Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-10July 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 10, 1996, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item N°. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. 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. Mr. Ron Keeney, President of the Squirrel Ridge Neighborhood Associa- tion, was present. He said he is also a member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Route 29 Bypass Citizens Advisory Committee. He came to speak about three different issues. First. When this Board discussed and passed a resolution regarding the Western Bypass alignment through the Squirrel Ridge neighborhood last week, that action was preplanned since Mr. Bowerman had a typed resolution in his hand when he brought up the matter for discussion, and yet the discussion was not listed on the published agenda. The general public was not given an opportunity to be present and speak. By not knowing of the Board's intended discussions and actions, the public was effectively excluded from having any input into that matter. Second. In the resolution, the Board expressed the belief that the best alternate identified by VDOT was to "minimize the impact on Squirrel Ridge by using the southernmost alignment which held the road closest to Hydraulic Road." He said that belief is incorrect. The Squirrel Ridge residents in their March petition to VDOT (signed unanimously by the 18 resident property owners), clearly stated that having more than one-third of the neighborhood taken by the Bypass was a fatal blow to the neighborhood and that the minimal impact would be to take the entire neighborhood. Mr. Keeney said the North 29 Bypass Citizens Advisory Committee of the Metropolitan Planning Organization recommended a different alignment in its preliminary report to the Common- wealth Transportation Board on April 8. VDOT's consultants, in their prelimi- nary report to the CTB on April 8, also recommended a different alignment. Third. Mrs. Humphris, in her letter of July 8, states that the Board is "somewhat concerned that a representative from this Board or a member of the County staff was not included in the discussions between VDOT and the resi- dents. In addition, up until this date, the Board has not received any written communications from VDOT on those discussions." Mr. Keeney said Mrs. Humphris is chairman of the Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Citizens Advisory Committee is under her and is staffed by Hannah Twaddell, a senior planner of the MPO who works directly under Mrs. Humphris. The Advisory Committee has been openly discussing this issue at its monthly meetings since last February. Minutes of those meetings prepared by MPO staff are in Mrs. Humphris' office at the MPO and are available to her as chairman of the MPO. A resident of the Squirrel Ridge neighborhood has been actively on that committee since its inception three years ago. In fact, one resident served as chairman for an extended period of time. The Squirrel Ridge Neighborhood has actively supported the Advisory Committee and the planning process which is being done by VDOT. They have not come before this Board previously because the planning process was working. The residents, the Advisory Committee, and VDOT developed an alignment that seemed best and most prudent for all parties concerned. It dealt with the immediate local issues and showed sound appropriate planning for an unknown future. Hrs. Humphris, as chairman of the MPO, should have been aware of these activities, and could have questioned them at any time through those channels. If this Board is not familiar with the discussions that have occurred between VDOT and the community residents, as Mrs. Humphris' letter states, then he feels she has not shared that information with the other Board members. Mr. Keeney mentioned a letter of June 21 from VDOT Chief Engineer J. D. Browder, Jr. sent to Mrs. Humphris which outlined past actions, and all of the planning to this point. It elaborates on the fact that VDOT is "walking on egg shells" and has backed off because of this Board's opposition to the interchanges. VDOT feels they have been told to not even plan anything. Mr. Keeney said he cannot find people who are particularly opposed to the inter- changes, but he is not present to address the interchanges. He wants to mention three points. One, he does not think the discussion was properly before the Board. Two, what the Board did was inappropriate. Three, the July 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) ~ Board's response to the objections of the Squirrel Ridge Neighborhood is simply not accurate. Mrs. Humphris said that Mr. Keeney had made so many accusations that she would have to respond to him in writing. She really disagrees with most of what he said. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to accept the items on the consent agenda for informa- tion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Appropriation: Greer Bright Stars Four-Year Old Program, $20,000, had been moved to the July 17, 1996, agenda by staff. Item 5.2. 1996 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for informa- tion. Item 5.3. April, 1996 County Financial Report, was received for information. It was noted in the report that the projected General Fund revenues were last revised as of December 31, 1995. They are in the process of being revised again. It is anticipated that General Fund revenues should exceed budget projections, but will be significantly less than the December projection. General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time. The April, 1996 School Financial Report was presented to the School Board on June 10, 1996. Projected School Expenditures were revised to reflect the release of the 7.5 percent holdback which took place on April 22, 1996. Item 5.4. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors for June 3, 199.6, received for information. Item 5.5. Albemarle County Service Authority's operating budget for fiscal year beginning July 1, 1996, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-96-03. Worrell Land & Cattle Co. Public Hearing on a request to amend existing agreements & proffers of ZMA-92-12. Property in NW corner of inters of Rt 250/I-64. Area recommended for office regional use in Neighborhood 3 by Comprehensive Plan. TM 78, P's 20B, 20C, 20K, 20M, 31, 32, 71, 7lA. Rivanna Dist (Deferred from June 19, 1996). Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to defer, at the applicant's request, the public hearing on this request until August 14, 1996. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-96-16. Stu-Comm Inc. Public Hearing on a request to construct a tower on approx 234 ac zoned RA located on Carters Mtn. TM91,P28. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 27 and July 4, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 4, 1996, unanimously recommended approval subject to six conditions. He then noted that the applicant was not present. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphris announced that the Board would pass over this petition until later in the meeting to see if the applicant arrives. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-96-11. Samco Development Corp (Zoning Sign #35). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 0.32 ac from R-2 to R-15 on E sd of Hydraulic Rd (Arbor Crest Apts). Site, in Neighborhood 1) recom- mended for High Density Residential (10.01-34 du/ac) by Comprehensive Plan. TM61,P39. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 27 and July 4, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 4, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of the petition. July 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) · 000289 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ted Beck was present to represent the applicant. He said they wish to add five, two-bedroom apartments on the site. Now there are 66 units on the site, all rented to elderly persons. In most cases they would continue with the elderly rental units. Mr. Spangler said he lives in Arbor Crest. With the addition of these units, he does not believe fire and rescue vehicles will be able to get in and out of the apartment complex. Mr. Cilimberg said the site plan will need to show adequate access for fire and rescue vehicles before it can be approved. He said these buildings also are adjacent to Hydraulic Road. Mr. Spangler suggested that a traffic signal be placed on Hydraulic Road at the entrance to the apartments. Mr. Cilimberg explained that a location must meet certain warrants before the Highway Department will consider such a request. Mrs. Humphris said she does not believe the Highway Department would consider the location because it is so close to the existing light at George- town Road. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowerman said he believes the request is consistent with what is already on the site, and moved to approve ZMA-96-11 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. At this time, the Board returned to Agenda Item No. 7. SP-96-16. Stu- Comm, Inc. The applicant was present, but did not wish to speak. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve SP-96-16, with the six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 4e 6e Tower height shall not exceed 190 feet; Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. Ail tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural fail- ure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use. Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Route 250 West Scenic Highway Designa- tion (continued from July 3, 1996). Mr. Cilimberg said staff was prepared to answer any additional questions the Board might have on this subject. Mrs. Mumphris said the Board did receive several letters tonight regarding this subject; Joanne Stanley, Thomas J. Goodrich and Citizens for Albemarle. Mr. John Marston was present and asked to read a letter from Mrs° Helen C. Milius in support of the Route 250 West scenic highway designation. Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board members wanted to proceed. Mr. Bowerman asked if any of the other members had talked with Mr. Scott Peyton since last week. Several members responded in the affirmative. Mr. Bowerman said his concern about reinstituting the scenic highway designation was that this Board would not have any review over the granting of a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). He was not convinced by the discussion last week that this is needed because of the Entrance Corridor Overlay and the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Decisions of the ARB are appealed to this Board, and then can be taken to the Circuit Court. July 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) 000,~0 (Page 4) Mr. Bowerman said he is having a difficult time establishing in his own mind whether there is a problem with the case as stated. Mr. Peyton does not think it could hurt the process. Many citizens want to see the restriction continued. It puts an additional emphasis on any scenic highway corridor and this Board does write the ordinance. Mr. Peyton has asked that the Board reexamine the ordinance as it was passed some 16 years ago to see if it is still pertinent today. Mrs. Humphris said this Board has not placed itself in a position to appeal rulings of the BZA because the Zoning Office does not send copies of decisions as waivers are granted. The Board should be given notice of every waiver that is granted by the BZA to County Zoning Ordinance provisions. She then asked if the Board members would like to comment before she opens the discussion to the public. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the goal is to protect a highway which a lot of people thought was adequately protected. One way to protect it is to be sure the commercial zoning on the road is not increased. Either the zoning text can be changed, or the design standards of the ARB can be changed. Both of these items are passed by the Board, but the zoning text is what goes to the BZA. If the BZA agrees with a petitioner that the zoning on his land keeps him from being able to do anything worthwhile with his land, a waiver is granted. If this Board then appeals that decision to the Court, the burden of proof is on this Board to prove there is no hardship and that places the Board in a much weaker position than is the ordinary case when dealing with the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Thomas said if the BZA requires only a 35 foot setback instead of a 150 setback (and this has been done), then the applicants can just "thumb their noses" at the ARB because they have stamp of approval on their 35 foot setback. That would make it much harder to get something attractive developed then if this Board were to change the design standards for the ARB. Mrs. Thomas said she does not know how to do this, and would need to seek the advice of the ARB first. If a landowner is aggrieved by those standards, those are appealable to this Board, and then to the Circuit Court. That would give this Board a chance to not only set the standards, but also during an appeal, to uphold what the County's Comprehensive Plan says about the highway, etc. Mrs. Thomas said it sounds like amending the entrance corridor standards to require a 150-foot setback is actually a better safeguard than changing the text of the zoning ordinance and placing a double overlay on a scenic highway which is then appealable to the BZA. Mr. Marshall said he has no problem with designating Route 250 West or Route 20 as scenic highways. He wants to be sure maximum protection can be afforded whichever way it is done. Mr. Bowerman said he did not know the Chairman was going to let the public speak, and he wanted to express what he thought was Mr. Peyton's point of view. Mr. Martin said he was not present last week but it seems that the majority of people in the audience and the Board members are all in agreement as to the goal. The question is how to achieve the goal. He thinks the easiest way to go about solving this is to tell staff the goal, and tell them to figure out the best way to achieve the goal. Mrs. Humphris said she has told members of the public that this is not a public hearing, but it is a very important subject that has been brought to the Board. She knows Mr. Peyton is present and she believes he has a proposal for the Board. Mr. Scott Peyton was present. He seems to be hearing a strong consensus that not only Route 250 West but other corridors warrant the scenic highway designation. He did not know exactly what Mrs. Thomas was describing, and confesses to being confused. The concern he has is with changing the language of the ARB standards vs. guidelines. The 150-foot setback (100-foot building setback, and 50-foot setback for signs and parking) was the component of the scenic highway designation that had "teeth" to it. If that could be incorpo- rated into mandated language rather than just generic guidelines, which would totally leave it up to the discretionary application of the ARB, he could support it. Mr. Peyton said that he and the other individuals who are in support of reinstating the scenic highway designation are not just looking for a solution in words, but one in substance. He thinks it would be significant for the County, above and beyond the State designation of scenic byway, to reestablish the scenic corridor overlay because it states that the Board, today, as the duly elected representative body of Albemarle County, identifieS these corridors as having significant and enduring qualities that warrant protection today, and that Albemarle County land planning policies will seek to protect those qualities into the future. He does not think of the designation "scenic highway" as being just words. He thinks it carries more weight than that. Mr. Peyton said he wanted to address this evening a very real concern that Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Marshall commented on last week about the County being taken out of the review loop. That takes power away from the County, 000 91 July 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) and he feels it should be avoided. It is not just an issue of the scenic highways where the BZA can step in and circumvent input from the County. There are two separate issues that should be separated. The inherent benefits and merits of reinstating the scenic highway designation stand on their own. The issue of concern about the BZA being able to short-circuit that review process by the County is a different matter. He does not want concern over one to cloud the merit and value of the other. Mr. Peyton said that during the staff's presentation, there was a lot of weight placed on the number of variances that had been granted. He said the scenic highway ordinance was put into place in 1976, and repealed in 1992. It was in place for 16 years. Thirty variance requests in 16 years translates to less than two per year, and he does not think that is a lot of requests given the milage of the road protected under that ordinance. He does not suggest that the benefit given by the entrance corridor overlay be undone. That overlay is more broad based, and provides more protection than the scenic highway designation. He suggests that for those roads that warrant scenic designation, somehow a mandatory 150-foot setback be required. Mr. Peyton said this issue has been fascinating for him. It has brought together a diverse and varied group of constituencies. He thinks there probably were a large number of development requests that never got past the planning stage because they knew this county-mandated ordinance had to be taken into consideration. Mr. Peyton strongly encouraged this Board, to establish a committee that would involve citizen input, to study this request. Mr. Mike Marshall was present and said he thinks both could be done. The ARB criteria applies to any entrance corridor (ugly or pretty), but the scenic highway protection specifically protects pretty, so he thinks there could be redundancy by having both situations apply. He knows that people in the western part of the County have long assumed that the scenic highway protection was in place, and what they really want is that language as they have long expected it to be there. If that language is not adequate, then change the criteria too. Mrs. Thomas said her point was that "we might actually shoot ourselves in the foot." She agrees with Mr. Martin that the Board does not have the expertise to decide. Mrs. Humphris said it is important to reiterate for the people who were not present for last week's discussion that the BZA is not a creature of this Board. It is court appointed, and that is why there is the discussion of who is able to grant waivers or enforce regulations. If a request goes to the BZA it is gone from this Board. This Board