Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-08July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 8, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241,'County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Public. There were none. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to defer Item 5.1 until July 15, to approve Item 5.2 and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. Item No. 5.1. Adopt resolution regarding VDOT construction of telecom- munication facilities. Ms. Humphris noted a communication from the Planning Commission asking that the Board include their suggested modification, which is to ask VDOT to submit to the County's special use process with respect to the erection of towers in VDOT's right-of-way within Albemarle County. There is precedent for this, as the University of Virginia, also a State agency, has agreed to follow this process. Mr. Marshall agreed that he would like to see that added. Ms. Thomas said that part of the resolution asks that there be a long- range plan within VDOT for towers. She asked whether the Board could require or request that VDOT's plan be adopted into the County's Comprehensive Plan. The Board would ordinarily look to the public facilities section of the Plan for these towers. Mr. Cilimberg said a special use permit would accomplish that, if VDOT agreed to go through that process. Mr. Davis said the COmprehensive Plan does not specifically address towers. It is something that could be a part of the public facilities section. If.the Board wanted to, in conjunction with V DOT, develop a plan, it could be adopted as part of the Plan, but to date, that has not been accom- plished. Ms. Humphris suggested that the last part of the fourth Whereas be changed to "...be subject to the County's special permit process with respect to the erection of towers on VDOT rights-of-way within Albemarle County." Then, the Board could follow up on the whole concept of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the contracts should be coming to the Committee members shortly regarding the larger scale plan for telecommunications facilities in the County. After the contract is signed, the Board should make it imperative that VDOT participate with the consultant on a long-range plan. July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Me~Ci~gi 000063 (Page 2) Ms. Humphris asked whether that should be added as part of the resolu- tion. Mr. Tucker agreed that that would be appropriate, but the resolution may need a separate Whereas clause for the consultant. Mr. Davis noted that if it is the Board's desire to incorporate the Planning Commission's suggestion, he would advise adding a new paragraph under the resolved part of the resolution to state the Board's desire that they submit to the special use permit process. Ms. Thomas suggested adding that to the resolved portion, without changing the whereas clause. Ms. Humphris asked how that would fit in with the other resolved clauses. Mr. Davis said that he saw the special use permit as number 1. The current #1 is still important because even existing VDOT facilities could be used by other telecommunications facilities and the Board would not like for that to happen without Board approval under the Zoning Ordinance. He also thinks the long-range plan is critically important to dealing with this issue comprehensively. He will work on those and bring it back to the next meeting for adoption. Ms. Thomas noted that she would not be here, but it has her proxy. Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: General District Courtroom, $17,240 (Form #98002). The General District Court Judge has requested immediate replacement of the existing ceiling-mounted, fluorescent light fixtures in the General District Courtroom. The light fixtures are in disrepair and require replace- ment. The 14 existing fixtures are in disrepair resulting from routine maintenance procedures such as changing the fluorescent tubes. Based on a recommendation from a local architect and lighting engineer, the new fixtures will be a luminous bowl type with a center downlight, which are more practical and easier to maintain. The estimated cost of replacement is $17,240: $12,040 (light fixtures), $2,500 (installation), $1,200 (architectural/engineering fees) and $1,500 (contingency). Staff recommends appropriating $17,240 from the Courthouse Maintenance account for new light fixtures in the General District Courtroom. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998/99 NUMBER: 98002 FUND: GENERAL CIP PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REPAIRS TO LIGHTING FIXTURES IN GENERAL DISTRICT COURT. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1901021020331000 REPAIRS & MAIN $17,240,00 TOTAL $17,240.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2901051000512002 TRANSFER FROM CT HSE MAINT $17,240.00 TOTAL $17,240.00 Item No. 5.3. Copy of letter dated June 15, 1998, from Ms. Janice D. Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Ms. Pat Jensen, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS Section 10.31.1, Tax Map 62, Parcel 54C (Property of MARTHA N. CONDEE), was received as information. Item No. 5.4. Letter dated June 15, 1998, from Mr. David Noe, Manager, Environmental Health & Safety, re: GE Fanuc Automation, EPA ID% VAD98909551782, was received as information. July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Me~ing) (Page 3) 000064 Ms. Humphris said she did not understand what this letter meant. Mr. Tucker said that the County gets these notices from the Department of Environ- mental Quality. The letter means that GE no longer have that type of permit for discharge for effluent or air. Mr. Humphris said the statement state that DEQ has approved a modified expiration date seemed to contradict the statement that the facility may no longer undertake any waste management. She would like to know what it means. Agenda Item No 6. SP-97-64. Bethel Baptist Church (Signs #25&26) . PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow expansion of existing church use on an adjoining parcel. Znd RA for agriculture and supporting residential uses. TM21,Ps25&26. Located at intersect of Burnley Station Rd (Rt 641) & Watts Passage (Rt 600). Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 22 and June 29, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. No additional traffic is expected from this use. Current regulations regarding lighting is being met, although removal of vegetation makes the church more visible to neighbors. The plan reflects alternative screening recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. At its meeting on June 23, 1998, the Planning Commission modified and added conditions about shielding of lights and use of the house as a residence only. The Commission unanimously recommended approval with five conditions. At this time, Mr. Marshall opening the meeting to the public for comments. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closing and the matter placed before the Board. Since the applicant was not present, the Board moved on to the next item on the agenda. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-98-12. Charlottesville Catholic School (Signs #91&97) . PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct private school for 600 students on 17 ac. Znd R-4. TM61A, P29. Located along Rio Rd between Penn Park Rd (Rt 768) & Penn Park Ln (Rt 1481). Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 22 and June 29, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff recommended approval of the request with four conditions. At its meeting on June 23, 1998, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with the addition of a five-year requirement to commence construction of a permanent facility and an eight-year limitation on the bond requirement for the walkway along the frontage of Rio Road. Mr. Martin noted that the staff report mentions that the County could extend the paths across adjacent properties using County sidewalk funds to make a continuous path between Penn Park Lane and Penn Park Road, and asked how that could be done. Mr. Cilimberg indicated the relevant areas on the plan before the Board. He stated that the potential for improvements exists in the Six Year Plan; the possibility exists that the County could get that portion in a complete walkway. At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any comments. Ms. Heidi Parker, an attorney representing the Charlottesville Catholic School, noted that a couple of months ago the Board had approved permits for the school to temporarily locate in the ACAC Four Seasons facility. The school has moved in and is preparing for the school year. Since that is only temporary, they wish approval for a permanent location. Staff, Planning Commission and adjacent landowners all support the move to this location. The main concern of traffic has been resolved. They have been working with the County and VDOT to come up with some good solutions that are necessary regardless of what happens with the Meadow Creek Park. She asked for approval of the request with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the meeting to the public for com- ments. July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. Paul Grady said he lives outside of Crozet. 0000,65 He has no objections to the school locating on this property. His objections arise from VDOT's manipulation of the site plan and the speed at which the school is proceeding with this project. For months he has been trying to make a presentation to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Policy Board about the urgent need to reconsider the demise of the Rio connector, but for whatever reason has been unable to do so. Even before that he tried to get the MPO to ask VDOT to run their computer model to show how much traffic would be removed from the 250 Bypass. He also urged the MPO not to postpone their major investment study (MIS) for a year, because he feared that development pres- sures would destroy the last available corridor for a revived Rio connector. The MPO's MIS is envisioned to look at how much traffic moves back and forth every day between Route 250 East and Route 29 North. He has suggested that the Route 53 corridor should also be included in this study because of an ever increasing flow of traffic from the southeast portion of the County, Fluvanna and beyond. He is confident that the MIS will determine that there is a bottleneck on Route 53 on Monticello Mountain that is unsolvable. He believes that the MIS will recommend a Monticello Bypass that would move most of Route 53 traffic around the east side of Monticello Mountain over to Route 250 East and Interstate 64. Much of that traffic already uses Routes 729 and 632, both narrow and dangerous roads, to avoid Monticello Mountain. It is his conten- tion that the new road or reworking of existing roads should be designated as Route 53 and the present section across Monticello Mountain be dropped. He also contends that the MIS will recommend a new Rio connector to relieve the gridlock on the Route 250 Bypass that is projected for 2015 by the latest Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS) Plan. The revived Rio connector also should become an extension of Route 53 which would then allow the second phase of the Meadow Creek Parkway to be designated as an extension of Route 53, thereby permitting the County to obtain primary road funding for its connection. There is more at stake than just one little road. He asked the Board to over-rule VDOT and allow the school to have its entrance on East Rio Road. VDOT is forcing the school to buy an extra lot on Penn Park Road and build a long and expensive entrance road to alleviate a traffic problem that will never exist. By the time there is any significant traffic generated by this school, the first phase of the Meadow Creek Parkway will be finished and there will be much less traffic on East Rio Road. The school's main entrance should be where their secondary entrance is planned and the building should be rotated 90 degrees to face East Rio Road. A traffic light at Penn Park Road is needed now whether the school is built or not. That traffic light should allow for more than adequate traffic control for cars entering and leaving the school grounds. The Board could also ask the school to slow down its building program to give the MPO the time to do the MIS to determine if there is a need to relieve future traffic congestion on the Route 250 Bypass. The school should stay at ACAC for a few years and allow the MIS to be completed before a large mistake is made and the last chance to alleviate gridlock on the Route 250 Bypass is lost forever. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Ms. Thomas asked staff to respond to Mr. Grady's comments. Mr. Cilimberg said that the connector was removed in the last CATS adoption and is not now a project show in the CATS. The CATS does indicate a need to look to at the north to east corridor, basically from Route 29 to Route 250, for potential transportation needs and improvements which is what an MIS would accomplish. A major investment study is a process in federal transportation law. The staff does not know what the MIS might indicate as a need. The staff also does not know what corridors might need to be reserved. Mr. Marshall asked what funding would be used for this road. If it was secondary road funding, he has been told that the County has used up all the available secondary road funding for the entire Culpeper District for the next 20 years for the Meadow Creek Parkway north of Rio Road. That does not seem practical. Ms. Thomas said that one of the things that the CATS points out is that by the year 2015, this stretch of Route 250 will be one of the most impacted roads in the City. The road is between two tall embankments, making widening impossible. This will be a major impacted, slow and congested road. Because it would impact on Penn Park and having to cross the river was the reason why Mr. Grady's dark dashed line was dropped. Mr. Cilimberg said when the road was in the CATS, that was always the difficulty of identifying where it could July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 000066 be located, with two parks (Penn Park and Towe Park) lying in that general eastern side of the urban area. Ms. Thomas said that she was sympathetic with the school's long search to find a permanent home. She is very aware of this argument, but if the County does not even have a corridor on any sort of plan, legally, the Board cannot hold up a proposal. Mr. Martin said by-right the applicant could build between 600 to 700 dwellings on the property. He does not see any reason to hold up the project. Mr. Marshall said it does not seem practical to him to deny this special permit. Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-98-12, subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Humphris asked whether the term "commence" in the third condition was defined in any particular way so there is no question about what consti- tutes commencing. Mr. Davis said that commencing has consistently been construed to mean physical activity on the site, although there is room for debate. Ms. Thomas commented that Mr. Grady had raised an interesting point, but it is legally impossible for the Board to do anything about it at this point. She believes this is a good location for a school. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) The site plan shall conform generally to the conceptual plan, dated June 5, 1998, submitted with this petition. Relationships of recreational areas to property boundaries, buildings to recreational areas, and provision of pedestrian access parallel to Rio Road and from Rio Road into the parcel shall be maintained. Pedestrian access shall be provided from parking lots to the school buildings; Enrollment will be limited to not more than six hundred (600) students; Use of temporary units is allowed until permanent facilities are constructed. Construction of permanent facilities shall commence within five (5) years of the date of the site plan approval. A full site development plan will be required for the facility regardless of the use of temporary units or permanent construction; and A walkway or pedestrian path will be provided with the first phase of the project, if the County is able to fund adjoining connections to Pen Park Lane and Penn Park Road. If such connections cannot be made at that time, then the school will bond pathway improvements to be con- structed by the school when the County is able to fund the adjoining connections. If those improvements have not been constructed within eight (8) years of site plan approval, the bond will be released and the pathway not required to be installed. At this point, the applicant being present, the Board moved back to Agenda Item No. 6. Mr. Wendell Lamb, Pastor of Bethel Baptist Church, said the church has been in this location for almost seven years. In fact the location has been used for a church for a hundred years. With the expansion of the community, there is a need for church expansion. They were able to purchase property directly behind the church which includes a parsonage. Upon the advice of the Albemarle County police, they keep the parking lot lit. The church seeks to meet the needs of the neighbors, community and surrounding areas. He feels that current screening is sufficient. There are over 40 trees left on the two acres. There is ample foliage all the way around, which they see as suffi- cient screening. If the Board, however, desires more screening, the church will comply. Ms. Humphris said that she has reviewed the Planning Commission minutes, which seem fairly specific as to what they felt necessary to screen the site July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 00006? from the two neighbors. Ms. Thomas said that she went out and talked to some of the neighbors. As the Planning Commission pointed out, the house located in the back is feeling exposed. This was done prior to the church purchasing the property. She wondered about the staff's recommendation versus the Planning Commission's, as the frame building seems the least attractive thing on the lot, and it is not screened at all. Mr. Cilimberg said that one of the things pointed out by Planning staff is that there is a wide gravel area behind the parking. Ob+iously, planting in this area would have to deal with gravel in the ground. Mr. Marshall said that the recommendation was shrubbery in the area, which might not survive. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the screening would include trees, as well. Mr. Martin said that, since there was such debate in the Planning Commission, he did not want to delete the condition regarding screening. Ms. Thomas asked whether Mr. Cilimberg wanted to defend the staff's recommendation regarding the location of the plantings. She was not sure that the Planning Commission's screening would make the person, who is exposed, feel any better. Mr. Cilimberg said that the neighbor was at the meeting and that it was. somewhat difficult because, with the existing facility, there is no screening requirement. The recommendation had been a very small initial planting that over the years would grow to provide some screening. Mr. Marshall pointed to an area and asked if that was pasture. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was a wooded area that was cut; there is now a pile of brush, it is fenced off and can be used for horses. The applicant said that it was the former owner who cut the back lot off, and it is now used for running horses. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-97-64, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) 3 o Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the site plan waiver request dated June 5, 1998 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables and childrens' play equipment; Staff approval of a landscape plan that adequately screens the improve- ments from the adjacent Fox and Ferguson properties. Screening shall consist of native species and be established within eighteen (18) months of approval of the special use permit. It shall include twenty-five (25) trees, six (6) to eight (8) feet high at planting; Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment; All exterior lighting including existing lighting shall be fully shielded; and The house shall be used as a residence only. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-98-17. Blue Ridge Healing (sign #53). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to establish Home Occupation Class B for energy healing & yoga class business. Znd R2. Located on 1.7 ac at 5675 Oak Dr, off Rt 240, in Community of Crozet. TM56C,Block c,Pg. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 22 and June 29, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. The applicant will be the only employee. Staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2, 1998, recommended approval with five conditions. At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any comments. July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 000068 Ms. Heather Penny, the applicant, said that she went around to the neighbors and asked if they were in agreement, and they were in support of the application. At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the meeting to the public for com- ments. With no one from the public rising to speak, he closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-98-17, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) Students not to exceed eight (8) per class; Not more than six (6) classes per week and one (1) class per day is to be held; Zoning/Inspections Department approval of off-street parking; Only one (1) employee other than the applicant; and Hours of operation shall be between the hours of 8:45 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-98-19. Brown Toyota (Sign #70). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow outdoor storage & display for auto sales on 1.35 acs. Znd HC & EC. Located on U.S. Rt 250 E approx 1.5 mi W of intersect w/State Farm Blvd. TM78,P14A. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 22 and June 29, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. The staff does not believe the request will have a negative affect on surrounding uses due to existing development of adjacent properties, and the designation of the area in the Comprehensive Plan. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) has addressed the potential impacts to the character of the district and have expressed no objections to the use. The ARB indicated that they would not like to see any additional conditions that would limit their review for the final Certificate of Appropriateness. Staff has recommended approval. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2, 1998, unanimously recommended approval with three conditions. At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any comments. Mr. Jim Grigg, the architect for this project, said that since they made the submission, the dealer may need to add more service bays. The show room would not be any bigger, but it may be an 8,000 square foot facility instead of a 6,000 square foot facility. The would still have the same amount of display parking out front, with probably less storage parking in the rear. At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the meeting to the public for com- ments. With no one from the public rising to speak, he closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-98-19, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the Architectural Review Board (ARB); Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the approved site plan; and Vehicles shall not be elevated. July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 000069 Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-98-04. Off-site Parking for Industrial Uses by GE Fanuc. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for off-site employee parking in conjunction w/industrial use of property. Zoning Ordinance currently allows off-site parking only in conjunction w/historic properties in RA. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 22 and June 29, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff has suggested that the opportunity for expansion of employee parking for existing industries be available in the rural area under very limited circumstances. The proposed zoning text amendment would require an applicant to demonstrate that on-site parking is not physically feasible or desirable, would not change the charac- ter of the area surrounding the property, that there would be so substantial alteration of roads, that the applicant has made a good-faith effort to make public transportation available and/or provide alternate transportation opportunities, that the parcels are either contiguous with or separated only by roads and that the parking lot can be designed to reduce or eliminate significant visual and environmental impacts on the surrounding rural areas. In consideration of the staff's discussions and recommendation, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 23, 1998, recommended approval of the zoning text amendment, by a three to two vote. The Commission did provide modifications in several sections to deal with some of the specifics raised at the public hearing. Opposition by two Commissioners seemed to be based on those unfavorable factors identified by staff. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board has been provided with a draft ordinance dated June 30, 1998. At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any comments. Ms. Heidi Parker, representing GE Fanuc, said Mr. Don Borwhat, Senior Vice President of Human Resources and Pubic Relations, is also present to answer any questions from Board members. In 1998 GE completed Phase I of a long-term expansion project. GE invested approximately $55.0 million, $150,000 of which came from the County in the form of a loan, and constructed 40,000 additional square feet of manufacturing space. That additional space has resulted in 334 new jobs, with the average salary for those new jobs being $23.00/hr, or $30.00/hr if you factor in benefits. Phase I has been a success, but there have been growing pains. As a result of this expansion, GE has faced a severe parking shortage for the past two years. GE employs over 1100 employees, and has 35 to 100 visitors per day, and often has on-site sales meetings, but only has 974 parking spaces. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that GE operates on a continuous triple shift. That means that the second-shift employees need to be in place before their first-shift counterparts can lea~, GE used to have reserved and preferred parking; they have had to move to a first-come, first-served basis. At one time the employees were parking along Old Dickerson Road, until uno parking" signs were posted. Mr. Parker said the parking problem is about to get worse. GE is in the process of obtaining site plan approval for Phase II of its long term expansion. GE is proposing a 24,000 square foot addition which will be used for manufacturing and office space. They have determined that approximately 147 more people will be hired as a result of this expansion. GE has considered several solutions. The first one is car-pooling, but it has not been embraced as a viable solution because of flex time, project teams and familial obligations. This is not a 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. opera- tion, people are working on different schedules not determined by geography. They also operate on a just-in-time inventory basis, so there are times when overtime is required. So, car-pooling does not work. Vanning was not seen as a feasibility. Jaunt is available, but has not been successful, for the same reason as car-pooling. Next, GE looked at on-site parking with an architect, and are maximizing all areas available. GE then looked at off-site parking which, in their opinion, is the best solution. There are other solutions, including a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning, but the zoning text amendment is the optimal solution. The ZTA balances the need to promote economic growth with the desire to protect the rural areas. The ZTA protects the rural areas in three ways: there is no rezoning, so if the parking lot is not used as a parking lot, it remains rural areas; it makes the applicant go through the special use permit process, which gives the Board the chance to protect against negative impacts; and it does not introduce any new use into July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 0000TO the rural areas. Under the current zoning, GE could construct several by- right uses on that property which require parking, so there is no new use. The property in question is not a pristine farmland, but rather a vacant lot; parking will not look out-of-character in the area. She asked the Board to approve the ZTA with the changes recommended by the Planning Commission. She thinks those changes are stringent and gives the County the necessary control to monitor the situation. At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the meeting to the public for com- ments. Ms. Marcia Joseph urged the Board to deny the request because of the ramifications on the rural areas zoning district (see copy of statement dated July 8, 1998, on file). The requirements in the ZTA are vague and imprecise. The review proposed is much too complex and defeats the County's goal of becoming a well-oiled machine in reviewing and approving plans. This amend- ment does not adhere to the intent of the rural areas. The role of the rural areas does include serving as a holding zone for future development. She urged the Board to deny the request but put the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the fast track for approval. Ms. Babette Thorpe, on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said that there was no justification for rural areas land to be converted into parking lots for industrial development. The ZTA is contrary to the Compre- hensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the County's emphasis on in-fill. The applicant should be encouraged to pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning application. When a rezoning application is considered, the focus should be on that piece of property. When a rezoning amendment is considered, the focus should be on the activity and whether the use is compatible with the intent and purpose of the zoning district in question. According to the Zoning Ordinance, the rural areas district was established for four reasons: preserve agricultural/forestal lands and activities, protect the water supply, offer limited service delivery and conserve natural, scenic and historic resources. This ZTA serves none of those purposes. The Zoning Ordinance further states that it is an express purpose to create land use regulations which shall encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. This ZTA is contrary to the most fundamental goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use plan adopted two years ago contains eight general princi- ples which serves as the foundation for the new plan. All eight principles emphasize the need to contain urban sprawl. Development is to take place in the growth areas, not in the rural areas by special use permit. She urged denial of the ZTA. With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Ms. Humphris said that she needed clarification. There are two differ- ent versions of 5.Z.3, ~4; which one did the Planning Commission vote. The language in the Commission's minutes are different from the language in the Planning action letter. Mr. Cilimberg said that he was not at the meeting. If the Board feels the wording in the minutes is the desired one, the change can be made. Ms. Humphris said there is a distinctly different thought being conveyed in the two. If the Board were to adopt the ZTA, then what the Planning Commission voted on is not a fact. The Board needs to discuss that further. Mr. Marshall said that even though alternatives may be available, the nature of the job does not lend itself to alternates. Ms. Thomas said-that she sort of blew a gasket because there certainly are alternatives available. A ZTA must be applicable to every applicant, not just to GE. If GE can prove to the Board that their staff has not taken advantage of these opportunities, then any wording would not stop them from having this parking lot. It is well known that the way to get people out of the single-occupant automobile is to have difficulty in parking. There are many programs available in this community for ride-sharing, some of which GE has not taken advantage of. Big Blue goes right by the door of GE. She does not want to leave with the statement that there are no alternatives. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff was asked by Ms. Thomas about additional language that might address alternative transportation opportunities. They responded with some language proposed with modification for 5.1.39b. July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 000071 Mr. Marshall said that it all sounds logical, but it is not very practical. Ms. Thomas replied that, while it might not be practical for this specific applicant, before an applicant comes to the Board, they should prove that they have gone to a lot of effort to find alternatives. The ZTA should be precise and give them guidance as to what demonstrating a reasonable effort means. Mr. Tucker said that you need to look at a bigger picture than GE, since this would be available to anyone in any industry that need off-site parking in a rural areas district. Mr. Martin said that he sees nothing terribly wrong with what has been demonstrated. He disagrees that parking is the best way to make people use alternative forms of transportation. Mr. Marshall said that the practical point is that professional people are on tight schedules and it is too difficult to use public transportation. Mr. Perkins said he thinks that the change should be made part A, since the first step should be the search for alternatives. Ms. Humphris noted that State Farm has been successful with van pooling and have it to be fiscally positive to be in the van pool business. It should be the employer's obligation to pursue alternatives. Mr. Borwhat said that GE had encouraged carpooling in many ways. Their business does not lend itself to carpooling. While someone might have a normal schedule one week, it might be totally different the next week. Employees work in teams, which are not based on geographical areas. They have used taxi cabs, which can take hours or they never show up. They have put in flex time, which has helped parking somewhat. They have part-time, job sharing and split shifts. They have participated in Give Air A Break Day for many years. GE is a little different from State Farm; they started a van because they could not get employees and needed to bring them in. The dilemma they have right now is parking, and although they have tried a number of different things, it is still a problem. Mr. Marshall said that he thought that this was enough of a demonstra- tion. Mr. Martin replied that the demonstration requirement is a general one, not just in this specific case. Mr. Borwhat said that at one time they had even considered financial incentives for carpoolers, but the idea was abandoned when every group wanted financial incentives for some goal. He also noted that GE would lose at least 120 parking spaces during the expansion because they building they are expanding will go into the parking lot. Mr. Perkins asked how many people are usually on site. Mr. Borwhat said there were 970 first-shift employees and between 80 and 100 contractors on the first shift and from 30 to 70 visitors per day. Mr. Marshall asked whether they could use the front lawn as a parking lot. Ms. Parker said that no one wanted to take away the lawn between the building and Route 29, to maintain the character and campus-like setting of the area. Referring to language proposed by Ms. Thomas, Mr. Martin said that he has no problem with the general requirement for applicants, but he has a problem with the detailing of all the specific programs that every applicant must show they have tried. He asked what the utilization requirement meant. Ms. Thomas replied that applicants must show that employees are utilizing the programs to reduce single-occupancy vehicle, and that in spite of this reduction, a parking lot is still needed. The question is whether someone coming to the Board asking for a parking lot in the rural areas should have to prove that they have put a major amount of work into trying to solve the problem first. Mr. Borwhat said that the problem is that you can encourage as much as you want, but employees do not want to carpool, because they like the flexibility. Mr. Marshall asked what the standards of proof were for showing that the applicant has tried to reduce single-occupancy vehicles. Mr. Davis replied that the standard was simply the Board's satisfaction. Mr. Cilimberg said that the staff would have the applicant provide information addressing this criteria found in the amendment. Mr. Tucker noted that this was just a ZTA, GE would have to return to go through the special use permit process. July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 000072 Mr. Perkins said that he thinks that Ms. Thomas' additions should be added to the amendment, and asked if GE had investigated parking decks. Ms. Parker said that it would cost approximately $3 million. Ms. Thomas then suggested the following change: "The applicant shall demonstrate he has made a determined effort to reduce reliance on single- occupancy vehicle use by putting in place incentives and employee programs to encourage alternatives." Mr. Borwhat asked what was meant by incentives. Ms. Thomas replied that the reason the people at VDOT carpool and ride the bus is that their bus fare is paid for by their employer and they get special parking. Ms. Thomas continued with "Where public transit reasonably could be made available, the applicant should demonstrate that efforts have been made to coordinate routes and times for public transportation service and the workforce hours". Mr. Martin said that he thought there might be situations where no one uses the programs, so the last sentence in the original draft should be left off. Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin to approve ZTA-98-04 using the draft of June 30, 1998, and taking into consideration the action letter Section 5.1.3 change and also include the above wording. Mr. Davis said that the Planning Commission's recommendation had already been incorporated into the draft. Ms. Thomas proposal would be in place of Paragraph B on the second page of the draft. Mr. Martin then said his motion is to approve ZTA-98-04 using the draft of June 30, 1998. Ms. Humphris asked whether the subject of impervious surfaces would be handled by the Water Resources Manager. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Water Resources Manager would necessarily have to deal with that in any reservoir watershed, and Engineering Department would have to deal with that County- wide, under the Water Resource Ordinance. In addition, there is wording in Section 2.5.1.39.d.2 which says that proposed construction elements must protect water quality and trees designated to be preserved. Ms. Humphris recommended an addition which says that it would result in no significant degradation of the environment, in order to have a blanket statement. Mr. Marshall said he had no problem with that addition. Mr. Perkins said that he would like to see alternatives to single- occupancy vehicles somewhere in the amendment. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Ms. Thomas' addition was sufficient to set criteria for applicants. Mr. Tucker said the Board could use the phrase "incentives and/or programs" to give flexibility to employers. Mr. Martin then amended his motion to add the additions suggested by Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Ms. Thomas said that she felt the whole thing was a mistake, that the Board was saying that this is a bad idea, it does not fit the Comprehensive Plan but the Board will be very careful about it. This is setting a prece- dent. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff has been very careful in how they look at rural areas. The dilemma they ran into here is when the Board passed the Land Use Plan, they said that they would not accept any expansion of the develop- ment areas, which means that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment could not have been pursued in this case. Staff then had to identify a way that could solve a specific need that would fit within the some of the economic goals of the County. This is not something that staff sees as blanket approval but rather something is viewed on an individual basis. Mr. Martin said that he saw this as larger than the economic development portion of the Comprehensive Plan. One of the ways to encourage affordable housing is to allow additional employees. It is not just economic develop- ment, it is standard of living for a group of people who would be working in a service industry if they did not have this job. Ms. Humphris said that among the five Board members, there has been a lot of thought given to this. The Board has been blessed by the clear thinking of the Planning Commission members. She found this extremely difficult. This is not being done just for GE. The Board treats all compa- nies equally and fairly. She finally came down on this process, rather than July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 0000?3 the Comprehensive Plan process. She hopes that there are not many such situations where this could happen. Mr. Marshall noted that a lot of the small businesses deal, buy and hire locally. Mr. Perkins said he thought that this process is another way to get this far. He looks at this process as another way of getting what the applicant wants without opening up the barn doors. Mr. Marshall commented that this has been a learning experience for him. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. ORDINANCE NO. 98-20(3) Ai~ ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Adding New: Section 5.1.39. Off-site employee parking for industrial use. By Amending: Section 4.12.3.3. (Untitled) Section 10.2.2. By special use permit. CHAPTER 20. Zoning Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.12.3.3. (Untitled) Where practical difficulties prevent location as required in section 4.12.3.2 or where the public safety or the public conve- nience would be better served by the location thereof other than on the same lot, the commission may authorize such alternative location of required parking space as will adequately serve the public interest, provided that such space shall be located on land in the same ownership as that of the land on which is located the use to which such space is appurtenant or, in the case of coopera- tive provision of parking space, in the ownership of at least one of the participants in the combination. In the rural areas district, the board of supervisors may issue a special use permit to allow off-site parking for a historic structure or site pursu- ant to sections 5.1.38 and 10.2.2.46 or off-site employee parking for an industrial use pursuant to sections 5.1.39 and 10.2.2.46. Sec. 5.1.39. Off-site employee parking for industrial use. In order to provide the minimum parking required by section 4.12 or to provide additional parking, off-site employee parking may be authorized only when: (1) the provision of on-site parking is not physically feasible or, when considering the general public interest, as opposed to the private interest of the applicant, is not physically desirable; (2) the proposed off-site parking is limited to employee use; (3) the provision of off-site parking does not change the character of the area surrounding the property on which the off-site parking is located, and does not require substantial alteration to roads; (4) alternate transportation opportunities have not eliminated the need for additional parking; and (5) the parcel on which the off-site parking is located is either contiguous with the parcel on which the industrial use 0000'74 July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) being served is located, or if the two parcels are not contiguous, they are separated only by a public street or a private road. To insure that the review of each application for a special use permit for off-site employee parking is consistent with this intent, each applicant shall comply with the following require- ments: So The applicant shall demonstrate that additional on-site parking is not physically feasible or physically desirable due to topographic constraints such as critical slopes and natural drainage features; wooded and buffer areas; unusual configuration of the lot or remaining undeveloped area on the lot; entrance corridor and/or landscaping requirements; stormwater management improvements; the location and visi- bility of the site; and other physical features of the property. The applicant shall demonstrate that he has made a deter- mined effort to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicle use by putting in place incentives and/or employee programs to encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. Where public transit reasonably could be made available, the applicant should