Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-13July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 1 000325 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 13, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. and Mr. Walter F. Perkins. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Vice-Chair, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Ms. Lisa Kerwien-Harmon, Vice President of the Earlysville Area Residents' League (EARL) spoke about a survey that the EARL distributed regarding: services and quality of life, recreational needs/desires, property taxes and services, growth, residential development-affordable housing, transportation-major commute routes and economic development. EARL distribut- ed 1993 surveys and 339 were returned. She reviewed the results (on file) with the Board and asked for any input. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve item 5.1 with grammar and punctuation changes, and to accept items 5.2 through 5.7 as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ~. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. Item 5.1. Response to Governor's Commission on Citizen Empowerment, was approved as follows by the above recorded vote: Mr. Martin said he agrees with the content of the letter. He asked that the letter state that the welfare system needs to do everything it can to make a distinction between helping those who try and help themselves and not helping those who do not try and help themselves. "Dear Secretary James: Thank you for providing this opportunity to respond to the Governor's proposed workfare initiative outlined in his May 4 speech and to offer our comments and recommendations on welfare reform and related empowerment issues. We commend the Governor's efforts to address some of these complex and far reaching social issues facing the Commonwealth today and look forward to being an active local partner in the Commission's assessment and implemen- tation efforts. Although this letter format precludes us from conveying all of our concerns on specific programs, there are four major issues that we would like the Commission to consider as it begins to make major changes in the current welfare system. Issue I: Consider the success and vitality of current programs at the local level before restructuring the replacing what is an effective community effort. As an example, the current federally funded JOBS initiative is working well in our community. With JOBS funding, clients are being trained for productive and sustainable jobs through a coordinated program of various community organizations and agen- cies. This program currently has all the components of a success- ful workfare program, ie. funds for day care, transportation, tuition, trining, books, etc. However, what this current program lacks is adequate funding to make it truly effective and to reduce the number of people on the waiting list. As you know, this program has only been funded at 70% capacity by the State. Rather than diverting limited resources to a new program, we ask that you carefully review the potential effectiveness of the current JOBS progrm throughout the State if it were fully funded before replacing it with something new. YOu asked us to tell you about programs that are working well. Our locally designed JOBS program that brings together the local community college, a family July 13, 1994 (Regular Night M~tihg) 000~2~ Page 2 services program offering child=care referral and information and a displaced homemaker/single pare program offering educational counseling and training is an example of such a comprehensive job training program. We have a long waiting list of people wanting to enter that program. Issue II: Recognize that changing somce of the basic AFDC poli- cies that are "disincentives" to independence and empowermant may be more important than redirecting resources to a new 'workfare' program. Many of the issues addressed in the Governor's letter may be resolved more effectively by changing AFDC policy than by imple- menting a new workfare program. Examples of such current policies are: · consequences for quitting a job. Both Food Stamp and AFDC programs have voluntary quit provisions, but are weak in implementation. · Arbitrary income limits cut people off too quickly when they begin a new job. What is needed are higher income disregards to allow a transitional period between the beginning of a job and the first actual paycheck. · Reporting requirements are different for Housing, AFDC and Food Stamp programs, causing confusion at best and potential fraud at worst. · The AFDC program looks only at gross income, not net, thus ignoring the real expenses for struggling families. · Current resources/asset limits do not allow people on AFDC to save money with the exception of a savings account for educa- tion or a house downpayments. This current system does not encourage families to save money in order to make a signifi- cant change in their circumstances. There are no consequences for having additional children. In the JOBS program, which is mandatory for AFDC recipients with children over the age of 3, a new baby actually relieves the mandatory status of either training or looking for work. Women under twenty years of age with children of any age are mandatory JOBS participants. However, once they turn 20 they are no longer mandatory if they have a child under 3 years. In this case, current policy creates an incentive for a 20- year old to have another child and