Loading...
1988-03-02March 2, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 636 (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 2, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. F. R. Bowie and Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Pe- ter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. 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 7:30 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 Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to accept the Consent Agenda as information. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Item No. 4.1. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for January, 1988; received as information. Item No. 4.2. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes for February 9, 1988, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: Request for abandonment of a portion of an old roadway known as the "Old Charlottesville-Lynchburg Turnpike". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and February 9, 1988.) Mr. Horne gave the following staff report dated February 3, 1988: "The staff has previously commented on a request by Mr. and mrs. Werner B. Hambsch for the abandonment of a portion of the Old Charlottesville-Lynchburg Turnpike just north of Route 692 at Cross- roads. Staff stated that we have no objections to the badnonment of that portion of this old public roadway. At that meeting, staff was instructed to review the status of this roadway north of the Hambsch's property in the immediate vicinity of Crossroads. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors has located a previous abandonment action by the Board of Supervisors which did abandon additional protions of this roadway that were not under public use. The remain- ing portions of the old roadway that were not abandoned at that time currently act as a driveway for two properties. Upon discussion in the field with one of the owners of the property in question, it appears that the private property owners are satisfied with this arrangement and are not requesting any further abandonment. While there does not necessarily appear to be any general public interest in maintaining a public right-of-way over this driveway area, it does provide service to two properties and , therefore, the staff would not recommend the Board of Supervisors take action at this time to abandon any other portions of this publid roadway." Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak to this road abandonment. 637 March 2, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) Mr. Werner Hambsch, said he was the only property owner along this portion of the "Old Charlottesvitle-Lynchburg Turnpike" and the road provided access to his auto repair business. He said he is the only property owner who would be affected by the abandonment and he supports it. With no one else wishing to address this issue, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board was requested by a citizen to abandon a section of an old road not in the State Highway or Secondary System; and WHEREAS, the Board, on January 13, 1988, ordered that this matter be advertised for public hearing in accordance with Virginia Code Section 33.1-157; and WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on March 2, 1988, the Board finding that the said section of road serves no public purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that an "old road" right-of-way known as "Old Charlottesville-Lynchburg Turnpike" (and shown on the attached exhibits) beginning at Station 0+00, a point common with the edge of the 50 foot right-of-way for State Route 692 and the centerline of the Old Charlottesville-Lynchburg Turnpike, thence in a northeasterly direction 435+89/100 feet to Station 4+35.89, a point common with the northeast corner of Lot lA, Tax Map 99, be abandoned-to public use. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Messr. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: Amendment to the Capital Improve- ments Program, re: Funding of Security Complex expansion. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 23, 1988.) Mr. Agnor said the Capital Improvements Program included a $1.2 million project to expand the Joint Security Complex. Although the State will fund half of this project, Mr. Agnor said, it will not do so until the project has been completed. To accommodate this financing plan, the County must increase its Capital Improvements Program by $300,000, one-half of the State's share. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if therewere anyone present who wished to speak to this issue. Since there was no one present who wished to address this issue, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Way said the Board cannot vote an a budget amendment until seven days after this hearing, so this item would be placed on the agenda for the next Board meeting, on March 9, 1988. Agenda Item No. 7. Presentation by Community Action ~Council. Mrs. Cooke said she invited the Community Action Council to address the Board and introduced Ms. Diane Gilliam, Vice-Chairman of ~he Council. Ms. Gilliam addressed the Board and said the Communi~ Action Council was dedicated to providing children an environment free of alcohol and drugs, To accomplish this objective, the Council has sponsored such~sctivities as a drug- and alcohol-free Ail Night Long After Prom Party, and a free dance for teenagers in December. She said the Council is asking parents to sign a pledge that all parties for school-aged children held in the parents' home March 2, 1988 (Regular Night'Meetihg) ~ (Page 3) 638 will be chaperoned and free of drugs and alcOhol. She said the Chiefs of the Police and the School Boards for both the County and the City endorse the pledge and ask the Board for its support. Mrs. Cooke said she supported the Council's request and urged the Board to make a public proclamation supporting the efforts of the Council. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following proclamation: WHEREAS, the Community Action Council is a group of dedicated, concerned citizens and parents working to provide drug and alcohol free activities for the youth of our community; and WHEREAS, the Community Action Council is requesting parents to sign a pledge that all parties held in the parents' home for school- aged children will be both chaperoned and drug and alcohol free; NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby wholeheartedly endorse these efforts of the Community Action Council. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Mrs. Cooke presented the proclamation to Ms. Gilliam and Ms. Ruth Par- sons, head of the All Night Long party, and commended them for their accom- plishments in the community. Agenda Item No. 8. Reconsider vote on SP-87-103. Christ Community Church. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Bruce Wardell, the architect for the applicant, contacted him after the last meeting, when the Board took action on this request for a special use permit. After talking with Mr. Wardell, Mr. Lindstrom said, he realized that he had voted wrongly on the request. Mr. Lindstrom said he checked the records in the Clerk's office and realized that he has voted in the past to approve special permits for churches in the watershed. Since he approved these earlier permits, he said, he feels he cannot deny them now. He asked that he be given the opportunity to change his vote. Mr. Way said he feels he may have taken the wrong position on this permit, too. Mrs. Cooke said she suspects sh~ may have as well. They both support reconsidering this item. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to suspend the Board's rules of procedure. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MeAsrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~i Mr. Way asked Mr. Wardell if he wished t~ address the Board. Mr. Wardell said he was shocked at the Board's refusal oflthe special use permit last week. He said he feels there are two reasons!iwhy the Board should reconsider its vote. Firstly, representatives of Christ~Community Church have agreed to meet the requirements of the Runoff Control Ordinance and have chosen a system of stormwater retention to minimize the amount of sediment from the runoff. Secondly, he said, the Board has set a precedent by allowing seven churches to be built in the watershed since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Mr. Way said the Board must vote now to reconsider the vote. If this votes passes, he said, he assumes the Board will readvertise and the request 639 March 2, 1988'(Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) will appear on the agenda in two weeks. Mr. Lindstrom said he has checked with Mr. St. John and learned that it is up to the Board's discretion as to whether it readvertises the request for subsequent public hearing; it is not a legal requirement. He pointed out that only the applicant addressed this request during the public hearing at the last Board meeting and there has been no change in the request. He said he would be willing to act on this request tonight without readvertising. Mr. Bain said he would perfer that the request be readvertised. Mr. Bowie said he was reluctant set a precedent of changing the vote without holding a public hearing, but if the delay would cause problems for the applicant, he might consider it. Mr. Way said he had spoken with the applicant today and indicated that the request would probably be readvertised and heard in two weeks. (Note: Mr. St. John left the meeting at this point.) Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to recon- sider the vote on SP-87-103. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Mrs. Cooke said she agreed with Messrs. Bain and Bowie, that the request should be readvertised, even though no one spoke in opposition to the applica- tion during the public hearing. She pointed out that the public hearing was held very late in the evening and perhaps some citizens Who may have spoken against the request became tired and left. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to set this petition for public hearing again on March 16, 1988. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carriled by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstzom, Perkins and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Reconsider vote on SP-87-109. Albemarle County Fair. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie to suspend the Board's Rules of Procedure. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst=om, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Way said he supported reconsidering the vote on SP-87-109 because he thought the Board needed more time to consider the information concerning traffic control presented by the applicant. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by MrS. Cooke to recon- sider the vote on SP-87-109. ~ Mr. Way asked Mr. James Kildea if he wished to speak Ito the Board con- cerning the reconsideration. Mr. Kildea urged that the Bomrd reconsider its vote in light of the traffic control information made avaiilable to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the Board should be war~ of giving appli- cants the impression that the Board will reconsider any request if an appli- cant thinks of something that makes a case stronger a week~ after the Board has acted upon a request. When the Board denied SP-87-109, he, said, it was acting upon the information available at that time. For the record, he said, the responsibility for providing information to the Board must fall on the appli- cant and the staff. He said he wants to make it clear that SP-87-109 and the Christ Community Church application are unusual cases, the exceptions rather March 2, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)- (Page 5) 640 than the rule, and that the Board is not going to begin a policy of reconsid- ering every request it denies. Mr. Way and Mrs. Cooke said they agreed with the comments just made by Mr. Lindstrom. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to rehear this petition on March 16, 1988. The Clerk observed that this date left no time for a legal advertisement, since the advertisement must appear twice in two successive weeks of the paper and appear six days before the public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if this item must be re-advertised. Mr2 St. John said he thought the statute was satisfied once there has been a public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said he wanted to make sure the advertisement was done properly because some citizens opposed the application. Mr. Way suggested holding a public hearing on March 23, 1988. Mr. Perkins amended the motion to re-adVertise the hearing for March 23, 1988. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Ther~ was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Motion was then off~red by Mr. Lindstrom to reconsid- er the previous motion on SP-87-103 and set this matter for hearing on March 23, 1988. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Tt~ere was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by th~ following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-87-108. Donald ~awhorne (deferred from Febru- ary 17, 1988). · Mr. Horne said the staff and Mr. Perkinsi visited Mr. Lawhorne's property and found a site which they believe will be ~ore suitable for the mobile home and less offensive to the adjoining property owners. He said the applicant may have to build a longer driveway and clear_ more land for a drain field. As originally proposed, Mr. Horne said, the mobile home would be visible from only one point along Route 674, providing the: applicant did not cut any existing vegetation. Mr. Bowie asked if the Board could place as a condition that the appli- cant not cut any more vegetation. Mr. Home said "yes"; enough vegetation has been cut to place the mobile home in either site under consideration. Mr. Perkins asked how the applicant proposed to bring a driveway to the mobile home. Mr. Horne said there was an old roadbed through this site upon which a driveway could be built without extensive grading and clearing. Mr. Way asked Mr. Lawhorne if he wished to say anything on behalf of his application. Mr. Lawhorne said he had a petition signed by 62 County resi- dents supporting the approval of this request; so that he and his family would have a home. He presented this petition to the Board. 641 March 2, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Perkins said he recently met with Mr. Lawhorne and he has agreed to locate the mobile home on the site suggested by the staff. He feels the applicant should be able to put a mobile home on his property if he wants to. Mr. Way reopened the public hearing and asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak on this application. A woman, who did not identify herself, asked where the proposed driveway would run. Mr. Perkins said he and the staff suggested that the applicant follow the old roadbed, which he indicated on a map. Since there was no one else present who wished to address this issue, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Way said he visited the property and it appeared to him that the original site of the mobile home would have been visible from Route 674 for only a few seconds and not at all visible to adjacent property owners. He said he is glad the applicant has agreed to compromise, but he is concerned that it may be difficult to put a drain field in the new!location. Mr. Perkins said he and the applicant had discussed ~this possibility and they agreed that a drain field could be placed at the neW site. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by .Mr. Bowie to approve SP-87-108 with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Existing vegetation on lot to be left as is with the exception of removal of trees necessary for a new septic field location and any driveway relocation from the original location; Mobile home to be located at location flagged by Mr. Perkins and staff, which location has been accepted by the applicant. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-87-20. Virginia Land Trust~(deferred from February 17, 1988). Mr. Horne said the staff received the following proffer from the appli- cant, dated March 1, 1988: "Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401McIntyre Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: ZMA-87-20 Virginia Land Trust Virginia Land Trust proffers deletion of certain HI uses for that parcel known as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5E, effectively limiting usage to the following: Mobile home sales. Uses permitted in the HI zone which are permitted by right in the LI zone. Uses permitted in the HI zone which are permitted by special use permit in the LI zone, subject to special use permit approval. Virginia Land conditionally proffers a right-of-way easement through that parcel known as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5E, for use by the adjacent property to the north. The conditions of this proffer are: that such an easement will not adversely affect the marketa- bility or usage of the parcel; March 2, 1988 (Regular NightMeeting)- (Page 7) 642 that this right-of-way will be used as secondary access to the adjacent property, and that the primary access to the adjacent property will remain at Rt. 29; and, that this right-of-way will follow the sewer easement as shown on the attached plat. (Signed) Charles William Hurt Trustee, Virginia Land Trust" Mr. Horne said staff recommended that the Virginia Land Trust grant the right-of-way easement to serve International~Auto Parts and other industrial sites to the north of this property. This easement, Mr. Home said, would decrease the number of heavy trucks making U~turns on U. S. Route 29 North. Mr. Bain asked how wide the right=of-way was to be, noting that it was to follow the sewer easement which was only 20 feet. Mr. Home said perhaps the third condition could be better worded: "that this right-of-way Will follow the approximate alignment of the sewer easement .... " He said the right-of-way easement will have to be wider than 20 feet. Ms. Virginia Gardner, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and said the condition could be reworded as Mr. Horne suggested. Mr. Bowie said it seems to him that Condition No. 1 negates the proffer. Any right-of-way easement, he said, will affect the marketability of the property. Ms. Gardner said she is concerned ithat too wide an easement might seriously limit the applicant's use of the p~operty. She said she would not · ~ like to see the Board turn down this proffer ~because of this condition; if it appears the Board might do this, she would consider rewording the condition. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the marketability of the property would not become an issue until the applicant tried to sell the property. At point, he said, both the special use permit and the proffers would become null and void anyway. He suggested that the condition state the Virginia Land Trust will grant an easement through this property ~s long as the property is used for the sale of mobile homes. Ms. Gardner said she thought this change could be made. Mr. Lindstrom added that he agrees with Mr. Bowie: the way the condition is now worded, the access could be lost without the County being able to do anything about it. Mr. Horne suggested rewording the first ~condition to read: "the easement will not, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, unduly affect the market- ability and the usage of the parcel". Ms. Gardener said this would be accept- able. Mr. Way asked if there were anyone else present who wished to address this issue. Since there was no one who did, Mr. Way closed the public hearing again and then placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve ZMA-87-20 with proffer of March 1, 1988, amending Statement No. 1 at the bottom to read: "that such an easement will not, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, adversely affect the marketability or usage of the parcel;" and amending Statement No. 3 at the bottom to read: "that this right-of-way will follow the approximate alignment of the sewer easement as shown on the attached plat." r There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MeSsrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ (Note: At 8:55 P.M., the Board recessediand reconvened at 9:05 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: The Ridge Preliminary Site Plan Appeal. 643 March 2, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) This appeal was brought to the Board by a letter dated January 28, 1988 from Mr. Arthur ~. Edwards, with the firm of B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates, Ltd. For the record, Mr. Bain said, he represented the applicant three years ago when the property was purchased, but he has not seen the site plan, or had anything to do with it, for the past two years. He said he intends to partic- ipate in the Board's action upon this appeal. Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Proposal: To locate 336 one bedroom apartments in 28 buildings, served by 511 parking spaces on 24.5 acres. Zoned R-15, Residential. Location: On the east side of Route 781 (Sunset Avenue) and north side of Interstate 64. Staff Comment: This site plan was originally submitted on Septem- ber 30, 1985, and was deferred on several occasions. The Site Review Committee discussed this plan at four separate meetings dating from October 17, 1985, to December 23, 1987. Original reviews noted incomplete information and the need to resolve feasibility issues. Later, more recent reviews focused on site design details. The entire development is proposed for one bedroom dwellings. They may be converted from rental to condominium ownership in the future. The developer anticipates a low population of children. The issues of feasibility and their resolutions are as follows: fireflow, Vepco right-of-way and entrance road. 1. Fireflow The developer is coordinating with the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authdrity in the extension of a 20-inch water line to serve this project. This 20-inch transmission line from the new Observatory tank south- ward down Sunset Avenue is estimated to begin construction July, 1988 and be completed August, 1989. 2. Vepco Right-of-Way Grading for road construction is proposed within the right-of-way for the Vepco high voltage transmission line,which traverses the property. The applicant has consulted Vepco and agrees to the necessary measures in this area. 3. Entrance Roads: Based on the number of lots served by the main road, the public road construction standard is applicable. As p~esently pro- posed, the road will only serve this one parcel!i.and therefore would not be accepted for state maintenance. A~ a result of steepness, the Virginia Department of Transportation standard for horizontal curvature cannot be met near thei~entrance without much additional earthwork. Acting as Resident Engineer in the case of a private road, the County Engineering Department has granted a waiver for the curvature as proposed. ~ The City of Charlottesville Department of Planning a~d Community Development has written to express concern over additional traffic on Sunset Avenue. As the Commission is aware, the northern portion of this road is in the City and from Moores Creek southward it is in the County. Staff is hopeful that with the proposed realignment of Fifth Street/Old Lynchburg Road, traffic will be likely to 'use that route. In addition to the feasibility issues, staff offers cbmments on the following site design items: internal roads, critica!l slopes, stormwater detention, landscaping and recreation. March 2, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting~) (Page 9) 644 Internal Roads The internal roads are proposed with branching and several separate intersections with parking areas. To clarify which road has the right-of-way and which must yield or stop, directional signage and pavement parkings shall be required. In areas of steep drop beside the road, a guardrail will be required. In accordance with staff recommendation, this plan provides for a future road to stub out to Parcel 44, adjacent to the northeast, This undeveloped parcel is also zoned R-15, Residential, and is covered by areas of Moores Creek flood plain. This future access will comply with the present Zoning Ordinance standard which requires more than one point of access for developments of 50 dwellings or more. The County Engineer has preliminary approved internal road plans. Critical Slopes In accordance with Section 4.