Loading...
1988-12-21December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Pagel) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held om December ~21, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve Item 4.1 and accept the remaining items as information. There was no discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Common- wealth's Attorney, Sheriff and Regional Jail, for the month of November, 1988, were approved as presented. Item 4.2. Copies of the Planning Commission minutes of november 29 and December 6, 1988, were.received for information. Item 4.3. Arbor Crest Apartments monthly bond report for the month of November, 1988, was presented for informationl (Note: Mr. Way said Mr. Forrest Marshall, the Scottsville representative to the Albemarle County School Board, had submitted his resignation. He said Mr. Marshall had served the School Board over,the past five years with a dedication that could never be repaid. He thanked Mr. Marshall for his contributions to this county and said he had tried to talk him into remaining on the School Board to no avail. Mr. Way sai~d he would be receiving applica- tions for this position from people in the sc6ttsville District until mid- December. He said there would be a public hearing on January 4, 1989~ regard- ing this matter. The law states that seven days must elapse after the public hearing before a recommendation can be given to the Board. He said he hoped that could be done on January 11, 1989.) .!! Agenda Item No. 4a. Request from Sheriff. Sheriff Terry Hawkins said the Compensation Board had approved hiring a Deputy Sheriff to add to the staff serving the Charlottesville/Albemarle Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Afteri~carefully reviewing applications for the job, he had selected George Knight as:i~the best qualified candidate. However, the Compensation Board had authorized a salary of $16,733, and Mr. Knight's current salary is $22,933 with a five per cent increase expected July 1, 1989. Sheriff Hawkins said Mr. Knight wasl.willing to accept a substantial cut to $20,910 which is Grade 7, step 6 and i~ comparable with the lowest paid Deputy Sheriff with similar experience. Sheriff Hawkins said he had talked with the City Manager since this is a jointly'.~funded position, and the City Manager has agreed to fund their share of the ipay difference. If the request is honored, he said it would cost the localities approximately $1,700 each 3_0O December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) instead of $17,000 to fund the new position in its entirety, which he said the City and County were willing to do if the Compensation Board had not agreed to fund this position. He asked that this request be implemented as quickly as possible since it has been five weeks since the Compensation Board granted-the appeal of an emergency situation and permitted the immediate hiring of an individual to fill the position. When this position is filled, Mr. St. John asked, will the County Sheriff have the responsibility for transporting people to and from the Court and the Detention Center, without the participation of the City Sheriff? Mr. Hawkins said the details would have to be worked out with Mr. Cole Hendrix, City Manager, and Mr. Agnor, but the County Sheriff would be responsible for all bailiffing duties of the Juvenile Court and the transportation of people. Mr. Way said the Board agreed to'have a bailiff as long as the Compensa- tion Board funded the position. He said he does not remember any willingness on the part of the Board to assume any financial responsibility for this position. Mr. Hawkins said he and Mr. St. John have discussed this matter and there are statutory requirements, which a judge may enforce, for security in court- rooms. Mr. Bain asked Mr. St. John what a judge could do to fill this position. Mr. St. John said the circuit court judge can order that this position be filled. He said he is not sure if the judge for the Juvenile Court has this authority, but he knows they think there is a problem with the way Juvenile Court operates now. Whenever a juvenile from the City is tried, the bailiff and other security officers must be City personnel; whenever a juvenile from the County is tried, the attendant security personnel must be from the County. He said this is a needless duplication of effort and having all these people come and go disrupts the court. Mr. St. John said the decision was made that the County Sheriff would undertake all the transportation~ and bailiffing duties if the Compensation Board authorized and funded the position, or if the City and County agreed to fund the position. He said the Board would be subject to an order issued by the circuit court. Mr. Agnpr pointed out that the circuit court could require the position, but it could not set a salary. Mr. St. John said there is a statute stating that th~ staffing of the courts is the responsibility of the locality. If the compensation Board had not funded this position at all, he said, he thinks the C~ty and the County would have eventually been forced to fund the entire salary for the position of bailiff. He said he thinks a distinction should be mane between this position and other positions in the Sheriff's department. This position should be considered a staff position which serves the Ju enile and Domestic Relations Court. Mr. Way said he is concerned about the precedent the Board may set by subsidizing this salary. Mr. St. John said he does not t]~ink approving this request would set a precedent, because he thinks this posl :tion can be consid- ered a staff position to serve the courts. Mr. Agnor said he disagrees with Mr. St. John's reasoning. Over the years, he said, the Board has received many requests to supplement the sala- ries of various officers of the State and there have usually been good reasons for the requests. He said the Board has always refused these requests. He added that the issue before the Board tonight is whether ~o increase the salary for an individual, not a position: the State has already agreed to fund the position. Mr. Bowie agreed and said the Board supported the request for the posi- tion. He