drop out of the program. The stick is gone. Policies such as these often tie the hands of local social servie department to provide specific individuals with the best solution to their unique problems or circumstances. Programs need flexi- bility at the local level; we need to be able to tailor programs to our community, to apply solutions that are creative and work for specific, real life situations. Within the welfare system, we need to be able to distinguish between those people who are trying to help themselves and those that are not. We need creativity and flexibility at the local level in order to be able to direct our efforts and our resources, whether it is in the area of job training, housing, or day care assistance, to those famility in our community who genuinely want to work towards being self-sufficient. In the Governor's speech, he states "There is no need to wait for Washington or the Clinton administration to act. We can control our own destiny with our broad-based Virginia approach. Just turn us loose and let us figure it out for ourselves." We hope that the Commission will heed the Governor's words and apply these same sentiments to the localities that are struggling with these same issues, but are often hampered by administrative and regulatory mandates from providing effective programs. Issue III: Be willing to implement programs that provide long- term solutions to complex societal issues, even though the cost may be greater. Short fixes are not cost-effective in the long run. There is some concern that job training programs will be initiated to get people very quickly into jobs. However, short term train- ing for minimum wage jobs will not create economic self-sufficien- cy for a family, but will continue to keep them constantly on the edge of poverty and ready to slip back to welfare dependency at the first crisis. In Albemarle County a minimum wage job at $5.50/hour will gross $946 a month or possibly net $800. This will not pay for an apartment, transportation, child care, utilities, and food, much less cover the other needs of a stable family life. Health insurance is not even a consideration among these expenses. Our community already has long waiting lists for subsidized housing, child care scholarships, family counseling, etc. July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Page 3 000327 sufficiency often require more extensive training, which takes longer and costs more money. However, for long term family self- sufficiency, we encourage you to implement job training programs that will have lasting benefits, not short term results. Issue IF: Recognize that the welfare system is not the only problem to be fixed. We were pleased to see in the Governor's speech the recognition that poverty is a societal issue, not just a governmental issue. In the same vein, we hope the Commission will continue to recog- nize that the welfare system is not the only problem to be fixed. Just as the school system cannot be called upon to fix all the problems of family disintegration, the welfare system cannot be called upon to "fix" all the problems of our society. The bur- geoning "welfare problem" is only an end product or a symptom of breakdowns in other systems within our community, such as educa- tion and training, housing, and employment. Because the economic self-sufficiency of a family is tied to so many other systems within the community, the welfare system must not be looked at in a vacuum, but must be examined within the context of the larger economic system. To this end, it is important for the Commission to insist upon agreement and cooridnation between agencies at the state level if coordination and cooperation is to be effective at the local level. Albemarle is implementing in the current fiscal year an innovative Family Self-Sufficiecy program between Social Services and Housing. It is extremely iportant that agencies at the very top level of state government share a common vision that will allow local agencies the administrative flexibility to be innova- tive and creative across agency boundaries and regulations. Due to the relatively short notice on the public hearings being held around the State this week, Albemarle County represenatatives were not able to attend. In light of this, I hope th ecommission will consider future opportunities for additional citizen and jurisdictional input. Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views to the Commission." Item 5.2. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for June 7 and June 28, 1994, were received for information. Item 5.3. Copy of the Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures for the year ended June 30, 1993, was received for informa- tion. Item 5.4. Letter dated June 29, 1994 from Mr. J. H. Shifflett, Jr., Maintenance Operations Manager, Department of Transportation, addressed to Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk, re: VDoT intends to repair the existing superstructure over North Fork Rivanna River (Route 743, between Routes 664 & 641) during the period of July 12, 1994 through July 14, 1994, was received for information. Item 5.5. Copy of Final 1994-95 Allocations for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, Public Transit, Ports and Airports, including the updated Six Year Improvement Program through fiscal year 1999-2000, was received for information. Item 5.6. Copies of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors for May 23 and June 4, 1994, were received for