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, the appli- cant requests a modification of regulations to permit building construction on critical slopes. The plan proposes a portion of buildings #109 and #110 to be partially!constructed on an area of 25 percent slope. The County Engineering Department recommends approval of this request because it is within the area proposed for building, and would be partially excavated for footings. Stormwater Detention Most of this development will drain to (he stormwater detention pond proposed in the northwest corner, approgimately 180 feet from Sunset Avenue. The dry pond is proposed to be~approximately nine feet deep and 75 feet wide by 160 feet long. As a safety protection, the plan proposes an eight foot high solid privaqy fence with locked gate around the perimeter. The County Engineer has preliminarily approved the plans. Landscaping The landscape plan as proposed generally appears to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Wooded areas proposed to remain will be protected by a conservation plan. Further screenihg adjacent to Interstate 64 will be required. The applicant proposes an earthen berm and a single row of evergreen trees. Recreation Area Although it was originallysubmitted prior to the present Zoning Ordinance recreation requirements, the plan proposes compliance. The applicant has required that the recreation target population be considered to be primarily adults, based on one bedroom apartments. One tot lot is proposed. Planning staff~ has preliminarily approved the recreation plan. This plan will meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and staff recommends approval subject to the following: Recommended Conditions of Approval The final plan will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final on-site and off-site water and sewer plans; County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; County Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; 645 March 2, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) d. County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commer- cial entrance and right turn lane; f. Issuance of an erosion control permit; g. County Engineering approval of guardrail locations, and directional signage and pavement markings; h. Fire Officer approval; i. Planning staff approval of recreation plan and landscape plan (to include additional screening from Interstate 64); A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the follow- ing condition has been met: a. Final Fire Officer approval." o At its meeting on January 26, 1988, Mr. Horne said the Planning Commis- sion recommended denial of the application by a vote of six to one, because members were concerned that the increased traffic on Sunset Avenue would be a clear danger to the public's health and safety. ~ Mr. Horne said he wished to elaborate upon the realignment of Fifth Street and its impact upon the traffic problem. He said'there are plans to rebuild Stagecoach Road on a new alignment, into a four-lane divided highway that would tie back into Old Lynchburg Road south of its intersection with Sunset Avenue. This project, Mr. Home continued, would.also realign the current intersection of Old Lynchburg Road with Fifth Street Extended into a controlled "T" intersection. Coupled with the construction of Mountainwood Road to connect through to Sunset Avenue, this project should eventually alleviate the traffic problems along Sunset Avenue. Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John to summarize a letter he ~had written to members of the Board concerning this application. Mr. St. John said if the Board finds that the site plan complies with th~ existing regulations, including the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordi- nance, then the Board must approve the site plan, unless approval would constitute a danger to the public's safety. Mr. St. Johni~said he wrote the letter because the applicant stated publicly that he intended to appeal the Planning Commission's decision and to sue the Board if itl!upholds the decisio~ of the Planning Commission. If the case goes to court, h~ said, it will be up to the Board to prove that this site plan does present a danger to the public. To prove this, he said, the Board will need strong expert~testimony. Mr. Lindstrom questioned the need for expert testimony and quoted what Mr. St. John had said during the Planning Commission meeting on January 26, 1988, when Mr. Tim Michel asked him to comment on the Commission's ability to determine whether Sunset Avenue is unsafe. Mr. St. John had answered "You don't have to leave your common sense at home . I believe you can apply ordinary common sense and listen to these people, and unless you have reason to disbelieve what they say, then use your common sense and your own defini- tion of what is dangerous." ~ Mr. St. John said Mr. Lindstrom quoted him accuratelM and he believed that what he said to the Commission is true for the Board~at this point. But he said, if the Board becomes involved in litigation over this site plan, th~ he anticipates a battle of experts. Mr. St. John said he ~id not feel it was his role to comment upon the weight of the evidence. Mr. St. John then read from the Planning Commission minutes a comment made by Mr. Home: "In terms of Sunset Avenue in the County, it clearly is not unsafe. We are not in a position to dispute what has been said about Sunset Avenue in the City . if there were no improvements to Sunset Avenue, and we allowed the full 336 (units) to be built before we did March2, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting). (Page 11) 646 anything, yes then, at that point, we may bel able to say it is unsafe." Mr. St. John said if the staff believes the roadl will be unsafe once the 336 units have been built, he does not think it would be wise for the Board to approve this site plan and later prohibit the applicant from building the full number of units. Now is the time to make that decision, he said, not after the applicant has spent his money on developing the site. With the comment made by Mr. Horne in the record, Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John what liability the County might face if the Board approved the request and an accident occurs on SunSet Drive that is linked to traffic generated by this particular development? Mr. St. John said the County faced no such liability as the law stands now. Mr. Bain asked if the County could be liable for having poor roads in an area zoned high-density. Mr. St. John cited~a recent case, the Board of Zoning Appeals of Falls Church vs. O'Malley, 229 Virginia 605, in which Justice Charles Thomas said that by-right zoning does not entitle every piece of property in a particular district to every use listed by a matter of right. The propertymust also comply with all other conditions. One of the condi- tions placed upon land use in the County is that the particular use must not constitute a clear danger to public safety. If this site plan poses a clear danger to the public safety, Mr. Home said, then the site plan does not meet all the necessary conditions. Just because the County may not be legally liable for any accidents that may result if this site plan is approved, Mr~ Lindstrom said, in his opinion, does not mean the Board should not consider the issue of safety. Mr. Way asked if there were any questions for Mr. Horne. Mr. Lindstrom said there was a waiver granted for the road ~.idesign to minimize the impact on critical slopes. He asked if there .were any waivers required to build the road on the slope itself. Mr. Horne said "n~"; he does not believe the ordinance applies to roadways, but to structures. If the Planning Commission had approved the request, one of the conditions of approval would have includ- ed a statement waiving Section 4.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Horne said the County Engineer determined that the applicant planned to use construction methods that would minimize the impact on th~ slopes. Moreover, Mr. Horne continued, the Planning Commission felt that ion a site this size, the amount of slope being disturbed was acceptable. Without this waiver, Mr. Lindstrom said,~! units 109 and 110, and possibly the recreation center, could not be built. M!r. Home said that was right. Mr. St. John interrupted and asked to speak to some of the legal problems mentioned earlier. He said he does not think~ there can be an issue of "tak- ing'' if the applicant were to go to court. TO show a "taking", the applicant must show that the Board has deprived him of any reasonab'le use of the pro~ perty. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne if he wis~ed to elaborate upon his cox~ents made during the Planning Commission meeting a~ quoted by Mr. St. John. Mr. Horne said the staff has not developed any information dealing with documented safety hazards on Sunset Avenue; therefore, neither he nor the staff can say at this time that Sunset Avenue is unsafe. He said Sunset Avenue is similar to many other County roads upon which new subdivisions are being built. If the County continues to build new development~ and do nothing about the road system, Mr. Horne said, eventually the staff may be able to determine that a particular road is unsafe. He said it was impossible for him to declare now that Sunset Avenue will be unsafe if this development is built, but the staff may be able to make this determination later.. Mr. Horne said he was just trying to point out the importance of infrastructure to development. If the staff had to assume that the infrastructure was never going to be improved, then much of the development going on today c~uld not be approVed. If an area is zoned for intensive use and requires certain facilities, Mr. Horne said, the County must make sure those facilities ex{st. Mr. Lindstrom noted that there was no guarantee that the residents of the proposed subdivision would use the County's roads unless the City took action on its threat to close Sunset Avenue. Mr. Hot, ne agreed. 647 March 2, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Mr. Bowie said there are other pieces of property in this area which are zoned for intensive use but are undeveloped. If the roads are not good enough to support The Ridge development, he asked, what will happen when the owners of these other parcels begin presenting applications to the Board? Many of these parcels are close to Mountainwood Road and residents would be more likely to use this road than Sunset Avenue, Mr. Horne answered. He added that some of the other parcels in the area of Sunset Avenue could not support the intensive building the applicant proposed on his property, because they were in the flood plain and are too steep. Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission was recommending in the revised Comprehensive Plan to enlarge the urban area because a significant amount of the land in the urban area was not suitable for the density present- ly shown. He asked Mr. Horne whether the Planning Commission found this to be true of the area near Sunset Avenue. Mr. Horne said "yes" and explained that the original holding capacity of the urban area was calculated as if the area were completely flat and buildable. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. Fred Payne, representing the applicant, addressed the Board. He introduced Mr. Salvatore J. Cangiano, the applicant; Mr. Buddy Edwards, a surveyor; and Ms. Diane Linderman of Wilbur Smith and Associates. Mr. Payne said Mr. Cangiano plans to have 336 one-bedroom condominiums built on the site. Although Mr. Cangiano does not intend to market these condominiums in a way that would appeal to University students, obviously some students might live here because the University is so clQSe. He said Mr. Cangiano expected around 30 percent of the units to be purchased and occupied by retired people. Mr. Payne said the density his client proposed is significantly less than what is permitted for this parcel. He said his client has met the technical requirements of the Zoning Ordinance: the internal roadsi!have been approved and all the utilities will be on the site. As for the entrance on Sunset Avenue, he said, the developer is willing to comply with The regulations of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) and the ~onditions recommend- ed by the staff. Mr. Payne said his client asked Ms. Lin~erman to prepare a study on traffic distribution in this area. He said he bglieves she based he~ on study on the assumption that a greater number of students will live in the development than his client anticipates, but this may be a reasonable assump- tion. Mr. Payne asked that Ms. Linderman be allowed to address the Board. Ms. Linderman said her study began with an inventory'~of the condition of the roads in the area, including Sunset Avenue in both th~ County and the City, Old Lynchburg Road and Stagecoach Road. She said she based her study o~ the assumption that 40 percent of the residents would work in the City and 60 percent would either work at or attend the University. She said she deter- mined three basic travel routes: Sunset Avenue north through the City; Sunset Avenue south to Old Lynchburg North; and Sunset Avenue south to Stagecoach Road and Fifth Street. One of the assumptions of the study is that motorists will use the path of least resistance to reach their destination. Time is at a premium these days, she said, and she believes people w~ill drive a little further if that route is faster. She said the study demo~'~strates that 24 percent of the vehicles exiting The Ridge will travel the ~first route and 76 percent will use either the second or third route. While iiThe Ridge woUld add traffic to Sunset Avenue, she said, less than one-fourth ~f the traffic generated by the subdivision would use Sunset Avenue through the City. Mr. Bowie asked how Ms. Linderman determined what pe~icentage of the residents would use a particular route. Ms. Linderman sa~d this figure was based on counts taken at Country Green Apartments and an sStimate of how many residents of The Ridge would be affiliated with the University. Mr. Bowie asked how this estimate was determined. Ms. Linderman sa~'d it was based on information provided by the developer. ? Although 60 percent of the residents might be affiliated with the Univer- sity, Mr. Bain said, the study assumes that only 24 perce~g will use the shortest route to the University. He asked Ms. Linderman ?,if she believed the remaining 36 percent would use another route to the UniverDity, a route that March 2, 1988 (Regular Night'Meeting) (Page 13) 648 may be longer, but quicker. She said "yes"; the 25 mile-an-hour~speed limit on Sunset Avenue makes it a much slower route. Mr. Horne suggested that Ms. Linderman might translate her data into vehicle trips per day. She said the 336 units would generate 1783 vehicle trips per day, with 118 vehicles exiting during the peak hours of the morning. She said there would be about 30 additional vehicles using Sunset Avenue through the City during the peak hours. Mr. Payne said he thought there would be fewer residents traveling to the University; his client is not building student housing. If this Board finds evidence that proves, clearly and convincingly, that The Ridge will make Sunset Avenue unsafe, he said, he does not disagree with the Board's right to deny the request. He said he believes the evidence does not show that the development will create a danger to the public. For the Board to deny the appeal, he said, the development must make the road"unsafe" as opposed to "inadequate" or "non-tolerable". He said th~ Planning Commission's minutes and Mr. Horne's comments tonight demonstrate.that neither the County staff nor the VDoT staff considers the County portion of Sunset Avenue to be unsafe. Nor does he believe the City portion of Sunset Avenue has been proven to be unsafe. The City staff report merely states,that the road is unsafe, he said, without supporting the statement with data. Mr. Payne said his client feels that heiis asking for only what he is entitled,to. The southern part of the City is going to grow and there will be additional traffic on Sunset Avenue regardless of whether this subdivision is approved. The City should repair this road,~he said, rather than seek to deny his client his rights. If Sunset Avenue is in such bad shape this development must be denied, no development can take~.plac~ in this area and the Comprehen- sive Plan and Zoning Map are not worth ~the p~per they are printed on. Mr. Gaston Fornes addressed the Board and said he had lived on his property for 40 years. He asked that the Board postpone approval of this application until the road improvements promised in the Six Year Plan occur. Of all the cities he has been in, he said, o~ly Boston and Baltimore have worse roads than Charlottesville. ~ Ms. Josephine Williams addressed the Board and said she lived at 2509 B Harris Road and was Vice-President of the Fr~s Spring Neighborhood Associa- tion. She said the proposed subdivision wou~d adversely affect her neighbor- hood because of the traffic it would generate on Sunset Avenue and Old Lynchburg Road. She said the Association is jalso concerned about the prece- dent this will set for future relations between the County