. Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance be set for public hearing on July 3, 2002. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board ordered a public hearing set for July 3, 2002, on An Ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, Elections, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 2-103, Rivanna Magisterial District. ___________ June 19, 2002 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Item 6.7. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for April 30 and June 4, 2002, was received as information. __________ Item 6.8. Copy of minutes for the Joint Planning Commission and DISC II Committee meeting of May 20, 2002, was received for information. __________ Item 6.9. Albemarle County Planning Commission 2001 Annual Report, was received for information. __________ Item 6.10. Letters dated May 31, 2002, from Norma C. Job, Regional VWP Engineer, Department of Environmental Quality, to Sally Thomas, Chairman, re: a. Joint Permit Application (JPA) Number 02-252, Albemarle Place Town Center Development, Albemarle County, Virginia, Locality Notification of Public Notice. b. Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0027065, Cooper Industries WWTP, were received for information. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing to consider whether to adopt a resolution requesting the Commonwealth Transportation Board to prohibit or restrict use of that portion of Proffit Rd (Rt 649) b/t Rt 20 and Rt 29 by through traffic consisting of trucks or trucks and trailers or semitrailer combinations, but excepting pickup trucks or panel trucks; and identifying reasonable alternative routes including, but not limited to, Rt 20 to Rt 250 to Rt 29, and Rt 20 to Rt 33 to Rt 29. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 2002.) Mr. Cilimberg said at its meeting on May 1, 2002, the Board decided to hold a public hearing on restricting through trucks on Proffit Road between Route 29 North and Route 20 North. The request for the through-truck restriction came from the residents of Jefferson Village Homeowners Association, Landford = Hills Homeowners Association, Meadowfields Homeowners Association, Pritchett Lane Homeowners === Association and residents of Chesterfield, Forest Ridge and Terrybrook subdivisions. The residents requested the restriction because they believe the road is not designed to handle the current traffic and is very unsafe. The residents stated in their submission information that Proffit Road has blind curves, poor banking, narrow traffic lanes and shallow building setbacks. In setting the public hearing, the Board also requested staff to offer a northern alternate route to Proffit Road. Mr. Cilimberg said staff previously proposed a southern alternative route of Route 20 to Route 250 to Route 29. Staff proposes Route 20 to Route 33 to Route 29 as a northern alternative route to Proffit Road. Staff contacted the Planning Departments of Greene and Orange counties to inform them of these alternatives and received feedback. Greene County is aware of additional traffic on Route 33 due to the Wal-Mart distribution center in the Zion Crossroads area. Their Planning Director did not think the minor number of additional trucks would present a problem. He said he would prepare a memo to the Greene County Board of Supervisors informing them of Albemarle County's intentions. Staff has not received comments from Orange County at this time, but Orange County held a public meeting on June 11, 2002, to restrict through-trucks on a segment of Route 231 in Orange County. Major trucking companies were notified of this public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg said one possible impact of this restriction would be to send some of the through trucks currently using Proffit Road further north on Route 20 to Watts Passage (Route 600), which intersects Route 29 at Burnley Station Road (Route 641) just south of the County line. Watts Passage is a narrow road with a one-way railroad underpass. It is likely only trucks coming from or going to points north of the County might use this route. Mr. Cilimberg said staff previously found that the request to restrict through trucks on Proffit Road meets three of the States five criteria for such restrictions. VDOT estimates 63 trucks use Proffit Road per = day. It is unknown at this time how many of these trucks would be impacted by the proposed restriction. It is likely that many of these trucks would originate or be destined for Better Living Components on Proffit Road and would not be restricted. Mr. Cilimberg said after holding the public hearing the Board should decide to either support or deny the request to restrict through trucks. If the request is supported, it will be forwarded to the Resident Engineer, then to the State Engineer for action. If the Board decides not to support the request, staff will work with the residents and VDOT to otherwise minimize the impact of truck traffic. Staff could also mail letters to major trucking companies requesting them to limit use of Proffit Road. Staff feels there are viable alternative routes to serve through-truck traffic and the current alignment and condition of Proffit Road is not conducive to such traffic. Based on these facts, staff recommends that the Board support the request to restrict through-trucks on Proffit Road between Route 20 North and Route 29 North. Mr. Dorrier asked the definition of truck. Mr. Juan Wade, Transportation Planner, Planning A@ Department, said the restriction is based on weight of the vehicle. Mr. Dorrier asked the weight restriction. Mr. Wade said that on bridges there is a weight limit of 14 tons. He is not sure what VDOT uses, so will have to ask for that figure. June 19, 2002 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Rooker asked if the number of axles makes a difference. Mr. Wade said it does at this point because staff did not do a detailed analysis. If this request goes to the next step, VDOT