Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-19 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of January 19, 2000 January 21,2000 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 1. Call to order. 4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. (There were none.) 5.1 Appropriation: High Growth Coalition Lobbyist Funding, $1,000 (Form #99051). APPROVED. 5.2 Resolution in support of Scottsville Historic Streetscape Project. ADOPTED. 5.3 Authorize County Executive to execute Trinity Presbyterian Church Road Maintenance Agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. AUTHORIZED as recommended. 5.4 Cancel public hearing on Batesville Truck Restriction. CANCELED public hearing as requested. 5.5 Authorize County Executive to sign service agreement with Seminole Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. AUTHORIZED as recommended. ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members present. Clerk: Laurie Bentley. Clerk: Include in letter and forward appropriations form to M. Breeden, copying appropriate persons. Clerk: Send to Wyatt Shields (see attachment A). County Attorney: Obtain signatures and forward copy to Clerk for files. None. Clerk: File signed copy. 5.6 Copies of Planning Commission minutes for December 14 and None. December 21, 1999. RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION. 5.7 Notice of an application of Virginia Electric and Power Company None. (Case No. PUE990717) to revise its fuel factor pursuantto Sec 56-249.6 of the Code of Virginia, as filed with the State Corporation Commission. RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION. 6. SP-99-64. Crozet Baptist Church (Signs #41&42). APPROVED Clerk: List conditions (see attachment B). w/3 conditions. 7. SP-99-65. Pegasus Motor Car (Sign #38&39). APPROVED w/6 conditions. 8. (TEA-21) for the following project: construction of sidewalk on Stony Point Rd (Rt 20). ADOPTED resolution. lO. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD: Mr. Dorrier said Scottsville is applying for a grant with the Service Authority to get water and sewer to the Stony Point subdivision. He asked that the Scottsville Town Council be asked to present their recommendation to the Board since this is in the growth area. It was the consensus of the Board to put a resolution on the upcoming consent agenda instead. Ms. Thomas said the ACE Committee wants to be involved in the public hearing on the Feb. 2 board meeting. Ms. Thomas said there is an ongoing attempt to pass legislation so that VDOT purchases more land to extend Mcintire Park into the county because of the the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Bowerman said he went to Monticello for the kickoff of a bicentennial celebration of the Lewis and Clark expedition. He said Mr. Marshall had been involved in a committee trying to Clerk: List conditions (see attachment B). Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Juan Wade see attachment C). Clerk: Add to February 2 consent agenda. None. None. None. create a museum to showcase the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Lewis & Clark. There will be a major national event in three years. He suggested that Mr. Dorrier serve on the committee since he serves the Scottsville District. Ms. Thomas volunteered to be his backup. Mr. Martin said he and Virginia Daugherty have been meeting regularly and want to have a joint meeting with City Council to focus on the MPO's presentation on transportation planning. It was the consensus of the Board to do so. Mr. Tucker said both Planning Commissions should be part of the joint meeting because it is a major planning issue. Mr. Martin said he would meet with Ms, Hum phris and MPO staff to develop an agenda. At a later time he said the Board may form a committee to see how the two Planning Commissions can work together better. Attachment B Crozet Baptist Church SP-99-64. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without a separate special use permit; Any enlargement or expansion of the chumh use or structures will require an amendment to this special permit (SP-99-64); and The use of the residences/parsonages for Sunday School/educational classes shall be permitted only on the first floor of each residence/parsonage located on Tam Map 56A1, Section 1, Parcels 82 and 100. SP-99-65. Pegasus Motor Car; Tax Map 78, Parcel 5G o Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site; Vehicles for display shall be limited to five (5) cars; The new vehicle display area shall be limited to an area that is defined by vegetation, to be clearly delineated on the site plan and to be easily identifiable on site; Ca~rs~Shall' be' parke~l' ih~an ordedy, easily identifiable geometric pattem in the display area; The displaY area shall be landscaped with the following: Three 3 ~" caliper trees in the southeast portion of the property; · 24" shrubs, 5' on center, along the 104-foot-long grass area at the eastem end of the south side of the site. (It is recommended that these shrubs be set back a minimum of 12' from the Route 250 property line to avoid replanting following . VDOT improvements.) · Shade and ornamental trees interspersed throughout the grass area at the southeast comer of the site, sufficient in number and size to soften the appearance of the development at this comer, as indicated on the color rendering submitted to staff; and Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB for the site plan amendment. INTER OFFICE MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance ~ . Laurel A. Bentley, Senior Deputy Clerk Appropriations Approved on November 19, 2000 January 26, 2000 Attached is the original appropriation form for the following item which was approved by the BOard at its meeting on JanUary 19, 2000: 1) Appropriation: High Growth Coalition Lobbyist Funding, $1,000 (Form #99051). Attachment CC: Anne Gulati Robert Walters Kevin Castner Jackson Zimmerman Al Reaser APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: -- PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUND NG FOR GROWTH COALITION LOBBYIST. CODE 1 1000 11010 NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO GENERAL x X 99051 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 312210 CONTRACT SERVICES $1,000.00 CODE 2 1000 51000 TOTAL $1,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $1,000.00 TOTAL $1,000.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE JAN. 13, 2000 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation: Funding for Growth Coalition Lobbyist SUBJECT/PROPOSAI. JREQUEST: Request Approval of Appropriation #99051 STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Gulati AGENDA DATE: January 19,2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: At its January 5, 2000 meeting, the Board of Supervisors agreed by consensus to provide funding for a growth coalition lobbyist during the 2000 General Assembly. In addition, the Board agreed that the County would contribute at least $500, but not to exceed $1,000, for lobbying services. DISCUSSION: The attached resolution authorizes funding of up to $1,000 for the County's share of a growth coalition lobbyist during the 2000 General Assembly. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #99051 in the amount of $1,000, to come from the General Fund balance. BOARD OF SUPER¥ISORS 00.009 Attachment A SCOTTSVILLE HISTORIC STREETSCAPE PROJECT RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT WHEREAS, the Town of Scottsville has applied for funding from the Commonwealth Transportation Board to fund a streetscape enhancement program for the Historic District of downtown Scottsville; and WHEREAS, the Scottsville Historic Streetscape Project will enhance the beauty of downtown Scottsville for its residents and the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle County and other areas of Virginia and the world; and WHEREAS, the Scottsville Histodc Streetscape Project supports and reinforces goals of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan and will protect Albemarle County's histodc and cultural resources; and WHEREAS, the Scottsvill~ Histodc Streetscape Project will help promote the Town of Scottsville as a destination for sightseers and tourists and enhance the economic viability of the Town and southern Albemarle County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby endorses the Scottsville Historic Streetscape Project and recommends its fUnding by the Virginia Department of Transportation, Adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors this 19th day of January, 2000. lerk, ~lbemade County Boara ot ,~up.e'r~lisors David P. Bowcrman · Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsville Charlotte Y. Humphri$ Jack Jouel~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Samuel Mill~ January 27,2000 Mr. VVyatt Shields, Town Manager Town of Scottsville P.O. Box 395 Scottsville, VA 24590 Dear Mr. Shields: At its January 19, 2000 meeting, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors adopted the attached resolution in support of SCottsville Historic Streetscape Project. Enclosure Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley, C.M.C. Senior Deputy Clerk Printed on recycled paper COMMONWEALTH OF DFF!CiAL RECEIPT ALbEmARLE CIRCUIT COURT DEED RECEIPT DATE: O~/!O!O0 TIME: 14:~8:45 ACCOUNT: 003CLR002!3~ CASHIER: KXB RES: ABO! TYPE: ASREE INSTRUMENT : 002!3~ ~OOK: 6RANTEE NAfiE: COUNTY OF ALbEmARLE AN9 ADORE$S: N/A N/A RECEIVE~ OF : R!CHMON~ AND FISHBUR~ CHECK: $!?.00 DESCRIPTION I: ROAD MAINTENANCE ASREEMENT CDNS!~ERAT!DN: .00 ASSUME/VAL: CO~E DESCRIPTION 301 DEEDS !06 TECHNOLOSY FUN~ FEE RECEIPT: ~ECO~E~: v~lO/Ov AT ! EX: N PERCENT: .~v ~AP: PAi9 CODE DESCRIPTION PAID i~O0 !~5 VSLF !.O0 3.00 A~O~T PAI~: ig,O0 CHANSE ANT: CLERX O~ rmmT. SHELgY ~, ROAD MAINTENANCE AG"REEMENT THIS ROAD MAINTENA~NCE AGREEMENT made this !3th day of December, 1999, by THOMAS W. GILLIAM, JR., WILLIAM E. CARTER, and LUCINDA B. LALLY, Trustees of Trinity Presbyterian Church, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Grantor," and THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, Grantee, W I T N E S S E T H : WHEREAS, the Grantor is uhe owner of a parcel of land situated in Albemarle County, Virginia identified on Albemarle County Tax Map 76 as Parcel 17C and Parcel 17C1, containing 17.54 acres, more or less, as shown on a pla5 of R. O. Snow & Associates, dated November 19, 1981 which is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 730, page 465; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has been using a right-of-way for more than 20 years, which right-cf-way is 50 feet wide and is shown cn the aforesaid plat of R. O. Snow & Associates, dated November 19, 1981 as "Old U.S. Route 29"; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has submitted an application to the County of Albemarle for a special use permit to allow an additional building and parking and outdoor recreational area to be This document was prepared by Richmond and Fishburne, L.L.P. constructed on Grantor's property and the County of Albemarle has approved the application subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the approval by the County of Albemarle of the special use permit is subject to the Grantor providing evidence of a road maintenance agreement for the 50 foot wide right-of-way in question (also known as Fontaine Avenue Extended) prior to approval of the final site plan; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and agreements provided hereafter, the Grantor hereby. declares that the parcels described above and shown on Albemarle Counsy Tax Map 76 as Parcels 17C and 17C1 shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed; and occupied subject to the covenants, easements, and charges hereinafter set forth, which are hereby imposed to enhance and protect the value and desirability of said parcels. The provisions set forth herein shall run with the land and shall be binding upon any and all parties who have, or shall acquire, any right, title cr interest in all or any part of the said parcel's and shall inure to the benefit of each Owner thereof. ARTICLE I -- DEFINITIONS The following words, when used in this Agreement, shall have the following meanings: -2- 1.01 "Access Easement~ shall mean and refer to the access easement referred to in Section 2.01 hereof. 