has no control over it. Mr. Davis said if the Board does both and the applicant goes to the BZA first and establishes that he does not have a reasonable use of the property unless there is a 35-foot setback, then it would be impossible, unless the County challenges that decision which has a presumption of correctness, and has it overturned, for any other County agency, to require anything more than a 35-foot setback because there will be a finding by the BZA, which is a quasi-judicial body, that the 35-f°ot setback is necessary for a reasonable use of the property. Any requirement beyond that would be a taking of the property. Mr. Tom Loach said there is a strong interest in maintaining the downtown portion of Crozet. To protect it from large commercial development on Route 250 is important. The downtown area serves more than just commercial purposes. It is a social center for the community, and has existed for a number of years. He would like wording in any ordinance adopted, if possible, saying any commercial development must be done in the size, scope and scale that already exists within the community. He knows there is a limitation on the amount of commercial that can be in the downtown area, but he thinks that first a healthy downtown should be established. After that, develop commer- cial that is complementary rather than highly competitive as would be seen with large chain stores. Also, the County has already invested quite a lot of money in planning for the growth area itself, so it should be protected. Mr. Dean Strong said he owns property and has a business on Route 250 West in the Crozet growth area. The property is designated commercial. He has no pros or cons regarding redesignation, however, he heard about this through "the grapevine." He asked that all of the public be made aware of the proposal. He said all have an interest to protect something, not only in Crozet, but out of Crozet. He is interested in a pretty highway, but he would like to know that he can participate in discussing what is to be done with that highway. He urged that all of the committee meetings and staff meetings have public participation. Mr. Perkins said the problem seems to be incorporating the entrance corridor and scenic highway regulations. That seems to be a legal question, and he sees no need for a committee to study ito He suggested that every landowner along Route 250 West be notified by a personal letter that this is being discussed. Mr. Marshall said he does not know enough about this question to know what should be done. He wants to be sure that this is done right so it is O00 Z 2 July 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) lasting, and the Board does not have to go back and do it again. He does not want to infringe on anybody's property rights. Mrs. Humphris said this Board needs a recommendation, and that falls under the purview of the Planning Department. Mr. Martin suggested that staff put together a plan of action which the Board would then approve. Mrs. Thomas urged that there be something informal such as a work session. Mr. Cilimberg said his staff recently had round table discussions on various things and they could designate one of those discussions for this topic. Before staff tries to bring forth a concept or idea, staff needs some basic instructions from the Board as to whether it wants an ordinance or guidelines. Does the Board want to go back to the 150-foot setback? Mrs. Humphris said she does not know why the 150 feet was picked originally. Mr. Cilimberg said staff hears that the Board wants some kind of setback that represents the character of the scenic highway without taking away the authority of the ARB. He thinks that first his staff, ARB staff, and the County Attorney, will need to work with the ARB. After arriving at some concepts, he can schedule a round table discussion, and ultimately bring something to the Board. Mrs. Humphris asked what the Board members felt about Mr. Cilimberg's proposed plan. All agreed to Mr. Cilimberg's proposed work plan. Mrs. Humphris said a report will be returned to this Board, most likely in Septem- ber. Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: April 5, 1995. Mr. Martin had read April 5, 1996, pages 1 - 12 (Item #11). He then offered motion to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker said there is a vacancy on the JAUNT Board which needs to be filled. He recommended that Mr. Juandiego Wade of the Planning & Community Development be appointed to replace Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., with a term which will end on September 30, 1999o Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Mr. Tucker said he had received a copy of a resolution adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors relative to asking that the Blue Ridge Parkway be designated as an All-American Road. This is being done in the hope of obtaining financing for the maintenance, etc. of the road. The Blue Ridge Parkway does not actually enter Albemarle County. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the Skyline Drive for its entire length should be added to this request, since it is essentially the same road. The Board agreed, by consensus, that Mr. Tucker should express this idea in a letter to the committee working on this project. Mrs. Thomas said a constituent has asked why a fire truck responds to every accident, etc. and if this policy cannot be changed. Mr. Bowerman said it is to be discussed with the firemen soon. Mr. Martin said he understands the Virginia Department of Transportation has changed its standards for paving of roads and can now "pave in place". He would like to have a report on this at the August meeting since it could make a big change in the County's priority listings. Agenda Item No. 12. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel Matters. At 8:23 p.m., Mr. Bowerman offered motion to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss appointments to boards and commission, and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: July 10, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) AYES: NAYS: 000293 Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Executive Session. At 9:15 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: :S: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.