information. Item 5.7. Letter dated July 1, 1994, from Mr. David R. Gehr, Commis- sioner, Department of Transportation, re: notice of the addition of Route 1000 (Stoney Ridge Road) in Mill Creek Industrial Park to the Secondary System of Highways, effective July 1, 1994, was received for information as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated March 16, 1994, the follow- ing addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective July 1, 1994. ADDITION LENGTH MILL CREEK INDUSTRIAL PARK Route 1000 (Stoney Ridge Road) - From Route 1165 to 0.23 Mi Northeast Route 1165 0.23 Mi." July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 4 000328 Agenda Item No. 6 Public Hearing 'on an Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Section 2.1-4(u) of the Code of Albemarle known as the "Pasture Fence Agricultural/Forestal District". This amendment will add one parcel containing 453.5 ac located W of Mount Fair off Rt 756 to the existing district. TM13,P5. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 27 and July 4, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The existing district contains 870.42 acres in five parcels and is located adjacent to Shenandoah National Park, west of Mount Fair off Route 756. The proposed addition contains 453.5 acres in one parcel. Staff recommends approval of this parcel which connects the parcels in the existing district. The location is ideal for protection in an agricultural/forestal district. The Agricultur- al/Forestal Advisory Committee, at its meeting on May 23, 1994, Unanimously recommended approval of this addition. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 7, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of this addition. The public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt an Ordinance to amend and reordain Section 2.1-4(u), Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts Section 2.1-4(u) of the Code of Albemarle known as the Pasture Fence Agricultural/Forestal District and to extend the life of the district for an additional period of ten years. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ~ REORDAIN CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS SECTION 2.1.4, DISTRICTS DESCRIBED OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2.1.4(u), Pasture Fence Agricultural and Forestal Dis- trict, as follows: Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. (u) The district known as the "Pasture Fence Mountain Agri- cultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 13, parcels 1, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 12. This district shall be reviewed no more than ten (10) years from November 17, 1993. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reordain, Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Section 2.1-4(d) of the Code of Albemarle known as the "Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District" to extend the life of the district for an additional eight years to June 18, 2002. The district consists of 24 parcels totalling 3,675.911 ac and is located on Rt 20N, Rt 231, Rt 640, Rt 641, Rt 645 & Rt 777. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 27 and July 4, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District was originally created on June 18, 1986 for a time period of eight years. Seven parcels have requested withdrawal from the district and can withdraw as part of the review process. Staff recommends continuation of Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District. The property owners are requested that the time preiod be extended for an eight year time period. Mr. Cilimberg said the Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee, at its meeting on May 23, 1994, unanimously recommended approval and to extend the district for an additional ten years. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 7, 1994, unanimously recommended approval with a time period of eight years. Mrs. Thomas said it seems land is being withdrawn from the district because one landowner was concerned that another landowner is planning development along the mountainside. She asked if there is a mountain ridge development ordinance being proposed. Mr. Cilimberg said an ordinance was discussed, but nothing has been done on it. He is not aware of any planned development that the landowner is referring to. July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 5 000329 The public hearing Wasopened. There'being no comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt an Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Section 2.1-4(d) of the Code of Albemarle known as the Blue Ridge Agricultur- al/Forestal District and to extend the life of the district for an additional eight years. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. AN ORDINANCE ........... TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTUR3LL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS SECTION 2.1.4, DISTRICTS DESCRIBED OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2.1.4(d), Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows: Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. (d) The district known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 35, parcels 22, 22A, 23, 24A, 26, 26B, 26C, 29, 29B, 31, 32A, 43; tax map 36, parcels 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels 24; tax map 50, parcels 5, 5B, 32A, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B. This district shall be reviewed no more than eight (8) years from June 18, 1994. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-94-12. Todd Shields. Public Hearing on a request to establish commercial recreational facility on 6.0 ac zoned HC. Located on S sd of Rt 649 approx 700 ft W of Rt 29 on boundary of areas recommended for regional service & office service in Community of Hollymead. TM32,P41H1. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 27 and July 4, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The applicant proposes to establish a recreational center consisting of an arcade, bumper boats, children's area, go-kart track, miniature golf course, batting cages and a roller skating rink. Staff recommended approval of SP-94-12 subject to the following condi- tions: 1. No alcohol sales; Uses shall be limited to go-kart track, batting cages, minia- ture golf, arcade, bumper boats and skating rink; Use shall be in general accord as to layout shown on sketch plan titled Adventure Land Family Fun Park initialed 6/1/94 WDF. The 1.8 acre portion of the site is the general area for the skating rink. Hours of operation shall be limited to Sunday through Thurs- day 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Friday's and Saturday's 10:00 a.m. to midnight; Construction of road improvements contained in Virginia Department of Transportation letter of 5/25/94 (on file). Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 7, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of SP-94-12, subject to the following conditions: No alcohol sales or consumption; Uses shall be limited to go-kart track, batting cages, minia- ture golf, arcade, bumper boats, skating rink and children's play area; Hours of operation shall be limited to Sunday through Thurs- day 8:00 a.m. to midnight and Friday's and Saturday's 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) 000850 Page 6 4. Construction of rOad improvements contained in Virginia Department of Transportation letter of 5/25/94 (on file). Provision of ten foot vegetative buffer adjacent to Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D. Mrs. Thomas asked if the buffer applied to the commercial area only. Mr. Cilimberg said the owner of property to the south requested that his property be buffered because there has been a development plan approved for that parcel. Mr. Martin said residents have expressed concerns as to what an arcade is and if a children's play area includes a ferris wheel. He asked if there are definitions of an arcade and children's pay area. Mr. Cilimberg said "no." The Board can request that the applicant explain his definition of arcade and children's play area and include a description in the conditions of approval. Mrs. Humphris asked what is the distance of the subject property to Deerwood Subdivision. Mr. Cilimberg said it is approximately 2000 feet. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Richard Carter, representing the applicant, said this is a family entertainment center. There are five critical elements which make up these types of facilities and make them successful: 1) arcade, 2) miniature golf, 3) batting cages, 4) go-karts and 5) bumper boats. In addition to these attractions, there are kiddy rides, driving ranges, skating rinks and water attractions that can be added (by approval of the Board) if the market dictates. Land will be set aside to accommodate future children's rides and skating rinks and used only if the market dictates. Family entertainment centers have been in southern California and the southwest since the mid- 1960's. The concept has become more wide-spread and today family entertain- ment centers have become the fastest growing segment of the recreational industry. One of the most positive aspects of the family entertainment center is its broad market appeal given the array of activities offered. Mr. Carter said the site is zoned highway commercial and is compatible with surrounding properties and the Comprehensive Plan. The site will have no impact on value of adjacent properties due to zoning and distance from the nearest residential developments. According to the Planning Department, the closest multi-family development is approximately one-half mile away. It is the Planning staff's opinion that this proposal will not impact Deerwood or Forest Lakes Subdivisions. The property directly adjacent to the south of this site has been approved for a hotel, bank and recreational use facility. The proposed site has been highway commercial for more than ten years and the site next to it has been zoned for recreational purposes for the same length of time, both prior to the development of Forest Lakes. The location is in a designated growth area and proposed use is compatible with other businesses and zoned property in the area. The use is compatible in this entrance corridor. Mr. Carter said most of the previous objections to this type of facility was not the use, but the proximity to existing or proposed residential areas. There are two dwellings visible from the site, one is 800 feet away and the owner has no objection to this application. Prior objections have been expressed about lights. Lighting will not be visible from the two adjacent subdivisions. Prior objections have also been expressed about noise. Staff has been given the noise reports. Mr. Shields also lives in Forest Lakes and offered to meet with the President of the Board of Directors of the homeonwers association as well as its members, to give details about the project. The