will do that analysis. The analysis of staff is based on ADTs and that count is taken through the tubes placed across = the roadway. Mr. Rooker asked how one would know that it is a truck which passes over the tube. Mr. Wade said the 63 number is the highest number measured on the road. There are lower numbers on different sections. He said that one or two percent of the total vehicles is estimated by VDOT to be truck traffic. He believes they can tell the difference between regular vehicles and trucks because of the stress put on the tube. Mr. Rooker asked if the Board adopts a resolution and it goes to VDOT, and they do additional work, does someone send a communication to truckers suggesting an alternate route? Mr. Wade said signs are posted, but he does not know if VDOT notifies trucking companies of a change. Mr. Cilimberg said the regulations require that reasonable alternate routes exist. That is why the southern route was identified. It is the least lengthy. With no further questions for staff, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. Mr. Dave Cunningham said he lives in Terrybrook Subdivision, and is a member of the Coalition for a Safer Proffit Road. They have concerns related to the safety of the road, particularly because of the new Baker-Butler Elementary School. They ask the Board to restrict through-trucks with more than two axles between Route 20 and Route 29. They are not talking about trucks which originate in the area, or delivery trucks, or trucks that come off of Polo Grounds Road. They are only concerned with trucks which would be using this route as a cut-through. He said that Route 649 is historically part of the Old Buck Mountain Road and was established before the Revolutionary War. The present path follows the high ground between the North Fork and the South Fork of the Rivanna River, and is the only solidly paved road which connects those two except for Route 641 which goes across near the Greene County line. He said the highway is interesting in that it has an agricultural component at the eastern end, and at the western end becomes more residential and suburban. There are six subdivisions in the area and a shopping center at Forest Lakes, four churches, one bank, a hospital facility, 84 Lumber, a dance studio, child care center, and now there will be the Baker-Butler School. The road is 5.4 miles long and contains a total of 41 curves, has a speed limit of 45 miles per hour, with 12 areas where the speed limit is reduced, some as low as 20 miles per hour. Many houses are very close to the road because they were built before the 50 foot setback was instituted. The road is curvy, and lastly, there is the Proffit Road wooden, single-lane bridge over the railroad. It helps to keep the heavy traffic off of it. As he mentioned earlier, a three-axle truck could be seen as being in violation, where weight limits would not help. Ms. Mieka Brand said she is a graduate student at the University of Virginia. She supports the restriction. She has been during historical and anthropological research in Proffit for the last two years. She finds it to be a warm and welcoming community where ways of life she thought were lost are every day experiences for people in the area. She handed to the Board a web address she designed about the history of Proffit. She has spent a lot of time on Proffit Road and finds a huge contrast between a mostly rural lifestyle and this road where not only the mass of traffic, but the speed at which all vehicles, particularly trucks, travel, is scary. She would like to suggest that sidewalks be built and the travel speed in the area be reduced. At least for now, a step in the right direction would be to restrict through truck traffic. Ms. Marcha Payne Howard said she is a resident of Proffit. She has lived there her entire life. It is a special neighborhood for her. When she grew up, downtown Proffit had a country store, and was the A@ place to get ones mail. It was also where the community had the Proffit Depot and one could catch the = train north or south. In Proffit there is the Evergreen Baptist Church, which was and is a source of religious and spiritual strength. She said that Proffit has now been placed on the Register of Historic Sites and they are proud of that designation. She said it used to be the norm to walk from one part of the community to the other and not have to worry about walking on the roads. She said Proffit has a lot of history behind it. It was founded by a former slave who was her great-great-grandfather. Many of the people who have moved in the community find Proffit to be a warm and caring community and would like to see it remain that way, knowing that the times and technology have changed. One thing she can say is that just getting out of ones driveway has become extremely dangerous. Traffic has increased and vehicles are too large and too = heavy, and you often find them sharing your lane. There is the one-lane bridge, and vehicles which are too large and too heavy cross that bridge. There are no shoulders on the road. The large vehicles need to be removed from traveling on Proffit, just for safety measures. Ms. Marion Martin said she has lived on Proffit Road for about 50 years. She said the road is narrow, hilly and curving. It is very unnerving to have to pass one of the big trucks and it is even more frightening to have one of them behind you when you are on a down grade. She would like to see something done about the big trucks coming through because of the amount of traffic on the road. Mr. Alan Collier said he has been a resident of Jefferson Village off of Proffit Road for 29 years. He represents the Coalition for a Safe Proffit Road. They ask that trucks with more than two axles be banned from making through trips on Proffit Road. He said Proffit Road now serves two functions which are compatible. It began as a country road which went through residential neighborhoods, and it has now become a connector road between