and the City further development in the southwestern part lof the County. She said the Association asks that the Board deny the reqqest. She said she believes the subdivision would appeal primarily to students who travel to and from the University every day. She does not believe ~hey will chose to travel on Fifth Street. She asked that developments in the southwestern part of the County be denied until there is a better route to the University. this subdivision would increase the traffic on Sunset Avenue by eight-fold. If the Board must approve this request, she said, she would entreat each Board member to ask him or herself which route the traffic should follow and what can be done to make sure the traffic follows this route. Ms. Betty Siegner addressed the Board a~d said she lived in the City, at 201 Sunset Avenue. She said she compared how long it would take a resident who was living in the proposed development to reach the University on each of the routes mentioned in Ms. Linderman's report. She said the Old Lynchburg Road route takes much longer than the Sunset ~venue route, not just because the former route is longer, but because it also contains more intersections and stop signs, due to many subdivisions along this road. She cannot believe that anyone going to the University would take the Old Lynchburg Road route. She said she believes that all 60 percent of ~he residents affiliated with the University will use Sunset Avenue through the! City and onto Jefferson Park Avenue. Nor does she believe travellers on Sunset Avenue will obey the 25 mile an hour speed limit, since they drive ahout 40 miles an hour on that road now. As part of her job, Ms. Siegner said, sh~ works with retired people~ Retired people will not live on a road this Unsafe or in an area with no 649 March 2, 1988~(Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) grocery stores, or places to shop. This development will appeal to students, not retired people, she said. Students will not care if the road is curvy and unsafe; instead, they'll probably enjoy driving on it, she said. Ms. Siegner said there was a Seventh Day Adventist day care center, with an exit onto Sunset Avenue at the intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Sunset Avenue. There is another day care center on Brunswick and Jefferson Park Avenue, with an entry on Sunset Avenue. Sunset Avenue is only 13 feet wide in places, she added, barely wide enough for a school bus. The City would have to destroy the neighborhood to improve the road; there are no shoulders that could be used to expand the road. The road can be widened only at great sacrifice to the property owners along Sunset Avenue. She said the City is not willing to do this. She said the majority of traffic along Sunset Avenue comes from the County, so it should not be left up to the City to come UP with a solution. She presented a petition signed by County residents who iive along Sunset Avenue asking that the Board deny the application until it could guarantee a safe access to the University for County residents. Mr. Philander Chase addressed the Board and said he lived at 223 Old Lynchburg Road, in the City. He said he was speaking forl himself and on behalf of the following property owners along Old LynchbUrg Road: Mr. and Mrs. Tom Scott, Mrs. Ella May, Mr. and Mrs. Roscoe Faris, Mr. and Mrs. Leon Mann and Mr. and Mrs. William Johnson. He said it is not realistic to portray Old Lynchburg Road as an alternate high-speed route to the University. The speed limit on this road is 25 miles per hour and there are many dangerous curves, blind driveways and a problem with drainage along the road. He said the problems with development along U. S. Route 29 North should teach the City and the County the the dangers of the "build first and worry about the roads later" philosophy of growth. He said he is concerned about the "Balkaniza- tion" of this area and hopes the City and the County can Work together on this problem, or property owners on both sides will suffer. Ms. Joyce Wingfield addressed the Board and said she~was a County resi- dent who has lived on Sunset Avenue for 42 years. She said she objects to the development because of the drainfield, which will be almost directly across from her property. The flooding problem is bad enough there already, she said. When it floods, she said, the site will be inaccessible. The portion of Sunset Avenue which runs from the proposed entrance in~o The Ridge back to the City line is a dangerous road and has been the site o~ many accidents. There is no guardrail at the Moore's Creek Bridge and jus{ recently someone drive into the creek and almost drowned. She said the Connty needed to improve its portion of the road, as well. Mr. Patrick Punch, a resident of the City and the Fr~e Springs neighbor- hood, addressed the Board. He said approving this applic~tion would adversely affect the residents of this neighborhood. If 24 percent ~of the traffic from the proposed development traveled up Sunset Avenue and 36 !percent traveled up Old Lynchburg, that would result in 60 percent of the traffic generated by The Ridge entering Jefferson Park Drive. He said he also thi~,ks that residents of The Ridge who were not affiliated with the University might use Sunset Avenue to Jefferson Park Avenue route to reach the shopping centers along U. S. Route 29 North. He said the City/County/University Planning and'. Coordination Council forces working on road studies have concluded that! a new access was needed to connect the southern part of the County to the University via either Fontaine Avenue or U. S. Route 29 South below the interchaBge with Inter- state 64. Either of these routes would decrease the traffic on Sunset Avenue, Jefferson Park Avenue and Old Lynchburg Road and channel t~e traffic around the bottle-neck in the City. He urged the Board to consider one of these routes as a long term solution to the problem before appro~Ving this request or any other request for intensive development in the area. Mr. George Holmes addressed the Board and said he hasi~ lived at 238 Stribling Avenue for 28 years. He said he has seen tremendous strides in the cooperation between the County and the City. He thinks thgre must be some way the City and the County can work together to solve this problem. Regardless of the route the traffic from this development would travel, he said, the biggest problem is crossing the railroad track. The JeffeCson Park Avenue bridge is old and narrow and creates a bottle-neck. The R%dge Street Bridge March 2, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting).~ (Page 15) 650 must be replaced and the crossings on Shamrock Drive and Valley Drive are dangerous. He asked that the County consider the entirety of growth in southern Albemarle and not look at just this project and this street. Mr. James King addressed the Board and said he lives at 2607 Jefferson Park Circle. The only way to access the fifty houses in Jefferson Park Circle is from Brunswick Road off of Sunset Avenue. He said he was the Secretary of the Citizens for Albemarle, and read the Board a letter from Mr. John Redick, President of the Citizens for Albemarle. In, the letter, Mr. Redick asked that the Board of Supervisors apply the same standards in to evaluate the impact of The Ridge development upon the City as it would upon the County. He also wrote that adherence to a good neighbor policy allows no double standard in the treatment of County and City residents. Mr. King said the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Committee is addressing the problem of access through thi~ area to the University. He asked that the Board delay any decision on this application until the results are in from this Committee. Mr. Ron Higgins addressed the Board andlsaid he was a member of the Planning Department for the City and here on.behalf of Mr. Huja. He said the City engineering staff has been concerned about Sunset Avenue and Old Lynchburg Road for a long time. In 1985, the VDoT studied the County portion of Sunset Avenue, the better portion of the road, and concluded that it was non-tolerable due to its width and curvature~ VDoT determined that the County portion of Sunset Avenue needed to be improved, at a time when there were only 341 vehicle trips per day. Perhaps the County portion of the road is unsafe, too, he suggested. Mr. Higgins said Mr. Payne was correct when he said no one has done a safety study on this road. Until recently, he said, there was not enough traffic on Sunset Avenue to make improving it a priority. Mr. Higgins said the City has asked the VDoT to consider Old ~ynchburg Road, Jefferson Park Avenue and Sunset Avenue for Transportation and Signalization Maintenance projects. He said Sunset Avenue could not m~et VDoT's standards for an urban local road. He agreed with Mr Payne: there was no safety data on Sunset Avenue. He said he thinks it would be a mist~ake to approve this application without studying this road and gathering this! data. He said people have a right to develop their property. Nevertheless, he said, there is a lot of land in both the Cityl and the County that is zoned for a higher density than the site can support. Land zoned R-2 in the City can rarely support 12 units per acre, he said. He said the Board was obligated to approve the application if it met all the Board's standards. He asked if this project really met the Board's standards; if so, why were the waivers neces- sary? Since there was no one else who wished ~ speak to this application, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the Ratter before the Board. (Note: The Board recessed at 10:57 P.M.