demonstrate that efforts have been made to coordinate routes and times with the public transportation service and the workforce hours. Co The parking lot shall be located, designed and constructed to reduce or eliminate significant visual impacts from all public streets, private roads and adjacent properties, and to reduce or eliminate other significant impacts to adjacent properties resulting from vehicular noise, dust, artificial lighting, glare, runoff, degradation of water quality and other similar disturbances. do The applicant shall submit a conceptual plan or a site plan with his application for a special use permit. The plan shall show the approximate location of the parking lot on the property, its dimensions, its access to a public street, its distance from the off-site parking to the industrial site, and shall identify how persons will be transported or will transport themselves from the off-site parking to the building or use. The plan shall also show all features of the parking lot, which will insure that the parking lot will not adversely change the character of, or significantly impact, the area surrounding the property on which the parking lot is proposed, and will impact to the least extent practicable the property on which the parking lot is pro- posed. The features which shall be shown on the conceptual plan or site plan, and which may be required as a condition of approval of a special use permit, include but are not limited to: Visual or noise barriers such as earthen berms, the existing or planned terrain and/or vegetative screen- ing; Proposed construction elements, which shall include elements which will minimize noise, light pollution, dust, glare, and runoff and which will protect water quality and protect trees designated to be preserved and will result in no significant degradation to the environment; A lighting plan which identifies the location and design of all outdoor light structures and fixtures, demonstrates that all outdoor lights comply with section 4.12.6.4 and demonstrates that all outdoor lights will be shielded in such a manner that all light emitted from the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane of the fixture; and 000075 July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Changes proposed to the entrance and public road, including any necessary road-widening, or grading and removal of trees to accommodate sight distance. The off-site parking and loading requirements set forth in section 4.12 shall apply to the off-site parking subject to this section, except as expressly provided otherwise therein. Article III. District Regulations 46. 10.2.2. By special use permit. Off-site parking for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38) or off-site employee parking for an industrial use in an industrial zoning district (reference 5.1.39). Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: July 3 and December Ii(N), 1996; August 6, 1997 and February 18, 1998. Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of July 3, 1996, pages 25 - end, and found them to be in order with the exception of some small typographical errors. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Ms. Thomas said that last week the Board dealt with the issue of a cellular tower that the applicant said could not be moved from the proposed location and used photo simulation to prove how unsightly the tower would be, if moved. When a Planning Commissioner (Will Rieley) went out into the field, he found that the applicant had overstated the height of the tower by approxi- mately 100 feet in the photo simulation. She then learned that some Commis- sioners and staff had taken photographs to see if the photo simulations were matching what was built. She is afraid that the Board is no longer going to be able to use photo simulations in the decision-making process. Mr. Cilimberg described the two sites in question and said that there is some difference in the actual elevation above the tree line between the simulation and actuality. Staff has not used photo simulation as something they based their decisions on, nor do they recommend that the Board use them for decision-making. Ms. Humphris said that this angered her. In response to Mr. Perkins, Mr. Cilimberg said that the balloon is up for the Red Hill site at North Garden this weekend, which is before the Planning Commission now. Ms. Thomas said that CFW had proposed using a crane, and that is very helpful in seeing what the tower will look like. Ms. Thomas noted that the Board members had received a copy of the statement the Metropolitan Planning Organization made to Secretary of Trans- portation Shirley Ybarra. Ms. Thomas said that she had been appointed to the Virginia Strategy Governor's Advisory Committee. The Committee will set up the economic development strategy for Virginia. It is having some regional meetings, but there is no meeting taking place in the Charlottesville area. The closest one will be in Harrisonburg on August 4 and in Roanoke on August 20. If the committee is used as Governor Allen used it, the purpose would be to guide decision-making on the state level. July 8, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 00007 Ms. Thomas mentioned that gasoline stations and canopies are going to be an issue. The Architectural Review Board will be having a work session this Monday and next week regarding this issue. Ms. Humphris said the discussion with Secretary Ybarra is very worth- while to all of the Board, and they should read the information. Ms. Humphris said that she, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Huff attended the High Growth Forum in Fredericksburg. She has been asked to serve on the steering committee and will be going to Chesapeake on July 22nd. If anyone has any thoughts on how to deal with growth management and paying for growth, let her know. Ms. Thomas said there was a government financing consultant saying that 'traditional economic development is always benefit to the state, but that it is not always beneficial to the localities. Mr. Marshall stated that his only answer to growth was birth control. Mr. Tucker noted that the County has received two national awards from the National Association of Counties (NACO). One award was for the brochure that Mr. Davis' office had prepared on reversion, and the other award is for the orientation process for new County employees. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. At 9:20 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned. Approved by Board Date ~