Route 29 and Route 20. He said the residents of Proffit Road have always been concerned about its safety. Safety becomes more critical with the opening of the new Baker- Butler Elementary School. Planned improvements will make the road safer, but these changes are not scheduled until 2007. A safer road is needed now. He said the one-lane bridge at Proffit has a weight limit of 14 tons, and this ban on the proposed number of axles would help enforce the weight limit. He said the distance from the intersection of Route 29/Proffit Road to the intersection of Routes 20/250 is longer than June 19, 2002 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) using highways 29 and 250. This ban would not cause the truckers to drive any additional distance. Proffit Road has only recently been made wide enough to permit the use of centerline paint on the road. The larger trucks use the full width of their lane and cars must pass with caution. There will be more problems when school buses from Baker-Butler School meet these trucks. They want Proffit Road to continue as a connector road for the residents and not become a divider of the neighborhood. Mr. Jimmy Dean said he lives at 2797 Proffit Road and has lived there for 18 years. He also is a member of the Coalition for a Safe Proffit Road, and urges the Board to support the ban on through trucks on Proffit Road between Route 29 and Route 20. He said that over 300 people in the neighborhoods signed their petition. Safety should be the primary consideration for any road which handles residential, commuter, commercial and school bus traffic. It is their contention that by removing one element from the mix, the road will be safer for others. He said County staff looked at their proposal and agreed with three of their five criteria, namely, alternative, function and design. If the 600 pupils at the school were counted, then the density requirement could be met, making it four out of five. They think the staff did a fair review of their request and reached the logical conclusion. Mr. Dean said truck traffic accounted for one percent of the average daily traffic in the last traffic count. Their proposal would create a minimum of disruption from the existing traffic pattern. They recognize the need for spot improvements on Proffit Road and look forward to working with the County on these improvements. They also recognize that the ban would in no way affect businesses on Proffit Road. They look to the future and see a road which serves as a main street to the community and as a uniter of people; not as a sword which divides the neighborhood in half. On behalf of more than 300 residents of the Proffit area and in the name of 600 little children, they ask that the Board approve this ban. Mr. Dean said they wish to recognize Mr. Martin and Juandiego Wade for their help in this matter. He then asked those in the audience who had come in support of this request to stand; about 40 people stood. Mr. Steve Ashby said he lives in Proffit and he is a mail carrier in the area. From personal experience he can say that trucks over two axles are very dangerous. He drives a small mail vehicle and he has been run off the road, and had many close calls on the end near Route 20. Mr. Jeff McCormick said if there are 63 trucks using this road, that is about one truck every eight minutes in an eight-hour period. Sometimes he and his wife cannot hear each other talk in the yard due to the noise. He said that cars typically come around the curve in front of his house at 60 mph. There have been a number which ended upside down, or ended in the field. He said if just the problem with the trucks could be addressed, that would be very helpful. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Ms. Thomas asked if staff had notified the people who are thought to be using through trucks on this road. Mr. Cilimberg said staff notified those which had been identified. Mr. Martin thanked the residents for attending this meeting. He said that the last time the Board spoke to the VDOT Resident Engineer about this matter, he was very encouraging. With all of that in mind, he will recommend that the Board forward to the Resident Engineer this proposal for action. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. (Note: After the meeting, the County Attorney advised the Clerk that this matter will need to be placed on a future agenda for adoption of the official wording of a resolution concerning this request. That date will be August 7, 2002.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2001-033. Bethel Baptist (Signs #34 & 35). Public hearing on a request to construct a 6,944 sq ft expansion for church sanctuary, classroom & fellowship hall, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. TM 21, P 25 contains approx 3.004 acs. Znd RA. Loc just E of Rt 29 N at intersec of Burnley Station Rd (St Rt 641) & Watts Passage (St Rt 600). Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 2002.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of == the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this request is for approval of construction of an additional building containing a sanctuary, classrooms and basement. The applicant also requests use of two storage sheds which were constructed without approval as temporary classrooms. Upon completion of the proposed sanctuary, the temporary classrooms would be used as storage for church-related items. Mr. Cilimberg said when this request was first presented to the Planning Commission, it asked for more detail in regard to showing the proposed lighting in the parking area and to provide the topography on the site plan. In addition, the applicant was requested to provide building elevations for review by the Commission. Finally, the Engineering Department was to provide comments on the BMP/stormwater basin. In response, the applicant presented the requested information and additional conditions (the staff had originally recommended approval