Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-09August 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 9, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Assistant County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. No one came forward. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Ms. Thomas offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to accept the consent agenda for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. _______________ Item No. 5.1. Letter dated July 13, 2000, from Ms. Carol E. Comstock, Director of Constituent Services, Commonwealth of Virginia, to the Honorable Charles S. Martin, Chairman, regarding HB 356 and SB 414, “photo red” programs across the Commonwealth, was received for information. “As you may be aware, during the 2000 General Assembly Session, House Bill 356 and Senate Bill 414 both addressed the future of “photo red” programs across the Commonwealth. The use of cameras to monitor the activities of our citizens in the open streets raises a serious concern regarding individual freedom. The concern mounts when laws are passed that allow the government the capacity to record our actions. The Governor believes that we should not require our citizens to become accustomed to being watched by government authorities by electronic means. On April 19, 2000 the Virginia House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate sustained the Governor’s veto of Senate Bill 414. This measure would have expanded the use of cameras to nine new localities of the Commonwealth. These cameras would photograph vehicles that run red lights, operating on the assumption that the individual who owns, leases, or rents the car is guilty of violating the law. Our system of justice is predicated on the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law, and the Governor has grave reservations about a statute that presumes an individual’s guilt. HB 356 offers greater assurance of the rights of an individual in cases involving a photographic monitoring system. On April 20, 2000, the Governor approved this legislation, creating a new requirement for prosecution of “photo red” cases. In order to prosecute someone accused of running a red light based on “photo red” evidence, the new statute requires that there must be an image of the vehicle before it enters the intersection illegally, and one image of the vehicle after it passes through the intersection illegally. HB 356 improves implementation of existing “photo red” initiatives, but does not expand the program.” ______________ Item No. 5.2. Copy of draft minutes of the Planning Commission for June 27 and July 11, 2000, were received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-00-12. CFW Intelos—CV 307 (Pantops) (Signs 27&28). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to attach telecommunications equipment to an existing power pole in accord w/Sec 24.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 78, P 15C1, znd HC, consists of 15.28 acs. Property adj to S Pantops Dr (Rt 1140), approx .10 ml from intersec of Pantops Dr & River Bend Dr (Rt 1116). Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 24 and July 31, 2000.) Mr. Cilimberg called the Board members’ attention to the corrected action letter relating to SP-00-12 which represented the actions of the Planning Commission. The original letter had an error and a corrected copy is also being sent to the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg explained that this proposal is to install nine five foot panel antennae mounted at the top of an existing Virginia Power transmission line tower. The proposed mounting will not increase the height of the tower. He remarked that this is a site on the south side of South Pantops Drive just east of its intersection with Riverbend Drive. The tower subject to this proposal is 120 feet tall, and the panels will be August 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) mounted directly to the lattice tower. He stated that cabling for the antennae will be mounted to one leg of the existing lattice tower, and the visual impact of the proposed antennae has been minimized with its design. He added that probably the most significant additional visual impact of this proposal will be from supporting ground equipment cabinets within the tower’s footprint, and the leased area within the tower’s footprint is approximately 30 feet from South Pantops Drive. The view from the street, as well as the adjacent offices to the west and north will be to the base of the tower where the equipment will be located. He commented that the applicant has agreed to landscape the site to mitigate the visual impact of the ground equipment and cabinets. The staff discussed with the applicant the possibility of installing the cabinets underground. However, representatives of Virginia Power have indicated they would not permit this type of excavation within the footprint of the tower. The staff is recommending the condition requiring the antenna panels, mounting and cable to be painted brown so they will be consistent with the color of the tower itself. He remarked that other factors the staff has noted which are favorable to the request include the addition of the antennae will result in a relatively limited change in the power line tower’s visibility or the appearance of the utility corridor. He noted also that approval of this request allows for collocation on an existing structure and alleviates the need for construction of new facilities elsewhere. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that an unfavorable factor is that the ground-mounted cabinets will potentially add to the visual clutter along South Pantops Drive created by the existing tower, but sufficient landscaping should mitigate this additional impact. It was also noted that some visual impact will occur with the addition of the antennae at the top of the tower. The staff is recommending approval of the request with nine conditions, although the letter before this Board indicates ten conditions. At its meeting on July 11, 2000, the Planning Commission added condition #2 dealing with the possibility of locating all equipment underground if feasible. The Commission wanted to specify the size of the antenna panels, and this was an added element of condition #1. Otherwise, the conditions follow the staff’s recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended the application unanimously. Mr. Bowerman asked if this proposal qualifies for a tier one approval. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he is unsure if this meets such an approval. Mr. Bowerman explained that a tier one approval would be an administrative decision by the Planning staff, and it would not come before the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Davis responded that he believes the proposal could have been approved administratively under the proposed amendments. Ms. Thomas asked for an explanation of the change in the color of the antennae, supporting cables, ground equipment and structures from brown to a dark earth tone color. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the earth tone color is more applicable to the ground equipment. The antennae and supporting cables are on the tower, itself, so it may be desirable to keep them the same color as the tower. Ms. Thomas stated that she thinks the antennae and supporting cables on the tower should be the color of the tower, and the ground equipment should have the earth tone color. The applicant may want to comment on the color. There were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mr. Martin asked the applicant if she would like to speak. Ms. Paula Figgatt, representing Intelos, asked for approval to collocate nine five-foot PCS panel antennae on an existing Virginia Power tower. A 20 by 20-foot area will be leased from the property owner as well as tower space. A 10 by 16 building is proposed, but there were concerns about the cabinets being visually impacted if a building is located there. She suggested that fencing could be done, and she has discussed adding more bushes with the landscape architect. She said a Planning Commission member requested that larger trees be used. However, the landscape designer indicated that there are several large trees there, and if more are added, they could compromise the wires. She has contacted Chris Behrens with Virginia Power about burying the cabinets, and for this particular site, it would compromise the integrity of the foundation. She noted that a vaulting of cabinets at a site off of Barracks Road is being pursued. She added that this seems feasible, since a one legged tower is involved as opposed to a four legged tower, and the cabinets are farther from the tower. For the proposed Pantops site, though, this cannot be done. Ms. Thomas inquired if Ms. Figgatt could comment on the color issue. Ms. Figgatt replied that the Planning Commission requested this change in the color of the antennae. Ms. Thomas pointed out that there is another place in Albemarle County where the antennae are attached to the tower, and they were not originally painted the same color as the tower. They were very visible, and had to be repainted at a later date. Ms. Figgatt said Intelos representatives are very sensitive to Albemarle County’s issues, and they will paint the antennae any color the Supervisors request. Mr. Perkins called attention to condition #10 relating to other users of the tower. He wondered what other users will do about cabinets if they locate on this tower. Ms. Figgatt replied that Intelos will use a 10 by 16 foot area within the 20 by 20 foot area. Intelos has no control over this matter, and it would probably have to be routed through Virginia Power and the property owner. She noted, though, that other users can locate their equipment in the right-of-way. Mr. Perkins inquired if other users and Intelos could use the same building. Ms. Figgatt said Intelos would like to put a building at this site, but it will be the Supervisors’ decision as to whether the cabinets can be installed in a building. August 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) Mr. Perkins wondered if other users would have to have their own areas for their ground equipment. Ms. Figgatt answered affirmatively. Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. Figgatt is referring to putting a building or cabinets on that site. Ms. Figgatt replied that originally it had been proposed to fence the area and place the equipment in a building, but the fence was not desirable because of the visual impact. Intelos representatives are requesting to put the equipment cabinets in a building. However, they can be put in outdoor cabinets, if this is preferred. Ms. Thomas asked for a description of both situations, as far as the size of the building and the cabinets. Ms. Figgatt answered that it would be a 10 by 16-foot building, and the two cabinets will be six feet in height. At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for SP-00-12. No one came forward to speak to this issue, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing. Mr. Bowerman wondered if it was necessary to include condition #2, which relates to ground equipment being located underground. Mr. Martin noted that there was a lot of discussion about this at the Planning Commission meeting, and he does not think there is a problem if condition # 2 is included. Mr. Bowerman commented that the color of the equipment and antennae are site plan issues. At this time, Mr. Bowerman moved approval of SP-00-12 as recommended by the Planning Commission with no additional changes. Ms. Thomas said the antennae should be the color of the structure, and the structure is not a dark earth tone color. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that a sentence be included stating that, “The antennae and supporting cables shall be painted brown consistent with the color of the tower. Ground equipment structure shall be painted a dark earth tone color.” Ms. Thomas inquired if the existing tower is brown in color. Mr. Cilimberg replied affirmatively. He said, though, the words “same color” could be used instead of the word “brown.” Next, Mr. Bowerman indicated agreement that his motion will include the restatement of condition #3. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. She asked if Mr. Bowerman meant to include Mr. Cilimberg’s two sentences in his motion. Mr. Bowerman answered “yes.” Mr. Cilimberg said the two sentences would be included. However, instead of stating that the antennae and supporting cable shall be painted brown, the statement should indicate that they shall be painted the same color as the tower. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) 1. The tower shall be limited to a total of nine (9) 5-foot panel antennas mounted no higher than the top of the existing tower (120 feet). No extension above the existing tower height permitted. The size of the antenna panels shall not exceed five (5) feet in length, ten (10) inches in width, and seven (7) inches in depth; All ground equipment shall be located underground, if feasible. Locating ground equipment 2. underground shall not be required if the permitee demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that it made good faith reasonable efforts, but that it was infeasible to do so; The antennas and supporting cables shall be painted the same color as the existing tower. The 3. ground equipment/structures shall be painted a dark earth tone color; 4. Attachment to the power line tower shall be in accord with the plan titled “CFW Intelos Pantops CV 307,” dated 2/25/00 and attached to this report; 5. Landscaping shall be provided in general accord with the Landscape Plan dated 6/19/00 (revised date), but subject to final approval by the Design Planner. Two-thirds (2/3) of the plantings shall be evergreens and taller than the cabinets at the time of installation. No fencing of the ground cabinet equipment; 6.Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited; 7.Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to August 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only; 8.The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required; 9.The antenna and appurtenant equipment shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; and 10.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. SP-00-020. Olivet Presbyterian Church (Signs #64&65). PUBLIC HEARING on a request, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord, to expand an existing church for office & classroom uses; as well as add’l parking & an outdoor recreation area on approx 9.25 acs. Property just W of intersec of Owensville Rd (SR 676) & Garth Rd (SR 614) in the Owensville area. TM 43, Ps 8,8A,8B&9B, znd RA & EC. (A Site Development Plan (SDP 00-051) has also been submitted w/ this request.) Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 24 and July 31, 2000.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report pertaining to SP-00-020. He noted that the request includes a 2,400 square foot building expansion of the existing church, an additional paved parking area for 20 vehicles, an additional gravel parking area for 34 vehicles, an outdoor recreational area and an unlighted basketball play area within the proposed northwest parking lot. This would be a two phase expansion to be completed within five years. There are currently two Sunday services for a congregation of 250 active members, and it is also a community meeting place. The success of the church, along with its use by the community, has prompted the request for expansion. This is located in an agricultural area with some scattered rural residential development, and although it is across the street from the Moormans River Agricultural/Forestal District, it is not felt the expansion will have a negative impact on the district. He noted that as a transition from the proposed improvements and the Moormans River District, a landscape area utilizing some landscape materials removed from the parking lot will be installed between the A/F District and the proposed parking area. Mr. Cilimberg said this church has been in existence for 120 years, and a portion of the existing church is an historic structure that was surveyed by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. It is important for the addition to be compatible with the architecture of the existing facility, and a condition is included to assure this will be done. It has been noted that the Land Use Plan suggests that churches are supportive to the rural areas of the County, and no detrimental impact is anticipated as a result of the parking and building expansion. The landscape screening buffer between the parking lots and the adjacent residential areas would mitigate impacts of the parking area on two adjacent residential properties. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff has recommended approval with eleven conditions, but the staff’s eighth condition is not part of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He explained that the staff’s eighth condition stated that “Subject to the approval of the Virginia Department of Transportation the applicant shall install right turn tapers to each entrance.” He said by eliminating this condition, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 11, 2000, approved ten conditions instead of eleven. Next, Mr. Cilimberg showed a slide presentation of the church as it exists today, as well as a view to the adjoining property from the existing parking lot. There is a detention pond that will be replaced with a parking lot, and the detention will be handled otherwise as part of the plan approval. There is some screening of the existing parking area, and he pointed out the area for the new parking lot. The two proposed parking areas are on either side of the church itself. Ms. Humphris inquired if the Planning Commission’s discussion indicated that condition # 8 was eliminated because there could not possibly be a traffic level increase to justify having the right turn tapers. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the decision was made to eliminate this condition after VDoT’s representatives commented that they did not believe the right turn tapers were necessary based on the amount of traffic in the area. Mr. Martin asked the applicant for comments. Ms. Marcia Joseph, representing Olivet Presbyterian Church, indicated that she had some photographs of the site. She noted that if the right turn lanes are required, there are some very old cedars that will have to be removed, and there is a large bank that will have to be scaled down. She has talked to the Engineering Department about this matter, and they feel because of the traffic volumes in the area, the right turn lanes will not be required. The church has been at the same site for 120 years. Screening will be done to protect the A/F District across the road from the parking area. She stated that removal of the big cedars would make this area look a lot more suburban than rural, and she showed the Board members pictures of the cedars to which she referred. Ms. Joseph said staff has been extremely helpful in working with church representatives on the matter, and they appreciate the help given them from the Engineering Department and the Planning Department. She asked the Board members to consider the low traffic volumes, as well as the huge cedars in the vicinity and to remove condition # 8. She mentioned that church representatives have no August 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) problem with any of the other conditions, and they feel they can work effectively with staff to screen the parking area from the adjacent homes. She noted that Al Reaser is also present, if the Supervisors have any questions. At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for SP-00-020. No one came forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing. Ms. Thomas remarked that she is quite familiar with this church and its parking lot. She has visited the site and concurs that the screening provided by the cedars is of great value. She also agrees with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to remove condition #8. Next, Ms. Thomas made a motion to approve SP-00-020, Olivet Presbyterian Church, with the ten conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) 1. Church development shall be limited to the improvements as shown on the Site Plan dated April 17, 2000, and received by the Planning and Community Development Department on June 27, 2000; 2. The length of time for which the church may begin construction shall be five (5) years, provided all Health Department requirements at the time of the issuance of building permits shall be satisfied; 3. A minimum 30-foot wide landscape screening buffer shall be installed between the driveway/parking area on the northwest portion of the site and Garth Road. Landscape materials shall include materials