1.02 ~Owner" shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, including Grantor, of the fee simple title to the parcels cf land described herein and known on Albemarle County Tax Map 76 as Parcels 17c and 17C1. ARTICLE I! -- ACCESS EASEMENT 2.01 Access Easement. Grantor does hereby acknowledge the existence of the following Access Easement: A nonexclusive access easement fifty feet (50') in width along the eastern property line of Grantor for ingress and e~ress to and from State Route 702; the location of the Access Easement is shown as "Old U.S. Route 29" on a plat of R. O. Snow & Associates, dated November 19, 1981 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Bock 730, page 465. 2.02 Maintenance. The costs of repair, maintenance, upkeep, improvement or replacement (hereinafter "Maintenance") of the Access~Easement and the road located therein will not be borne by the County of Albemarle, the Commonwealth of Virginia, or any public agency, but rather shall be the responsibility of and shall be borne by the Grantor. -3- 2.03 Standards of Maintenance. The Grantor shall determine the standards to which the Access Easement and the road located therein shall be maintained; provided, however, that any portion of the road and related improvements shall be maintained in such condition that the road is passable at all'times for ordinary use by passenger automobiles, excepting only severe, temporary weather conditions such as snow or ice. 2.04 Uses of Road. The uses of the road within the Access Easement shall be consistent with the current use, which is primarily for passenger vehicles and service vehicles. During construction activities, when heavy equipment must use the road, the party conducting the construction activity shall be responsible for repairing any damage to the road. 2.05 Personal Liability and Enforcement. (a) Personal Liability for Maintenance. The Grantor shall be liable and responsible for one hundred percent (100%) Of the costs of maintenance as set forth in Sections 2.02 and 2.03 above, which are incurred during the Grantor's ownership of Parcels 17C and 17C1 on Albemarle County Tax Map 76, and the Grantor shall pay to the person or corporation performing such maintenance the costs of maintenance within thirty (30) days following completion of such maintenance. --4-- (b) Enforcement. The Grantee may request in writing that the Grantor maintain the road to the standards set forth in Section 2.03. After the Grantee has made such a written request, the Grantor shall promptly perform whatever maintenance work is necessary so that the road satisfies the Standards. The Grantee may bring an action at law against the Grantor if the Grantor fails to maintain the road to the standards set forth in Section 2.03. If the Grantor shall fail to pay the costs of maintenance as provided above, the Grantee cr the person or corporation performing such maintenance may bring an action at law against the Grantor. ARTICLE iii - GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be construed, interpreted and applied according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the County of Albemarle. WITNESS the following duly authorized signatures and seals. .TRINITi~PRESBYTERI~,AN~CH By Thomas W. GILLIAM,~r. Trustee By William E. Carte~/ Trustee By Lucinda B. Trustee [SEAL] -5- Approved as to form: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STATE OF VIRGINIA, at. large ~ ./i ~ z. . ~ ' . CI-?~/COL~TY OF ~/~'.~J~$~d~'t~/~__ , to wit: Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me this ~ ~. day of ~.~.~.~j~ ,~ ,~ 2~_~ ~ ~ by THOMAS W GILLIAM JR Trustee of Trinity '~resbyte:~'an Church. NOTARY PUBLIC ~'/ My commission expires: /'3 -~/-- ~O~_. STATE OF VIRGINIA, at large , to wit: Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me this ~ ~/~ day of~.~..?~J.~ , f2_o~o by WILLIAM E. CARTER, Trustee of. Trinity Presbyterian C~rch. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA,~,.~at large CI*~Y~COUNTY OF ~/~/~/'-~'~ , to wit: Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me this ~~ day of ~.:~~ , ~Q'~O by LUCIDA B. ~LY , T~stee of Trinity ' "' ~resbyter~an Church. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA, aD large. ¢-!-TJ~/COUNTY OF ~/~~C/~ , to wit: Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me this day of -~-~D~F~/ , ~'~,~; by ROBERT W. TUC~R, JR., County Executive of Albe~ar!e ~oun~y, Virginia. NOT~Y P~LIC My commission OXp~rOS: ~ ]~ -7- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Trinity Presbyterian Church Road Maintenance Agreement SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorize County Executive to execute road maintenance agreement with Trinity Presbyterian Church on behalf of the Board of Supervisors AGENDA DATE: January 19,2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes [: BACKGROUND: Trinity Presbyterian Church abuts Fontaine Avenue Extended, a public right-of-way whose maintenance by VDOT has been discontinued. SP 98-63 was granted by the Board this past year to authorize Trinity Presbyterian Church to expand its church facilities. Condition 4 of SP 98-63 requires that the church provide evidence of a road maintenance agreement prior to approval of the final site plan. DISCUSSION: The property owners on the portion of the road that would be covered by the road maintenance agreement are the church and the Commonwealth of Virginia (Department of Forestry land is on the other side of the road). Because the parties to road maintenance agreements are typically the property owners of the land abutting the road, it was anticipated that the church and the Commonwealth would be the parties to the agreement, with the church assuming the obligation to maintain the road, and the Commonwealth having the authority to assure that the terms of the agreement were satisfied. The Commonwealth declined to enter into the agreement, so it is proposed that the County be a party to the agreement to assure that the terms of the agreement are satisfied. The proposed road maintenance agreement adequately addresses the criteria for such agreements (Albemarle County Code § 14-313), and it is in a form that satisfies Condition 4. The agreement would require the church to maintain the road in a condition that assures it will remain passable except in the most extreme weather events. The costs of maintenance are the responsibility of the church, and under no circumstances will the County be responsible for maintenance costs. As a party to the agreement, the County may request the church to maintain the road to the agreed-to standard, and enforce the terms of the agreement in a legal action if the church fails to maintain the road according to those standards. RECOMMENDATION: The County Attorney's Office has approved the agreement as to form, and staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors after it has been executed by representatives of the church. 00.008 BOARD OF SUPE! VIS©RS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Members, Board of Supervisors /--"" Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive January 13, 2000 r/ RE: Track Restriction in Batesville Community (Route 692 between Route 250 West and Route 29) At its meeting on November 10, 1999, the Board authorized staffto proceed with the steps required to request VDoT/CTB restriction of through tracks on Route 692 between Route 250 West and Route 29. The attached letter received ~om the Batesville Ruritan Club is requesting withdrawal of their request to restrict track traffic in the Batesville community. Since they do not feel restricting track traffic is in the best interest of the community at this time, staff recommends the Board not proceed to public hearing on this matter. RWT,Jr./ewc Attachment SUPERVISORS ~ OB O0 01:52p Msp~ M~pol$on 80~-B~3-7330 p. 1 BA TESVILLE R URIT/IN CLUB P.O. BOX 164 BA TESVILLE, VA 22924 ]m~.6, 2000 Juan Wade Albemarle County Planning Dept. County Office Bldg, Charlottesville, VA 22924 Re: Batesville Truck Request Dear Juan, Due to local oppOsition and the improbability of proper enforcement, the Batesvflle Ruritan Club hereby withdraws our request that Route~ ~e ~ed a~qo 'Through Truck Route". We appreciate all the work and effort done by you on our request but at th/s time we feel it is in the best interest of our community to no longer pursue this matter. Thank you for your efforts. John K. Pollock Secretary cc Sally Thomas DRAFT COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Service Agreement with Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To authorize the County Executive to sign the service agreement with Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. advancing $ 274,000 to purchase a new fire pumper. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Pumphrey AGENDA DATE: January 19,2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: 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 two million dollars, provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed fire-fighting 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 Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA). DISCUSSION: The current amount available in the revolving fund is $ 274,094.32. Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, has requested, through JCFRA, an advance of $ 274,000 to be used for the purchase of a fire pumper and 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 of Supervisors. Repayment of the allocation will be over an eight-year period beginning in FY 00-01. JCFRA has approved this request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends authorizing the County Executive to execute the attached Service Agreement. 00.004 :,5.RD OF SUPERVISORS SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this ~ day of . f~/c2./,v.z,~,q.,/ ,2000, by and / between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, ¥1RGINIA, a political ~Jbdivision, (the "County"), and the SEMINOLE TRAIL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, a Virginia Corporation, (the "Fire Department"). WHEREAS, the Fire Department agrees to continue to provide valuable fire protection services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Operations Center ("Service Area"); and WHEREAS, the Fire Department desires the County to contribute Two Hundred Seventy-Four Thousand Dollars ($274,000) for the purchase of a fire pumper for providing fire services. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises, the County and Fire Department agree, as follows: 1. The County shall contribute to the Fire Department Two Hundred Seventy-Four Thousand Dollars ($274,000) to be used for the purchase of a fire 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 Department agrees that the County will withhold Thirty-Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($34,250.00) from the County's annual appropriation to the Fire Department's operating budget beginning July, 2000 and ending after a final withholding in July, 2007. Thus at the end of eight (8) years, which is the term of this Agreement, a total of $274,000 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. The Fire Department agrees that any amount of this repayment which 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 Department agrees that the Two Hundred Seventy-Four Thousand Dollars ($274.,000) contribution shall be used only for the purchase of the fire pumper to be used to provide fire services in Albemarle County. The Fire Department further agrees that it shall not convey the fire 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 fire pumper or the term of this Service Agreement, whichever is longer. For purposes of this Agreement, the useful life of the fire pumper shall be fifteen years from the date the fire pumper is placed into service. In addition, the Fire Department agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a claim related to any damage to the fire pumper shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and improvement of the fire pumper unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for such proceeds. 4. The Fire Department agrees that at such times as it no longer provides voluntary 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. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by the County to the Fire Department, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Fire Department. 2 and seals. , ~ Date /RqB/ERT W. TUCKER, JR. ~,~/// ALI~EMARLE COUNTY EXECUTIVE~.