subject to nine conditions) were added to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. June 19, 2002 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Cilimberg said a church has existed in this location since 1935. In 1998, two adjacent property owners to the east expressed concern about future church expansion, their concern relating to lighting which would be emitted from the parking lot and how that might affect property values. Staff believes that appropriate compliance with the Countys Lighting Ordinance will minimize lighting to surrounding = residences. Mr. Cilimberg said that as to transportation safety, the church will close the entrance to Burnley Station Road (Route 641) which is inadequate. The existing entrance, which is approximately 15 feet wide on Watts Passage Road (Route 600), would be closed and relocated approximately 90 feet to the south. The proposed new entrance would be 30 feet wide. Mr. Cilimberg said staff thinks it would be appropriate to condition the side and rear setbacks and screening to comply with commercial setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This would increase the side and rear setbacks to 50 feet and would provide for a 20-foot parking setback. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval with 12 conditions, but at its meeting on April 30, 2002, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to 13 conditions. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to speak. Mr. William Verbeli, architect representing the applicant, asked for approval of the application. He said Pastor Lamb is also present and will answer questions. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve SP-2001-033, subject to the 13 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. The church's improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be developed in general accord with the site plan entitled "Addition To Bethel Baptist Church", prepared by Scott A. Smith, and dated April 2, 2002; 2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum two hundred sixteen (216) seat sanctuary; 3. Health Department approval of existing well and septic systems as well as any improvements to the existing systems; 4. Commercial setback standards for side and rear setbacks, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential uses or residentially-zoned properties (including RA zoned property). The front setback shall conform to the Rural Areas standard as set forth in Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; 5. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit; 6. VDOT approval of entrances and closures including providing entrance radii and profile on the site plan, closure of the entrance to Burnley Station Road (Route 641), the existing entrance (approximately fifteen [15] feet wide) to Watts Passage (Route 600) being closed and relocated approximately ninety (90) feet to the south. The proposed new entrance shall meet commercial standards; 7. A site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission before the two (2) storage buildings (designated storage building #1 and storage building #2 on the site plan dated March 10, 2002) are used as temporary classrooms. A certificate of occupancy shall be required prior to their use as temporary classrooms; 8. Within thirty (30) days upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed church addition, the storage buildings shall no longer be permitted to be used as temporary classrooms; 9. The residential dwelling on the property shall be used only as a parsonage residence; 10. Prior to final site plan approval, off-site topography shall be shown on the site plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department; 11. All existing gravel areas not included in the existing and proposed parking areas and travelways shall be replaced with vegetative cover; 12. All parking areas shall drain to the proposed BMP/stormwater basin; and, 13. The final site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. _______________ (Note: The following two petitions were heard concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 9. Public hearing on a request to allow farm sales in accord w/Sec 10.2.2(45) & June 19, 2002 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Sec 5.1.35 of the Zoning Ord. TM 49, P 5C contains 21.187 acs. Loc on NE sd of Turkeysag Rd (Rt 640) approx 1 ml SE of Stony Point Rd (Rt 20). Znd RA. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 2002.) __________ Agenda Item No. 10. Public hearing on a request to allow landscape business in accord w/Secs 10.2.2(31) & 5.2 of the Zoning Ord. TM 49, P 5C contains 21.187 acs. Loc on NE sd of Turkeysag Rd (Rt 640) approx 1 ml SE of Stony Point Rd (Rt 20). Znd RA. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 2002.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of == the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said one special use permit will allow for farm sales, and the other permit for a Home Occupation-Class B for the landscaping business. There is a proposal to utilize a 960 square foot greenhouse to grow annuals and perennials, and to use a small portion of the front section of the greenhouse as an outlet for farm sales related to the applicants business. = He said the business is part-time and would have limited days and hours of operation. These would be Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Sunday from noon to 5:00 p.m., May through September. There are no employees proposed other than the applicants wife and four children. = Mr. Cilimberg said the location is approximately 250 feet from the nearest residence. The greenhouse is slightly higher in elevation than Route 640 but would be reasonably buffered from the nearest residence by a stand of trees which extend from Route 640 up to the location of the greenhouse. The area is surrounded by agricultural uses, wooded areas and residential uses. This is intended for the outlet for farm sales which are