said he feels the question of court security ha~ been answered, since the Compensation Board has approved the funds. ~ Mr. Hawkins said he has the opportunity to have this ~position filled by a trained individual. He said it will cost more money to t=ain someone for the four months required to fill the position. He said he can'~not imagine any reason in the future to appear before the Board and ask fa% money to subsidize salaries. December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 101 Mr. Perkins asked if the Board would be requested to subsidize the bailiff's position after this year. Mr. Hawkins said he thinks so, at least until the funding from the Compensation Board catches up to that for other personnel in the Sheriff's Department. Mrs. Cooke asked if there were any possibility that this position would no longer be funded by the State after July 1, 1989. Mr. Hawkins said this is only a slim possibility. He said the State Compensation Board believes such positions should be the responsibility of the locality; only rarely does the Compensation Board agree to fund such positions. He said the position was funded temporarily because it was approved after an appeal and was too late to be included in the regular budget. Mrs. Cooke asked what would happen if the State Compensation Board refused to fund the bailiff's position after!July 1, 1989. Mr. Hawkins said the individual he has in mind understands the conditions under which he would accept the job. He said he would probably come back to the Board and the City Council and request the money to fund the Position. Mr. St. John said he believes that the courts will require the position to be filled by the City and the County. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to deny the request to fund any additional appropriationifor this position. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. ~erkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-88-17. J. Todd ~amperton. To rezone 6.226 acres from R-1 to R-10. Property on north side of ~Route 250 E, adjacent to. west of Glenorchy Subdivision and east of proposed W~stminster Canterbury. Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A1. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 6 and December 13, 1988.) ~ Mr. Horne said the applicant had requested indefinite deferral. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to delete ZMA-88-17 from the agenda without prejudice.. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-88-15 and SP-88-79. Mediplex. To rezone 4.0 acres from R-2 to CO, and to amend the special use permit to expand the Mountainwood Treatment Center by 60 beds. Th~ applicant also requests a modification of regulations (Section 4.2.5) to allow construction on critical slopes. Property on east side of Rt. 780 (Old Lynchburg Road), across from Sherwood Manor and Country Green. Tax Map 76~ Parcel 46F. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 6 and December 13, 1988.) The Board agreed to hear the zoning request separately from the special use permit. Mr. Home then gave the staff's report (included in the minutes for October 19, 1988, Night) for the zoning request. He said the Planning Commis- sion at its meeting on October 4, 1988, had unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-88-15. Mr. Home gave the staff's report for SP+88-79 as follows: "Character of the Area: Sherwood Manor ~s across Route 780. Other properties in the area are zoned residentially and currently undeveloped. 102 December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Background: Mountainwood was approved under the prior zoning ordi- nance in October, 1980 for a capacity of 80 beds. In 1987, the Board authorized the addition of 3,300 square feet of administrative office space (SP-87-38). Current conditions of approval are: Building setback of 100 feet from right-of-way of Route 780. Existing trees in this area are to be maintained to the maximum extent practically; Site plan approval to include provision of access to proposed realignment of Route 631; 2. Approval of appropriate federal, state, and local agencies; 4. Approval is for an 80-bed residential care facility; Dedication of 60 foot right-of-way for realignment of Route 780 as designated by Virginia Department of Transportation substan- tially in location shown on sketch 'X' by plat received prior to issuance of building permits. If Virginia Department of Trans- portation shall fail to provide data sufficient to delineate such right-of-way prior to site plan approval,~the condition shall be of no effect; ~ County Service Authority approval of public water and sewer facilities; Site plan to be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors showing road improvements, visual barriers, 100 foot setback, new and old road alignment, main entrance location and On-site parking location. Applicant's Proposal: Mediplex proposes an additional 60 beds, for a total of 140 beds. Employment would be about 200 '~ull-time equiva- lents'. Additional parking is proposed (see ZMA-88~15). Building expansion would consist of a three-story addition c~ntaining 37,364 square feet (i.e., plus or minus 12,500 square feet.i'per floor). The following actions would be required to accommodate expansion as proposed: 1. Amend Condition 4 to allow expansion from 80 t~ 140 beds; 2. Waiver of 21.7.3 to permit grading within 20 f~et of adjoining residential land. In addition to these actions, Mediplex requests deletion of Condition 7 which requires Board review of the site plan. Please review Attachment A carefully; Attachment A contains the a~licant's justi- fication for these various actions. Staff Comment: As in many cases, staff recommends ~vorably on expansion of existing uses provided such expansion ~s in accordance with County planning efforts as well as the public ~alth and safety and welfare. Staff will address each action outlined under the applicant's proposal. Expansion from 80 to 140 Beds: Demand for this expamsion is evi- denced by the Virginia Department of Health's actionilto issue a Medical Care Facilities Certificate of Public Need f6r the additional 60 beds. Rezone Four Acres from R-2 to CO: As discussed