~ SEMINOLE TRAIL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC. Approved as to Form: ~ty,~orney COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing Service Agreement was signed, sworn to and acknowledged before me this ~./-'~' day of ~~,z,- My Commission Expires: ,2000 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing Servi~-~,,.Agreement was signed, swor~to and acknowledged before me this r'/_~k; day of ~ ,2000 by Notary P~Jbl ic My Commission Expires: ~ ~/; c~o/ January 5, 2000 VIRGINIA POWEI; NORTH CAROLINA POWE£ VIRGINIA CASE NO. PUE990717 APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY TO REVISE ITS FUEL FACTOR PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE § 56-249.6 To: Local Government Officials Pursuant to the State Corporation Commission's December 29, 1999 Order Establishing 2000-2001 Fuel Factor Proceeding, Virginia Power is providing a copy of that Order. Please take notice of its contents. A copy of Virginia Power's Application in Case No. PUE990717 may be obtained from Virginia Power at no cost by written request to Karen L. Bell, Virginia Power, Post Office Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261. Karen L. Bell Counsel Enclosure %OARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA $'r^ co o 'rlo co sSlO 9 9 1 AT RICHMOND, DECEMBER 29, 1999 APPLICATION OF ~ .. r:.c 5, : ~, VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY CASE NO. PUE9907!7 To revise its fuel factor pursuant to ~ 56-249.6 of the Code of Virginia ORDER ESTABLISHING 2000-2001 FUEL FACTOR PROCEEDING On December 21, 1999, Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Virginia Power" or "the Company") filed with the Commission an appiicacion, testimony, and exhibits requesting an increase in its current fuel factor from 1.152¢ per kWh to 1.339¢ per kWh, effective February 1, 2000. .~The proposed fuel factor would result in an increase in annual fuel revenues of approximately Si04 million. Upon reviewing this application, ic is clear that this case presents a5 least three major issues including matters of first impression for the Commission. These are: (1) the consideration of off-system sales in light of the Company's retail access Dilo% program; (2) the Company's fuel costs of replacement power co replace the power previously purchased through the Merom and Rockport long-term contracts which terminate December 31, 1999; and (3) Zhe determination of the proper fuel expenses ascributable to the Chaparral (Virginia) Inc. special contract. Because of the complexity of these issues, we will set a hearing date for February 17, 2000. However, we are mindful of the Company's requested effective date and will allow Virginia Power to collect, on an interim basis, a fuel factor of 1.339¢ per kWh effective for usage on and after February 1, 2000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: This matter is docketed and assigned Case No. (1) PUE990717. (2) The proposed fuel factor of 1.339¢ per kwh shall be effective, on an interim basis, 1, 2000. (3) for usage on and after February A hearing is hereby scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 17, 2000, in the Commission's Second Floor Courtroom for the purpose of receiving evidence related to the establishment of Virginia Power's fuel factor for the twelve (12) month period beginning February 1, 2000, pursuant to § 56- 249.6 of the Code of Virginia. (4) Any member of the public may obtain a free copy of Virginia Power's application and prefiled testimony and exhibits by consacuing Virginia Power's counsel as follows: Karen L. Bell, Esquire, Legal Services, Virginia Electric and Power Company, One James River Plaza, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261-6666. (5) On or before January 27, 2000, any person desiring to participate as a Protestans, as defined in Rule 4:6 of the 2 Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("S.C.C. Rules"), 5 VAC 5-10-180, shall file with the Clerk, Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, an original and fifteen (15) copies of a Notice of Protest, a Protest, and the prepared testimony and exhibits the Protestant intends to presen5 at the hearing. The Protestant shall serve two (2) copies of each of these documents on the Commission Staff on and counsel for the Company as follows: Karen L. Bell, Esquire, Le~ai Services, Virginia Electric and Power Company, One James River Plaza, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261-6666. Two (2) copies of each of these documents also shall be served on all other Protestants on or before February 1, 2000. (6) On or before February 4, 2000, the Commission Staff shall investigate the reasonableness of Virginia Power's estimated costs and proposed fuel factor and file 5estimony with the Clerk of the Commission. The Staff shall send a copy of its ~es~imony ~o the Company and each Protestant. (7) On or before February 11, 2000, Virginia Power shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of all testimony it expects to introduce in rebu~ta! to all direct prefiled testimony and exhibits. Such rebuttal testimony shall be filed with the Clerk of the Commission, with copies to the Staff and each Protestant. Additional rebuttal evidence may be presented withou5 prefiling, provided it is in response to evidence which was no~ prefiled but elicited at the time of the hearing and, provided further, the need for additional rebuttal evidence is timely addressed by motion during the hearinc and leave to present said evidence is granted by the Commission. (8) Discovery shall be in accordance with Part VI of the S.C.C. Rules, 5 VAC 5-10-450 to -510, except that the Company and Protestant(s) shall respond to written interrogatories or data requests within five (5) days of service. Protestants shall provide the Company~ other Protestants, and the Staff with any work papers or documents used in preparation of their filed 5esslmony promptly upon request. (9) On or before January 14, 2000, Virginia Power shall cause a copy of the following notice to be published as display adver~islng (not classified advertising) on one occasion in newspapers of general circulation throughout its service %erri~ory: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF THE 2009-2001 FUEL FACTOR PROCEEDING FOR VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY CASE NO. PUE990717 On December 21, 1999, Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Virginia Power" or "the Company") filed an application with the State Corporation Commission for an increase in its fuei factor from 1.152¢ per kWh to 1.339¢ per kWh, effective February 1, 2000. The Commission has determined that there are at least three major issues in this case: (1) the consideration of off- 4 system sales in light the Company's retail access pilot program; (2) the Company's fuel cosss of replacement power to replace the power previously purchased through the Merom and Rockport long-term contracts which terminate December 31, 1999; and (3) the determination of the proper fuel expenses attributable to the Chaparral (Virginia) Inc. special contract. Pursuant to § 56-249.6 of the Code of Virginia, the Commission has scheduled a public hearing to commence at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 17, 2000, in the Commission's Second Floor Courtroom, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, for the purpose of receiving evidence related to the establishment of Virginia Power's fuel factor. However, the Commission has authorized Virginia Power 5o collecs, on an interim basis, a fuel factor of 1.339~ per kwh effective for usage on and after February 1, 2000. Individuals with disabilities who require an accommodation to participate in the hearing should contact the Commission at 1-800-552-7945 (voice) or 1-804-371-9206 (TDD) at least seven days before the scheduled hearing date. Any member of the public may obtain a free copy of Virginia Power's application, prefiled testimony and exhibits by contacting counsel for Virginia Power as follows: Karen L. Bell, Esquire, Legal Services, Virginia Electric and Power Company, One James River Plaza, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261-6666. The Company's application, prefiled testimony and exhibits, and all other papers filed in this docket also may be reviewed at the Commission's Document Control Center, First Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia. Any person desiring to make a statement at the hearing need only appear in the Commission's courtroom at 9:45 a.m. on the da~e of the hearing and identify himself or herself to the bailiff as a public witness. On or before January 27, 2000, persons desiring to participate as Protestants, as defined in Rule 4:6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("S.C.C. Rules"), 5 VAC 5-10-180, to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, shall file with the Clerk of the Commission an original and fifteen (15) copies of a Notice of Protest, a Protest, and the prepared testimony and exhibits the Protestant intends to present at the hearing. Protestants shall serve two (2) copies of each of these documents upon the Commission Staff and upon Virginia Power. Service upon the Company shall be directed to Karen L. Bell, Esquire, Legal Services, Virginia Electric and Power Company, One James River Plaza, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261-6666. Two copies of each of these documents also shall be served on all other Protestants on or before February 1, 2000. Ail written communications to the Commission regardin~ this proceedin~ shall identify Case No. PUE990717 and shall be directed to Joel H. Peck, Clerk, State Corporation Commission, Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (10) On or before January 14, 2000, Virginia Power shall serve a copy of this Order on the County Attorney and Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of each county (or equivalent officials in counties having alternate forms of government) in which the Company offers service, and on the Mayor or Manager and the Attorney of every city and town (or an equivalent official in cities and towns having alternate forms of government) in which the Company offers service. Service shall be made by either personal delivery or by first-class mail to the customary place of business or the residence of the persons served. (11) At or before the commencemen5 of the hearing scheduled herein, Virginia Power shall provide proof of service and notice as required in this Order. AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to: Karen L. Bell, Esquire, Legal Services, Virginia Electric and Power Company, P.O. Box. 26666, Richmond, Virglnia 23261-6666; Robert M. Gillespie, Esquire, Christian & Barton, L.L.P., 909 East Main Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219-3095; John F. Dudley, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, Office of the Attorney General, 900 East Main Street, Second Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219; and the Commission's Divisions of Energy Regulation, Public Utility Accounting, and Economics and Finance. Clerk of the ~ .... . ~ Coqa~mbon Comrni~r,,ion December 16, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department o£Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 Roy S. Thomas, ETAL Crozet Baptist Church 5804 St. George Avenue Crozet, VA 2932 SP-99-64 Crozet Baptist Church Tax Map 56A1, Section 1, Parcels 82 and 100 Dear Mr. Thomas: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 14, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: There shall be no day care center or private school on site without a separate special use permit. Any enlargement or expansion of the church use or structures will require an amendment to this Special Permit (SP 99-064). The use of the residences/parsonages for Sunday School/educational classes shall be permitted only on the first floor of each residence/parsonage located on Tax Map 56A1, Section 1, Parcels 82 and 100. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on January 19, 2000. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~ Juan~~ego Wade~"--~ Transportation Planner ,, Cc:: ~E'~la Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JUANDIEGO WADE DECEMBER 14, 1999 JANUARY 19, 2000 SP 99-064 Crozet Baptist Church Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to use the first floor of two separate residences for educational classrooms. The residences are located across the street (St. George Avenue) and next to the church. See Attachment A & B Petition: Request for special use permit to bring a nonconforming church into conformity and allow expansion of the church use in the form of Sunday school/educational class use on the first floor of two residences/parsonages ownec~';by Crozet Baptist Church in (Attachment C) accordance with Section 14.