The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-06-06June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 6, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris and Mr. Peter T. Way. 218 ABSENT: Mr. Walter F. Perkins. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg (arrived at 7:35 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve Items 4.12 and 4.13 on the Consent Agenda, to pull Items 4.3, 4.6 and 4.10 for discussion on June 13 and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Item 4.1. Department of Planning and Community Development First Quar- ter, 1990, Building Report, was received for information. (During the first quarter of 1990, 171 permits were issued for 216 dwelling units. In addition, six permits were issued for mobile homes in existing parks. Of the aforemen- tioned permits, five were for condominiums.) Item 4.2. Planning Commission Minutes for May 8, May 15 and May 22, 1990, were received for information. Item 4.3. Quarterly Report from JAUNT, Inc., dated May 8, 1990, was received for information. (Mr. Bowie asked how JAUNT will cover its projected $6,000 shortfall for the year. Mr. Agnor said the JAUNT Board is considering raising its fares in several service areas to offset the deficit. Mr. Bain said when JAUNT made its' budget presentation, it was his understanding that there would be no increase in fares. Mr. Agnor said JAUNT does not propose to increase fares for handicapped riders, door-to-door service, but is consider- ing adjusting fares for "regular" riders. Mr. Bowie asked if the JAUNT Board has approved the fare increase. Mr. Way responded "no". The JAUNT Board held a public hearing on the proposed increase, but at this time has taken no official action. Mr. Bain asked what constitutes a "regular" rider. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks they are non-elderly and non-handicapped riders. Mr. Bain said he has received several telephone calls and adequate information is not getting out to the riders. Mr. Bowie suggested that this item be added to the June 13 agenda to get more information.) Item 4.4. Letter dated May 15, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Depart- ment of Transportation, stating that protruding rocks have been removed within VDoT's right-of-way on Route 53, in response to a request made at the May 9, 1990, Board of Supervisors' meeting, was received for information. Item 4.5. Letter dated May 21, 1990, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Department of Transportation, stating that VDoT intends to repair the existing superstruc- ture on Route 706 over a branch of the Hardware River between June 4 and June 8, 1990, was received for information. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 2) 219 Item 4.6. Letter dated May 24, 1990, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Virginia Department of Transportation, forwarding Tentative 1990-91 Construction Fund Allocations for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, as well as Public Transit, Ports and Airports, Including an Update of the Six-Year Improvement Program through 1995-96, was received for information. (Preliminary approval of these allocations was given by the Commonwealth Transportation Board at its May 17 meeting. Final action will be requested after the Board holds a public hearing in Richmond on June 21, 1990. Mr. Bowie suggested that this item be discussed in detail at the June 13 meeting.) Item 4.7. Letter dated May 17, 1990, from Mr. Norman E. Scherstrom, from the United States Postal Service, in response to Board resolution of May 3, was received as information. Mr. Scherstrom stated that reduced rate mail service cannot be made available for local municipal governments without compensation through other appropriations requiring a specific Congressional action, was received for information. Item 4.8. Notice of application by Virginia Electric and Power Company to the State Corporation Commission, dated May 15, 1990, for an expedited increase in rates, was received for information. Item 4.9. Notice of application by Dominion Charter Company, Inc. to the State Corporation Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity as special or charter party carrier by motor vehicle, dated May 15, 1990, was received for information. Item 4.10. County Executive's Financial Report for April, 1990, was received for information as follows: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1989 TO APRIL 30, 1990 GENERAL FUND 1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD YTD COLLECTED YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMF~NT TRANSFERS TOTAL EXPENDITURES 47,205,381 40,637,879 4,074,240 2,888,684 182,370 43,880 921~595 921~595 52,383,586 44,492,038 6,567,502 - 86.09% 1,185,556 - 70.90% 138,490 - 24.06% 0 - 100.00% 7,891,548 - 84.94% 89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS NONDEPARTMENTAL TOTAL SCHOOL FUND REVENUES 3,281,497 2,660,855 1,190,246 966,224 5,172,348 4,521,343 1,878,248 1,357,537 3,299,831 2,739,376 27,003,594 22,374,066 1,860,606 1,578,596 1,425,255 1,119,313 4,104,946 3,152,151 3~167~015 2~626~193 52,383,586 43,095,654 1989/90 RECEIPTS EST. REVENUE YTD 620,642 + 81.09% 224,022 + 81.18% 651,005 + 87.41% 520,711 + 72.28% 560,455 + 83.02% 4,629,528 + 82.86% 282,010 + 84.84% 305,942 + 78.53% 952,795 + 76.79% 540~822 + 82.92% 9,287,932 + 82.27% BALANCE COLLECTED YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL 504,313 473,754 17,793,385 13,029,308 357,600 0 27,431~258 22~367~642 46,086,556 35,870,704 30,559 - 93.94% 4,764,077 - 73.23% 357,600 - 0.00% 5~063,616 ~ 81.54% 10,215,852 - 77.83% June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 3) 220 89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD INSTRUCTION 36,026,619 26,400,676 9,625,943 + 73.28% ADMIN., ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH 1,632,075 1,400,123 231,952 + 85.79% PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 4,071,242 3,302,983 768,259 + 81.13% FACILITIES OPERATION & MAINT 3,883,929 3,314,898 569,031 + 85.35% FACILITIES 472~691 386~794 85,897 + 81.83% TOTAL 46,086,556 34,805,474 11,281,082 + 75.52% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES 1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD 383,000 278,842 104,158 72.80% LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH NONREVENUE RECEIPTS FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES 527,040 75,000 452,040 14.23% 15,382,730 6,263,355 9,119,375 - 40.72% 1,424,520 1,424,520 0 - 100.00% 1~431~570 1~421~070 10~500 99.27% 19,148,860 9,462,787 9,686,073 - 49.42% 89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL 251,594 233,581 18,013 + 92.84% 29,908 28,505 1,403 + 95.31% 619,795 472,145 147,650 + 76.18% 2,223,089 532,320 1,690,769 + 23.95% 13,263,116 11,782,297 1,480,819 + 88.84% 2,010,555 683,319 1,327,236 + 33.99% 216,495 173,069 43,426 + 79.94% 534~308 0 534~308 + 0.00% 19,148,860 13,905,236 5,243,624 + 72.62% OTHER FUNDS REVENUES METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD 0 6,124 (6,124)+ 0.00% SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION MODERATE REHAB. GRANT CDBG-AHIP GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT FOOD SERVICES CHAPTER I CHAPTER II MIGRANT EDUCATION MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT DRUG EDUCATION GRANT ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH SLIAG PROGRAM CBIP SEVERE E. D. PROGRAM COMMUNITY EDUCATION TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND MCINTIRE TRUST FUND JOINT SECURITY JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL JOINT DISPATCH FUND JOINT RECREATION FACILITY STORM WATER CONTROL FUND VISITOR CENTER FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES 30,299 23,089 7,210 - 76.20% 0 668,109 (668,109)+ 0~00% 0 239,927 (239,927)+ 0.00% 133,903 50,315 83,588 37.58% 0 108,486 (108,486)+ 0.00% 0 92,628 (92,628)+ 0.00% 1,470,530 1,054,546 415,984 - 71.71% 510,628 327,662 182,966 64.17% 51,893 30,640 21,253 - 59.04% 49,000 29,056 19,944 - 59.30% 0 11,096 (11,096)+ 0.00% 25,000 3,290 21,710 - 13.16% 0 0 0 - 0.00% 36,661 6,392 30,269 - 17.44% 26,583 4,600 21,983 - 17.30% 0 13,513 (13,513)+ 0.00% 419,823 199,918 219,905 - 47.62% 557,501 201,254 356,247 - 36.10% 683,960 326,899 357,061 - 47.80% 361,511 207,603 153,908 - 57.43% 10,000 8,120 1,880 - 81.20% 2,193,225 1,731,703 461,522 78.96% 1,035,195 870,607 164,588 84.10% 717,862 663,537 54,325 92.43% 152,230 44,697 107,533 29.36% 852,331 42,952 809,379 5.04% 67,735 56,445 11,290 83.33% 2~670~037 1~712~151 957~886 64.12% 12,055,907 8,735,359 3,320,548 72.46% 89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0 8,361 (8,361)- 0.00% 30,299 25,314 4,985 + 83.55% 0 657,548 (657,548)- 0.00% June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 4) CDBG-AHIP GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT FOOD SERVICES CHAPTER I CHAPTER II MIGRANT EDUCATION MISC. SCHOOL CRANTS FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT DRUG EDUCATION GRANT ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH SLIAG CBIP SEVERE E D PROGRAM COMMUNITY EDUCATION TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND MCINTIRE TRUST FUND JOINT SECURITY FUND JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL JOINT DISPATCH FUND JOINT RECREATION FACILITY STORM WATER CONTROL FUND VISITOR CENTER FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL 221 0 239,927 (239,927)- 0.00% 133,903 69,299 64,604 + 51.75% 0 407,813 (407,813)- 0.00% 0 79,948 (79,948)- 0.00% 1,470,530 1,107,352 363,178 + 75.30% 510,628 366,793 143,835 + 71.83% 51,893 40,663 11,230 + 78.36% 49,000 37,847 11,153 + 77.24% 0 14,061 (14,061)- 0.00% 25,000 12,178 12,822 + 48.71% 0 0 0 - O.OO% 36,661 19,778 16,883 + 53.95% 26,583 16,842 9,741 + 63.36% 0 16,276 (16,276)- 0.00% 419,823 338,560 81,263 + 80.64% 557,501 389,974 167,527 + 69.95% 683,960 446,728 237,232 + 65.31% 361,511 257,092 104,419 + 71.12% 10,000 8,120 1,880 + 81.20% 2,193,225 1,868,922 324,303 + 85.21% 1,035,195 998,513 36,682 + 96.46% 717,862 585,760 132,102 + 81.60% 152,230 83,373 68,857 + 54.77% 852,331 22,902 829,429 + 2.69% 67,735 56,445 11,290 + 83.33% 2~670~037 1~711~762 958~275 + 64.11% 12,055,907 9,888,151 2,167,756 + 82.02% (Mr. Bowie asked when the Board will be given the status on departments that will be overbudget at the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Agnor said a report will be presented to the Board on 3une 13.) Item 4.11. Memorandum dated May 31, 1990, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, re: Virginia Association of Counties, Annual Dues, was received for information. (At its May quarterly meeting, the VACo Board of Directors increased the annual membership dues from nine cents per capita to fourteen cents per capita, effective July 1, 1990. Albemarle's dues next fiscal year will be $8,848 reflecting a population of 63,200. The approved budget for this item is $5,850.) Item 4.12. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Com~nonwealth's Attorney, and Regional Jail foY the Month of May, 1990, were approved by the above recorded vote. Item 4.13. Authorize Chairman to sign Deed of Easement granting the City of Charlottesville a permanent natural gas line easement in several of the roadways in Mill Creek Subdivision. (By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the Chairman to sign the following deed of easement granting the City of Charlottesville a permanent natural gas line easement in several of the roadways in Mill Creek Subdivision:) THIS DEED made this 16th day of May, 1990, by and among CRAIG BUILDERS OF ALBEMARLE, INC., Grantor and party of the first part; THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, whose address is P. O. Box 911, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, Grantee and party of the second part; DOUGLAS S. GREER and JOHN A. SEAMAN, III, Trustees and parties of the third part; CENTRAL FIDELITY BANK, Note- holder and party of the fourth part; and THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor and party of the fifth part. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantors hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto the City, a perpetual, nonexclusive easement and right- of-way ten (10) feet in width to construct, replace, extend, maintain, use and repair a four (4) inch natural gas main within the roadways June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) 222 known as Mill Creek Drive, Gray Stone Court, Quail Crossing, Grist Mill Road, Bryan Court, and Spring Mountain Road, as shown on a two-page plat made by the Gas Division of the Public Works Department of the City of Charlottesville, dated October 18, 1988, which plat is attached hereto and made a part of this deed. Said easement includes the right to construct slopes, cuts, fills and ditches in connection therewith, and convey natural gas under said property through said natural gas main. This easement and right-of-way are shown on such plat with a dotted line as the center line of the easement and ia- belled "4" PE Gas Main". The conveyance of this easement and right-of-way includes the perpetual right of ingress and egress for the above-mentioned pur- poses. Said easement and right-of-way cross a portion of the property dedicated to the County of Albemarle by subdivision plat dated July 23, 1987 and revised August 7, 1987 in Deed Book 955, page 13, and a portion of the property dedicated to public use by subdivision plat dated May 18, 1988 and revised January 31, 1989, in Deed Book 1034, page 752, both filed in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid plats for a more complete description of the property over which this easement and right-of-way cross. By deed of trust dated July 27, 1988, of record in the Clerk's Office for the Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 1005, page 130, Craig Builders of Albemarle, Inc. conveyed all of said property to the above-named Trustees, parties of the third part, to secure a certain debt payable to Noteholder, party of the fourth part. By and with the consent of the party of the fourth part, which consent is evidenced by its signature to this deed by an officer authorized to execute deeds, the parties of the third part hereby agree that their rights and the rights of the party of the fourth part arising from such deed of trust are subordinate and subject to the rights granted herein to the City. The foregoing subordination shall in no way affect the extent or the priority of the lien upon the remainder of the property thereby secured. As evidenced by its acceptance and recordation of this deed, the City covenants that it will perform the installation of the natural gas main in a proper and careful manner. Disturbed portions of Grantors, property will be restored within a reasonable time to a condition comparable to that which existed prior to such installation, except that no flowers, shrubs or trees within the easement will be replanted or replaced, if damaged or destroyed. In consideration of the granting of this easement, the City covenants that at such time as Mill Creek Drive and Gray Stone Court are to be taken into the State road system, the City will, at the request of Albemarle County or the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion, quitclaim all of its rights in this easement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Craig Builders of Albemarle, Inc. and Central Fidelity Bank has each caused this instrument to be executed on its behalf by its duly authorized officers; and IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County of Albemarle has caused this instrument to be executed on its behalf by F. R. Bowie, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Albemarle County, Virginia. Agenda Item No. 5. Certificates of Appreciation. Mr. Bowie said most counties could not operate without the dedicated services of their volunteers. As a small token of the Board's appreciation, he presented Certificates of Appreciation to the following individuals: Mrs. Charlotte Humphris served on the Equalization Board from April, 1988, until December 31, 1989, serving during one general reassessment. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 6) 223 Mrs. Millicent Bowerman served on the Board of Social Services from August~ 1-988, until January, 1990, with a willing and caring spirit. Her concern for the needs of citizens was always evident as was her interest in the many demands placed on the staff. Mr. Edgar N. Garnett, Jr., was a member of the Piedmont Virginia Commu- nity College Board of Directors from September, 1984, until August 1, 1989. He was a member of the Building and Finance Committee during a period of record enrollment and facilities improvements. Mr. Ian H. MacGregor served on the Emergency Medical Services Council from September, 1986, until March 1, 1990. He made a valuable contribution to the Council by serving as its Treasurer in 1988 and 1989. Mr. Alan C. Rasmussen was the County's citizen member on the Regional Jail Board from September, 1983, until May 22, 1990. He served as Chairman of the Jail Board for most of that time, from February, 1984, until March, 1990. Mr. Donald J. Wagner served on the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority from August, 1984, until April, 1990. During his tenure the Service Authority undertook an aggressive capital improvements program including the Crozet sewer system, replacement of the Scottsville sewer system, extension of water and sewer into the southern urban area (among other projects) and all without any federal, state or other outside funding. His business experience, combined with his interest in the community, contri- buted greatly to the progress made by the Service Authority. Mr. Bowie said although the Certificates of Appreciation are small compensation for these years of effort, they are sincerely meant. He again thanked all of the volunteers for their service. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-90-21. Jefferson National Bank. May 16, 1990.) (Deferred from Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized the staff report outlined in the May 16 minutes. At its meeting on May 16, the Board's primary concern was the location of the bank in proximity to Route 250. At that meeting the Board asked the staff to meet with the applicant and review possibilities for reorienting the bank site by moving it back into the site out of the 150 foot scenic highway setback along Route 250 West. Mr. Cilimberg presented the following memorandum, dated May 31, 1990, from his office and letter dated 3une 1, 1990, from Mr. Walter A. Pace, Jr., President, 3efferson National Bank, respectively: "Attached (on file) you will find a letter (dated May 23, 1990) from Marilyn Gale with Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., regarding the proposed Jefferson National Bank Branch in Ivy. The letter is intend- ed to summarize the bank's position regarding the siting of this branch as discussed in a meeting on May 21st with Planning staff. To elaborate, let me offer the following staff comments regarding that meeting and the enclosed letter: The bank does not seem willing to delete all drive-through windows, although they are considering deletion of one or more windows. It does not appear that reducing the number of drive-through windows will allow the building to be reoriented in this particu- lar site location with the proposed grading to meet setback requirements. Moving the building back on the property would result in more grading towards the residential property to the rear, occasion the need for a retaining wall, and/or likely require the reloca- tion of septic drainfields into an existing wooded area. There has been no confirmation by a soil study as to whether or not the septic drainfield could be located further back on the property. The current proposed location has been approved by the Health Department. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 7) 224 The building location itself is some 140 feet from the existing travelway of Route 250, but only 95 feet from the right-of-way itself which is particularly wide in this area. The bank is providing an amount of landscaping in excess of the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The bank is considering whether or not they can offer the trees/shrubs at a certain height or level of growth as opposed to smaller seedlings. In summary, staff believes that if a special use permit is to be approved for the drive-through facilities, the plan as offered recog- nizes environmental and scenic considerations and would not be out of character with existing commercial development in that area. As pointed out in our prior staff report, the critical issue is whether a drive-through bank, which occasioned the need for a setback reduction, constitutes over-development or inappropriate development of this particular site. This issue is directly addressed through approval or denial of the special use permit." "At the May 23, 1990, Albemarle County Boardof Supervisors meeting, concerns were expressed by the supervisors regarding Jefferson Nation- al Bank's proposed banking location in Ivy. These concerns addressed the areas of landscaping along Route 250, the location of the bank on the parcel of land, and the number of drive-in units. Jefferson National Bank is of the opinion that the area of landscaping and site location have been adequately addressed by the concerted efforts of Roudabush, Gale and Associates, Inc., Albemarle County's Planning staff and the bank. Accordingly, the drive-in situation is the only area which is thought to still be in question. Reasons for Jefferson National Bank's request for four drive-in units, i.e., three drive-ins and one ATM location, were predicated on econom- ics, customer service and future growth. Based on further in-house discussion, Jefferson National Bank will amend its drive-in request to a total of three drive-in units, i.e., two drive-ins and one ATM location. This is the minimum number of units that Jefferson National Bank feels would be needed in order to provide the residents of Ivy with the service that they deserve and expect from a financial insti- tution. In offering this compromise, Jefferson National Bank is foregoing both economic andigrowth reasoning by building to the present rather than allowing for the future. If the Board of Super- visors feels compelled to l~mit the bank's special use permit to a total of two drive-in units, Jefferson National would have to abandon its plans for an ATM location. This would limit the amount of service that would be provided to the area residents and compromise our efforts to bring a full service financial institution to the area. However, Jefferson National feels that there is both the need and desire to have a financial institution in this area and is willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to be given the opportunity to serve this area and its people." Mr. Cilimberg said the staff feels that the applicants have addressed the design and circulation considerations to the best of their ability. As previously stated, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5-2, recommended approval of SP-90-21 subject to two conditions. Mr. Bowie said the public h~aring on this petition was held at the May 16 meeting, but the Board will cons~ider new information from the applicant at this time. Representing the applicant, Ms. Marilyn Gale of Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., presented a rendering of the con,figuration of the bank building and how it will mesh with adjacent architecture. Mr. Jim Garland, a represenltative of Jefferson National Bank, presented pictures of the proposed bank building and its relationship to the surrounding area. The bank building is proplosed to sit approximately 140 feet from the roadway. The proposed building is 32 feet by 62 feet. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 8) 225 Mrs. Humphris asked if deleting one drive-through window would make a difference in the orientation of the building on the site. Mr. Cilimberg replied "no". Mr. Bowerman asked if the staff and applicant discussed designing a building to fit the site. Mr. Cilimberg responded "no" Mr. Garland said the applicant reviewed various plans of buildings that were in their files. The proposed building fits the size of the lot. The applicants did not hire an architect to design a building to fit the site. The proposed building is to be a full service banking institution. Mr. Cilimberg said should the Board choose to approve the petition, staff recommends a third condition be added to reflect the deletion of one drive- through window: "3. This special use permit is for two drive-through windows and a drive-through Automatic Teller Machine (ATM). Additional drive-through units will require approval of a separate special use permit." Mr. Bain asked if there have been any discussions about the parking facilities. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicants want to maintain parking facilities as originally presented. Mr. Bain said although the elevations and eventual screening will make a difference, he does not like the drive-through facility. He thinks there should be no more than two total drive-through windows including the ATM. He is also concerned about the parking, but will not pursue that at this time. Mr. Bain then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-90-21, subject to the original two conditions, amending condition #3 as follows: "This special use permit is for two drive-through windows. Addi- tional drive-through units will require approval of a separate special use permit"; and a condition #4 as follows: "Building height not to exceed 23 feet". Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Perkins. (The conditions are set out below in full:) Construction of an entrance on the realigned Route 678 within one year of the completion of the Route 678 construction; Final site plan is to be in accordance with the plan initialled "RET" and dated May 8, 1990; This special use permit is for two drive-through windows. Addi- tional drive-through units will require approval of a separate special use permit; 4. Building height not to exceed 23 feet. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-90-02. Virginia Oil. Proffered request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning OrdinanCe to rezone 1.377 acres from CO, Commercial Office, to HC, Highway Commercial, in order to construct a car wash and gas station. Property located (N#3) in the northwest corner of the intersection of U.S. Rt. 250 East and North Pantops Drive. Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 29, 1990.) (Applicant requests deferral to August 1, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg said a letter has been received from the applicant's representative, Mr. Fred W. Payne, requesting that ZMA-80-02 be deferred until August 1, 1990. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to accept the applicant's request to defer ZMA-90-02 until August t, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 9) 226 Agenda Item No. 8. SP-90-26. Commonwealth Gas Pipeline Corporation. Publichearing on a request for a gas transmission line (10.2.2.6) on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Total distance is 0.7 miles and will be located adjacent to two existing lines. Property located (NDGA) on the west side of Route 20 in the northwest corner of the intersection of Routes 20 and 641. Tax Map 35, Parcels 37A and 31. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 29, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: Two gas transmission lines are present in the existing easement. Area is a mixture of open and wooded land. Parcel 31 is in an agricultural forestal district, no additional clearing is proposed on Parcel 31. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing a new 24-inch gas transmission line to be laid adjacent to existing gas transmission lines. The proposed line will extend approximately 0.7 miles. Most of this distance is on parcel 37A. The line will tie into existing valves on parcel 31 which are approximately 25 to 30 feet east of Route 20. Comprehensive Plan: 'The primary issue related to non-public utili- ties is the assurance that adequate provision and capacities of non-public services are available for the present and anticipated growth within the County. In order to achieve this, cooperative and coordinated planning efforts must be maintained by the County and the respective utilities.' (1988-2010 Comprehensive Plan page 153). In addition, the Plan states 'Corridors should be shared by utilities when possible. Distribution lines should be placed underground' (Page 88). Summary and Recommendation: This additional line will require that some additional easement be obtained and that approximately ten additional feet of clearing occur. All of the clearing would occur on Parcel 37A and would run for a length of approximately two-tenths mile, starting at the Orange County line. Some additional clearing of trees in smaller clusters may be necessary. Expanding an existing utility corridor is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's intent of sharing utility corridors, and would, in staff's opinion, be superior to a new utility corridor. Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia requires that in order for this permit to be approved it must be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Planin regards to the general or approximate location, character and extent. The Comprehensive Plan does not note the general or approximate location of this or any other gas transmission line. However, it does address the character and extent of improve- ments by calling for adequate provision and capacity. This line will not directly serve the County. The State Corporation Commission has stated that additional capacity is needed. However, the'line will increase capacity in Albemarle and surrounding counties thereby providing capacity for the anticipated growth of the County. Based on the line's provision of increased capacity, staff recommends approval of SP-90-26 Commonwealth Gas Pipeline Corporation subject to the following condition: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Ail construction to be accomplished within a 90 foot easement; Ail fences and other existing structures, existing at the time of the, installation of th~ pipeline and which are disturbed by such installation shall be restored or reasonabl~ compensated for." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 22, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-26 subject to the conditions as recommended by the staff. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) 227 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jim Skove, representing Commonwealth Gas, said this proposal is to construct a third 24-inch line, for a distance in Albemarle County of approximately one-half mile. The line starts at a compressor station south of Stanardsville, in Greene County, runs through Greene County, approximately three and one-half miles from Orange County, and then terminates at a valve station east of Route 20 in Albemarle. The State Corporation Commission (SCC) deemed construction of this pipeline to be a public necessity. The SCC also determined that there is no reasonable alter- native to this line. The line is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commonwealth Gas has taken all measures to reduce and minimize the physical impacts of the line. The applicants have no problems with the conditions recommended by the staff. There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said this property lies in the Rivanna District and he has no problem with the petition and is prepared to support a motion for approval. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve SP-90-26, subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Ail construction to be accomplished within a 90 foot easement; All fences and other existing structures, existing at the time of the installation of the pipeline and which are disturbed by such installation shall be restored or reasonably compensated for. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90-30. Robert A. and Elizabeth K. Wilson. Public hearing on a request to permit a recreational building at the Little Keswick School (10.2.2). Property is 2.7 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Pro- perty located (NDGA) on east side of Route 731 approx. 200 feet south of Route 22. Tax Map 80, Parcel ll0A1. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 29, 1990.) Agenda Item No. 10. SP-90-31. Robert A. and Elizabeth K. Wilson. Public hearing on a request to permit expansion of the Little Keswick School (10.2.2(5)) by utilizing the existing community building for East Rivanna Fire Company. Property consists of 1.0 acre zoned PA, Rural Areas. Property located (NDGA) on the east side of Route 731 approx. 200 feet south of Route 22. Tax Map 80, Parcel ll0A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 29, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff reports: "Character of the Area: Properties are developed with the facilities for the Little Keswick School and the East Rivanna Fire Company Community building. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 50 by 70 foot recreational building on Parcel ll0A1. Structure location has not been precisely noted at this time, but must meet or exceed all setback requirements. The applicant is unable to provide the exact location of the proposed building. Staff opinion is that the provi- sions in the ordinance are sufficient to protect adjacent owners from adverse impact. The applicant is proposing to incorporate the commu- nity building of the East Rivanna Fire Company into the school facili- ties. The use of this building has not yet been determined. The application is being made to enable the school to continue negotiating to purchase the building. No increase in enrollment is proposed. Current state license restricts enrollment to 27. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) 228 Comprehensive Plan: This property is located in Rural Area Two. The Comprehensive Plan discourages development not related to agricultural/ forestal use. Summary and Recommendations: Due to existing development, staff has not reviewed this request as the conversion of an agricultural use to a commercial activity. Previous special use permits have established this use and permitted growth. The current requests are for addi- tional buildings to provide better facilities at the school. During the 1986 review for the temporary mobile classroom, staff stated 'Staff would be unable to recommend favorably on any future special use permit unless an adequate commercial entrance can be installed.' Staff went on to say 'Access through the Keswick Volunteer Fire Department property would have adequate sight distance.' Based on previous actions and comments, staff will recommend that both special use permits be conditioned on obtaining an adequate commercial entrance. Staff would note that SP-90-31 would convert a 'public' use to a commercial activity. This use in not publicly owned, but does receive funding from the County. Staff also notes that no formal proposals have been submitted to the County which would relocate the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company to another site. Approval of SP-90-31 is not intended to be a County endorsement of a relocation or an alternative site location. This will be addressed in the Public Facility Planning process and, if necessary, a future Capital Improve- ments Program. At this time, there is no essential need identified for any other public service or facility in the Keswick area. Staff recommends approval of SP-90-30 and SP-90-31 for Robert A. and Elizabeth K. Wilson subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a commercial entrance permit (SP-90-31 only); 2. Staff approval of sketch plan for a new building; 3. Virginia Department of Health approval; 4. No increase in enrollment; and Parcels to be combined prior to the issuance of a building permit for the recreational building or the commencement of activity in the existing Fire Company building." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 1, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-30 and SP-90-31 subject to the conditions of the staff. Mr. Cilimberg recommended that condition #4 of SP-90-30 be clarified to read as follows: "Parcel to be combined with the existing school parcel (Parcel 110) prior to the issuance of a building permit for the recreational building." The amended language directly ties the use requested for the special permit to the condition that the recreational building become a part of the school facility. This language would also separate the requirements of this special permit from the requirements of SP-90-31. Mr. Cilimberg also suggested that condition #2 of SP-90-31 be omitted since there is no new building proposed for that site and condition #5 be amended to read as follows: "Parcel to be combined with existing parcel (Parcel 110) prior to the commencement of activity in the existing fire company building." This condition is intended to allow SP-90-31 to operate independently of SP-90-30. Mr. Bowie questioned the need for a commercial entrance. Mr. Cilimberg said the purpose of the commercial entrance requirement is to deal with sight distance. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) 229 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Wilson, President of Little Keswick School, said the school was founded in 1963. The request for an activity building is to improve the quality of the school's program and to provide a full educational program. He asks the Board to look favorably upon this request so that the school can operate another 27 years in Albemarle County. Mr. Wilson said the purpose of SP-90-31 is for the use of the East Rivanna Fire Company's buildings in the event the fire company moves. His intent is to see if the buildings will be approved for educational purposes before becoming too involved in negotiations. He does not know when the fire company intends to move, but this is requested in the event that it happens. As a point of clarification, the school is licensed for 29 students, not 27 students, but the school is not planning to increase enrollment or staff. Mr. Harry Porter asked what is meant by improving the sight distance if the project is approved. Both the owner of Little Keswick School and the residents like the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Cilimberg said sight distance improvements would include establishing a new entrance at the loca- tion of the fire department's community building. If the applicant exercises the special permit for the use of the community building, that would require a commercial entrance. There being no other public cox~ents, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said he is familiar with this school and.the property and he has no problem with either application. He does have a problem with requiring a commercial entrance. Route 731 is barely a two-lane gravel road. The school is out of sight and sits back into its own property on a nice small country road. He cannot understand the necessity of having commercial entran- ces on small gravel roads. He does not see a need for a commercial entrance until either the enrollment is increased or the school is expanded. He also thinks the use of the school at the fire company buildings would generate less usage than the fire department has at present. Mr. Cilimberg said the commer- cial entrance is not required unless SP-90-31 is exercised. Mr. Bowie said he is aware of that, but the applicant is not changing anything. He supports amending the first condition of SP-90-31 for a commercial entrance upon expansion of the school or additional traffic. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve SP-90-30 subject to the following conditions as amended: 1. Staff approval of sketch plan for a new building; 2. Virginia Department of Health approval; 3. No increase in enrollment; and Parcel to be combined with the existing school parcel (Parcel 110) prior to the issuance of a building permit for the recrea- tional building. Roll was called~and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve SP-90-31, subject to the recommended conditions as amended: Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a commercial entrance permit in the event of increased enrollment or paving of Route 731; 2. Virginia Department of Health approval; 3. No increase in enrollment; and Parcel to be combined with the existing parcel (Parcel 110) prior to the con~nencament of activity in the existing Fire Company building. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) 231 The public hearing was opened. Present was Ms. Geneva Brock and Ms. Patricia Brock, members of Holy Trinity Church. They had no comments and were present to answer any questions. Ms. Geneva Brock agreed that the sole purpose of the special permit is to provide for restroom facilities. There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said this property lies in his district and he has no problem with the application. Again he does not understand the reason for a commer- cial entrance just because of the addition of restroom facilities. Mrs. Humphris asked how many trees will need to be cut to accommodate the commercial entrance. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not believe that any mature trees will need to be cut. A visit to the site indicates primarily the cutting of brush will be necessary. Mr. Bowie said the Highway Department states "A minimum of 350 feet of sight distance is required and tree trimming or removal is needed in both directions .... " Mr. Bowie asked the applicant how many large trees would have to be cut down to get the 350 foot sight distance. Ms. Geneva Brock said she is not sure because the church property adjoins a private homeowner and the church does not know where its property line ends. She does not think there are many trees in the area and has no objection to cutting them down. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve SP-90-32 subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, with the first condition amended to add "for restroom facilities": 1. Expansion limited to 352 square feet for restroom facilities; 2. Health Department approval of septic field; and 3. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial entrance permit. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-90-04. T. E. Wood. Public hearing on a request to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 27.0, LI, Light Industrial District, to allow "Motor Vehicle Towing and Storage" as a use by special use permit, and in Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations, to include wording for "Towing and Storage of Motor Vehicles." (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 29, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report: "Public Purpose to be Served: To provide a needed use for temporary storage of vehicles. Staff Comment: The purpose of this amendment would be tO provide for a motor vehicle towing/storage use, distinguished from a body shop, salvage yard or junk yard. As recommended by staff, this use would allow for towing and temporary storage of collision/disabled vehicles and repossessed/impounded vehicles. Repair, dismantling, salvaging and crushing of vehicles would not be permitted. As to the appropriateness of the use within the LI zone, staff opinion is that it is similar to but less intensive than 'body shop'. The LI district was amended in 1988 to include body shop by special use permit. Justification for inclusion of motor vehicle towing/storage would be similar. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (page 13) 230 Mr. Bowerman asked if the Highway Department would request a commercial entrance=if this request was for a new school with 29 children. Mr. Cilimberg replied "yes". Mr. Bowie said in the past the Board has occasionally deleted this requirement when it does not make sense to have a commercial entrance on a rural road. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No.' 11. SP-90-32. Holy Trinity Church. Public hearing on a request to permit a352 square foot addition to the existing church (10.2.2.35) on 1.5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located (NDGA) on the south side of Route 640 approximately 1/2 mile east of Route 784. Tax Map 35, Parcel 86. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 29, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: The site is developed with an existing church. Several residences are located insight of the church. area is mostly wooded. The Applicant's proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 352 square foot addition to provide for restroom facilities to be located on the front of the building. Church is currently served by two outhouses. No increase in membership in proposed. Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in Rural Area Two. In staff opinion, the small size of the expansion is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan's goal of limiting development in the rural areas. Summary and Recommendations' The proposed expansion will provide for indoor restroom facilities and does not represent an expansion of the use. Staff recommends Health DePartment approval for the new septic field. Due to limited size of the expansion, staff opinion is that the public interest will not be served by a site plan. Staff therefore recom- mends waiver of a site plan, however, entrance improvements should be required. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to the follow- ing conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Expansion limited to 352 square feet; 2. Health Department approval of septic field; and 3. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial entrance permit." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 1, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-32 subject to the conditions as recommended by the staff. Mr. Bowie said the conditions should reflect the expansion is for restroom facilities. He has the same problem as with the last application in requesting a commercial entrance. He doe not think the addition of restroom facilities will increase traffic. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) 232 Staff recommends the following amendments: ADD TO LI, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT: Section 27.2.2.12. Towing and Storage of Motor Vehicles (reference 5.1.32). ADD TO 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS: Section 5.1.32. Towing and Storage of Motor Vehicles This provision is intended to provide locations for the towing and/or storage of collision/disabled vehicles, repos- sessed/impounded vehicles, and rental vehicles. No body or mechanical work, painting, maintenance, servicing, disassem- bling, salvage or crushing of vehicles shall be permitted; except that the commission may authorize maintenance and servicing of rental vehicles in a particular case; No vehicle shall be located on any portion of such property so as to be visible from any public road or any residential property and shall be limited to locations designated on the approved site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 1, 1990, by a vote of 4-3, recommended denial of ZTA-90-04. The Commission's denial was based on four concerns: (1) storage time or the temporary nature of the storage and how that could be controlled; (2) containment of oil, gas and anti-freeze potentially leaking from wrecked vehicles; (3) the number of potential vehicles that could be stored; and (4) the appropriateness of this use in the LI district. Mrs. Humphris asked the reason there is no mention of the word "tempo- rary'' in the recommended language when the amendment would allow for towing and temporary storage. Mr. Cilimberg said that was not a purposeful omission and could be added. Mr. Bowerman asked the definition of "temporary". Mr. Cilimberg said the word would need to be defined. Mr. Bowie said he felt language could be added to the effect that the length of temporary storage would be determined at the time of issuance of the special use permit. Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. Bowie. Mrs. Humphris said she felt "temporary" needed to be addressed in Section 5.1.32. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Andrew Johnson, the applicant, came forward. Mr. Johnson said the purpose of the storage is if a vehicle is broken down or for some reason it needs to be stored on-site. He does not intend to store the vehicles on-site for longer than a week. If the vehicle is abandoned, State law provides for its disposal after 30 days. It is not his intent to maintain a collection of used cars. Due to the size of the property and the lay of the land, he would soon be out of business if the cars were not removed within a reasonable time frame. The space is small and the physical boundaries of the property prohibit him from expansion. One side of the property has a 50 foot length rock wall and the other side has a steep bank and creek. He teaches cooling and lubrication at Piedmont Virginia Community College and so is aware of environmental concerns such as leaking oil and car lubricants. He thinks that if such a problem came up, it could be properly handled. He thinks the immediate area is conducive to his use. With the provisions the staff has made, fencing and planting trees, he thinks the use is appropriate for the area. Mr. Floyd Artrip, owner of Astec, said the future of Albemarle County centers on attracting clean high tech industry to the area. In April, 1990, The Daily ProKress reported that "The County needs clean, healthy industries that would contribute substantially to the tax base. Dollar for dollar, acre for acre, industrial development stands to create more financial benefits than disadvantages to the County." This property is zoned light industrial. The Zoning Ordinance defines light industrial property as "industries, offices and limited commercial uses which are compatible to and do not detract from the surrounding districts." Albemarle County, the Board of Supervisors and his economic and aesthetic well being depend on the County's ability to attract these kinds of industries into the CoUnty's LI zones. Auto towing and junk car impoundments are not compatible with this goal. The Zoning Ordinance June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 16) 233 defines Heavy Industry as "to accommodate industrial and commercial uses which have a-public nuisance potential". He presented photographs of property of a past towing service near his property. He has trouble attracting tenants to Astec Center because of this kind of use existing next door. A towing service is not typically operated as an independent service. Towing services usually include mechanical repairs. If the Board allows this use, does it include mechanical repairs? He recommends that the Board consider removing body shops totally from the ordinance. It is hard to ask a major business to move into a building alongside a use such as this. There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way asked what zone allows for mechanical repairs. Mr. Cilimberg responded C-1 and HC. Mr. Way said he feels this is an appropriate use for the LI district. Mr. Way then offered motion to adopt an ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 27.0, LI, Light Industrial District, to allow "Motor Vehicle Towing and Storage" as a use by special use permit, and in Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations, to include wording for "Towing and Storage of Motor Vehicles". He has no problem adding the word "temporary" in Section 5.1.32 and thinks that it can be defined when the application comes before the Board. Mr. Bain agreed and seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Perkins. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 5.0 AND SECTION 27.0 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 5.0, SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, and Section 27.0, LI, LIGHT INDUSTRY, are amended and reenacted to read as fol- lows: 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS 5.1.32 TOWING AND TEMPORARY STORAGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES This provision is intended to provide locations for the towing and/or temporary storage of colli- sion/disabled vehicles, repossessed/impounded vehicles, and rental vehicles. No body or mechan- ical work, painting, maintenance, servicing, disassembling, salvage, or crushing of vehicles shall be permitted; except that the commission may authorize maintenance and servicing of rental vehicles in a particular case; be No vehicle shall be located on any portion of such property so as to be visible from any public road or any residential property and shall be limited to locations designated on the approved site plan. 27.0 LIGHT INDUSTRY - LI 27.2.2.12 Towing and storage of motor vehicles (reference 5.1.32). Agenda Item No. 13. SP-90-34. Andrew Johnson (applicant), T. E. Wood (owner). Public hearing on a request to permit towing and storage (27.2.2.12) proposed under ZTA-90-04 on 2.2 acres zoned LI, Light Industrial. Property June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 17) 234 located (N#4) on the west side of Rt. 742 just south of the Corporate Limits of Charlottesville. Tax Map 77, Parcels 8C and 8D. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 29, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report and addendum, respec- tively: "Character of the Area: The site is currently vacant. Other indus- trial uses are located in the area. Other auto related uses are located near this site (Herring Auto Sales, Batten's Body Shop). Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to operate a vehicle towing and storage service. The applicant has submitted a sketch showing the approximate location of improvements on site (Attachment A). Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends that industrial uses be located adjacent to compatible uses(page 228). In addition, the Plan states 'Address objectionable aspects of an industrial use through a combination approach including realistic performance stan- dards, buffering and special setback regulations' (page 228). Su~mnary and Recommendations: The applicant has provided a sketch of the proposed development (Attachment A). The site is severely restric- ted by critical slopes and flood plain. Planning and Engineering staff have visited the site in order to determine the site's suitabil- ity for development. The areas proposed for development do not consist of flood plain or areas of critical slopes. Staff has discussed a containment plan for car fluids with the Engi- neering Department and Watershed Management Official. In order to provide containment, the storage area must be under roof with an impervious floor containing floor drains connecting to an underground storage tank. Staff opinion is that a structure of this type would be visible from adjacent residential properties and would require sub- stantial investment and construction near the limits of the one hundred year flood plain. Therefore, staff does not recommend a containment plan. During review of the site plan staff may require diversion of drainage into grass filter strips which will provide for some filtration of suspended solids. The proposed use is to be located at the bottom of an old quarry. The topography of the site is such that the vehicle storage area will be completely screened from public roads. However, the site will require additional screening in order to avoid impact on Willoughby located on the opposite side of Moore's Creek. This screening will preserve the integrity of Moore's Creek and will not jeopardize the use of Moore's Creek flood plain as a linear park. Staff recommends that screening of the storage area consist of a 10-foot opaque fence and five to ten- foot white pines planted 15 feet on center in double rows. Staff has prepared a graph in order to determine visibility from Willoughby. House elevations were provided by the developers of Willoughby. Based on this graph the recommended screening measures will provide suffi- cient screening of the site. The proposed point of access to the state road does not have adequate sight distance. Sight distance may be obtained by grading of a bank in both directions. Staff recommends that a commercial entrance be established prior to the commencement of the towing and storage use. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to the follow- ing conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: North, west and southern sides of the storage area shall be screened by a 10 foot opaque fence and five to six foot white pines planted 15 feet on center in double rows; June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 18) 235 Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance permit. Commercial entrance shall be installed prior to commencement of the towing and storageoperation; Staff approval of sketch plan to be in general compliance with Attachment A (site plan proposal for Andy 3ohnson towing, dated 4-10-90); No body or mechanical work, painting, maintenance, servicing, disassembling, salvage, or crushing of vehicles shall be permit- ted; 5. Compliance with Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance." "At its May 2, 1990 meeting, the Planning Commission. deferred action on SP-90-34 in order to allow staff to obtain additional information. Staff has prepared a graph in order to determine visibility of the storage area from Willoughby. House elevations were provided by the developers of Willoughby. The graph indicates that a six-foot fence would screen the site 50 feet into the storage area. A ten-foot fence would provide for screening to the base of the cliff, thereby provid- ing for adequate screening of the site. Based on this information, staff recommends that the opaque fence be ten feet in height. Concern was raised regarding containment of car fluids. Staff has discussed a containment plan with the Engineering Department and Watershed Management Official. In order to provide containment, the storage area must be under roof with an impervious floor containing floor drains connected to an underground storage tank. Staff opinion is that a structure of this type would be visible from adjacent residential properties and would require substantial investment and construction near the limits of the one hundred year flood plain. Therefore, staff does not recommend a containment plan. During review of the site plan, staff may require diversion of drainage into grass filter strips which will provide for some filtration of suspended solids. Staff recommends approval of SP-90-34, Andrew Johnson, subject to the conditions in the original staff report." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 22, 1990, by a vote of 4-2, recommended denial of SP-90-34. Mr. Bowie asked if the entire property was to be fenced. Mr. Cilimberg responded "no". The fence was to be on two sides and to run from the base of the cliff around the storage area back to the cliff. White pines were proposed alongside the fence to create a softening effect. The fence was to be opaque and ten feet in height. Mrs. Humphris asked about the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting about the lack of soil available for planting of the trees. Mr. Cilimberg said although the staff did not do a soil analysis, it is their opinion from visiting the site and from existing vegetation, that the white pines could grow in the area along the fence line. Mr. Bowie suggested modifying the conditions to retain existing vegetation where possible. Mr. Cilimberg said that would be considered during site plan review. Mr. Cilimberg the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial was based on the following reasons: (1) concern about the proximity to the residential area west (Willougby area); (2) the environmental affects of any runoff from this particular site that might occur with oil or anti-freeze leakage; (3) its' location along an entry corridor to the City off Avon Street; (4) the disruption of the visibility from Moore's Creek which is a natural area; and (5) the lack of grass filter strips as a condition of approval. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 236 (Page 19) Mr. Bowie asked the problem with requiring the grass strip. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff wanted to wait and address the grass strips when the site plan was available. Mr. Bowie suggested that it could be made a condi- tion. Mr. Cilimberg said it also may not be necessary to create a filter strip by allowing natural filtration. Mr. Bowie asked if that could be addressed without without a condition. Mr. Cilimberg responded "yes", because it is considered under "Performance Standards" in Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Humphris asked why there is no condition pertaining to the contain- ment of contaminants. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff felt that containment measures would also be required as part of review under Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. He suggested that if it was a concern of the Board that the Board add a condition reading: "Compliance with Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance to include containment measures and/or filtration measures to be evaluated at time of approval." Mrs. Humphris said she would feel more comfortable with that added as a condition. Mrs. Humphris asked why the Highway Department's recommendation that there be no access allowed to Route 742 and that there be a single access on Route 1101 was not made a condition. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has no physical way to get access to Route 742 from this location because of eleva- tion. The only access is from Route 1101. The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr. Andrew Johnson came forward. Mr. Bowie asked how long Mr. Johnson perceived temporary to be. Mr. Johnson replied 60 days would be the maximum. Mr. Johnson added that in the 20 years he has been in this business, he never had a complaint or disagree- ment over a neighborhood type problem. He appreciates the concerns expressed by the owner of Astec, but his business would be completely out of view of Astec and he does not see how this could affect Astec or the entrance into the City. Route 1101 is a dead end road. He understands the fencing and screen- ing requirements. Next to address the Board was Mr. Randy Wade, developer and owner of Willoughby Subdivision. Mr. Wade said Willoughby has been an approved PUD in the process of development for a number of years. The section of Willoughby that borders this request has not yet been built. To some extent he is representing the interests of potential residents of Willoughby. He can tell from the discussion that the sentiment of the Board is to approve this request so he will not try to "beat a dead horse". He is concerned about visibility and sound. The best run operation will have some affect on a residential area. He asks that the Board be sure a ten foot fence is adequate. He also asks that the Board give consideration to precluding night-time activity. There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way said it would appear to him to be impractical to add a condition disallowing night time use. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Johnson indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that there was a need for some night-time acti- vity. If the Board feels strongly it could add a condition on hours of operation. Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of the words "the use" from the following comment in the Planning Commission minutes: "Mr. Keeler again pointed out that the language states that the use cannot be visible from any road or residential property." Mr. Cilimberg said "the use" means "the storage of vehicles" which is not to be visible. Mrs. Humphris asked what happens if the vehicles are visible from the residential property. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff would take whatever measures are necessary to have the vehicles screened. Mr. Bain suggested that the condition be reworded to state "at such height as necessary" instead of requiring a ten-foot fence. Mr. Way said he thinks it is unreasonable to say that no trucks can be visible. There are people who live in residential neighborhoods who drive tow trucks home. Mr. Bain said the distinction here is the storage of disabled vehicles, not just one truck. Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board can act reasonably by protecting the residents and still allow the business. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 237 (Page 20) Mr. Way said he feels that if there is an area within Albemarle coUnty for this kind of business this is the right area, He said there is a problem in the County with regard to junk cars and there needs to be a place for cars to be stored in a reasonable fashion. He feels that this is an appropriate use for this property. Mr. Way then offered motion to approve SP-90-34 subject to the conditions recommended by the staff, and amended as follows: condition #1 "... shall be screened by a 10 foot opaque fence .... "amended to read "... an adeqUate opaque fence .... "; conditions #2, #3, #4 and #5 to stand as set out above; but add to condition #5: "Compliance with Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance including containment measures and/or filtration measures;" and a condition #6 "Storage to be limited to 60 days." Mr. Bowerman suggested that condition #1 would identify the Board's intent clearer if it stated: "... screened by an opaque fence at such height as necessary .... " Mr. Way agreed to the change. Mr. Bowerman then seconded the motion. Mrs. Humphris asked what the word "necessary" referred to. Mr. Way suggested that after the word necessary add "to screen from the adjoining road or residential properties .... " Mr. Bowerman agreed. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried bythe following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. (The conditions are set out in full below:) Northern, western and southern sides of the storage area shall be screened by an opaque fence at such height as necessary to screen from the adjoining road or residential properties and five to six- foot white pines planted 15 feet on center in double rows; Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance permit. Commercial entrance shall be installed prior to commencement of the towing and storage operation; Staff approval of sketch plan to be in general compliance with Attachment A (site plan proposal for Andy Johnson towing, dated 4-10-90); o No body or mechanical work, painting, maintenance, servicing, disassembling, salvage, or crushing of vehicles shall be permitted; Compliance with Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance including containment measures and/or filtration measures; 6. Storage to be limited to 60 days. Mr. St. John said since the Board has made towing and storage a separate and independent free-standing use by special permit, the question will eventually come up as to whether the Board meant to make all of the existing towing and storage services nonconforming. Before taking this action, towing and storage operations were deemed ancillary to auto repair or service sta- tions, etc. Unless the Board informs him otherwise, he will advise the Zoning Administrator that he does not believe that by doing this the Board intended to make all of the existing towing and storage services nonconforming. Mr. Bowie said it was not his intent to make those other uses nonconforming. Mr. Way said as the mover of the motion, that also was not his intent. The Chairman took a poll of the Board and the response was unanimous that it is not the Board's intent to make all other towing and storage uses noncon- forming. (At 9:38 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 9:51 P.M.) June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 21) 238 Agenda Item No. 14. SP-90-35. Covenant Church of God. Public hearing on a request to permit a 800 seat church (10.~2.2,35) on 10 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located (NDGA) on the south side of Route 643 approx. one mile east of Route 29. Tax Map 46, Parcel 22 (part). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 29, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area~ Proposed church site is mostly open. One dwelling is currently on the site and will be retained. The rear portion of the residue property is affected by the one hundred year flood plain of the Rivanna River. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing an 800 seat church. No day care is requested or proposed. The applicant has provided a description and justification for this request (Attachment A on file). The existing house will be retained as an office for the church. A joint entrance is proposed to serve the church and the residue parcel. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan discourages development in the Rural Areas and recommends that development be directed into the growth areas. Summary and Recommendations: (Attachment B on file) indicates the approximate location of proposed improvements. This area represents the highest point on the property and is located outside of the one hundred year flood plain. Soils in this area have only moderate limitations for use according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Due to its location, the church will be highly visible from the state road and adjacent property. The proposed church will provide seating for 800 people. While churches are not uncommon in the rural areas, the proposed church is significantly larger than what has been anticipated in the past. Staff review of all churches approved since 1980 indicates that churches approved in the rural areas have been of significantly smaller scale (average seating capacity of 227). Given the size and location of the church between the Urban Area and Hollymead, it would appear to be oriented to urban populations. Due to the proposed scale of development, staff opinion is that this use is not in harmony with the character of the district. Staff has determined that current alignment alternatives for a possible Route 29 bypass do not affect the property. The proposed Meadow Creek Parkway as identified in the County's Comprehensive Plan does affect this parcel, although the alignment does not appear to severely impact the church's building site. Staff notes that the final alignment for the Meadow Creek Parkway and the Bypass options have not been determined and are subject to change. Changes in the proposed alignments could affect this property and the church's site location. A soils report has been prepared. Health Department approval has been received. The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that Route 643 is currently tolerable. Obtaining a commercial entrance at this site may be difficult. If this special use permit is approved, staff recommends that a commercial entrance be proven obtainable prior to Planning Commission review of the site plan for the proposed church. The appli- cant's plan indicates a joint entrance to serve the church and residue acreage. Staff will also recommend that a joint entrance be a condition of approval of this special permit. Staff will further recommend that in order to ensure equitable maintenance cost, the church assume all responsibility for road maintenance for that portion of the joint entrance used by the church and the residue acreage. The size of the proposed church, 800 seats, appears oriented to serving urban populations. This site is located in the Rural Areas which are not recommended to receive urban scale development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. A use of this size would be more appropriate in 239 June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 22) the Urban Area/Hollymead where adeqUate public utilities are available. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and is of the opinion that this request is incon- sistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and that the character of the district will be changed. Therefore, staff recommends denial of SP-90-35 Covenant Church of God. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff offers the following conditions of approval: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Church is limited to 800 seats; Be Approval is for worship and church-related activities only. Day care or other usage shall require amendment of this special use permit; Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance prior to review of the site plan by the Planning Commis- sion; Site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission; Property shall be limited to a joint entrance serving the church and residue acreage. A joint access easement shall be shown and reserved for dedication upon request of the County; Staff approval of maintenance agreement. Maintenance agreement shall require that the church be solely responsible for the portion ,! of road used by the church and the residue acreage. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 22, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-35 subject to the conditions set out in the staff's report, but added a condition reading: "Health Depart- ment approval shall be obtained prior to review of the site plan by the Planning Commission". The public hearing was opened. Representing the church, Mr. Tom Forloines said the Planning staff wants churches to locate in the heart of an urban area. The church officials have been looking for a site to allow for expansion for a long time. He cannot understand how it would be better to locate a church in the middle of a residential development. The members of most churches do not live in the subdivision in which the church is located which results in drawing in outside traffic. He thinks this is a better location because it is not a busy residential area. Most of this churches growth is coming from the north. Also, if growth is planned in the Route 29 North Corridor, where better to build a church than right in the heart of that growth. The fact that this road is listed as tolerable by the Highway Depart- ment is a plus. Church services are from 8:30 A.M. until 10:45 A.M. Sunday morning and beginning at 6:30 P.M. on Sunday evening. He thinks the church would be conducive to the area and wouldnot be a detriment. There are many other uses that could go on this property that would have more of a detriment to the surrounding area. He thinks the church would complement any area. He respectfully requests that the Board give careful consideration to the request. Next to address the Board, Mr. Jerry Steele, a member of Covenant Church and resident of the County, said the question needs to be raised that if the church does not build here, then where does it build. The Planning staff has taken the position that the proposed building appears oriented to serving urban populations and therefore believes the facility would be more appropri- ate in the urban area/Hollymead. This property cost the church approximately $25,000 per acre. Research has indicated that available land in the urban area ranges in price from $150,000 to $457,000 per acre. Ten acres at $25,000 is $250,000. Ten acres at $150,000 is $1.5 million. Those figures should be compared in the amount that would be taken off of the County's tax rolls. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 23) 240 Next to address the Board, Pastor Harold L. Bare, commended Mr. Cilimberg for his staff presentation of the request. Trees will screen the church from passing vehicles. The staff report is not accurate in its reported average size of churches approved by the Board and no church has been denied on the basis of size. The Board approved the Lambs Road Church, in a rural agricul- tural area (the same as this proposal) to seat 500 people and 175 automobiles; Trinity preceded the Zoning Ordinance, however a day care was recommended in a R-1 area with a 700 seat capacity; and Broadus Memorial Baptist for a 500 seat capacity in an RA district. Also, according to the Planning Department, no church has been asked to reduce the number of seats. The Meadow Creek Parkway is a moot issue because there are six predictions involved and none of them touch this property. He would add that the recommended conditions are not substantively different from what the church requested. He then handed to the Board four pages of petitions signed by residents in support of the request. Pastor Bare said the critical issue is "substantial detriment to adjacent property". The church has written to all of the adjacent property owners and offered them an opportunity to come by the church's present facility or to invite the church officials to their homes and sit down and discuss the proposal. To date there has been no protest to the plans. He would make the Board aware that this is a difficult process for churches. There are no engineering or scientific factors prohibiting the churches use at this loca- tion. Hanging on the wall to the left, in the center of this room, is part of the Bill of Rights in which citizens are to be granted the right to free exercise of speech and religion and to assemble and the right to approach the government for redress in situations. The churches' position is a friendly one. These are residents of Albemarle County. He has received numerously calls from pastors who have indicated that it is sometimes impossible to purchase property designated HC, C-1 and CO. Churches are facing a dilemma in the County and if the County takes the position of banning churches and saying they are not aesthetically pleasing to certain areas and would bring harm to certain communities, then churches would be in a liability zone. Mr. Bowie said in response to comments, the action before the Board is not the church itself, but land use. The question is not pro or con churches, but if this is the proper building for this piece of land. Mr. Kevin Cox, a taxpayer and property owner in Albemarle County, said although he is not a member of the congregation, he is concerned that neces- sary growth and development be managed. Granting this special use permit will benefit all of the taxpayers as well as the congregation of this church. It is apparently one of the fastest growing congregations in the County and needs additional room. As a church, it is tax exempt and pays no real property taxes. The County needs to keep as much of the high value real estate on the tax rolls as it can. Because of the restrictions on development in the rural areas and the success of the growth areas in attracting development, the value of property in the growth areas as a tax revenue source is much greater to the County than the value of land in the rural areas. Allowing the church to be built in a rural area is going to cost the County a lot less in lost revenue than requiring that the church be built in a growth area. Why unintentionally penalize the members of this congregation by making them pay a much higher price and simultaneously unintentionally penalize the entire County by reduc- ing the County's tax revenue sources any more than is necessary. The proposed site is not in the watershed and will produce minimal pollution to the South Fork Rivanna River. He asks the Board to exercise discretion and permit this particular use in a rural area. Mr..Robert Browning, a County resident who attends services at the Covenant Church, said he is in favor of this request. It does allow growth. He is concerned about this process and keeping separate the land use issues from the Bill of Rights. This is a religious issue and a religious function seeking use of the land. He asked all those people present in favor of this request to show their support (approximately 35 people stood up). Dr. F. A. Iachetta, said he and his wife are the closest property owners to the proposed site. Given a choice, he would rather the property remain in its present state. He has no objection to the church and looks forward to it as a neighborhood. He regrets that the church did not purchase the residue acreage which was purchased by Dr. Hurt. He is more concerned with what will happen with the residue rather than what the church will do with these ten 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 2Zll .ge 24) acres. Having been through this same process for Broadus Memorial Baptist Church last October, he shares some of the concerns about the process it takes to locate a church in the County. Broadus Memorial paid $40,000 an acre for its property. He does not see any problem with this application. The area cannot be heavily developed. The road from Route 29 to within approximately 600 feet of this site is in the flood plain. He has seen 20 feet of water on part of the residue of the property. This site can be isolated for periods of time when the river is out of its banks since Powell Creek does cover the road to the east and an unnamed creek covers the road to the west. He thinks the Board should approve the request. Mr. Bowie said the Clerk's office also received 18 phone calls from Albemarle County residents supporting this petition and no calls in opposi- tion. There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said this property lies in his district and he has no problem with the request. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve SP-90-35 subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission: Church is limited to 800 seats; Approval is for worship and church-related activities only. Day care or other usage shall require amendment of this special use permit; Health Department approval shall be obtained prior to review of the site plan by the Planning Commission; Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance prior to review of the site plan by the Planning Commis- sion; Site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission; Property shall be limited to a joint entrance serving the church and residue acreage. A joint access easement shall be shown and reserved for dedication upon request of the County; Staff approval of maintenance agreement. Maintenance agreement shall require that the church be solely responsible for the portion of road used by the church and the residue acreage. Mr. Bain said he agrees with the Planning staff. He does not feel that Broadus Memorial Church is comparable to this church. Broadus Memorial is in an urban growth area. This petition is different. He feels that intensity of use is also an issue. What is the limit going to be for the rural area? He has the same concerns as staff and cannot support the request. Mr. Bowerman said he was on the Planning Commission in the early 1980's when the special use permit requirement, which was brought about by an appli- cation for a church on the Rivanna Reservoir, was added to the Zoning Ordi- nance. At that time, the Commission was concerned that a church be compatible with area, not adversely impact traffic, that it not affect the environment or impact the Reservoir. In this case, he totally agrees with the Commission. This is a good location and it serves the urban area. He concern is not so much with size as it is with accessibility. This site has excellent accessi- bility and will have a small amount of impact on the other people who live in the area. He supports the request. Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks this is a good use for this site because it already is restricted by the flood plain. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 25) 242 There being no further comments, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 15. SP-90-33. Hillsboro Baptist Church. Publi~ hearing on a request to permit a 3000 square foot addition to the existing church (12.2.2.15) on four acres zoned VR, Village Residential. Property located (NDGA) on the north side of Route 797 approximately 2/10 mile east of Route 684. Tax Map 55A, Parcels 32 & 36A. White Hall District. (Advertised in the~ Daily Progress on May 20 and May 29, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg Presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: The church is located at Yanceys Mill. Several residences are located in proximity to the site. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has submitted a description of this request (Attachment A) and a site plan (Attachment B). The proposal is for a 3136 square foot addition which will provide a kitchen, restrooms, mechanical and storage room, pastor's study, churchoffice, classrooms and pantry. No day care is proposed. Comprehensive Plan: The site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan discourages growth in the Rural Areas which is not related to agricultural or forestal use. However, staff notes that this site is located in the developed portions of Yanceys Mill. Summary and Recommendations: Due to the existing development of this property and nearby properties, staff opinion is that this use does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed addition provides for additional space for activities and as such does not represent an increase in use, due to no increase in seating capacity, simply provid- ing support facilities. Staff review of the submitted plan has indicated that only minor techni- cal revisions are needed in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Health Department approval has not been received at this time (The applicant has contacted the Health Department). The Engineering Depart- ment has recommended approval of the site plan subject to conditions. The Virginia Department of Transportation has indicated that this portion of Route 797 is currently tolerable. Only minor improvements are required to obtain adequate sight distance and staff will recommend that adequate sight distance be obtained. Due to the location of the proposed expansion, at the rear of the existing building, staff opinion is that the character of the district will not be changed. Staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning. Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-90-33 for Hillsboro Baptist Church with the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: Expansion is limited to 3136 square feet and shall be in general accord with the plan prepared by Warren Engineering dated March 27, 1990; 2. Staff approval of site plan; Approval is for worship services and church related activities only. Day care or other usage shall require amendment of this special use permit; Compliance with comments of the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion dated April 19, 1990." June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 26) 243 Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 22, 1990, by a vote of 5-1, recommended approval of SP-90-33 subject to the conditions of the staff, with condition #2 amended as follows: "Staff approv- al of site plan to include Health Department approval." Mrs. Humphris said in reading the Planning Commission's minutes there was discussion about a tree which generated the one negative vote by a Commis- sioner. Mr. Cilimberg said the tree is off of this site in the highway right-of-way. It does not appear that the tree is directly obstructing sight distance. The staff has asked the Highway Department to verify whether the tree is obstructing sight distance. It has been assumed that the tree is in the Highway Department's right-of-way which is also supposed to be verified by the Highway Department. Mr. Bowie asked what happens if the tree is on someone else's property and that person does not agree to cut the tree down. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant would have to request relief from condition #4. The public hearing was opened. Representing the church, Mr. Hal Thompson said their primary desire is to provide some facilities with ground level entry. There are a lot of activities involving senior adults, but there is no entrance to the facility that is at ground level. The fellowship hall is ac- cessed by ramp in the basement and the restrooms are upstairs. This would provide restrooms and facilities on one level and provide better safety condi- tions. With regard to aesthetics, it is their intent to'match the addition with the present building. He thinks the tree belongs to a private homeowner. The diameter of the tree is about the size of a telephone pole. It does not seem to him to create a serious sight problem, although a couple of automo- biles have hit it. The tree is walnut and does not look like it will get any bigger. There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve SP-90-33 subject to the following conditions: Expansion is limited to 3136 square feet and shall be in general accord with the plan prepared by Warren Engineering dated March 27, 1990; Staff approval of site plan to include Health Department approval; Approval is for worship services and church related activities only. Day care or other usage shall require amendment of this special use permit; Compliance with comments of the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation dated April 19, 1990. Mr. Bowie said he supports the motion. There being no other comments, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 16. Route 810 Improvements - Crozet Elementary School. Mr. Agnor said a cost summary of the low bid has been received on the Route 810 improvement at the Crozet Elementary School. Cost estimates to include sidewalk replacement is $12,000. Review of available funding sources for this project indicates a shortfall of approximately $70,000, inclusive of the sidewalk replacement. In order to fund this shortfall, staff recommends the transfer of $70,000 from the Capital Improvements Program (Avon Street/ Route 20 Connector Road project) to the Route 810 improvement project. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following resolution transferring $70,000 from the Avon Street Connector June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 27) 244 project to the Crozet School Route 810 project. Mr. Bain said he thinks it is appropriate that a sidewalk be included in the project because a lot of people do walk. Mr. Bowie agreed. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. FISCAL YEAR: 89/90 FUND: Capital PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Transfer of Funds from Avon Street Connector to Crozet School Route 810. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1900060203950041 1900041020950051 Crozet School-Route 810 Improvements Avon Street/Route 20 Connector TOTAL $70,000.00 (70,000.00) $ 0.00 Agenda Item No. 17. Route 29 North Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Discussion. Mrs. Humphris said Board members have a memorandum from her dated June 1, 1990, re: Questions regarding the Route 29 North Corridor Study, Draft Envi- ronmental Impact Statement Section 4(f)/106 Evaluation, May, 1990 (copy on file in Clerk's office). Mrs. Humphris said she has included in the memo 45 questions, some from her and some with input from other people, all of which she thinks are perti- nent to this study. A review of the study reveals many questions which must be answered and points that require clarification before the document can be used as the basis for any decision making. She was dismayed at the number of problems she found with the DEIS. The list of questions are for the Board's consideration and it is her hope that the Board will agree to join her in requesting the Highway Department to provide a timely response to these questions. The information requested should be readily available to the Highway Department in their computers or in support documents. She also asks the Board to request a set of the thirteen support documents mentioned in the DEIS to enhance the County's ability to understand the DEIS and to have available in the office of Deputy County Executive, Robert Tucker. In looking into this situation she was dismayed to find that approximate- ly $3 million had been spent on this study and when it came to the point of asking to see the support documents to get answers to questions, she found that the documents were available only in the Richmond and Culpeper offices of the Highway Department. She felt that the County, City and University should have one copy available. Highway Department officials in Richmond indicated to her that they had made only ten copies of these documents which she thinks is ridiculous in light of the size of the study, the length of the study and the cost of the study. Mrs. Humphris then read a prepared statement (a copy is in the file in the Clerk's office), summarized as follows: She feels that the mission of VDoT for almost 20 years has been to justify a non-stop through traffic route east or west of Charlottesville. VDoT's solution to the traffic dilemma on Route 29 North has consistently been to leave local traffic on Route 29 North and to build a bypass for through traffic. She thinks that traffic problems in the Route 29 North Corridor will always be the result of local traffic, not through traffic. She does not think that the County should go along with what VDoT is proposing. Mrs. Humphris said the DEIS contains e=rors, inconsistencies, gaps and omissions to such an extent that it is difficult or impossible to use it in its present form for decision-making purposes. It is not possible to deter- mine from this document comparative impacts, costs, levels of service and so forth of The various alternatives. She feels that it is the obligation of this Board to obtain answers to all of the questions that have been proposed and make a careful analysis of the documents before adopting any position. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 28) 245 She, therefore, recommends that based on the current information provided by the DEIS and on this Board's past history of opposition to any bypasses, this Board unanimously go on record in opposition to all bypass alternatives and include a statement to that effect in its comment to VDoT on June 28 concern- ing the DEIS. Mr. Bowie said he agrees that the meaning of full base case and the Board's record of protecting the watershed should be included in the Board's presentation on June 28. The Board's interpretation of base case and the Highway Department's interpretation needs to be clarified. For three years the conduit for comments to the Highway Department from this Board has been the Joint Transportation Committee (JTC). It is his feeling that these questions should be forwarded to JTC for discussion at its meeting on Friday, June 8. A letter dated June 6 has also been received by the Board from Citizens of Albemarle with some of the same questions raised by Mrs. Humphris. The City of Charlottesville will also be submitting a letter to the JTC. He cannot support adopting a Board position at this time without some input from JTC. Mrs. Humphris said this information is in response to the Chairman's request for input for a draft statement to be presented on June 28 at the Highway Department's public hearing. Mr. Bowie said the co~ents were to go to Mr. Tucker for discussion at the June 13 Board meeting. Mrs. Humphris said she presented her comments to Mr. Tucker and the draft from Mr. Tucker in no way addresses her concerns. She feels it is important that this Board give attention to her request and that these questions be asked of the Highway Department before this Board writes its response to the DEIS for presentation on June 28. Mr. Bowerman said he agrees that all of Mrs. Humphris questions deserve an answer, but he agrees with Mr. Bowie. The proper forum is to present these questions to JTC, along with the City's comments and comments from citizens. He would like to formally request the Highway Department and Sverdrup to provide answers to the questions through JTC. He does not want to make a statement at this time. He does not think the Board can come up with a clear position since it does not have all of the necessary information. If answers are not provided to the questions, then when the Board makes it presentation on June 28, it should state it's interpretation of a specific issue. Mr. Bain said he does not think the Board will have a response to all of these questions by June 28. If that happens, then the Board should put those in its statement and indicate that it has asked responses. In doing that the Board will have built a record that it can follow through with. He also thinks the proper route is through JTC and it is not a good idea to change that process right now. If it is necessary, he is willing to have an after- noon meeting to discuss responses to the questions prior to June 28. Mrs. Humphris asked if she can assume that the members of the Board who are members of the JTC will take all of the questions to the meeting on Friday. Mr. Bowerman said that is his intent. Mrs. Humphris asked if the County has a complete set of the documents mentioned. Mr. Agnor responded that the County has some of the documents, but not all thirteen. Mr. Bowie said if the County really needs the documents then it should get them, but not to just have them sitting around. Mr. Agnor said he agrees with Mrs. Humphris in that the County should ask for a set of the documents for use. Mr. Way said he thinks the documents should be avail- able to the County. Mr. Bain agreed. Mr. Bowie said he will write a letter indicating the need for the documents for County analysis. Mrs. Humphris said she feels strongly that a complete set of the documents should be available at the County Building for the staff and public. There being no further discussion, the consensus of the Board was to send all of the questions to the JTC. Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Minutes: April 4, 1990; April 11, 1990; April 18, 1990; May 2, 1990; and May 22, 1990. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 29) 246 Mr. Bain had read the minutes of April 11, pages 1-16, and with the following corrections, found them to be in order. On page 11, line 8, change the wOrding "over less than 10 acres" to "of more than 10 acres". Page 13, bottom of page, Mr. Bain is listed as an aye vote, he actually abstained from that vote. Mr. Bowie read the minutes of April 4, pages 1-1§ (end at #6) and found them to be correct with no changes noted. Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of April 18, 1990, With the following change: Page 3, third paragraph from bottom, insert the work "million" following the figures $5.08. Mrs. Humphris also read the minutes of May 22 (A), 1990 and found them to be correct. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the minutes as read and Corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr, Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 19. Executive Session - Personnel:' Appointments. At 11:00 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing appointments, under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.1. 'Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 20. Certify Executive Session. At 11:20 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, certifying the Executive Session as set out below: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE M~ING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Infor- mation Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginialaw; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle CountY Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's know- ledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albe- marle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Perkins. ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. Perkins. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 30) 247 Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to reappoint Ms. Lois Ann Brown to the Community Services Board, with said term to expire on June 30, 1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Mr. Bowerman said the Board has discussed the important role that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority performs in this community and how it will become even more important when it assumes the added responsibilities of overseeing the new Solid Waste Authority. For that reason the Board considers the current appointment to the Rivanna Board extremely critical. He, there- fore, nominates Dr. F. A. Iachetta to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Dr. Iachetta graduated from the University of Virginia in 1950 and has been active in the community since that time. Dr. Iachetta has been employed by the University of Virginia for 36 years and is currently an Associate Pro- fessor in the Mechanical Engineering School and specializes in energy systems. Dr. Iachetta served on the MACCA Board from 1968 to 1977 and was the President of MACAA in 1972 and 1973. In 1979, Dr. Iachetta was appointed to serve on the Resource Recovery Commission composed of citizens from Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, whose mission was to investigate methods of energy conversion by using trash to produce steam and electricity. In 1975 Dr. Iachetta was elected to the Board of Supervisors representing the Charlottesville District and was reelected in 1977, serving a total of six years. Dr. Iachetta is currently vice chairman of the Fiscal Resources Committee which is composed of private citizens who will advise the Board of Supervisors on ways to operate the county more efficiently and on how to increase revenues. Dr. Iachetta's job will be to carry out the implementation of the policy guidelines established by this Board and the Charlottesville City Council regarding the creation of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority as well as the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Bowerman said he can think of no one who is better qualified or who has demonstrated his commitment to this community more than Dr. Iachetta. He then offered motion to nominate Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta as Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the planned Rivanna Solid Waste Autho- rity for a term which will expire on May 1, 1992. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Mr. Bowie said he also can think of no one he feels is more qualified to serve in these positions. As soon as City Council confirms the nomination the localities can proceed with the Solid Waste Authority. Dr. Iachetta was present and said he appreciates this opportunity to serve the County. He has always been interested in the environmental condi- tion of the County and he cannot think of anything more important in the immediate future than trying to find a solution to deal with solid waste problems. He will do his best to serve at the pleasure of both governmentsin terms of carrying out its policies. He thanked the Board for their confidence in him. Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public and Board. Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, representing the Piedmont Environmental Coun- cil, said he thinks the Board is taking the right position concerning the Route 29 North DEIS. He thinks the questions must be asked. He received the study and had the opportunity to read it cover to cover and line by line. June 6, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 31) 248 After studying the document, he finds there are many big pieces of information that are not there. This document is a bunch of inadequately presented data. The Board must ask the questions and needs to preserve its flexibility when (if) it receives a response. He thinks these documents are "a set up". This document is almost impossible for people to object to and it precludes the only alternative to a bypass, but does not have an answer to solve the prob- lem. He also believes that the problem is created by local traffic conges- tion. He believes that the reason VDoT spent $3 million is to take care of through traffic, not local traffic needs. He urges the Board to find out from VDoT if the base case (as is implied) in fact means that VDoT will take the bypasses off the map, and the official position will then be that bypasses are no longer necessary. In February, VDoT put out some traffic projections which projected expressway traffic at 126,000 vehicle trips per day at peak time. These documents, published since that time, indicate both expressway and local lanes will carry 53,000 vehicle trips per day. He would like to know what happened to all of that traffic in such a short period of time. He would further add that PEC also intends to make a presentation on June 28. He thinks that getting the questions on the table and in the statement, even if they are not answered, gives the Board some flexibility. Mr. Bain said he and other residents from his district plan to go to Richmond to talk with Mr. Millicent of VDoT concerning Route 682. The right-of-way for this road has been donated for a considerable length of time, some for as long as 14 years. VDoT has now determined that the proposed alignment is no good and intends to prepare a new alignment across the rail- road tracks, even though the tracks pose a safety issue. Several people have written Mr. Millicent and requested a meeting. Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Agnor for VDoT's response to the Route 660 bridge project, but she does not consider this an adequate response because it is not what she asked for. The minutes will reflect that no written response addressing erosion control concerns on the Route 660 bridge replacement project had been received. Her whole question concerned VDoT policy when they change from the preferred alternative to another alternative, particularly one which impacts a stream which they had neglected to identify in their original plan. She will persist in asking this question until she gets an answer. Mr. Bowie suggested that Mr. Roosevelt be informed that the question will be asked again. Mr. Bowerman said he was in Northern Virginia today and was in traffic almost continuously from Warrenton to Washington and from Washington back to Charlottesville. If it is the intent of VDoT to make Route 29 a north/south through route, the route would be coming through a highly urbanized area and the only rational solution would be to build a new highway in a new location. If someone looks at the traffic lights and patterns of development, it is absolutely insane. Mr. Bain commented that the Highway Department is extend- ing the bypass in Warrenton. Mr. Way said he would like to thank VDoT and especially Mr. Tucker for diligently working with VDoT to work out a solution to stop traffic for the Fourth of July parade in Scottsville. He extended invitations to the members of the Board to ride in the parade. Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn. At 11:37 P.M., there being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. CHAIRMAN