removed from the parking area site. A final landscape plan and landscape materials shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director or designee; 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Planning Director or designee shall determine consistency of the proposed building addition with the existing historic architecture. The new structure shall be designed and sited in harmony with the original structure, to minimize any negative impacts on the architectural integrity of the historic structure; 5. A landscape screening buffer shall be installed along the east and south property lines adjacent to the existing and proposed parking areas. The landscape buffer shall consist of both trees and shrubs. The intent of the buffer shall be to completely screen the adjacent residential property from the asphalt parking areas; therefore, the buffer materials shall be selected and installed to accomplish this effect within a maximum of three (3) years from the approval of this special use permit for the existing parking area and a maximum of three (3) years from the date of the installation of the proposed parking area within the existing detention pond; 6. No parking lot lighting shall be installed in the proposed parking areas. Only walkway lighting with no more than 3,000 (three thousand) lumens to the parking areas shall be permitted to be installed. The walkway lighting shall be turned on only for nighttime services or meetings; 7. No outdoor recreational/play activities shall be permitted after dark; 8. The sign located at the western entrance shall be moved back out of sight line and off the public right-of-way, prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy; 9. Clearing of trees for the parking area and driveway west of the church shall be kept at the minimum required for the improvements, as determined by Planning staff. Tree protection measures approved by Planning staff shall be employed in order to minimize damage to tree roots; and 10. Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment. _______________ (Note: Mr. Davis suggested that ZMA-00-005 and SP-00-022 be heard together by the Board since both deal with the Albemarle SPCA.) Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-00-005. Albemarle SPCA (New Shelter) (Signs #82&83). PUBLIC HEARING on a request rezone the property from R-6 to C-1 to support construction of new facility. Located at existing SPCA Animal Shelter, on 9.1 ac znd R-6. TM 45, P 86. Located between Woodburn Rd & Berkmar Dr Extd at the existing facility. (Located in Neighborhood 1 of the Comp Plan.) Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 24 and July 31, 2000.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. SP-00-022. Albemarle SPCA (New Shelter) (Signs #68&69). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow the construction of new facility (10.2.2.13). Located at existing SPCA Animal Shelter, on 9.1 acs znd R-6. The applicant is also seeking to rezone the property to C-1 to support this SUP (ZMA-00-005). TM 45, P 86. Located between Woodburn Rd & Berkmar Dr Extd at the existing facility. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 24 and July 31, 2000.) August 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Cilimberg explained that together these two proposals will allow development for the new SPCA on part of the property remaining after the Western Bypass project. The site totals approximately 5.9 acres, and it would involve rezoning from R-4 to C-1. The special use permit pertains to the veterinary hospital and animal shelter. The area surrounding the property is in residential and commercial use, and particularly along Berkmar Drive, there are a lot of different uses in commercial C-1 zoning. He pointed out that currently the SPCA is operating on the property, and it is accessed off of Woodburn Road. He said Berkmar Drive abuts the property to the east. He noted that this is an area included in the County’s Comprehensive Plan for transitional use which allows for a variety and mix of uses including Urban Density Residential, Office Service and Neighborhood Service. It was designated transitional to provide flexibility in uses to address the potential impact of the construction of the Route 29 Western Bypass. The Bypass will physically separate the new SPCA from the residential and rural areas to the west. Mr. Cilimberg said maintaining the SPCA facility in this location is not considered inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Except for the immediate areas surrounding the existing facility, the majority of the site is categorized as important wooded area in the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. He noted that the wooded area is predominantly comprised of large deciduous trees, and the proposed SPCA will entail clearing most of the existing trees. The proposed Western Bypass will destroy a significant number of trees on the adjacent parcels, particularly along the ridgeline, which are also categorized as important wooded areas. He emphasized that staff finds construction of the Bypass will have a more significant impact on the overall important wooded areas than the proposed SPCA, itself. Although the Route 29 Western Bypass alignment negates the purpose of the trees, staff has identified an area of trees that is significant and feel should remain. There is a small 30-foot strip of trees along Berkmar Drive that can be preserved, and except for the installation of utilities, the trees can remain untouched and will provide a sizeable buffer along Berkmar Drive. This area would actually lie between Berkmar Drive and a good portion of the access road entering the SPCA facility. Staff notes that the proximity of the Route 29 Western Bypass tends to make use of this site for residential purposes unlikely, and by rezoning the property to C-1, the applicant can establish a veterinary hospital with offices and an animal shelter with the issuance of a special use permit. He explained that C-1 uses in general seem appropriate in this location whether or not the special use permit is approved or the animal shelter is ever pursued. The only identified substantial detriment to adjacent properties would be the impact associated with noise and traffic, and there will be a change in traffic patterns with the new development. Mr. Cilimberg then described a number of factors which staff has identified that would contribute to decreasing the noise in relation to that generated from the existing facility. As far as traffic is concerned, with the closure of the existing entrance, staff finds less of an adverse impact on adjacent properties along Woodburn Road. The new access will be from Berkmar Drive which has the capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic. He discussed other favorable factors, as well as an unfavorable factor which is the loss of residential holding capacity in the urban area of approximately 35 dwelling units, if the area ever developed residentially. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff has recommended approval of the rezoning request, and no proffers were felt to be necessary. The special use permit allowing the animal shelter and veterinary hospital and associated offices with conditions is also recommended by staff for approval. He then called attention to the fifth condition which was changed slightly by the Planning Commission from the staff’s wording to state that: “Full frontage improvements as required by VDoT shall be installed.” The Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 11, 2000, unanimously recommended approval of both the rezoning and special use permit requests. Mr. Bowerman noted that the name of the road across the street from the new SPCA entrance is unclear on the information provided. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that the entrance to which Mr. Bowerman referred is the Planet Fun entrance. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Cilimberg to point out the location of the existing SPCA. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the current SPCA location as well as a house that is in the Western Bypass alignment. The existing SPCA drive will be removed. He also noted that the area to the west will remain in R-6 use. Ms. Humphris called attention to the staff report where it referred to both Woodburn Road and Woodlands Road, and she asked which is correct. Mr. Cilimberg said Woodburn Road is the correct name of the road. Ms. Humphris next referred to Page 13 of Attachment C relating to public sewer which is not on the site now. The statement indicates that: “The SPCA believes that public sewer will be available through appropriate engineering and development, although public sewer is not available on site at present.” She asked about the plan to make public sewer available. Mr. Cilimberg explained that this site will have to connect to an existing sewer. He believes the connection will be made on the Planet Fun site. However, he would prefer for Mr. Kurt Gloeckner to speak to this issue. There were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mr. Martin asked the applicant if he would like to speak. Mr. Daniel J. Meador, Jr., President of the Board of the Board of Directors for the SPCA, thanked Mr. Cilimberg for his report as well as the Planning Department for all of its assistance. He then introduced the SPCA’s new Executive Director, Whitney Mason, who began work on August 1, 2000, and Carolyn Foreman, a member of the SPCA’s Board who is chairing the Building Committee. He said Kurt Gloeckner, the Project Engineer, is also present. August 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Meador stated that the SPCA is very excited about the prospect of the new shelter and believes it will be a great asset to the community in this location. The plans will enable the SPCA to do a lot of things it is unable to do in the existing facility. There will be rooms to hold classes for people to deal with animal behavior issues and other public education efforts. He added that an in-house clinic is planned so all the animals can be spayed and neutered before they are adopted from the shelter. He said one of the things SPCA officials are the most excited about is having a location on Berkmar Drive that is visible and accessible to the public. The days of putting the animal shelter by a public works plant are over, and he would like to think the public will be attracted and invited to come into the new shelter. This will, therefore, increase the number of animals the SPCA will be able to adopt. Mr. Meador indicated that he did not have much to say in light of the Planning Commission’s approval except for comments about two of the conditions. He then called attention to condition # 1 regarding the tree conservation plan. SPCA officials have no intention to clear-cut or remove any more trees than necessary, but they are interested in having some visibility for the public. SPCA officials are not opposed to conserving trees, but they are concerned about being hidden in the woods, and they would like some visibility from the road. They are subject to a landscaping plan anyway, and his request would be for the Board not to consider subjecting them to a tree conservation plan. They do not want to be unreasonably required to conserve so many trees that they are hidden from view, but they will certainly work with staff to behave reasonably and responsibly as far as conserving trees. He then mentioned the Planning Commission’s modified condition # 5 dealing with full frontage requirements. He is still in the process of negotiating with VDoT on the acquisition of the property, and one of the issues involves the question of who is going to pay for full frontage improvements. His concern with the wording of this condition is that it suggests the SPCA will be the responsible party. He wants to avoid the situation where VDoT puts the whole responsibility on the SPCA because the Board of Supervisors has indicated that the SPCA is required to have full frontage improvements. He wants the condition to be clear that this item can be negotiated between VDoT and the SPCA. SPCA officials are prepared to install whatever improvements are required, but it should be an item that is under negotiation with VDoT. He asked if the Board members are satisfied that the language is clear enough to allow further negotiations with VDoT on the issue. Mr. Bowerman stated that the County Attorney just informed him that this is a private matter between VDoT and the SPCA, and the condition will not affect negotiations. Mr. Meador said he will accept this explanation of the condition if it is the judgment of the Board and the County Attorney. He then added that there was some concern among staff members about the noise issue. He explained that the key component of the new shelter is the courtyard design, where all of the dog runs will be on the interior of the courtyard. He added that all the dogs will be confined within the courtyard as opposed to the existing shelter where the dogs’ barks can be heard through the trees. He said because the dogs will be surrounded by the building and because of the materials to be used, it is anticipated that this will provide soundproofing, since the noise will be deflected up and not outside of the courtyard. He also mentioned that if the Bypass is constructed, it will probably make the SPCA’s noise incidental. He stated that while it is legitimate to have such concerns, he believes they will be adequately addressed. He and Kurt Gloeckner would be glad to answer questions. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Meador how many animals will be housed at the proposed SPCA building. Mr. Meador answered that the plans are for 82 dog runs. If necessary they can be doubled, although it is desirable to keep animals separately if possible. Mr. Dorrier inquired as to the present capacity of the SPCA. Mr. Meador replied that at present there are approximately 49 dog runs. The capacity for cats will also increase, and they will all be held entirely indoors. Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Gloeckner to address the sewer issue. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner indicated that he is with Gloeckner Engineering. He stated that public sewer is available, but it is uphill, so a pump station will have to be installed in the southeast corner of the property. The closest gravity manhole is on the adjacent property which is approximately 200 feet away. The owner has been contacted, and he has agreed to grant an easement to run the line through his property and make the connection. Mr. Martin opened the public hearing, but no one was present who wanted to speak to ZMA-00-005 or SP-00-022. At this time, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing. Ms. Humphris referred to Mr. Meador’s objection to the tree conservation plan. She believes everybody needs to understand the purpose of the plan, and she read from the Planning Commission minutes as follows: “Mr. Rooker asked if the tree conservation plan would include conservation of every tree. Mr. Benish responded that staff is recommending that some existing trees be retained and a conservation plan is required to ensure that the trees are cared for. This addresses the Open Space Plan and the opportunity to conserve the tree line adding that other sites along Berkmar were not required to do that for various reasons. . . He mentioned that the Rio Hills Shopping Center was required to preserve their tree line.” She emphasized that this obviously does not mean every tree has to be conserved. She stated that it appears the Commissioners wanted to make sure there is discussion and some decision making in place as well as some methodology to make sure the trees are protected. She believes condition #1 should be retained in the special use permit. Mr. Bowerman asked about the vertical change between Berkmar Drive and the Bypass. He August 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) cannot read the contours on the information given the Board. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the reproduction of material for this item was particularly bad. Ms. Humphris concurred. Mr. Cilimberg explained that basically the Bypass runs along the ridge and generally the land rises at Berkmar Drive although there are some swales. As an example, he pointed out that there is a 550-foot elevation on either side of the building site. Along Berkmar Drive, Mr. Cilimberg indicated that there is a 500-foot elevation. There is a general rise in the land toward the Bypass. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the proposed entrance is approximately at a 512-foot elevation and the floor of the building is at a 543-foot elevation, and it continues to rise. There is a 30 to 40 foot difference between Berkmar Extended and the site of the building. He understands the Bypass is going to be approximately on the same grade as the top of the building. Mr. Dorrier wondered if there will be signs along the road identifying the SPCA. Mr. Gloeckner responded affirmatively. Mr. Dorrier said it appears that even if the building is hidden, the public will still have knowledge that the SPCA is located there. Mr. Gloeckner concurred, although he said the difference in elevation, as well as the trees, will make it difficult for people to find it for the first time. Mr. Bowerman remarked that the zoning text was changed to allow for animal shelters some time ago in anticipation of this application coming forward recognizing that there wasn’t going to be residential use next to the Western Bypass. He does not think the visibility of the building will make any difference, but he agreed with staff that the maintenance of the vegetative buffer in some form with a landscape plan makes sense. He thinks the building will be visible because of the elevation change, and although it may not be visible immediately in front of the site, the location of the SPCA will be identified by a sign at the entrance. There is not much traffic now on Woodburn Road, but there is considerable traffic on Berkmar Drive. The SPCA will be well sited there, and the vegetation is going to become very important in the future. He thinks the building will be visible and an asset to the community. The plan for the indoor/outdoor kennel is a good one, and a lot of work has been done with a difficult site. He thinks the signage and the 10,000 vehicle trips per day will give the SPCA visibility without any detriment whatever. He believes the staff and Planning Commission will work with SPCA officials in a reasonable way with the site plan so enough vegetation can be preserved. He also noted that there is a lot of unnecessary undergrowth on the site. He said, though, that is what the landscape plan is for, and he is comfortable that an agreeable arrangement can be worked out for everybody. At this time, Mr. Bowerman moved for approval of ZMA-00-005, Albemarle SPCA (new shelter), to rezone 5.88 acres from R-6 to C-1, with no proffers. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Next, Mr. Bowerman made a motion to approve SP-00-022, Albemarle SPCA (new shelter) with the six conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and with the statement that it is the belief of the County Attorney that condition # 5 in no way jeopardizes any private negotiations between the SPCA and VDoT regarding payment for full frontage improvements, as well as with the understanding that there will be a site review for the conservation area relative to condition #1. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Ms. Thomas commented that she agrees with the tree conservation plan. She visited the site and sat in the opposite driveway for some time and gave the situation considerable thought. She stated that all research shows that people prefer to go to places where there are trees. She explained that the Urban Land Institute has found this again and again, and she thinks the trees will add to the attractiveness and the feeling that people are going to a sheltered place and a place where they would like to take and get their animals. Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris agreed that the trees will be a definite plus to the site. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowerman commented that he understands there may be an issue coming back to this Board relating to costs of housing animals at the SPCA. This could be the County’s responsibility, and he thinks the costs may be appropriate. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) 1. Planning Department approval of a tree conservation plan for the area located along the Berkmar Drive road frontage; 2. The proposed use shall not accommodate the seasonal “Rummage Sale” or any other fundraising activities without amendment to this special use permit, or appropriate permitting by the Department of Building Codes and Zoning Services; 3. The site shall be developed in accord with the attached site plan dated May 12, 2000; Revised June August 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 12, 2000 (Attachment B); 4. Animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.; 5. Full frontage improvements as required by VDOT shall be installed; and 6. Uses shall be limited to an animal shelter and a veterinary hospital with associated offices only. _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: March 1, April 12, April 18(A), May 3, May 17 and June 14, 2000. Ms. Thomas reported that she has read the minutes of May 3, 2000, pages 1-22 (end of Item # 9), and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins stated that he recommends approval of the minutes of June 14, 2000. Mr. Bowerman said he has read the minutes of May 17, 2000. He explained that this was a meeting from which he excluded himself because it dealt with the Townwood Mobile Home Park. He stated, though, he was present at the meeting and found nothing wrong with the minutes. Therefore, he suggested that they be approved. Ms. Thomas made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the minutes of May 3, 2000, pages 1-22 (end of Item # 9); June 14, 2000 and May 17, 2000. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Dorrier referred to a note received by the Board of Supervisors about the fact that the microfiche machines in the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office are always broken. The note asked that Shelby Marshall be given the flexibility regarding the budget to replace these machines or the defective parts. In his opinion, the machines are antiquated and problematic, and he thinks they need to be improved. Mr. Martin commented that he just got the note and he is not sure who sent it nor to whom it is written, but he thinks the staff should examine the situation. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he would like for the staff to examine the issue to see if there is any similarity between some of the County’s activities and the Clerk’s Office. Mr. Foley said he has not seen the note, but he will get a copy and follow up on it. Ms. Humphris stated that when the County budget is developed, there is usually significant money included for equipment. Therefore, if there is such a problem, something is wrong. Mr. Bowerman said there could be something planned for over a five-year period that addresses the needs of the community and the attorneys. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Rick Carter if the Bar Association has a recommendation on this matter. Mr. Carter replied that the recommendation is to get the faulty machinery in the Clerk’s office working again. If the Wise County Circuit Court can put all their records on line, surely Albemarle County can assist their Circuit Court Clerk in doing this so the County is up-to-date. He stated that Mr. Dorrier is exactly right because the machines never work. Mr. Carter added that he was in the Clerk’s Office at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, and out of five machines, only one was working. The idea for County officials to examine this problem is great. Mr. Bowerman stated that this needs to be done without infringing upon the constitutional officers. It has to be done with some diplomacy, but he thinks the County can offer some resources. Mr. Foley commented that the staff is in the process of developing the CIP, and options will be considered. He said Ms. Marshall may have already submitted a request. Ms. Humphris noted that the Supervisors do not know these things unless someone tells them there is a problem. __________ Next, Mr. Dorrier informed the Board members that he will not be present for next week’s meeting. __________ Ms. Thomas reported that she will not be present next week either. She went on to say that she went to the High Growth Coalition meeting last week, and she has put a short report on e-mail. There was a tour of Loudoun County, and the pictures tell more than she can report of what is happening there. She next distributed pictures showing the difference between 1982 and the present. __________ Ms. Humphris commented that in the August, 2000 issue of the , the editorial GoverningMagazine was really excellent and pertinent to the County. She said people talk about a light rail system solving all of the County’s problems, and in this magazine the editor writes about light rail. However, his conclusion is that a light rail system might be a big money loser, and it may attract no more than ten percent of the August 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) commuting population of its metropolitan area. Once the tracks are laid and the stations are open, though, development follows because investors realize the infrastructure is in place to stay. She said in the event the County does move forward with a light rail plan, one basic thing has to be kept in mind. She emphasized that the track is always going to be there, and development will follow. __________ Mr. Bowerman referred to an action by this Board last week, which City Council will consider later this month, regarding the Sugar Hollow Reservoir release. He said part of this release is going to be a related study of the environmental effects along the river. He suggested that perhaps a watershed management official such as David Hirschman, as well as some of the people who worked on the Rivanna River Round Table, might participate since they have picked up a lot of skills in this area. He has talked to some members of the Rivanna River Round Table who would be interested in doing some studies of that streambed during different flows of water, and this would be good information for the County. The State encourages public participation in such activities, and he thinks it makes sense. He noted that he is not making a proposal, but he would like for staff members to think about the situation and come back to this Board with a plan. He suggested that County, City and Rivanna officials work together to coordinate the review. Mr. Perkins asked when the matter is on the City’s agenda. Mr. Bowerman responded that City officials will be discussing the release on August 23. He thinks there will be some people at this meeting who will emphasize the evaluation of the in-stream flow. He went on to say there are a lot of resources currently available in the community. Mr. Foley commented that he can talk directly to Mr. Hirschman about his ideas and he will see if a report can be prepared for the Supervisors in September. __________ Mr. Martin mentioned that several weeks ago the Planning Commission deferred indefinitely the Orient Express Hotel’s zoning text amendment request to amend the Zoning Ordinance. The indefinite deferral has put the hotel’s representatives into a situation where they can’t appeal to the Supervisors, and they are in limbo. He remarked that most of the Board knows the history of Keswick Hall and its rises and falls. The people in the Keswick area all have a great deal