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for churches. The property, described as Tax Map 56A1 Section 1 Parcel 100 (1.836 acres) and Tax Map 56A1 Section 1 Parcel 82 (2.250 acres), contains 4.086 acres, and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District, on Saint George Avenue [Route 1202]. The site is located approximately 1000 feet from the intersection of Rt. 810. The property is zoned R-2, Residential. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as RA, Rural Areas. Character of the Area: The site is located in a residential setting with homes located around to the sites. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. Planning and Zoning History,: In 1997, Tax Map 56A1 Section 1, Parcel 82 was granted a variance for a decrease front setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to allow for a portico. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. However the Crozet Community Plan does recognize that, while not part the of designated Development Area, this area is part of the larger Crozet social community. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adiacent property. Approval of this special use permit is intended to make the nonconforming church and its parsonages conform to the Zoning Ordinance and, thus, allow expansion of the church use to the two dwellings. The applicant proposes to use the first floor of two parsonages as educational classrooms. Staff will describe the parsonages as Parsonage A and Parsonage B. Parsonage A is located across St. George Avenue opposite the church. This parsonage has been reserved as residence for the youth minister. The current youth minister lives elsewhere and does not need a fulltime residence, but may use the second floor for lodging during inclement weather. The Building Official had authorized the first floors of both dwellings for areas of assembly. Any similar use of the second floors would require renovation and additional approval. The applicant is proposing to use the first floor of this building for space/rooms for the youth programs, meetings and Sunday School of the church. The youth typically meet on Sundays from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The second floor would be used for storage and occasional overnight use by minister. There will be no external changes to the building. Parsonage B is located next to the church. This parsonage is primarily used as a residence for missionary workers that are visiting the area. The applicant proposes to continue this use, but would like the flexibility to use first floor for educational rooms at some point in the future. There will be no external changes to the building. It is staff' s position that these uses will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not.be changed thereby, The character of the district should not be changed. Staff anticipates no significant external impacts from the introduction of proposed activities to the residences. The church currently conducts the proposed activities in the church. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6. Staff finds no conflict with these provisions of the ordinance. (Attachment E) with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use will not restrict permitted uses on any adjacent property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this .ordinance, There are no supplemental regulations for this use. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff has not identified any component of this proposal that is inconsistent with the public health, safety and general welfare. VDOT did not have any comments on this special use permit. The most current traffic count for St. George Avenue is 730 vehicles a day and will not be increased by this proposal. The County Building Official has already approved of the use of the first floor of each building/parsonage for Sunday school and youth group meeting places (Attachment D). The occupant load, in either building, may not exceed fifty persons because the existing capabilities of the buildings. Both buildings may continue to be used as a single family dwellings. There are three parking areas. The main parking lot is adjacent to the church on the east side of St. George Avenue. The second parking area consists of a few handicapped spaces on the west side of the church. The third parking area is for over flow parking lot and is located directly across the street from the church. It is largest parking area and where the majority of the congregation parks. The congregation has been walking across St. George Avenue from the overflow parking to the church for many years with no incidents. Parking in the overflow lot only takes places on Sunday or during special events at the church. It is staff's position that the location of the parking areas and the proposed use in the residence/parsonage will not create any additional safety concerns. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: This request is consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. There will be no external changes to the parsonages. If approved, the use will not generate any additional traffic. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without a separate special use permit. 2. Any enlargement or expansion of the church use or structures will require an amendment to this Special Permit (SP 99-064). ATTACHMENTS: A - Tax Map B - Location Map C - Application D - Building Inspector Letter E - Supplemental Regulations ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT A I0 see 56- 61 SP-99-64 114 SMALL ACREAGE 8~/WA_~LANO PARK EXT. Q WAYL&ND PARK-CROZET BEV. CO. ~ ST. GEESE ,J nI.~T~IP, T ATTACHMENT 1 ROCK HiGHr~ TOP TOM MOUNTAIE 4TAINS 5 11 I County of Albemarle + Department of Building Code a: OFFICE USE O~NL.)~) d si~.~ ~ z ATTACHMENT C Application for Special Use Permit IProjectNamelho. s~o~,.iwcrcrer:o:hisapp~ica~i,,n?~ Cqr~o-~c (~r~ca~,s~t ~ 14~ ~s.~65 [~ go ~ ." ~ Proposed Use , }*Zoning District ~ ~ *Zoning Ordinance Section number requested. / ~' Z.Z. t Z (*staff will assist you with these items) I Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit tif~ poruo,, it must be dOt.caeca on i, la;) Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? Are'you submitting a site development plan with this application? ed. 5~'6 es~i(No Contact Person (Whom shou~l.d we call/write concerning this project?): Address 5 ~'o t4 ~ ,- ~ c_~ /2~-~. City Daytime Phone(qOq ) ~ z ~ - 5h 7 ~ Fax# State VZc Zip 7..v_q ~ z E-mail c~-ozeA-bc ~¢f~. c~ Owner of land (As listed in the County's records): Address ';~' ~ ~3 ~r'fi, v6 City ~ct o. z:~/e~ .- /3ao,'d r;~,o-ka-s,~, / State Zip ./~' _ Daytime Phone ( ) Fax 44 E-mail Applicant (Who is the contact person representing? Who is requesting the spec iai usc?): Address 4 ~,,~ ~ ~ /4~t~,v~ City Daytime Phone ( ) Fax # E-mail State __ Zip fTaxmapandparcei ff6bl-ot-Ioo) 5(:,,4-1-ol~fZ. Physical Address (ifassigned) Locationofproperty(landmarks. inlcrsections, or'othcr) t~F~ lr-4¢ [),~',&.a~-Gb $~:~$d .-CT ~G-~ ./J'~'. Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest tn) any abutting property? thosetaxmapandparcelnumbers y~ , ,5"g~t-ot- /o/.~ If yes, please I OFFICE USE ONLY Fee ~,nount $ '65. OD History: [] Special Use Permits: [21 ZMAs and Proffers: []Variances: Fl Letter of Authorization Concurrent review of Site Development PLan? El Yes El No 401 Mclntire Road *:' Charlottesville. VA 22902 q. Voice: 296-5832 °~- Fax: 972-4126 Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the fight to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? i~t, r~a<. ~ How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? How is the usc in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? Flxl~Poo~. oC- tgtZ~Po-~,9) ~J[: t.~ ~ J~C,R.-v£- ~'~t.~ What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?. How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community?. Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authori~ to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature Printed Name Date Daytime phone number of Signatory Dr. Roy S. Thomas. II! Pastor Crozet Baptist Church 5804 Saint George Avenue Crozet, Virginia 22932-9707 (804) 823-5171 David E. Collyer Associate Pastor October 18, 1999 TO: County of Albemarle, Department of Building Code and Zoning Services Application for Special Use Permit The brick parsonage (Tax Map 056A 1-01-00-10000) has been the residence of the Crozet Baptist youth minister since 1979. The congregation's new youth minister has her own home in Waynesboro. She would like to use the first floor of the parsonage for our Sunday night youth group (about 30 young people in school grades 7-12). The church would also like to use the first floor for three or four youth and/or adult Sunday School classes on Sunday mornings. The white parsonage (Tax Map 056A1-01-00-08200) was the pastor's home from 1908 to 1996. Since then it has been a single family residence for missionaries. The church would like permission to use the first floor of this parsonage also for Christian education classes in the future as necessary. Under no circumstances would the occupant load of either facility exceed fifty persons. Jay Schlothauer has inspected both parsonages and determined their suitability for the above uses (SEE ATTACHED LETTER). Sincerely, Roy S. Thomas, III FAX (804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road. Room 227 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 ATTACHMENT D TTD (804) 972-4012 October 4, 1999 Roy Thomas Crozet Baptist Church 5804 St. George Avenue Crozet, VA 22932 Re: Existing Single-Family Structures at Tax Maps 056A1-01-00-08200 & 10000 Dear Mr. Thomas: On September 30, 1999, the structures at 5821 and 5830 St. George Avenue were inspected to determine their suitability for use as church Sunday school and youth group meeting places. Both buildings had been originally designed and used as single-family residences. Based on a building code review, the first floors of both buildings may be used for Sunday school and youth group assembly. These types of activities may not take place on the upper floor of either building. It is understood that you are considering spaces for Sunday morning, and Sunday afternoon, gatherings. The occupant load, in either building, may not exceed fifty persons. Both buildings were built as single-family dwellings, and this use may certainly continue. This letter is meant to communicate building code determinations only. Please continue your contact with Jan Sprinkle to address zoning ordinance concerns. Sincerely, ay~Schlothauer Building Official JS/js CCi Jan Sprinkle Reading File : 1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT ATTACHMENT This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 152, Chapter 22, Article 3, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.2, Chapter 22, Article 7. As set forth in section 15.2-2200 of the Code, this ordinance is intended to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the future development of communities to the end that transportation systems be carefully planned; that'new community centers be developed with adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry and business be recognized in furore growth; that residential areas be provided with healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestal land be preserved; and that the growth of the community be consonant with the efficient and economical use of public funds. (Added 9-9-92) Therefore be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the purposes of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the future development of the community, that the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the official zoning map adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed: 1.4.1 To provide for adequate lighL air, convenience of access and safety from fire, flood and other dangers; 1.4.2 To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; 1.4.3 To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; 1.4.4 To facilitate the provision of adequate police and f~'e protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; 1.4.5 To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; 1.4.6 To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and w~nsportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fa'e, flood, panic or other dangers; 1.4.7 To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employmem and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.8 To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.9 To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.10 To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards to protect surface water and groundwater def'med in section 62.1-44.85(8) of the Code of Virginia; and (Added 11- 1-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.11 To promote affordable housing. (Added 9-9-92) 1.~ RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, and the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the county. (Amended 1 I;1-89) 1.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated and express purpose of this zoning ordinance to create land use regulations which shall encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To this end: development is to be encouraged in Villages, Communities and the Urban Area; where services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with the agricultural/forestal or other rural objectives; and development is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources and where only limited delivery of public services is intended. (Amended 11-1-89) December 16, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 John Gorman Sheeran Architects 226 East High St Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-99-65 Pegasus Motor Car; Tax Map 78, Parcel 5G Dear Mr. Gorman: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 14, 1999, unarrimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: I. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site. 2. Vehicles for display shall be limited to five (5) cars. 3. The new vehicle display area shall be limited to an area that is defined by vegetation, to be clearly delineated on the site plan and to be easily identifiable on site. 4. Cars shall be parked in an orderly, easily identifiable geometric pattern in the display area. 5. The display area shall be landscaped with the following: · Three 3 ½" caliper trees in the southeast portion of the property. · 24" shrubs, 5' on center, along the 104-foot-long grass area at the eastern end of the south side of the site. (It is recommended that these shrubs be set back a minimum of 12' from the Route 250 property line to avoid replanting following VDOT improvements.) · Shade and ornamental trees interspersed throughout the grass area at the southeast comer of the site, sufficient in number and size to soften the appearance of the development at this comer, as indicated on the color rendering submitted to staff. 6. Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued bythe ARB for the site plan amendment. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on January 19, 2000. Any new or additional BOARD OF SUPERVISORS information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Pickart Design Planner MP/jcf Cc~ /.-Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Bob Ball Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse Michael Gage STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Margaret M.M. Pickart December 14, 1999 January 19, 2000 SP-99-65 PEGASUS AUTO DISPLAY Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to create a 2690 sf display area to accommodate five (5) cars at the existing Pegasus Motorcar Company showroom located at the northeast comer of Route 250 East and Route 20 North. A site plan delineating the proposed display area is included as Attachment C. The display area, located between the existing building and Route 250, would not be paved. Landscaping would be added. This request is intended to remedy a violation on site. Petition: Request for a special use permit to allow an additional exterior display area to accommodate five (5) vehicles, in accordance with Section 30.6.3.2.b of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for outdoor storage, display and/or sales of vehicles in the Entrance Corridor. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 5G, contains 1.264 acres, .06 acres of which would be affected by the special use permit. The property is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District at the northeast comer of the intersection of Richmond Road [Route 250 East] with Stony Point Road [Route 20]. The property is zoned Highway Commercial (HC) and Entrance Corridor (EC). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Regional Service in Development Area 3. A minor site plan amendment has been submitted in association with this request. (See Attachments A and B for location and tax maps.) Character of the Area: The site is currently occupied by the Pegasus Motorcar Company. The site includes. a large paved lot that accommodates display, customer, employee, and service vehicle parking. The lot is situated to the west of the showroom building. An unpaved portion of the site exists between the building and Route 250. Narrow strips of grass are found around the perimeter of the site. All adjacent properties are commercially developed. New York Carpet World is located to the east. There are numerous retail.and commercial services provided along Route 250 East and in the immediate area on Route 20. The surrounding Pantops area is generally characterized by car dealerships that include vehicles on display. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance Sections 31.2.4.1 and 30.6.3.2.b, and recommends approval of SP 99-65, subject to conditions. Planning and Zoning History: November 19, 1999: ARB-P(SDP)-99-36: Pegasus Motorcar Company: In a special meeting, the ARB completed a review of the request for a Special Use Permit, and recommended approval with conditions. The ARB action letter is included as Attachment D. The meeting minutes are included as Attachment F. November 19, 1999: Memo from Zoning Administrator: The Zoning Administrator determined that in this particular case under the present proposal, a grassed area may be utilized for display parking. November 15, 1999: ARB-P(.SDp)-99-36: Pegasus Motorcar Company: The ARB reviewed the request for a Special Use Permit, but deferred action on the application to allow time to gather additional information. The meeting minutes are included as Attachment E. October 18, 1999: SDP-99-141: Pegasus Motorcar Company Minor Amendment: Minor amendment submitted for expansion of display parking; plan is currently under review. VDOT has recommended "a dedication of right-of-way, or at least a reservation of right-of-way for a future right mm lane along Route 250." Twelve feet will be required. Aside from the ARB, other reviewers had no comment. June - October, 1999: Appeal Application AP-99-03: The applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's determination of violation, which resulted from an investigation of a complaint that cars were being displayed in a grass area that was not approved for the display use. This appeal was originally scheduled for hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals on June 1, 1999. Action on this item has been deferred several times by the BZA, with the most recent deferral occurring on October 5, 1999, at which time action was deferred for 4 months to allow the applicant and staff time to resolve the matter. February 12, 1999: Determination of Violation: A determination of violation letter was sent. June 26, 1972: SDP-0285: Porsche-Audi Dealership Site Plan: Planning Commission approval ora site plan, with conditions. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Ptan designates this property as Regional Service in Urban. Area Neighborhood 3 (Pantops). The proposed expanded use is compatible with the surrounding activities. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right t9 issue all special use, permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, It is anticipated that the expansion of vehicle rental and display will have no negative tmpact on the surrounding uses or on the site itself, due to the existing use of the property and the existing development of adjacent and nearby properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, It is not anticipated that the proposed use will change the character of the district, due to the commercial activity on nearby properties, the general commercial character of the corridor, and the existing car dealerships with outdoor display in the vicinity. The potential impact of the use on the character of the district has been addressed by the ARB. The ARB has recommended conditions of approval. Those conditions are incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for this special use permit. The conditions recommend 1) against the elevated display of cars on site; 2) a limitation on the number of cars displayed in the grass area to five cars; 3) the addition of landscaping at the southeast comer of the property, including shrubs along the frontage of the display area; and 4) that the cars be displayed in an orderly, easily identifiable geometric pattern. The last condition is intended to avoid a random or haphazard appearance on site. It is meant to avoid an irregular, sprawling display that has no relationship to the immediate surroundings. The limit on the number of cars will help promote the recommended orderliness. The overall expectation is that the display in the grass area will have an orderly appearance in an area defined and limited by landscaping. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the EC Overlay District. With the incorporation of the recommendations of the ARB, this use would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the EC district. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The proposed display use will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent property. The proposed use is similar to other uses permitted by right in this district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations in Section 5.0 specifically addressing the display of vehicles. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. It is not anticipated that the proposed expansion of use will negatively impact the public health, safety, and/or welfare. SUMMARY: This use is by special use permit due to the use of outdoor storage and display of vehicles in the Entrance Corridor. The Architectural Review Board has reviewed the request. Their action, which is included as Attachment D, recommended approval of the proposed use, subject to conditions. Staff opinion is that the expanded use will have minimal impact on the district, if the ARB's conditions are satisfied. Consequently, staff finds that with the ARB's approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, this use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, and staff recommends approval of SP-99-65 subject to conditions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staffrecommends approval of SP-99-65 subject to the following conditions: 1. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site. 2. Vehicles for display shall be limited to fi~e (5) cars. 3. The new vehicle display area shall be limited to an area that is defined by vegetation, to be clearly delineated on the site plan and to be easily identifiable on site. Cars shall be parked in an orderly, easily identifiable geometric pattern in the display area. The display area shall be landscaped with the following: · Three 3½" caliper trees in the southeast portion of the property. · 24" shrubs, 5' on center, along the 104-foot-long grass area at the eastern end of the south side of the site. (It is recommended that these shrubs be set back a minimum of 12' from the Route 250 property line to avoid replanting following VDOT improvements.) · Shade and ornamefltal trees interspersed throughout the grass area at the southeast comer of the site, sufficient in number and size to soften the appearance of the development at this comer, as indicated on the color rendering submitted to staff. Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB for the site plan amendment. 6; ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Site Plan Delineating Display Parking Area D - Architectural Review Board Action Letter E - Minutes from the ARB Meeting of 11/15/99 F - Minutes from the Special ARB Meeting of 11/19/99 UNTAIN ~ BUCK ,,~-> MTN. ~ o Albemarle Airport ATTACHMENT A --I 6 Profit~ ...:-.