Loading...
1986-09-17September 17, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) -? 001 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 17, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 97, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia. ' BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve Item 4.2 on the consent agenda and to accept the other items as informa- tion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item 4.1 The Board approved the Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, and Regional Jail for the Month of August for the State Compensation Board. Item 4.2 Building Report for the Month of August, 1986, from the Department of Planning and Community Development was received as information. Item 4.3 Arbor Crest Apartments, Monthly Bond Program Report - August, 1986 was re- ceived as information. Item 4.4 Planning Commission Minutes for the meetings of August 19, August 26 and September 2, 1986 were received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-85-27. S. L. Williamson. Rezone approximately five acres of 352.05 acres from R-4 Residential to R-4 Residential with NR, Natural Resource overlay, an extension of an existing 20 acre natural resource overlay. Located on the east side of Rio ~oad (Route 631) opposite the VOTEC Center, part of the Dunlora Estate. Tax Map 62, Parcel 16 (part of). (Advertised in the Daily Progress September 2 and September 9, 1986.) Agenda Item No. 6. (SP-85-77) S. L. Williamson. Amend prior special use permit (Sp-81-10) allowing for the removal of sand and gravel to abandon the southernmost site and establish an additional site on the South Fork Rivanna River. Located on the east side of Rio Road (Route 631) opposite the VOTEC Center, part of Dunlora Estate. Tax Map 62, ~arcel 16 (part of). (Advertised in the Daily Progress September 2 and September 9, 1986.) Mr. Fisher stated that he has been informed that these applications should be deferred because the Planning Commission has not acted. Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer these petitions to October 15, 1986. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-86-51. Joselito T. and Susan A. Cruz. Allow for a day care center in an existing single-family dwelling with maximum enrollment of eight children. Located on the south side of Dominion Drive, about 1,000 feet west of Route 29. Zoned R-2. Tax Map 61U, Section 1, Block 1. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 2 and September 9, 1986.) Mr. Horne read the staff's report. Request: Joselito and Susan Cruz petition the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a DAY CARE CENTER (14.2.2.7) on about 0.4 acres zoned R-2 Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 61M, Section 1, Block 1, Lot 1, is located on the southwest side of Dominion Drive about 300 feet west of Route 29 North in Berkeley subdivision. Charl6ttesville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: Berkeley subdivision consists of 167 lots with an average lot size of about 0.4 acres. This property is the closest lot to Route 29 North on Dominion Drive. This site is bordered on the rear and north by residential lots. Properties to the south are zoned commercial and developed in part with a Pizza Inn. Property across Dominion is zoned PD-$C Planned Development-Shopping Center and is developed with Shopper's World. September 17, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Staff Comment The applicant proposes to operate a day care facility for a maximum of eight children. The facility would operate Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. No employees would be involved. The Virginia Department of Welfare has licensed the facility as a "family day care home." (Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not distinguish between family day care home and other day care facilities.) The Director of Inspections has inspected the property and recommended certain fire safety improvements. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended on-site turnaround and entrance improvements. Located between residential lots and commercial areas, staff opinion is that a day care use would not be an intrusion into the residential character of the area. With a maximum of eight children, the facility is of a small scale (compared to other such requests) which should not adversely affect adjoining properties. The applicant has obtained about 160 signatures from Berkeley residents in support of the day care use. Staff recommends approv- al subject to the following conditions: 1) Enrollment limited to 8 children; 2) Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of Zoning Ordinance; 3) This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable; 4) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access in accordance with comments of August 14, 1986; 5) Fire Official approval. Mr. Horne informed the Board that the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 2, 1986, unanimously recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors with these same conditions. Mr. Fisher asked if the dwelling is already constructed. Mr. Horne replied it is an existing residential dwelling that has been converted to this use. The day care center is currently in operation. Mr. Fisher asked if this is one of the properties subject to occasional flooding. Mr. Horne replied that although there might be some drainage prob- lems in the very rear of the back yard, the home sits quite a bit above the yard. There has been some flooding below the property, but with the improvements soon to be made to Route 29 North and the Branchlands PUD, it is hoped that it will be alleviated. Mr. Fisher asked if the structure will continue to be used as a residence. Mr. Horne answered that it is his understanding that it will be operated by the residents themselves; they are the only employ- ees of this commercial establishment. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Mrs. SuSan Cruz came forward and submitted a letter of inspection of the foundations of the house. She explained that she and her husband had owned and operated a day care center on the corner of Lakeview Drive and Four Seasons Drive called Mother Goose Day School from August of 1985 until June 1986. They took care of 20 children without other employees. When they bought this home, they made a lot of changes. They decided to take care of a smaller number of children to increase the individualized attention they could provide as well as better education, and a warmer environment. The pre-school is located on the first floor of their home. She submitted a copy of her State license to the Board and offered to answer any questions concerning the difference between a Family Day Care Home and a Day Care Center according to the State Department of Social Services. In a Family Day Care Home if more than six children are maintained, an aide must be present. She and her husband maintain eight children from 7:30 A.M.to 5:30 P.M. and they both are on the premises at all times. Mr. Fisher read a letter dated August 15, 1986, from Moore Masonry which he had been handed by Mrs. Cruz. It stated that after careful examination, there is no evidence of any settlement cracks or movement occurring in the foundation; (2) No evidence of any dampness or water damage to the interior/exterior walls nor any cracks; (3) the exterior walls are coated with one/half inch to 3/4 inch masonry parge which would help prevent water leakage or damage to the interior. His opinion is that the masonry foundation is in as good and sound condition as it was when the house was constructed in 1966-67. Mr. Fisher stated that a copy of the license Mrs. Cruz had given him had been forwarded with Board's agenda paperwork. Mrs. Cruz intends to reside in the house. Mr. Randy Johnson, Mrs. Patricia Moore and Mr. A1 Wooten all spoke separately, praising the Day Care Center and its operators. All three asked the Board to support the petition as an asset not only to the Berkeley community, but also to Albemarle County. With no one else rising to speak,the public hearing was closed at 7:45 P.M. Mrs. Cooke mentioned that she had received an impressive list of petitions and letters in support of this petition, and that she had received no letters or phone calls in opposi- tion. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion that SP-86-51 be adopted subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. SP-86-51 Joselito T. and Susan A. Cruz, Route 851 - This section of Route 851 is currently tolerable. The Department reCommends that on site turn around space be provided so that vehicles do not have to back out onto Route 851 which currently carries 4,700 vpd. Presently, there are two (2)private entrances to this property off Route 851 and it would seem possible that a September 17, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 003 driveway could be connected between these two (2) entrances to provide for circular access on the property. If this is to occur, the Department recommends that the access be orientated so that traffic enters the western entrance and exits from the eastern entrance and that the entrances function one way only, so that there will be continuity to the traffic flow. The Department recommends that as a minimum, the entrance or entrances to be used for this request be upgraded to commercial standards and adequate onsite turn around provision to be made. To obtain adequate sight distance for the eastern entrance will require the cutting of tree limbs in this direction at the property line. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-86-56. Church of God. Allow for a day care center in the Church of God. Property on the north side of St. George Avenue in Crozet, one-half mile west of its intersection with Route 810. Zoned R-2. Tax Map 56A1, Parcel 01-12. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 2 and September 9, 1986.) Mr. Horne read the staff's report: Character of the Area: The existing church is setback about 350 feet from the St. George Avenue. This site is in a residential area with lots ranging from about one half acre to two acres in area. Staff Comment In spring 1985 a site plan was submitted for expansion of the church build- ing, however, the plan was not pursued. In June 1985, the church obtained special use permit approval for a new church building with day care use near the 1-64/Yancy Mills interchange. In the interim, the church proposes temporary day care for 35 children at the current site. The day care center would be operated five days per week. Hot lunches would be provided. The facility would be licensed by the Virginia Department of Welfare. Unless building construction is begun at this new site by June 18, 1988, that special use permit will expire. Staff has no objection to the church operating on a permanent basis at the current site. Condition 5 has been provided should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors deem a temporary usage is appropriate. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Enrollment to be determined by adequacy of septic system and regula- tions of Virginia Department of Welfare, not to exceed a maximum enrollment of 35 children; 2) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of upgrad- ing entrance in accordance with comments of May 8, 1985; 3) Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance; 4) This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable; 5) This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder shall expire on June 18, 1988 unless building construction shall have com- menced on the new church building authorized under SP-86-27 Crozet Church of God; or at anytime of expiration or abandonment of SP-86-27; or 60 days from issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new church building. The public hearing was opened. Since no one was present representing the church, Mr. Fisher asked the Board to defer hearing this petition and take up the following items on the agenda. Agenda Item No. 9. Had been removed (Not ready). Agenda Item No. 10. Planning District Commission, Discussion of membership of. Mr. Bowie stated that Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville each have four appointees to the Commission. The other four counties each have two appointees. The commis- sion feels that the reasons for the difference in the numbers of appointees are no longer pertinent. With the rewriting of the law, the county boards are really the governing factor and the Planning District Commission is only a regional coordinating body. Mr. Bowie stated he felt that two members from Albemarle County, the same number as the other counties, would be sufficient. The City is also considering this change. The decision is to be made known at the next Planning District Commission meeting on October 2, 1986. In summary, Mr. Bowie stated that in his opinion two members from Albemarle County, one of whom would be a member of the Board of Supervisors, would adequately protect the County's interests. Mr. Way concurred totally with Mr. Bowie's statement. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he had nothing further to add. He added that he had made the motion to go from four to two at the Planning District Commission meeting. Mr. Lindstrom 0O4 September 17, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) said he feels that if it is truly a regional effort, it makes sense that everyone is equall~ represented. Mr. Bowie added that, under the new law, passed in the last General Assembly, the Planning District Commission can do nothing in any locality without the approval of that governing body. Anything they do must be specifically requested by one of the Boards or Ci~ council. Mr. Bowie offered motion that Albemarle county reduce its appointees to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to two, one of which will be a member of the Board Supervisors. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if the motion is contingent upon the other jurisdictions concurring al voting likewise. Mr. Lindstrom stated that this change will require a change in the charte~ and will require action and resolutions by all the member localities. Mr. Fisher asked if there is a requirement under State law to have a majority of the members be elected officials. Mr. Lindstrom stated that 51 percent must be elected officials. Mr. Fisher stated that his reaction is that the members must have decided nothing important is going t happen that will require votes in proportion to the population or to our funding. Mr. Lindstrom said he believed the budgets are made up perspectively and funded in that fashion. He doesn't see a circumstance where the County would be in need of defending itself. If th~ Commission is a regional agency, each jurisdiction is an equal county or city jurisdiction. There is some merit in letting it be controlled in that fashion. Mr. Fisher added that he found it curious that the largest jurisdiction in the plannin~ district, which presumably puts in the largest amount of money, since payment is on the basi of population, would be reduced to 17 percent of the votes. However, he will support the recommendation. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Metropolitan Planning Organization, Appointment to. Mr. Fisher stated that Mrs. Cooke recently resigned from the MPO and Mr. Henley was elected. Actually Mr. Henley was nominated, not appointed. The MPO deals primarily with what are perceived to be urban transportation problems. It deals with the City and a very small area of the County surrounding the City. Mrs. Cooke stated she felt it necessary to resign because she had been on that Board for three years. She added that pressing busines: commitments prevent her from attending the meetings during the day. Mr. Henley asked how often the Board meets. Mr. Lindstrom responded that it rarely meets more than once a month and there is no regularly scheduled set of meetings. It is on an "as needed" basis. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that Mr. Henley be appointed to this Committee. Mrs. Cooke second~ the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: March 13, October 16 and December 18, 1985. Mr. Way stated he found the minutes of March 13, pages 10-20, to be correct as submitt~ He offered motion for their approval. Mr. Lindstrom seconded. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr.. Bowie stated that Mr. Archibald Craige, one of his constituents, had brought a matter to his attention. He suggested that the Public Hearing advertised for October 1 on the designation of Routes 22/231 and Route 20 North as Virginia By-ways, might be combined with the State public hearing. Perhaps the Mr. Fisher could write the appropriate State agency and notify them of the County's hearing. Mr. Fisher stated that it is his under- standing that the Highway Department will hold a public hearing if requested by this Board. If there is no opposition at the County hearing, they are notified of the Board's con- clusions. If it becomes a controversial issue, then there probably will be a second d d Mr. Fisher asked the Board members if they had received a memo from Virginia Associati( of Counties (VACo) on a Computerized Local Government Information Service. Mr. Agnor state( he had received part of the information. Mr. Fisher asked if the County would be intereste( in that service. Mr. Agnor explained that VACo staff is interested in having access to thi~ computerized information, but it is expensive. VACo is interested in providing this inform~ tion to member counties, but the member counties would then share the expense. He further explained that if a county had a local government problem to be researched, it would call VACo and VACo would respond back using this computer program. No cost estimate was given. Mr. Henley stated that he had used the program in its pilot phase, and that basically one receives a list of titles and locations where you can call for the information you are seeking; a sort of information and referral system. Mr. Fisher said his conclusion is that this program appears to have little value to the County at this point. He asked Mr. Agnor research it further. September 17, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) OO5 Mr. Lindstrom stated he had a request from the Clean Water Action Project asking that the County join in a resolution to ban phosphate detergents in an effort to begin to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. He would like a recommendation from the staff on this request. Mr. Fisher stated that VACo legislative committee has tentatively taken the position that it will support a state-wide ban on the use of phosphates in detergents for a period of five years to allow the upgrading of treatment plants or a determination that a ban is adequate and no further capital expenses are necessary. There will be a hearing by that committee in October to make a recommendation to VACo. Mr. Way asked if. there had been any response from the School Board concerning the "Commonality of personnel Policies" resolution. Mr. Agnor stated he has received a copy of the policy they adopted and will study it and report back to the Board. Mrs. Cooke stated that she has received a number of letters supporting the Clean Water Action Project just mentioned by Mr. Lindstrom for the protection of the Chesapeake Bay. Mr. Agnor stated that the VACo legislative committees will hold their meetings in this building on Saturday and Sunday, October 4 and 5. Mr. Fisher said this is the first time the County has hosted these hearings. The committees were very pleased with having the use of this building. They were not required to rent space. Mr. Bowie mentioned that he would like a one-page fact sheet on what VACo and the County is doing on the Clean Water Project and the banning of phosphate detergents in order to facilitate responding to the letters received. Agenda Item No. 8, SP-86-56. Church of God. No one was present to represent applicant and Mr. Fisher suggested that this item be deferred. Mr. Bowie offered motion that the public hearing on SP-86-56 be defer~red until October 1. Mr. Henley seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjournment. At~8:21P.M. Mr. Lindstrom moved that the Board adjourn until Wednesday, October 1, at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None.