in t~e accompanying ZMA-88-15, this area is needed for parking to serve ~he existing facility and should be treated as a separate busines~ from this special use permit request. ~ Delete Board Review of Site Plan: During original r~view in 1980, the Board added this condition as a result of statedlconcerns from residents of Sherwood Manor. Should all other issue~ be resolved in December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 103 the public hearing process, staff would recommend administrative approval of the amended site plan. Waiver of Section 21.7.3: The Zoning Ordinance prohibits grading and clearing within twenty feet of a residential boundary except under special circumstances. In this case, encroachment would involve a strip about ten feet deep and 100 feet in length. The applicant proposes replanting with medium shade trees at one-half the spacing required by the zoning ordinance. In summary, the revised plan does not encroach on significant areas of steep slope. Staff recommends approval of the proposed expansion subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: Building setback of 100 feet from right-of-way of Route 780. Existing trees in this area are to be maintained to the maximum extent practical; Site plan approval to include provision of access to proposed realignment of Route 631; 3. Approval of appropriate federal, state and local agencies; 4. Approval is for an-88 140 bed residential care facility; Bed~ca~n-of-68-~oot-r~ght-o~-wayr~or-reat~gnment-o~-Ronte-~88 as-des~gnated-by-¥~rg~n~a-Bepar~me~-of-~ranspor~a~on-~nb~an- tiatty-~n-toeat~on-shown-on-ske~eh~K~-by-plat-received-prior-to ~ssuance-of-bu~td~ng-perm~tsv--~f-V~rg~n~a-Bepar~men~-~-~rans- portat~n-shatt-fa~t-t~-pr~v~de-da~e-mnff~en~-t~-det~neate sneh-r~gh~-of-way-pr~r-t~-s~te-p~an-appr~vat;-~he-a~nd~on shatt-be-o~-no-e~ec~ 5. Reservation of right-of-way for reiocation of Route 780; Ye ~onnty-Serv~ce-An~her~y-appr~vat-d~-pnbt~c-wa~er-and-sewer S~te-ptan-t~-be-rev~ewed-by-~he-Board-~-Snperv~s~rs-sh~w~ng r~ad-~mprovemen~s~-v~snat-barr~ers~!-~88-~t-setback~-new-and ~td-r~ad-at~gnmen~-ma~n-entrance-t~oca~on-and-~n-s~e-park~ng tocat~onv He said that as a result of discussions!Bt the October 4, 1988, Planning Commission hearing and the October 19, 1988, Board of Supervisors hearing, the applicant had submitted a revised preliminary, site plan. The waiver of 21.7.3 to permit grading within 20 feet of the residential area is no longer necessary. Mr. Home said the revised plan ~ longer shows expansion on areas of steep slope, which had concerned the Planning Commission during review of the first site plan. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 29, 1988, unanimously recommended approval of SP-88-79 as revised, with the condi- tions of the staff, and adding a sixth condiCion to read: "Site plan to be in general accord with the plan submitted with the special permit application". Mr. Bain said the site plan does not shoW the right-of-way dedicated for Route 780. Mr. Horne said VDoT is still designing the realignment for Route 780, so it is difficult to pinpoint exactly w~ere the road will lie. He said the applicant is reserving what he and the st~ff believe will be the necessary right-of-way for the realignment, i~ Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. Fred Landess addressed the Board and. introduced Mr. Kevin Mailey, the Development Project Manager for Mediplex, Mr.'Charles Hooker, Director of the Mountainwood facility, Mr. Frank Cox of the Cox Company, who designed the site 104 December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) plan, and Mr. Rusty Shaw of Architect, Inc., who designed the building. He said Mediplex invited residents of Sherwood Manor subdivision to review the plans for the expansion. He said he knows of no resident of this subdivision who is objecting to the plan. Mr. Kevin Mailey addressed the Board and explained the changes made to the site plan. He said the 60-bed addition has been relocated to a site adjacent to the main entry. He said the trees along Old Lynchburg Road will be maintained to restrict travelers' view of the building. The parking lot will provide a capacity for 150 parking spaces. Of the four acres requested for rezoning, 1.8 acres will be taken by the State for the relocation of Route 780, leaving about two acres for the parking lot and building addition. Mr. Cox addressed the Board and said he has worked with the Planning staff and Mediplex representatives for the past six months to find the best site for the addition. He thinks this plan shows the best site and preserves the existing landscape. He said the existing stormwater~detention system will adequately serve the expanded site. Mr. Shaw addressed the Board and described the design of the new facili- ty. He said the design retains as much existing vegetation as possible. Since no one else wished to speak to either application, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matters before the Boa=d. Mr. Way said it seems as if the problems with these~.!requests have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. BOwie to approve ZMA-88-15. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs.*i,: Cooke to approve SP-88-79 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission as fol- lows: Building setback of 100 feet from right of way of Route 780. Existing trees in this area are to be maintaine~ to the maximum extent practical; ~ Site plan approval to include provision of acceMs to proposed realignment of Route 631; ~ 3. Approval of appropriate federal, state, and loc91 agencies; 4. Approval is for a 140 bed residential care faciiity; 5. Reservation of right of way for relocation of R ute 780; 6. Site plan to be in general accord with the plan~submitted with the special permit application. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-88-86. Willie Mae Hoover. Tq~ locate a single- wide mobile home on five acres, accessed off of private easement, zoned RA. Property on west side of Route 20, approximately 2.7 mileS~south of intersec- tion with Route 742. Tax Map 102, Parcel 1E. Scottsvillel District. (Adver- tised on December 6 and December 13, 1988.) December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 105 Mr. Horne presented the staff's report as follows: "Character of the Area: This property is located on a private road approximately two-tenths of a mile west of Route 20. Properties along the private road are primarily residential. The property itself is primarily cleared with existing young growth to the west and south of the parcel. A small stand of existing evergreens in the front of the property provides some screening from the private road. One mobile home is currently located within a one-mile radius. Staff Comment: One letter of objection has been received regarding this petition. The letter states opposition to the permit because 'granting of it would be contrary to the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and detrimental to public health and welfare'. Two dwellings, including that of the objecting landowner are visible from this site. The applicant has stated that the mobile home is to be the residence of her daughter. The mobile home is to be located as shown on the attached plat from Deed Book 560, Page 335. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose the approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Albemarle County building official approval; Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is locate~; Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; Maintenance of existing vegetation~ landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator. Required screeninglshall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die. Mobile home permit is issued for use by the applicant or appli- cant ' s family only. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 29, 1988, unanimously recommended approval of SP-88-86 with the conditions re- ceived by staff, plus two conditions reading:: "Mobile home to be located as shown on the plat recorded in Deed Book 560, page 635"; and "Mobile home shall not be rented". Mr. Bowie said he thinks Condition #5 should be amended to make it more grammatical and suggested the first sentence!be divided into two sentences, with the first of the two ending after "vegetation". Ms. Willie Mae Hoover addressed the Board asked if Condition #5, requir- ing that the applicant maintain the existing vegetation, meant that she had to keep all the weeds, underbrush and vines on the site. Mr. Home said the staff interprets "existing vegetation" to mean vegetation that helps screen the mobile homes. He said he does not consider underbrush to be a help in screening. Since no one else wished to speak to this application, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. 106 December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve SP-88-86 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and amended as follows: 1. Albemarle County Building Official approval; Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; Maintenance of existing vegetation. Landscaping and/or screen- ing to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die; Mobile home permit is issued for use by the applicant or applicant's immediate family only; Mobile home to be located as shown on the plat recorded in Deed Book 560, page 635; 8. Mobile home shall not be rented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-88-95. Sara Watson. To locate a single-wide mobile home on 9.465 acres, zoned RA. Property on southwest side of Route 662, approximately two-tenths mile west of intersection with Route 660. Tax Map 30, Parcel 15E. White Hall District. (Advertised im!~the Daily Progress on December 6 and December 13, 1988.) Mr. Horne presented the staff's report as follows: "Character of the Area: The area surrounding this property is a mix of residential and forestal use. The property itself is heavily wooded with mature deciduous and evergreen trees. T~e,~ property is currently vacant. Currently there are three mobile ~omes within a one-mile radius of this property. Staff Comment: Two letters of objection have been r~ceived concern- ing this petition. Both letters state a general objection to the permit. The applicant has requested that this permit be issued for a period of six years in order to allow for the construction OF a home on the site. However, the applicant feels that it will not Be possible to construct a home on the site in the time period allotted under a temporary mobile home permit .... The proposed site is visible from one dwelling and i~ not visible from the state road. ~ Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions of approvali: 1. Albemarle County building official approval; ~ December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 107 Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval of the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; Maintenance of existing vegetationl, landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die; Mobile home permit shall be reviewed six years from date of approval; Mobile home shall be removed when a permanent house is built on the property; 8. Mobile home shall not be rented." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, iat its meeting on November 29, 1988, unanimously reconmnended approval of SP~88-95 with the conditions recom- mended by the staff, but amended. The Planning CommiSsion amended Condition #6 to read "Mobile home permit shall be reviewed three years from the date of approval". Two new conditions were added. Condition #9 reads: "This permit is issued to the applicant only and does not,run with the property". Condi- tion #10 reads: "The mobile home shall be located as shown on plat presented to the Commission November 29, 1988". Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Ms. Watson addressed the Board and said~she would be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Bowie asked if she intended to build a home on her property. Ms. Watson said she would if she kept the proper~y. Since no one else wished to address thi~ application, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before ~he Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to appzove SP-88-95 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bain seconded the motion, then asked Mr. Perkins if he would mind including in his motion an amendment of Condition #6 to call for the review of the mobile home six years after the date of approval, instead of three years as recommended by the Commission. Ms. Watson said she prefer~that the period of review be six years. Mr. Perkins agreed to this amendment~ There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Note: The conditions of approval are: 1. Albemarle County Building Official approval; Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; 108 10. December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty days~of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; Maintenance of existing vegetation. Landscaping and/or screen- ing to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die; Mobile home permit shall be reviewed six years~from the date of approval; Mobile home shall be removed when a permanent house is built on the property; Mobile home shall not be rented; This permit is issued to applicant only and does not run with the property; Mobile home shall be located as shown on plat presented to the Planning Commission on November 29, 1988. Agenda Item No 9. SP-88-96. James River Baptist ChUrch. To allow church on 14.0 acres, zoned RA. Property in southwest corner of intersection of Route 726 and Route 737 across from Scottsville Shopping Center. Tax Map 130, Parcel 35A. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 6 and December 13, 1988.) Mr. Home presented the staff's report as follows: Character of the Area: The subject property is impCoved with a one-story cinderblock single-family dwelling fronting on Route 726. The site is moderately level and slopes downward froTM Route 726 towards Route 737. It is sparsely wooded with mixed hardwoods and evergreens. This property is within the Totier Creek watershed and is adjacent to the Village of Scottsville. Property within the Vil%age to the north (on the other side of Route 737) is zoned Highway Commercial and is development with George A. Dansey Plumbing; propertyito the east (across Route 726) is zoned Village Residential. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to construct ~ church a minimum of 300 feet from Route 726 and 140 feet from~Route 737. The proposed sanctuary area is 1200 square feet, with a ~eating capacity of 130 people. The present membership is 50 people.i~ The existing dwelling will serve as the parsonage. No non-worshi~ uses (daycare, etc.) are proposed. Two meeting days per week are a~ticipated. Traffic generation based on seating 130 people is 651itrips (one parking space per four fixed seats x two trips). Byjright develop- ment of five lots would generate 50 vehicle trips pe~ day (five lots x ten vehicle trips per lot per day). The applicant lproposes access from Route 737 for the Church, with the parsonage to ~ontinue access to Route 726. Both Route 726 and Route 737 are non-~olerable. This segment of Route 726 carries 648 vehicle trips per d~y and is surface-treated and posted for 25 miles per hour. Thais segment of Route 737 carries 89 vehicle trips per day and is no~ hard-surfaced. The Virginia Department of Transportation states 'to ~btain adequate sight distance, the better road for access would be R~ute 737. Route 737 is currently a gravel road and a person is workiqg on obtaining right-of-way to improve this section of Route 737. MPre traffic would be generated with this request than would be geDerated under December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 109 the current zoning'. Staff is of the opinion that while peak church traffic on certain meeting days, such as Sundays, would exceed that of by-right development, weekly church traffic would not exceed that of by-right development. (Church traffic equals 65 vehicle trips times two days per week, which equals 130 vehicle trips. By-right with five lots equals 50 vehicle trips times seven days per week, which equals 350 vehicle trips.) No active streams exist on this property, although a drainage swale runs along the wooded southern boundary perpendicular to Route 726. Care should be taken during construction to minimize grading and the installation of impervious cover within the Totier Creek watershed. A letter of objection has been received from the owner of Chester Bed and Breakfast, located across Route 726 from this site. Mr. Anderson cites concerns over the impact of the church on the character of the area, the roads and the watershed. The Planning Commission and Board of SUpervisors is aware that in the past churches have not been considered inconsistent with the Rural Areas district of the reservoir watershed, when subjec{ to reasonable limitations. This property is directly adjacent to the growth area of Scottsville, proposed to be upgraded from a village to a community in the 1988-2010 Comprehensive Plan Dr~ft. In staff's opinion, the church will not be visually obstructiv~ from Route 726 and the Chester property, based on the propose~ 300-foot setback and the downward sloping topography. Staff has reviewed this special use permit for consistency with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that with appropriate conditions of approval, a church in this location: a. would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property; b. would not be inconsistent with other uses in the area nor with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance~ and c. would not be contrary to the publi6 health, safety and welfare. Staff recommends approval subject to th~ following conditions: 1. Sanctuary area limited to 1200 square feet. The church shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from Route 726 and 140 feet from Route 737; The property may not be further divided; Only those areas required for the Church and appurtenant improvements shall be cleared. All other areas shall remain in a natural state." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, 'at its meeting on December 6, 1988, unanimously recommended approval of SPq88-96 with the staff's condi- tions. The Commission added a fourth condition to read: "Approval is for worship and related church uses only. Day care or other such uses will require amendment to this permit". Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission discussed whether to add a condi- tion requiring that the church be accessed from Route 737. While Route 737 is only a gravel road, the curvature and vegetation growing along Route 726 makes sight distance difficult to obtain. Unless there is some positive impediment to accessing the church from Route 737, Mr. Horne said, the Commission will probably discuss this during the site review.~ The applicant has stated that he intends to access the church from Route 737. Mr. Way said he would prefer appending a condition to the special request permit stating that the church must be accessed from Route 737. Messrs. Bain and Bowie agreed. 110 December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) Mr. Way opened the public hearing. The public hearing was opened, and Rev. James Jetton from the James River Baptist Church came forward to speak. He said the church was agreeable to the conditions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Gordon Anderson of the Chester Bed and Breakfast said that granting this special use permit would change the character of the property. He asked that if the special use permit is granted, a stipulation~be added that traffic be limited strictly to Route 737 because of the curves and limited sight distance of Route 726. He said the property under discussion fronts on Route 726, a high-crowned, sharply curving road that is approximately 18 feet wide and classified by VDoT as non-tolerable. He presented photographs of Routes 726 and 737 to the Board. This past August, a driver in a pick-up truck was crowded by an oncoming vehicle on Route 726, hit a tree and then the fence surrounding Chester. This is not a road on which to encourage additional traffic, he said. Mr. Anderson said the Planning staff estimates that!~a church would generate less traffic than a by-right development of five lots. He said it is unlikely that this property would be subdivided into fiv6 lots, due to the way the property drains. He said the Planning staff's estimate of 130 vehicle trips does not include the minimum of 70 additional trips which should be assigned to the parsonage. He said the traffic generated by the church would be concentrated in one six-hour per week period of time;~Jthe by-right traffic would be spread over a seven-day week. The highest concentration of traffic on Route 726 is already on Sundays, from 8:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. from May to September, when the road is used as the principle route ~o the Hatton Ferry and the James River Runners. He asked that the Board, i~ it approves this special use permit, require that access to the church bejlimited to Route 737 and that use of the property be limited to the parsonageland the uses appro- priate to occupancy, until the sanctuary is built. Mr. Anderson questioned the staff's description of t~he property under discussion as being "directly south of the Scottsville S~,0pping Center". He said the topography renders the shopping center nearly invisible from his property and that o~f the applicant. He asked that the s~aff be more defini- tive in its descriptions of property in the future, sinc~ land use is such an important issue. Since no one else wished to speak to this application, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. ~: Mr. Bain asked Mr. Home if the Zoning Ordinance deflined what could be considered a church use and what could not be. Mr. Horn~ said "no"; staff interprets the term "church use" to mean uses that only cJhurches meet. Non-church uses include those services that are met by ot~er businesses and institutions, such as schools and day care centers. He s~id the Zoning Administrator does not usually prohibit church-related functions, such as softball games. If the Board wishes to prohibit a particular use, Mr. Horne said, the Board would have to specify that use in a condition attached to the permit · Mr. Way asked Mr. Home if the church would be allowed to use the prop- erty before the sanctuary is built, either by putting a t~nt on the property or using the parsonage as a meeting place. If the Board ~ished to prevent this from happening, Mr. Home said, he thinks the Board ~hould attach a condition to the request stating that the property will n6t be used for anything not directly related to the parsonage until the ~ermanent structure is built. Mr. Bowie said such a poss~bllmty has never occurred to the Board in the five years he has been a member. For reasons of safety, Mr. Way said, he thinks the B~ard should stipulat~ that Route 737 be used to access the church. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. ~ain to approve SP-88-96 with the following conditions recommended by thejPlanning Commission and a fifth condition stating: "Access to the church is~ ~o be from Route 737 only". December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 1. Sanctuary area limited to 1,200 square feet. The church shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from Route 726 and 140 feet from Route 737; 2. The property may not be further divided; 3. Only those areas required for the church and appurtenant improvements shall be cleared. Ail other areas shall remain in a natural state; 4. Approval is for worship and related church uses only. Day care or other such uses will require amendment to this permit; 5. Access to the church is to be from Route 737 only. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. 