-/ Sdp ~.~ ~,qa~u~ ~otor Car ¢o. ~rt~fior Display Ar~'~ i :HAR LO'I-I'E S- ;~ Stony ~1 C smon ALBEMARLE Sdp 99-141 Pe,clasus Motor Car Co. Exterior COUNTY -' ATTACHMENT B 22A ' 2011 .... · $1 ' MONTICELLO SCOTTSVILLE AND RIVANNA 'DISTRICTS SECTION 78 N 07¢ ATTACHMENT D November 19, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of. Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804} 972 -.4035 John Gorrnan Sheeran Architects 226 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 ARB-P(SDP)-99-36: Pegasus Motor Car Company Outdoor Display Area Tax Map 78, Parcel 5G Dear Mr. Gorman: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at a special meeting held on Friday, November 19. 1999, completed a review of the above-noted request to display automobiles in a 2,690 square foot area along Route 250 East. The Board voted to send the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: Approve 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) the Special Use Permit subject to the following conditions: Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site. Vehicles for display shall be limited to five (5) cars. The new vehicle display area shall be limited to an area that is defined by vegetation, to be clearly delineated on the site plan and to be easily identifiable on site. Cars shall be parked in an orderly, easily identifiable geometric pattern in the display area. The display area shall be landscaped with the following: · Three 3 ½" caliper trees in the southeast portion of the property. 24" shrubs, 5' on center, along the 104-foot-long grass area at the eastern end of the south side of the site. (It is recommended that these shrubs be set back a minimum of 12' from the Route 250 property line to avoid replanting following VDOT improvements.) · Shade and ornamental trees interspersed throughout the grass area at the southeast comer of the site, sufficient m number and size to soften the appearance of the development at this comer, as indicated on the color rendering submitted to staff. Please submit a revised drawing addressing these conditions at your earliest convenience. When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any quesuons, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Pickart Design Planner Michael Gage Amelia McCulley ARB-P(SDP)-99-36 VSDP-99-141 '~SP-99-65 ATTACHMENT E PAGE 1 ARB-P(SDP)-99-33 - Pegasus Motor Car Co. Outdoor Display - Request for approval of a 2,690 square foot outdoor parking display area with landscaping. Ms~ Pickart presented the staff report, noting the following: · This application is a request for approval ora 2690 square foot grass area for the display of automobiles for sale at the existing car dealership at the corner of 250E and 20N. The display area is situated just south of the existing building and just east of the existing paved parking area. The applicant proposes to park 5 cars in the grass display area. The proposed display area is larger than that required to park 5 cars. · This car dealership has been in operation at this site for a number of years. Vehicles~ currently displayed in the area in question have been identified as a violation, and the applicant has submitted a site plan amendment and special use permit application to rectify the situation. · The proposal includes landscaping. It consists of two 2" caliper deciduous trees and two 1½" Dogwood trees to be located south of the building and east of the proposed display area, and 20 evergreen shrubs at the southeast corner of the site, extending up along the east side of the parcel. There is no landscaping proposed between the new display area and the EC. There is an existing Dogwood tree just south of the existing building. · In addition to the standard landscaping requirements for parking areas and EC frontage, the staff report outlines various sections of the ARB guidelines that would apply to this application. The sections outlined in the staff report relate to 1) an organized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike paths, and pedestrian walks; 2) that development should achieve continuity, unity, and coherence throughout the corridor. And that orderly and attractive development should be promoted within the'corridors; 3) that site development should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and should contribute to the creation of an organized development plan; 4) that landscaping should promote visual order within the EC and help to integrate bUildings into the existing environment of the corridor. With a paved parking area of the large size that currently' exists, the expectation is that all parking will occur in the paved area. Cars are currently parked on the gras~. The result is a disorganized, temporary appearance that is not appropriate for the EC. The size of the proposed display area could accommodate more than 5 cars. Formalizing the layout by reducing the size of the display area would help achieve an organized appearance. Landscaping could also help. This Board has reviewed several proposals for outdoor display along 250 E. Generally, the ARB has expressed no objection to the outdoor display, given the existing character of the corridor, and with conditions related to appropriate landscaping. The ARB-approved plans for sites along this corridor show parking along the EC frontage, and those parking areas are paved and meet the ARB landscape requirements to the greatest extent possible. The result is individual developments that appear orderly, and a corridor that is increasingly unified and coherent in appearance. PAGE 2 It is anticipated that a grass display area would not contribute to a unified appearance along the corridor. It would stand out as an unpaved display area that is different from the others. · Generally speaking, the Entrance Corridors benefit from additional green areas, as opposed to additional paved areas. It might be argued that the proposed grass area is a positive site element because it preserves a green area rather than paving more area. However, a green area with cars parked on it would not convey the intended benefit of a green, landscaped area. The focus would be the cars, not the green. · In addition, because such a small portion of the site is unpaved, maintaining the small. portion of green space that exists a~5 green space, is important. · The proposed landscaping does not meet the ARB guidelines for parking areas or EC frontage, but it would begin to help soften the appearance of the overall development. Still, this particular landscape plan does not appear to help promote visual order. · Landscaping that meets the ARB guidelines could help increase visual order. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend that the Planning Commission deny the request for the Special Use Permit based on the following findings: 1. The proposed plan does not contribute to an organized pattern of roads and service areas on site. 2. The proposed plan does not promote continuity, unity, or coherence along the Entrance Corridor. 3. The proposal does not show sensitivity to the existing natural landscape and does not contribute to an organized development plan. 4. The proposed landscaping does not promote visual order within the Entrance Corridor. Staff has also provided conditions in the event that the Board would like to approve an additional display area. Mr. Michel ascertained that there are no street trees on this property and no internal landscaping. Ms. Puopolo questioned the pros and cons of the grass area versus a paved area. Ms. Pickart noted the issue of compatibility with other developments along the Entrance Corridor. She also noted concern about the orderliness of the appearance and the soil and how it will be maintained. Ms. Puopolo asked if the applicant can legally park onthe grass area. MS. Pickart stated that both Planning and Zoning Departments are discussing whether or not the ordinance allows for parking on grassed areas. Mr. Gage stated that this site has been used as a car dealership since 1972. He noted that a violation was issued by the County to prohibit parking on this portion of the site. An PAGE 3 appeal was filed and heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The BZA asked that hhe County and the applicant reach a mutual agreement on the use of this 2600 feet of space. Mr. Gage indicated that there is no approved site plan for this property. The ordinances, which are being cited, were enacted subsequent to this property being approved for development. He stated that he is attempting to comply with the requirements of the BZA and come up with a plan for this property. He noted that this is good display space and is visible to traffic on Rt. 250. He pointed out that he would be agreeable to limiting the number of cars displayed in this area. He said that the current number of display cars varies. He added that the display has not disturbed the grass. John Gorman stated that the key thing to keep in mind is that we are dealing with a finite part of this site and not deficiencies across the entire site. For the purposes of this application, we are speaking to this grassed area south of the existing building. He noted that the County maintains that whenever a car is parked it must be a paved surfaced. He noted that the grass is being proposed because it does not create additional problems in terms of stormwater runoff. Landscaping has been addressed, pointing out that they would be agreeable to discussing alternate landscaping. Mr. Michel stated that this application would not be before {his Board, if the applicant could prove that this was a pre-existing situation. Mr. Gorman pointed out that the BZA, in lieu of making a formal decision, asked the applicant if he would be willing to work with the County to determine if an alternate solution could be reached. Mr. Michel ascertained that the applicant is not interested in including any type of street tree planting along Rt. 250. He pointed out that if this site were being developed today, this type of visibility would not be allowed, as landscaping would be required. Ms. Joseph ascertained that the applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the BZA. Mr. Gage stated that/he BZA deferred this request for four months to allow the County and the applicant the opportunity to negotiate a settlement. Ms. Joseph stated that a special use permit is required for outdoor sales and display, and a grass surface is requested so that stormwater won't be an issue. Mr. Gage pointed out that the as pan of the approval process a special use permit, ARB approval-.and a minor site plan amendment would be required. Ms. Joseph ascertained that this Board was reviewing this request as a recommendation that could go to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for a special permit for outdoor sales and display. PAGE 4 Ms. Pickart pointed out that if the'special use permit and site plan amendment was approved, then the violation is void. Mr. Michel questioned how this could be done without creating a precedent. The Board could acknowledge this use has been occurring since 1972. Mr. Beverly pointed out that the applicant has no interest in planting trees along the southern edge of Rt. 250 right-of-way[ He asked if the applicant would be willing to plant some type of shrubbery. Mr. Gage stated that there is limited space between the sidewalk and the paved area. He stated that he would be willing to plant shrubbery along this right-of-way. Ms. Joseph asked if the applicant preferred the grassed area so they would not have to deal with drainage problems. Mr. Gage said that the grassed area would prevent them from dealing with drainage problems and pointed out that he felt this was an attractive means of displaying the cars. Mr. Michel pointed out that the display area has been limited. Mr. Gage stated that five vehicles on display was a suggestion of the BZA, pointing out that he would prefer more than five. Mr. Michel stated that he would like additional landscaping on this site. He stated that if he were to vote in favor of this proposal with additional landscaping, he would prefer to add language stating that this was a pre-existing situation. He noted his concern that any applicant could propose display on grass. Ms. Pickart pointed out a similar situation with the display area at Brown's across from the