~and reconvened at 11:03 P.M.) Mr. Bain said this was a site plan, not A request for rezoning or a special use permit. He said he felt this request epitomized the problems the County faces in theurban and growth areas. The Board tries to channel growth into certain areas, and have the roads improved to support this growth, yet these improvements never happen. He cited Rio Road from the City limits to two miles north as one of the most dangerous roads in the County, with an increasing number of developments lining its curves. Improvements to Rio Road and the construction of the Meadow Creek ParkWay have been talked about for years, yet no improvements are made and the asea keeps growing. If the Board wants to make sure the roads are safe, he sai~, perhaps the Board should declare a moratorium on subdivisions in the u~ban area until the roads are improved. If the Board is not willing to approve site plans in the urban area, then the growth will spread all over th~ County. He said he does not want to deny a request for subdivision in an Area zoned for that intensity simply because the road will not support it. ~If the application is denied for this reason, he said, the Board can forget abgut channeling growth to the urban areas of the County. If, on the other hand, the Board approves this request and others like it, the Board and the!City Council will be forced to 6 5 1 March 2, 1988'(Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) find the funding necessary to improve these roads and to persuade the VDoT to do the same. Mr. Lindstrom said he believes the issue is whether there is enough evidence to justify ignoring the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and decide that the roads are too unsafe to increase the traffic upon them. He said he questions some of the assumptions made by Ms. Linderman in her study of Sunset Avenue. He thinks a denial Of this request would eventually mean that the Board has delegated its responsibility to a judge. He said he thinks the Board has three options: it can deny the request and begin muster- ing its expert witnesses; it can approve the request; or, it can defer action, citing as reason for the deferral the need to study the safety issue. If an unbiased study proves there is a safety problem with Sunset Avenue, he said, he thinks this would be a legitimate reason to deny the site plan. He said he will not deny this request in the absence of this information. Mr. Bowie said he does not believe opponents of the application have demonstrated that the development will be a danger to public safety. For five years, he said, the County, City, developers and property-owners have known that this area was zoned high-density. Mr. Perkins said he agreed with the comments made by Mr. Bain. If City officials feel they must close off Sunset Avenue, then maybe that is the thing to do. He asked Mr. Payne if his client had a marketing strategy that would discourage University students from buying apartments at The Ridge. Mr. Cangiano said he had experience selling condominiums in Florida and believed that about 40 percent of The Ridge apartments could be sold as summer homes to some of his retired clients in Florida. He said he does not believe that more than 20 percent of the residents will be University students; his company does not plan to pursue that market. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Planning Commission discussed the conditions of approval. Mr. Horne said "no". Mr. Lindstrom asked M~. Home if he cared to address the conditions of approval. Mr. Horne said he, felt the recommended conditions would suffice. He said he did not think the Planning Commission would want detailed conditions at this early stage in the process. Mrs. Cooke said she sympathized with the citizens wh6 spoke during the public hearing, but she is disturbed that the City does npt seem to be doing anything to correct the problem within its own jurisdiction. She said she feels the application before the Board is~legitimate and ~he would have problems denying the applicant who, she believes, has mad~ the effort to comply with the necessary regulations. ~i Within one to two months, Mr. Home said, there shouid be a recommended plan for this neigborhood and its transportation system f~om the City/County/University Planning and Coordination Council.i This plan will offer some concrete proposals on how to handle the growthlin this area and should address some of the concerns expressed during the ~ublic hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board has done a go~d job of following the Comprehensive Plan, sometimes in the face of strenuous opposition from citizens. During the next update of the Comprehensive P16n, he feels.there will be an emphasis placed on furnishing the infrastrUcture needed in the County. If this were a rezoning request, he would not support it, but it is a site plan. The benefit to be derived from denying it wou~d be temporary, and there would be negative consequences for the County when ~t tries to enforce the Plan on other properties.~ Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ~ihe Ridge Preliminary Site Plan subject to the conditions outlined on page 3 of ithe staff's report and set out in full below. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carrie~ by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lmndst~om, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. { (Note: the conditions of approval are as follows: March 2, 1988 (Re§ular Night Meeting) (Page 17) 652 The final plan will not be signed~until the following conditions have been met: a. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final on-site and off-site water and sewer plans; b. County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; c. County Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; d. County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commer- cial entrance and right turn lane; f. Issuance of an erosion control permit; g. County Engineering approval of guardrail locations, and directional signage and pavement markings; h. Fire Officer approval; i. Planning staff approval of recreation plan and landscape plan (to include additional screening from Interstate 64); A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the follow- ing condition has been met: a. Final Fire Officer approval. Agenda Item No. 13 Appointments: a) Equalization Board. b) Social Services Board. c) TJPDC Regional Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. Members of the Board decided to pass over this item because of the lateness of the hour. Agenda Item No. 14. Request to set a public hearing to amend the County Business License Ordinance. This request was brought to the attention of the Board by the following letter from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, dated February 25, 1988: ~. "On file is the request of two amendments to the Albemarle County Code. These amendments will affect the, filing and payment dates of the County Business License. The amendment to Section ll-13(b), "PerSons unable to keep records, report of gross receipts", will move the license application filing date from April 30 to May 1. This will'make the license filing date consistent with the Personal Property filing date. There have been numerous occasions when individuals or ~heir accountants have filed both forms by the May 1 deadline resulting in a ten percent penalty on this license application. This chan~e eliminates confusion on this matter and will save many taxpayers from incurring the late filing penalty. ~ The amendment of Section ll-12(b), "Taxps, when payable ", will move the license payment deadline from June 1 to June 15. Several years ago, based on taxpayer request, the filing date for the license application was moved from Marc~ 31 to April 30. This was based on the April 15th due date for Federal Income Tax. Taxpayers claimed the necessary filing informatio~ was not always available until after their income tax return was~filed. TheApril 30 date has caused some difficulties both for this department and the taxpayer. 