111 (Note: The Board recessed at 9:20 P.M. and reconvened at 9:26 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 10. SP-88-97. Christ Community Church of Charlottesville. To allow church on 7.63 acres, zoned R-2. Property in Woodbrook Subdivision on east side of Idlewodd Drive at intersection with Brookmere Road south of Brentwood Road. Tax,Map 45C-2, Parcel 6. Charlottesville District. (Advertised on December 6 and December 13, 1988.) Mr. Horne said the applicant had requested deferral in a letter dated December 19, 1988, to allow them time to amend their application Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to defer SP-88-97 to March 15, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 11. Dance Hall Permit Request - Shopper's World. Mr. Agnor said the County Code provides-for the issuance of permits to operate any dance hall in the County. Dance ihalls are defined as "any place open to the general public where dancing is permitted". The permit procedure requires an application be filed with the Cleck of the Board. The applicant had complied with the requirements of the County Code, and the application is before the Board for approval. ~ Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. Richard Hewitt, the applicant, addre~Ssed the Board. He said Loucille's will be a restaurant with a dance floor and a disc jockey playing "oldies". ~ Since no one else wished to speak to thi~ application, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the dance hall permit as applied for in a memo dated December 8, 1988, by Rich- ard B. Hewitt. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. P~rkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. !:~ ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. 112 December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Agenda Item No. 12. Resolution: Designate Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Revenue Bonds Tax Exempt. Mr. Agnor said a resolution prepared by bond counsel for the Rivanna Authority designates the Rivanna bonds as "qualified" tax exempt obligations and avoids rebates to the Federal government of profits made on investment of the bond proceeds is being presented for Board approval. The proposed resolu- tion also designates a portion of the Rivanna bonds toward any bonds which the County may issue in 1988 in order for the County not to exceed a new Federal limit of $10,000,000 per year per locality of tax exempt obligations, imposed by the Reform Act of 1986. He said the bond sale is $4.9 million for improve- ments to the Observatory Water Plant, the construction of the Avon Street storage tank and transmission mains in the southern'urban area to serve that tank, design of a relief sewer line parallel to the Moore's Creek interceptor, and construction of solid waste handling facilities for the Scottsville water plant. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the following resolution with the figure $2,551,000 inserted and the word "quali- fied'' inserted: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING REGIONAL WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF 1988, OF RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,000,000 AS "QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLI- GATIONS'' AND ALLOCATING UP TO $2,551,000 OF THE ANNUAL BOND LIMIT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY UNDER INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION149(f)(4)(C) TO RIYANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY WHEREAS, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (th~ "Authority") proposes to issue Regional Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds, Series of 1988 (the "Bonds") in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $5,000,000 to finance the cost of improvements to its water and sewer system; and WHEREAS, the Authority was created by concurrent resolutions adopted by the City of Charlottesville, Virginia (the "City"), and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,~Virginia (the "County"), to serve the needs of the citizens of thelCity and the County; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the City Council of the City and the Board of County Supervisors of the County to join with the Authority to "designate" the Bonds as "qualified~ tax-exempt obligations" for the purpose of Section 265(b)(3) of'~the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), to improve the ! marketability of the Bonds and reduce the Authority ii cost of financing; and WHEREAS, the Code generally requires all issuer~ of tax-exempt bonds to rebate to the United States any arbitrage pCofit derived from the investment of bond proceeds; and WHEREAS, Section 148(f)(4)(C) of the Code provides an exception to such rebate requirement for governmental units wish general taxing powers, such as the County, that expect to issue not more than $5,000,000 in tax-exempt bonds in any calendar ~ear (the "Small-Issuer Rebate Exception"); and WHERF2%S, the Code authorizes the County to allocate a portion of its $5,000,000 annual limit to its "subordinate e~tities," such as the Authority; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested such an ali~ocation for the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors has de~ermined that such designation and allocation would be in the best iinterest of the County and its citizens; December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 113 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: The County hereby designates the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purpose of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, provided that the Bonds are issued in calendar year 1988. 2. The County, hereby covenants and represents as follows: (a) The County will in no event designate more than $10,000,000 of obligations as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" in 1988, including the Bonds, for the purpose of such Section 265(b)(3); (b) The County and all its "subordinate" entities (within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code) have not issued more than $10,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations in 1988 (not including "private activity bonds" as defined in Section 141 of the Code other than "qualified 501(c)(3) bonds" as defined in Section 145 of the Code), including the Bonds; and (c) Barring circumstances unforeseen as of the date hereof, the County will not issue tax-exempt obligations itself or approve the issuance of tax-exempt obligations of any such subordinate entities if the issuance of such tax-exempt obligations would, 'when aggregated with all other tax-exempt obligations theretofore issued in 1988 by the County and such subordinate entities, result in the County and such subordinate entities having issued a total of more than $10,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations in 1988 (not including private activity bonds other than qualified 501(c)(3) bonds), including $2,551,000 of the Bonds; and (d) The County has no reason to believe that the County and its subordinate entities Will issue tax-exempt obliga- tions in 1988 in an aggregate !iamount that will exceed such $10,000,000 limit; provided, however, that if the County receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that compliance with any restriction set forth in (a) or (c) above is not required for the Bonds to be qualified tax-exempt obligations, the County need not comply with such restriction. 