mail,' noting that the trees have not yet been planted. Ms. Joseph stated that the display area should be clearly defined. Mr. Beverly stated that vehicles were not to be raised. He noted his concern that the county does not have staff to adequately enforce this. He stated that he has no strong objection to this proposal if additional landscaping is provided. Ms. Joseph stated that the display in thisarea is a real attention-gutter. She noted that the cars are not in a row like others on the site. She pointed out that one reason the grass is ,good in this area is because the cars are not always parked in the same spot. She asked if the display area could be designated and defined with vegetation so that sOme type of order is established. Mr. Michel asked how the parking could be better defined. Ms. Joseph suggested lining the display area with vegetation. PAGE 5 Ms. Puopolo asked if the Board could respond to this request from an aesthetic viewpoint. Mr. Beverly stated that if an aesthetic recommendation were made, the Board would be saying "yes". Ms. Puopolo summarized that there is a concern about setting a precedent and added that policing will always be a problem. She suggested that the cars be parked in a recognized geometric pattern. Mr. Michel stated that this would be an.improvement to the site, with some additional landscaping being provided. He felt the display area could be delineated. He stated that there should be some special .condition at this site. Ms. Puopolo stated that she felt it is aesthetically pleasing to park on grass rather than asphalt. Mr. Gorman stated that he appreciated the Board's concem with setting a precedent. He pointed out that the Board controls the display areas, and asked if the concern was parking on grass. He noted that there seems to be some controversy over the difference between a display area and the mobility of an automobile. It seems that a display area is for the display of goods. He stated that he felt that the Board would not be setting a precedent by approving this application. Ms. Puopolo ascertained that the applicant is willing to maintain the grassed area. She acknowledged the potential need for sod and aeration. Mr. Gage stated that the number of cars to be displayed is not the issue, but the ability to display cars is the issue. He indicated that he wold prefer to have a parking area, not just five parking spaces. Mr. Michel suggested adding the' following condition: · County of Albemarle agreement that outdoor display of cars in the grassy area has taken place on a grandfathered basis. Mr. Gorman stated his objection to the following recommendation noted in the staff report: · Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site. Mr. Michel stated that the Board does not want elevated vehicles. Mr. Beverly noted that the Board wasn't trying to work to resolve the issue. Ms. Joseph ascertained that the water line is located under the sidewalk. PAGE 6 Mr. Gorman pointed out that Centel's fiber optic cable runs parallel to the sidewalk. Mr. Beverly stated that the shubbery along the intersection of Rt.250 and Rt. 20 should be continued. Ms. Joseph pointed out that VDOT is interested in acquiring another 12' of this property. She reiterated her concern regarding delineation of this display area. Mr. Gage stated that a rectangular area sufficient to park 5 cars could be delineated. Ms. Joseph asked how this could visually be delineated so it would be clear what parking was allowed. She suggested a differentiated parking area and parking in the same direction. Mr. Gorman stated that this could be delineated with a painted line or with a row of shrubs defining the eastern edge of the parking area. Mr. Beverly stated that since a recommendation to the Planning Commission is necessary, it is important that this Board's recommendation be precise and clear. Mr. Michel stated that the following condition should be added: · The County of Albemarle recognizes that outdoor display of vehicles has occurred on this grassy area since 1972. Ms. Joseph stated that she felt this request should be deferred until issues could be addressed by the County Attorney. · The Board unanimously tabled this request until the end of the meeting. DISCUSSION:. Mr. Beverly pointed out that the Planning Commission would address the display area. He pointed out that if this Board approves this request, a precedent would be set even though it is something that this Board has no control over. Ms. Pickart suggested that if the Board wants to approve this request, that a statement addressing the '!grandfather'! .aspect be included in the action. Mr. Michel stated that it could be based on the Board's understanding that this is a pre- existing condition. PAGE 7 Ms. Joseph stated that it is not the responsibility of this Board to make that decision. She pointed out that she could only think of this in terms of a special use permit. She can not support parking on the grass as this is not appropriate along the Entrance Corridor. Ms. Pickart suggested that the Board word their action as follows: · "Recommend denial, but if the Planning Commission chooses to approve the display, the ARB recommends the following conditions..." Mr. Beverly moved to table this request until the County Attorney could be consulted. Ms. Joseph seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 3-1 with Ms. Puopolo voting against the motion. ARB-F(SDP)-99-78 The Gardens Shopping Center, Building B, Phase 2 - Complete construction of a retail building in the Gardens Shopping Center with a structure of approximately 6800 square feet matching the existing building. Ms. Pickart presented the staff report, noting the following: · This is an application to complete the construction of Building B in the Gardens Shopping Center on l~oute 29 North. · A site plan was previously approved for this building, and most of the building has been in place for some time. · The proposed addition follows the design of the existing building. · The building would be extended to the east. It would have an angled form. It would follow the line of the existing building for approximately 54' at the front, then it would mm to the southeast for approximately 37'. The depth and height of the extension would match that of the existing building. · The detailing and'materials would be the same as the existing building. · .Due to the distance from the EC and existing buildings in the shopping center, visibility is expected to be minimal. Mr. Michel noted that no additional landscaping is necessary. Ron Keeney stated that the original site plan included this portion of the building. The current owners want to complete the building. The Zoning Department agrees that this is still an active site plan and can be completed under the previously approved plan. The one elevation presented to the ARB in 1991 did not show this portion of the building; therefore, it was deemed appropriate that this be reviewed by the ARB. Mr. Michel ascertained that the applicant has no objections to the recommendations made by staff. PAGE $ Ms. Puopolo noted that the gable is a smaller one-bay gable. She asked if the parapet tums the comer. Mr. Keeney pointed out that the parapet wail does not extend around the comer. He said the parapet ends in the wall that is angled at 45 degrees, on the left comer. Ms. Puopolo asked if the parapet could be continued around the right comer. The applicant agreed. Ms. Puopolo moved for approval of a final Certificate of Appropriateness, subject to the' following condition: 1. Continue the parapet to mm the comer, so that the parapet extends from the left comer of the angled wall to the right comer. Ms. Joseph seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes: February 16, 1999, March 1, 1999, May 3, 1999 and September 7, 1999. Ms. Puopolo moved for approval of the above-noted minutes as submitted. Mr. Beverly seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ARB-(BP)-97-08: Boyd Tavern Tower: US Cellular additions to the tower: additional equipment building at base and lower set of antenna. The Board requested that staff arrange to have this application brought to the Board for regular review. New Application Forms - The Board approved the use of the new application form with one change. The Board recessed and asked staff to contact the County Attorney's Office to see if the County Attorney could join the meeting. The meeting was called back into session at 3:55 to discuss the tabled Pegasus item. Greg Kamptner, Jan Sprinkle, and Amelia McCulley joined the meeting. Mr. Michel explained for the benefit of the County Attorney and the Zoning Administrator that the Board did not want to set a precedent. The Board also considered adding a condition that stated this was a grandfathered use. He explained that the 10 PAGE~ applicant portrayed that they were before this Board because the BZA decided not to take action and they were directed to work it out. Greg Kampmer stated that there was a determination by the Zoning Administrator that parking on the grass was not a permitted use in the applicable zoning district. The property has been used as auto dealership since 1972; therefore, the use itself is a non-conforming use in the zoning district. The question is when the site plan was approved for that particular project was the parking on the grass part of that use. The site plan that was approved in 1972 wasn't signed. There were two site plans in the Zoning Department's file, neither of which said final site plan or showed cars being parked on the grassed area for display or any other purposes. There were claims by the applicant that it was a permitted use, it has always been allowed there. There have been investigations in the last few years regarding the violations. Before the BZA acted, they asked that the applicant pursue this administrative remedy rather than having to make a final decision on the violation. Ms. Joseph asked if this was a recommendation for a special permit or a recommendation on how to make it so there is orderly development on this site. Mr. Michel asked if the applicant could make a decision to limit the number of cars on display. Mr. Kamptner stated that as part of a special use permit condition the applicant can consent to limit the number of cars on display. The County can impose such a condition if it is designed to impact what would otherwise be allowed by the use, in this case it would be the number of vehicles parked on the grassed area. Ms. Joseph questioned the need for a special use permit if this is a non-conforming use. Ms. McCulley stated that she made the decision that the applicant is parking in an area that was not approved on the site plan. Prior to the establishment of the Entrance Corridor, outdoor display was a use by-fight. The use is non-conforming in the respect' -that it does not have a special use permit for outdoor display, Getting approval for this additional display area that is not approved on the site plan requires a special use permit. The applicant is seeking approval of the spe.cial use permit and an amendment of the site plan to bring it into compliance. Mr. Michel asked if the applicant could have a display on the grassed area. Ms. McCulley stated that this was an interpretation of the ordinance. Ms. Joseph asked if the Zoning Administrator could allow display on the grassed area. Ms. McCulley stated that she is not making an interpretation that the ordinance prohibits display on grass. She is saying that, in this case, the applicant was not permitted to because the site plan approval did not denote a display area. II PAGE 10 Mr. Kamptner stated that the special use permit is needed to expand the non-conforming use. Mr. Beverly noted 'that the Board has two options: (1) deny or (2) if the Planning Commission chooses to approve the special use permit, make recommendations for conditions of approval. Ms. Joseph stated that from an aesthetic aspect it is a question of adding pavement or keeping the green space. The difference in the geometries of the site is the delineation of the parking spaces. Mr. Beverly noted his concern about the display of cars on the grassed area. Although this use has been in existence since 1972, other dealerships today.would not be allowed to display cars on grassed areas. He noted that he would not support a request for the display of cars on grassed areas. Ms. Joseph stated her concerns regarding the site and the huge percentage of the site that is used for display of cars; the small amount of greenspace; and the amount of asphalt. She noted that she could not support this request. Mr. Michel noted that additional landscaping would be required. Mr. Beverly made a motion to schedule a special meeting for Friday, November 19, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. to take action on this request, with the applicant present. Ms. Joseph seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Tim Michel, Chairman Recorded and transcribed by Janice C. Farrar, Department of Planning & Community Development Assistant. 