related to the landscape business. The total retail area of the facility would not exceed 1500 square feet. Fifty percent of the retail sales area in the greenhouse must be agricultural or horticultural produce, produced on the applicants property. Displays outside of the farm sales facility would = be limited to agricultural and horticultural produce only. Mr. Cilimberg said staff noted that the level of intensity of the proposed business and farm sales would be consistent with the character of the Rural Areas District. Staff supported the request originally with two conditions, but the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 21, 2002, unanimously recommended approval of both SP-2002-07 and SP-2002-08, subject to only one condition. Mr. Rooker mentioned the hours of operation and said they are not a part of the conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission did discuss the hours of operation, but decided that in this case it was not necessary to have a condition based on the nature of the business. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened both public hearings and asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Richard Bryant said he and his wife are both health-care professionals at the University of Virginia. They have four children. He has owned a landscape business for ten years, and for the past five years has gotten all of his nursery stock locally or from out-of-state nurseries. He basically wanted to build the greenhouse for his own use to cut down his travel time to pick up annuals and perennials which he then plants each year for the Garden Show. He said the majority of his plants will go to his customers. But, he wants to have people come in and purchase the plants that are left over from his customers. If he should sell all of the plants to his customers, the facility would not be opened. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Martin offered motion to approve SP-2002-07 subject to the one condition recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. (Note: The condition of approval reads: 1. All fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides shall be stored under roof and off the ground.) __________ Mr. Martin then offered motion to approve SP-2002-08 subject to the one condition recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. (Note: The condition of approval reads: 1. All fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides shall be stored under roof and off the ground.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. SP-2002-009. Maple Grove Christian Church (Sign #33). Public hearing on June 19, 2002 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) a request to expand current facility to accommodate up to 700 people at one time for various weekly church & community functions. The sanctuary will be expanded to seat approx 425 people w/primary services on Wednesday & Saturday evenings, & Sunday. Two new buildings will contain addnl. classrooms, offices & multi-functional recreational space. Existing bldg on property to be used for youth activities. These activities are in accord w/Sec 18-13.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32, Ps 29G & 29D contains 6.99 acs. Loc on Proffit Rd (Rt 649) approx .3 mls from Rt 29. Znd R1. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 2002.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of == the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the request is to construct two accessory buildings at the current church facility located on Proffit Road to accommodate up to 700 people at one time for various weekly church and community functions. The two new buildings will contain additional classrooms, offices and a multi-functional recreational space. Staff analyzed the proposal under both the principles of the Neighborhood Model and the provisions for special use permits. The expansion from the existing use could add an estimated 112 vehicle trips for Sunday to Proffit Road. This is a section of road that is on the Six-Year Secondary Road priority list and is now scheduled for advertisement for construction in June, 2008. He said improvements call for the road along the frontage of this site to have three lanes with sidewalks and bike lanes. The applicant has shown the dedication of the necessary right-of-way for this project in order to accommodate these improvements. A condition has also been included to cover that dedication. Mr. Cilimberg said the church has existed for over ten years in this location, it serves as a community meeting place, and it provides for a mix of uses in the area. Staff did note that it adds traffic on a section of Proffit Road which is in a condition that is less than desirable for increased traffic. He said staff recommended approval subject to seven conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 4, 2002, unanimously recommended approval subject to the staffs conditions. = At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Russ Barb, Administrative Pastor, one of four pastors at the Maple Grove Christian Church, was present. Also present was Mr. Brett Nelson, Engineer. He offered to answer questions. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Martin said this church has existed for ten years at the current location, but actually existed for many, many years within a quarter of a mile of that location. He said it has played an historic significance on the upper edge of Proffit Road. He then offered motion to approve SP-2002-009, subject to the seven conditions recommended by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. No new structures or additions shall be constructed closer than fifty (50) feet to any side or rear property line; 2. The church's improvements and scale and locations of the improvements shall be developed in general accord with the Preliminary Site Plan (Attachment A) entitled, "Maple Grove Christian Church Preliminary Site Plan" dated May 7, 2002 (revisions); 3. The main area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum four hundred twenty-five (425) seat sanctuary; 4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit; 5. Dedication of an eighteen (18) feet of right-of-way along the frontage of this property on Route 649 to accommodate the improvements shown in the VDOT Six-Year Secondary Plan; 6. The four buildings identified in "Maple Grove Christian Church Preliminary Site Plan" dated May 7, 2002 (revisions) shall be connected to public water and sewer; and, 7. Within the twenty (20) foot undisturbed commercial buffer only enhancement to the buffer will be allowed. _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. Resolution supporting request to place an Obelisk on Carter's Bridge. Mr. Tucker said staff does not have a formal resolution as of this date, but VDOT has indicated that they need a formal request before they can more forward with this request. Mr. Dorrier said he prepared a resolution, but did not get it to staff in time to be photocopied for this meeting. It basically asks VDOT to place an obelisk on Carters Bridge to recognize its historical = significance and the fact that the bridge is being redesigned. June 19, 2002 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Tucker said staff would like to have a motion so it can go ahead and start the process. Mr. Dorrier offered motion to adopt a resolution along the lines he has mentioned, and that the Chairman sign it and that it be forwarded to VDOT. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 13. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Thomas asked that Mr. Tucker present the resolution concerning improvements to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Mr. Tucker said this resolution will support the renovations along the lines of what City Council adopted last Monday evening. However, it reiterates that this process move forward within the time limits which have already been established by both the City and the County for the architectural preparation. Also, the project is to stay within the time limits with regard to review by the Citys Board of Architectural = Review. The resolution indicates that this is all contingent upon City Councils concurrence with these = additions to their resolution. Mr. Martin said he thought the additions were needed. It is important that the project be on a time line, and that the project be completed on time. If he had written the resolution, it would have been worded stronger. He thanked the other Board members for their support throughout this process. He said he negotiated for the Board and the Board trusted him. He brought back updates continuously and when it came time to take a vote, the Board vote was 6:0 with little discussion. He appreciates that. He feels like the rug had been pulled from under him when City Council did not back what had been negotiated over A@ the past few years. Their recommendation for more community input is fine, however, there has been a significant amount of community input already. There has been a lot of negotiation between the Board and City Council which also involved the historical portion of Court Square. He hopes this project can be done without the whole thing unraveling. Mr. Rooker said he went to a couple of the public participation sessions. At one of them, the participants broke into individual groups and gave input that was then disseminated to the group as a whole. This is the second time there has been a public participation process to get input on what should happen to Court Square. He thinks Mr. Martin and the Committee did a great job in coming up with the original recommendation. He thinks the legal community agrees almost 100 percent with what the Committee recommended. The time to ask questions is during the process, and not after it is over. Ms. Bowerman said Paragraph E of the resolution is inconsistent with Paragraph D. He said D A@ limits the process to be completed within the defined project schedule. E says unreasonably delaying A@A within the project schedule. He suggested striking the word unreasonably. He said that is hard to define @A@ and there is already a printed schedule to follow. Mr. Davis said he does not know what the word delay would mean in that circumstance. Mr. A@ Tucker said it is a 130-week limit. Mr. Davis said he did not know if there is a schedule which actually details when a Bar review approval would be required. Mr. Martin said it does not matter whether it is unreasonable delay or just delay, so just eliminate the word unreasonable. A@ Mr. Rooker suggested rewording E to say "... of the project so that completion within the project A@ schedule is assured". At this point, Mr. Martin offered motion to approve the resolution presented tonight, with the change in Paragraph E, and the change in Paragraph D, mentioned above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONCEPT AND PROCESS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT To insure that the Charlottesville/Albemarle Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court redevelopment project proceeds in a timely manner, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby resolves as follows: A. The firms of Moseley Architects and Wallace, Roberts and Todd (WRT) will be responsible for the following phases of the project: 1. WRT: design development and schematic design 2. Moseley: construction documents and construction administration. B. Total architectural fees will remain at $650,000; project estimates, including soft June 19, 2002 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) costs, will remain at ~$9.638 million. C. Project schedule will remain at 130 weeks. D. The City Manager and the County Executive, with the advice of City Council and the Board of Supervisors, will appoint an advisory committee (much like the original negotiating committee) to work with the architectural teams on the final design. Whereas the Board of