3. The County hereby allocates $2,551,000 of the County's $5,000,000 annual bond limit for the purpose of the Small Issuer Rebate Exception to the AuthOrity for the Bonds, pro- vided that the Bonds are issued in calendar year 1988. 4. The County hereby covenants and ~epresents as follows: (a) The County and all its "subordinate" entities, within the meaning of Section 148(f)(4)(iii) of the Code, have not issued more than $5,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations in 1988 (not including "privat~ activity bonds" as defined in Section 141 of the Internal!Revenue Code of 1986, as amended), including $2,551,000iiof the Bonds; (b) Barring circumstances unfgreseen as of the date hereof, the County will not issue tax-exempt obligations itself or approve the issuance~i~of tax-exempt obligations of any of such subordinate entities if the issuance of such tax-exempt obligations would, when aggregated with all other tax-exempt obligations theretofore issued in 1988 by the County and such subordinate entities, result in the County and such subordinate entities having issued a total of more than $5,000,00Q of tax-exempt obligations in 1988 (not including privateiactivity bonds), including $2,551,000 of the Bonds; and ~ 114 December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) (c) The County has no reason to believe that the County and such subordinate entities will issue tax-exempt obli- gations in 1988 in an aggregate amount that will exceed such $5,000,000 limit including $2,551,000 of the Bonds; provided, however, that if the County receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that compliance with any restriction set forth in (b) or (c) above will not prevent the Authority from having to rebate to the United States any part of the earnings derived from the invest- ment of the gross proceeds of the Bonds, the County need not comply with such restriction. 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: March 20~(A), April 16 (N), May 7 (N), June 12, June 18 (A), June 18 (N) and June 19:~(A), 1986; Novem- ber 4, 1987; August 22 and October 3, 1988. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes for March 20 (Afternoon) and April 16 (Night), 1986, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for May 7 (night), June 12 (page 10 to the end), 1986, and October 3, 1988, and found them to be ini"Order. Mr. Way had read the minutes for June 18 (night), 1986, and found them to be in order with one typographical correction to be made.~ Mr. Bain had read the minutes for November 4, 1987 (!pages 1-11), and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr~iiBowie to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried iby the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. ~ ABSTAINING: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on theiAgenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Perkins asked about the results of Mr. Jensen's ~econd opinion for the Crozet School project. Mr. Agnor said Jensen Associates were unable to price Items 1-3: the ratio of the exterior wall surface a~ea to the enclosed floor area; exterior surface materials, including the roof materials; and the radius wall versus the straight wall. The other 13 items recox~ended by the architects totaled a savings of approximately $256,000. ~r. mgnor emphasized I1~ ~ that this was a very broad estimate. Although the estimate represents a considerab~ savings to the County, Mr. Bowie said, items one through three were som~he mos~ expensive parts of the project. He suggested that Mr. Jensen price/6hese items as well. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Jensen had done what he was under contract~to do. Mr. Agnor pointed out that Mr. Jensen accomplished the work without/any dimensions being furnished him, even though these dimensionswere requeste~ five times. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. B~wie that the School Board be requested to have a response to Jensen Associate~' estimates on Items 1 through 16 fromVMDO available for the Board meeting oni~January 11, 1989; that Mr. Jensen be engaged by the County Executive to participate in those revisions and have knowledge of the changes being propose~; and that VMDO December 21, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) 115 provide Jensen Associates with the necessary: information. The County Execu- tive is to query VDMO as to why information was not provided to Jensen Associ- ates when it was requested. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Agnor asked if the Board wished to proceed with the second opinion process in the case of the Southside Elementary School. The Board agreed that the second opinion process should continue on a case-by-case basis, including Southside Elementary School. Mr. Agnor reported that the Airport Authority bonds sold at 8.01 percent, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority bonds sold at 7.50 percent. Mr. Agnor reported that Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association is making progress with meetings with rescue squads and fire departments. They have had two meetings and are planning a third one in January. They hope to come back to the Board with recommendations as a result of those meetings with three rescue squads and seven fire departments. At 9:55 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. ~Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. The Board reconvened into open session at 10:05 P.M. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the,meeting was immediately adjourned.