653 March 2, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) With the current payment deadline of June 1, this office has only about two weeks to process the applications and mail the bills. In addition, this only allows the taxpayer two weeks for payment of the bill, of which many have complained. Changing this date to June 15 will provide this office with some additional time for processing and also allow an extra week's notice to the taxpayer for payment. These changes have been reviewed by the County Attorney's office and I would like to see them adopted as soon as possible." Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to set this matter for public hearing on April 13, 1988. There~was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: August 13, August 20 (N) and September 3, 1986; March 18 (A) and April 15 (N), 1987. Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes for September 3, 1986 (Night); Mr. Way page 14 to the end of August 13, 1986; Mrs. Cooke page 1 to 11 of August 20, 1986 (Night) and page 9 to the end of March 18, 1987 (Afternoon); and Mr. Bowie pages 1 to 14 of August 15, 1986 and page 12 to the end of August 20, 1986. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the minutes as read. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Messrs. Bain and Perkins. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the~Agenda from the Board and the Public. Mr. Craig Van de Castle addressed the Board and said he was disappointed with the Board's denial of the County scenic roadway designation for Garth Road from Twenty-One Curves Road west to the Millington Bridge. He ,said he considered the possibility of filing suit to seek review Of the Board's decision. The aim of such a suit, he said, would have been to seek a remand of the matter for further consideration and another vote .~y the Board, perhaps forcing the Board to reevaluate the reasons upon which members based their decision. He said some members of the Board appeared to ~ote against the designation because they disagree with regulating the prigate use of land. He considers this to be a "do-nothing" approach to zoning, ii After much consideration, he said, he decided that a~more productive course of action than filing a suit would be to allow the!Board to reconsider its position as a result of its own deliberation. He sai~ he thinks that other influences, rather than judicial review, should influence their recon- sideration, such as public input and comment. When the B~ard considers other similar protective measures in the future, he said, he ho~es the Board will reflect on the future appearance of the County with lovin~ concern and tare. Mr. Agnor said he had received a request from the School Board concerning the renovations at Burley Middle School. He reminded the iBoard that it wished to meet with the School Board when more information becam~ available concern- ing Burley School and Meriwether Lewis School. According ito Mr. Overstreet, Mr. Agnor said, there is no new information on Meriwether ~Lewis School. Mr. Agnor asked if the Board wished to meet with the School Bdard to discuss just the Burley School project. March 2, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 654 (Page 19) Mr. Lindstrom said he thought it would be helpful if the two Boards met to discuss the Burley School project, but he is concerned that there is no new Lnformation concerning Meriwether Lewis. Mr. Perkins said the silence might be due to the School Board's plan to build another new school there in three years. Mr. Lindstrom said if the School Board plans to tear down one school and build two schools in addition to the schoQls already budgeted, he would tike to meet with School Board members and discuss this, before such an assumption, takes root. He said he is concerned that the Board may not take needed action on Meriwether Lewis School due to some bogus assumptions until it is too late and the School Board says the building needs to be torn down. Mr. Bowie said he has asked for information on several schools twice and has not yet received it, information such as a list of the schools, their staffing capacity, their capacity and how many students were enrolled. He said he is tired of attending meetings with the School Board and never having his questions answered. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to meet with the School Board, but not just to discuss Burley School. Mr. Agnor said the Board must decide whether to fund the Burley addition by March 15, 1988; if the contractor who had handled the first phase of the project were to be used for the second phase. Mr.. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor for the deadline of the renewal of the Meriwether Lewis construction contract. Mr. Agnor said mid-April. Mr. Lindstrom said he suspected the School Board would let this deadline pass without taking the opportunity to hire the contractor to make any additions to the school. Mr. Agnor said he was told the School Board wished to discuss Meriwether Lewis with the Board in terms of t~e Capital ~mprovement Program and the new school in the Free Union area. He also said the School Board asked that the Board select two dates within the next ten days to meet with Mr. Overstreet and the School staff to discuss the entire Capital Improvements Plan. Mr. Bain said he thought the Board needed to meet with the School staff before it met with the School Board to gatherlithe data needed to make a decision on both Burley and Meriwether Lewis schools. Mr. Agnor suggested the Board schedule a'~session with the School staff within the next ten days and then schedule a Meeting with the School Board on March 16, 1988. Mr. Perkins said he would not be able to attend a meeting on this date. : Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Planning staff had any opportunity to review what the Schools staff intended to do. Mr. Agnor said the staff received the pupil projections recently, but that was all. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board m~et with the Schools staff on March 9, 1988, and asked Mr. Agnor to meet wi~h Mr. Overstreet and brief him on the Board's concern over Meriwether Lewis School. He also asked Mr. Agnor to find out how much time the Board had to de~ide what to do about the school before it was too late. He said the staff an~ the Planning Commission should have the chance to review the plans. ~ Mr Bowie said he wants to hear from the~Schools staff at the March 9 meet~ng'what ~t plans to do about the Meriwet~er Lewis School, rather than delaying this discussion until the CIP process. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board wants to preserve the option of doing anything about the School, he i 'l thinks the Board must act before the middle o:f Apri . Mrs. Cooke said she and Mr. Way had accepted some dogwood trees from Leggett's Department Store and planned to ha~ these trees planted in the Rivanna Park. At 12:00 A.M., motion was offered by Mr.i Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn into executive session tb discuss personnel matters and the sale of government property. Mr. St. Jo~n asked that the executive session include legal matters pertaining to the Nativity scene suit. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: 655 March 2, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom Perkins and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. At 12:35 A.M., the Board reconvened into open session and immediately adjourned.