Supervisors believes that significant community involvement has been provided by input from the prior committee and the completed public participation process, the Board will support this new advisory committee provided that its participation will be completed within and without delaying the defined project schedule. E. Final design will be submitted to the Board of Architectural Review as legally required with the understanding that City Council will not delay a final approval of the project so that its completion within the project schedule is assured. F. The footprint for the J&DR Court renovation/expansion shall remain substantially as proposed; the programmatic elements will remain as proposed. The project will include a two-tier parking deck and the location of the building/ structures in relation to the old jail will remain as proposed. The intent of the design is to preserve and enhance the original historic façade. G. The final design will insure that the first phase of the project does not hinder or compromise the future development of a jail preservation project, nor prevent the creation of a pedestrian area/plaza adjacent to the old jail and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. H. The project shall meet the parking requirements outlined by the negotiating committee. I. Proceeding pursuant to this Resolution is contingent upon City Council's concurrence with the provisions herein. __________ Ms. Thomas asked for a motion to approve a tolling agreement re: Michael and Gertrude Webber. Mr. Bowerman offered motion that the Board authorize the County Executive or appropriate legal counsel to execute an agreement tolling the statutes of limitations applicable to the claims currently being pursued by Michael and Gertrude Weber for a period of up to one year, conditioned upon the Webers = agreement not to file or pursue litigation against the County during that period unless and until the Rivanna Solid Waste Authoritys assessment for corrective measures has been approved by the Virginia Department = of Environmental Quality. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: None. __________ Mr. Tucker reminded the Board members that the 5-Cs Committee is meeting next Wednesday, June 26, 2002, at 4:30 p.m. at Alumni Hall to review transportation issues in the community in which all three entities will participate. Mr. Cilimberg will speak and highlight major issues and projects within the County. Mr. Davis reminded the Board that if more than two members attend the 5Cs meeting, they would = be in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. The Board can only listen, it cannot participate. __________ Mr. Tucker reminded the Board members that beginning on July 10, 2002, the night Board meetings will begin at 6:00 p.m. __________ Mr. Martin said he was not able to attend the June 5 meeting due to two deaths in his wifes family. = He will also miss July 3 due to vacation. Ms. Thomas said she has been invited to the White House for an event concerning the Lewis & Clarke celebration, so she may not be present on July 3. __________ Mr. Dorrier suggested adopting a resolution to recognize and honor Mr. Fred Kruger for his service to the County with the resolution being presented to his wife on June 23, 2002, at a memorial service scheduled on Kloeckner Stadium. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Martin, to adopt the following resolution of appreciation. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker. June 19, 2002 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) NAYS: None. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, on April 1, 1981, the Department of Information Technology was created in Albemarle County and Alfred Fred L. Kruger, Jr., was hired as its A@ first Director; and WHEREAS, Fred diligently served Albemarle County and was a loyal and faithful employee during his twenty-one years of service; and WHEREAS, during his service with Albemarle County, Fred formed the Virginia Local Government Information Technology Executives (VaLGITE), an organized statewide group of information technology directors; and WHEREAS, Fred was instrumental in providing Internet connectivity among all County schools; and WHEREAS, Fred's untimely death has left a void in the Albemarle County staff; and WHEREAS, on May 31, 2002, employees of the County of Albemarle held a memorial in which they had an opportunity to share thoughts and remembrances of Fred; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that on this day of June 23, 2002, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the employees, staff and other servants of this County recognize Fred's outstanding contributions to the systems of the County; and FURTHER RESOLVED that we recognize and honor Alfred Fred L. A@ Kruger, Jr., for his dedicated service to the County and his lasting loyalty to Albemarle County and the University of Virginia Athletic teams. __________ Mr. Rooker asked about the proposed changes to the Countys parking regulations. Mr. Cilimberg = said the Planning Commission has held a work session and also held a general public input session. The Commission has scheduled a public hearing for late July and asked that staff get out special notice to professionals and persons of interest who might be able to contribute suggestions regarding the provisions as proposed. Mr. Rooker asked if the proposals consider a range of parking as opposed to just establishing a minimum. Mr. Cilimberg said the proposal has a minimum number as well as a cap on how much that number can be exceeded. Mr. Rooker asked if a mechanism is being provided which will allow a reduced parking requirement. Mr. Cilimberg said the proposal is to reflect what the parking experience has been for a variety of uses, and to create a cap. There is a provision built in so the numbers can be lowered if necessary. _______________ Agenda Item No. 14. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 08/07/2002 Initials: LAB