12 November 19, 1999 ATTACHMENT F PAGE 1 The Architectural Review Board met on Friday, November 19, 1999 at 1:30 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building. Those members attending were Tim Michel, Chairman, Rudolph Beverly, and Marcia Joseph. Absent from the meeting were Bethany Puopolo and Frank Kessler. Staff member present was Margaret Pickart, Design Planner. A quorum was established and the meeting called to order. ARB-P(SDP)-99-33 - Pegasus Motor Car Co. Outdoor Display - Request for approval of a 2,690 square foot outdoor parking display area with landscaping. Continuation of the November 15, 1999 meeting. Ms. Pickart outlined the actions to be taken. This is a request for a special use permit and a site plan amendment. First the ARB needs to decide whether or not the special use should be permitted on this site. The Zoning Department has determined that the grassed area is permitted for this particular display area, but this does not preclude the ARB from finding that grass may not be the appropriate surface for this use in the Entrance Corridor. If the ARB chooses to recommend denial, staff recommends that the ARB also recommend possible conditions of approval in case the Planning Commission decides to approve the use. Mr. Michel ascertained that regardless of this Board's findings, the Planning Commission can do whatever they feel appropriate. John Gorman noted that at the November 15th meeting, a condition was suggested that this use could be approved as a "grandfathered use". Does this recommended condition apply? Mr. Michel stated that this was a suggestion made by him, and it has been resolved that it is inappropriate for him to make this type of determination as it is not the role of this Board to do so. He explained that the Board was attempting to accommodate .the applicant's request without setting a precedent. One of the main issues that was unclear at the November 15th meeting was whether or not grass displays were legal. Ms. McCulley stated that the question was whether or not the language of the Zoning Ordinance would allow the display of vehicles on an unapproved area. The conclusion is that the Zoning Ordinance language does allow it; however, it does not preclude the' ARB from taking action to find that some type of surface is appropriate if the decision can be linked to some consistency with the design guidelines. This would be independent from the language of the ordinance, not a requiremem of the Zoning Ordinance. In terms of the zoning review, only the area of this additional display is being reviewed, not the entire site. The special permit is for the additional use in the Entrance Corridor. The Board needs to be able to make a finding that the additional area is appropriate and that it is consistent with the ARB Design Guidelines. Mr. Michel stated that it was his understanding that this site was grandfathered for years. PAGE 2 Ms. McCulley stated that the site was developed in 1973, a site plan submitted in 1972. She stated that she did not know what the landscaping requirements were at that time. Mr. Michel ascertained that the applicant has no objection to staff recommendations. Ms. Joseph noted that the Zoning Administrator's memorandum states "that it is her opinion that in this particular case on the present proposal a grassed area may be utilized". Ms. McCulley stated that she is addressing only what is being proposed at this time. This is not a general interpretation as a decision for every site. Ms. Joseph stated that in light of that new decision, that the new vehicle display area should be limited to an area that is defined by vegetation, to be clearly delineated on the site plan and to be. easily identifiable on site. Mr. Michel noted the differences between this site and other display sites the Board has reviewed. He noted the various aspects of the site that are below the standards of the guidelines. Mr. Beverly stated that it was important to him that the Zoning Administrator has addressed the Board's concerns regarding the display area. He stated that he Could support a recommendation for approval to the Planning Commission if the applicant is willing to meet the recommendations.. He noted that in other locations the Board is dealing with display of inventory items and this location speaks to a limited number of vehicles. He also noted that landscaping along the Entrance Corridor is important, pointing out that this has been required on other car dealerships. He stated that shrubbery along the display area would be needed, in addition to plants on the hill. He noted that there is not a great deal of flexibility for landscaping at this site. Mr. Michel asked Mr. Beverly to clarify his landscape recommendation. It was suggested that some type of shrubbery should be required along the southern edge of the property up to the first telephone pole (just beyond the electrical utility box), recognizing that it would be physically impossible to plant beyond that point. Mr. Michel asked if this Board could require landscaping beyond the area in question, particularly along Rt. 20. Ms. McCulley stated that if the Board could make the connection between what is being proposed and improvements to soften the impact on the Entrance Corridor, then they could require the landscaping. Mr. Michel ascertained that the Zoning Administrator is confident that no precedent would be set by approving this request. Ms. McCulley stated it would be unusual to have another situation of this type, with the same set of conditions. She noted that this is an addition and not a new use, the area is level, and it is an area that does not involve the movement of vehicles equal to or greater than 350 vehicle trips per week. The use is for display as opposed to required parking or storage of inventory. She noted that recent dealerships have already built up to the 10' setback, they are optimizing the display area. Only those sites not under the site plan ordinance, the old sites, may have a grassed area where they may try to expand on. PAGE 3 Mr. Michel ascertained that the applicant has no objection to planting shrubs along the ! 04-foot- long grass area at the eastern end of the south side of the site. Mr. Gorman asked if the 3 ½" caliper trees along the southeast portion of the property would be required in addition to the shrubs along Rt. 250. Mr. Michel noted that the 3 ½" caliper trees would be required in addition to the shrubs on Rt. 250. Mr. Beverly stated that he would prefer an additional tree be planted in the southeast comer, and add shrubs along Rt. 250. Mr. Beverly made a motion that the Board provide the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: Approve the Special Use Permit subject to the following conditions: 1) Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site. 2) Vehicles for display shall be limited to five (5) cars. 3) The new vehicle display area shall be limited to an area that is defined by vegetation, to be clearly delineated on the site plan and to be easily identifiable on site. 4) Cars shall be parked in an or&fly, easily identifiable geometric pattern in the display area. 5) The display area shall be landscaped with the following: · Three 3 ½" caliper trees in the southeast portion of the property. · 24" shrubs, 5' on center, along the 104-foot-long grass area at the eastern end of the south side of the site. (It is recommended that these shrubs be set back a minimum of 12' from the Route 250 property line to avoid replanting following VDOT improvements.) Shade and ornamental trees interspersed throughout the grass area at the southeast comer of the site, sufficient in number and size to soften the appearance of the development at this comer, as indicated on the color rendering submitted to staff. Ms. Joseph seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Tim Michel, Chairman Transcribed by Janice C. Farrar, Department of Planning & Community Development Assistant COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: County TEA 21 Enhancement Grant Application SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to fund construction of sidewalk(s) and landscaping on Route 20 from Rt. 250 east to Fontana Drive STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: January 19, 2000 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY_~/ BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing and endorse a resolution indicating support for this project and willingness to pay 20 percent of the total cost for planning and design, right-of way, and construction. There aro no other project requests from the county, but the Town of Scottsville is submitting a separate application for a streetscape project and requesting county endorsement. DISCUSSION: This segment of Route 20 provides access to a portion of the County's urban area that has been rapidly developing in recent years. It connects three residential developments, Wilton Farm Apartments (144 units), Wilton Country Homes (40 units), and the Fontana Subdivision (200 lots), as well as Darden Towe Park (a major County-level public facility) to Route 250 east, a major retail/commercial/office corridor. At present, there is no facility for pedestrians living or working in the area to safely and conveniently walk Route 20 and access the services and public facilities located along the route and on Route 250. Pedestrians often walk along the shoulders of Route 20, which is estimated to carry over 9,900 vehicle trips/day (1997 estimate). Route 250 at its intersection with Route 20 carries over 35,000 vehicle trips/day. Presently there are sidewalks on both sides of Route 250. For this reason, numerous individuals and Board of Supervisors members have requested this as a high priority project and the Board has established it as one of its highest Priority sidewalk projects. This project has been listed in the following County planning studies: County of Albemarle Neighborhood Three Plan (1993); The Albemarle County Land Use Plan; and, the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS). The length of the improvements is approximately 3,000 feet. In addition to construction of sidewalks, the project also includes landscape improvements (street trees/shrubs) and possible street lighting. The estimated cost is $350,000. If approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, the County would be responsible for approximately for $70,000, which would be paid out of appropriated CIP funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse the attached resolution. 00.007 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 00.007 PROJECT ENDORSEMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation procedure for TEA-21 Enhancement Grant applications, it is necessary that a request by resolution be received for the local government or state agency in order for the Virginia Department of Transportation to approve an enhancement project in the County of Albemarle. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Commonwealth Transportation Board to fund a construction project for sidewalk(s) on Route 20 from Route 250 east to Fontana Drive. BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to pay 20 percent of the total cost for planning and design, right-of-way, and construction of this project, and that if the County of Albemarle subsequently elects to cancel this project, it hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transpo,rtation for the total amount of the cost expended ~y the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolutio~ duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6 to 0 on January 19, 2000. County Board ~ors To: Members, Board of Supervisor~r.A~sA~ From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC,~'~ Sub|eft: Reading List for January 19, 2000 V Date: January 14, 2000 September I, 1999 Pages I- 19 (Item #8) - Mr. Martin /ewc