at stake in terms of helping Keswick Hall to be a success. He hopes to have someone present a motion to adopt a Resolution of Intent to at least get the Planning Commission to vote one way or the other on the issue so the people with the Orient Express can get a definite answer. Mr. Bowerman said the plan he reviewed did not indicate that anything was going to be done with division of land, etc. He stated it deals with the number of rooms in the building. He indicated that the capacity of the building will support a larger group of people so there could be larger meetings for corporate leaders and their wives, who would possibly tour Albemarle. He believes the plan should be taken out of limbo, and he would like to propose a Resolution of Intent which was drafted by Mr. Davis. This Resolution will send the application back to the Planning Commission for a definitive answer. Mr. Davis clarified that at the Planning Commission meeting there was a request to initiate a Zoning Text Amendment. The Planning Commission held a work session on the issue and made decisions to defer indefinitely the request to initiate the ZTA for the reasons they stated. He explained that the Resolution of Intent will initiate a ZTA to address this situation. It will also request the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing, and report back to this Board with a recommendation. Ms. Thomas pointed out that the Planning Commission’s recommendation had to do with the fact that the Rural Area Study was not completed. The timing was not right. Mr. Bowerman stated that he disagrees with the Commissioners. The situation is unique, and it has had a long history. The planning is not for development, but it is to continue to rehabilitate a historic structure as an asset to the community and to keep the rural nature of the area. He said members of the public will be able to speak at the hearings, and if they disagree, the County officials will hear what they have to say. He thinks the matter should move forward independent of the Rural Area Study. Mr. Martin pointed out that completion of the Rural Area Study cannot be anticipated in the near future, since staff has indicated there are not enough staff members available to set a time for it to be finished. Ms. Humphris mentioned that she read the Planning Commission minutes about what is going on. It seems clear to her that the Commission was simply concerned about the potential impact of this kind of use in the rural areas. She referred to Mr. Loewenstein’s comment that this is not the usual expansion out into the rural areas and it won’t be much of an impact on that specific area. She mentioned that when Jeff Warner, with PEC, said the undeveloped parcels were of concern, it was stated by the Keswick Estates representative that all the lots had been platted and authorized, so there is nothing further to consider as far as additional buildings on additional lots. She stated that these people cannot be kept in limbo forever just because County officials have been unable to get their work done. She concurred that the Resolution of Intent should be approved by this Board. She said information can then be gathered about it. Ms. Thomas asked for clarification of the purpose of the Resolution. Mr. Davis answered that it would request the staff to prepare a ZTA for a public hearing by the Planning Commission, and it would also request the Planning Commission to make a recommendation within 60 days. He explained that a ZTA is needed because currently there is no provision to allow for an expansion of this use in the rural areas. The applicant has proposed some language and staff has worked on some alternative language, August 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) and this would be brought to the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas said this seems to be an indictment of the County staff. She pointed out that two staff members have not been replaced for nine months, which is an indication of the reason the staff has not finished this section of the plan. Mr. Bowerman concurred with Ms. Thomas’ comment. At this time, Mr. Bowerman made a motion to adopt a Resolution of Intent regarding a Zoning Text Amendment to be placed before the Planning Commission and the Planning staff relating to establishing regulations applicable to the Rural Areas zoning district in Albemarle County, which allows restaurants and inns to be located within an historic landmark by special use permit if the structure was previously used as a restaurant, tavern or inn. Ms. Thomas inquired if this is a prejudgment of what the County officials would like to have included in the ZTA. Mr. Davis answered that the Resolution only gives the parameters of what will be considered. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance establishes the regulations applicable to the Rural Areas zoning district in Albemarle County, and Section 10.2.2.27 allows restaurants and inns to be located within an historic landmark by special use permit if the structure was previously used as a restaurant, tavern or inn; and WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 10.2.2.27 to allow nonconforming restaurants, inns and hotels in the Rural Areas, not located within an historic landmark, to reconstruct, structurally alter, extend and enlarge their facilities by special use permit, subject to limitations by regulation and special use permit conditions pertaining to the extent of such reconstruction, structural alterations, extensions or enlargements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 10.2.2.27 of the Zoning Ordinance as described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this zoning text amendment and will present its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors within sixty days of the date of adoption of this resolution. __________ Mr. Martin remarked that the County has been getting a lot of press about traffic enforcement on Route 29. He has suggested to Ms. Lee Catlin, Community Relations Manager, that a press release be done regarding the County not being able to get photo red cameras. He suggested that these two things could be linked together, and perhaps they will bring forward some letters to the State Legislature. Mr. Bowerman referred to the letter (on the consent agenda) from the Director of Constituent Services and said this letter relates only to the four counties that have the “photo red” legislation, and it appears they will have to change the way they are handling the program now. Ms. Thomas stated that it might be useful to point out the expense and the drawing of officers from other duties to team up for such an operation as opposed to the expense of the “photo red” program. Mr. Bowerman mentioned the safety issues of the officers also. _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. At 8:16 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date 12/6/2000 Initials LAB August 9, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12)