offer was declined. Three major concerns have been expressed by the Forest Lakes Board of Directors. The applicant feels those concerns should be ad- dressed. The first concern is the late night traffic. A spokesperson for the Albemarle County Police Department has said that the Department does not expect an increase in traffic in Forest Lakes because there is no outlet. The second concern was noise. The activities on this site will not be heard by the residents in the subdivisions. Noise studies have been done. The studies were offered to the Forest Lakes Board of Directors and they refused to review them. The third concern was the "attraction of unsavory elements." This project is targeted to families and this project will not be successful without families. He hopes that "unsavory elements" is not a synonym for "teenagers." This project cannot survive on what teenagers can afford to spend. He feels the teenagers in this area are getting a bad rap because at other meetings teenagers have come, unsolicited, and said they want this type of facility. There is no evidence that there is any more crime at this type of location than any other place. Crime was also a concern of the applicant who contacted people who had owned similar facilities. A letter was submitted (on file) from a group who had a similar entertainment center in Greenville, Wisconsin. The letter states that police call records were reviewed for 18 months and showed that no complaints on or about the facility had been reported. A survey distributed by the Forest Lakes Board of Directors was confusing. The applicant has received letters from residents of Forest Lakes who voted neither for nor against this project and stated that the survey was confusing because they did not receive enough information. Mr. Carter said this proposal will have no impact on schools. Route 649 is scheduled to be improved, a commercial entrance already exists and the applicant will cooperate with whatever VDoT recommends. Considering the July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 7 000;33"t already heavy traffic on Route 29 and commercial nature of the area and road improvements, there will be little, if any, difference from this project. The first staff report stated that the Police Department consistently stated that this use does not present an increased use in security. Tonight, a July 11, 1994 letter (on file) was presented which stated concern of additional foot traffic going to the Amoco Station or Forest Lakes Shopping Center for refreshments. This project will include a full refreshment center. The letter goes on to state that the potential for spill-over and pedestrian traffic depended upon whether the recreational area was geared toward families with younger children or teens and young adults providing their own transpor- tation. This facility is geared toward families. He does not feel the Police Department's fears are warranted because the applicant has addressed those issues. A uniformed police officer will be on site during peak hours. The parking lot will also be patrolled to prevent loitering and trouble. Mr. Carter said Mr. Joe Wright, an adjacent landowner;-expressed concerns that the go-karts would be detrimental to his property and he requested a ten foot buffer of trees. The applicant has agreed to this. Mr. Wright also stated that he had no objection or need for a buffer if the parking lot was next to his property. He hopes that during site plan review, staff be given the flexibility based on consultation with the adjoining landowner to require or not require the buffer. Mr. Carter said, in summary, the applicant agrees with staff's recommen- dations. There is a need for this use in Albemarle County and it has been demonstrated. The applicant feels this is the best site for this type of facility. The site is surrounded by commercial property and is zoned commer- cial. The applicant asks that the Board approve this request. Mr. Martin said Mr. Carter has stated that this facility will be family oriented. Parents are not going to have their children out until 1:00 a.m. Mr. Carter said people other than mothers, fathers and children will come to the facility. There will be men who come to hit a baseball and may not be there at 8:00 p.m. when the children are there. There may also be college students who go there late after the families have gone. The main focus of this use will be from 5:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. and for families. The facility must stay open to make profits. There will be a uniformed police officer on the premises, no alcohol will be sold or permitted, the parking lot will be patrolled, and all of these things will be done whether families or teenagers attend the facility. Mr. Martin said he feels people are looking at something that is not being proposed. Mr. Carter said if the applicant did not think there was no chance of trouble, he would not hire a police officer. The applicant is doing the best he knows to do to address problems that may occur. Mr. Shields said this is a family entertainment center geared towards families. This use has a broad market appeal and all age groups will be attracted. The family will be emphasized and in attendence between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. There will also be people there on dates or college students that will arrive after 10:00 p.m. Mrs. Thomas said the staff report indicates there will be a police officer on the premises and asked if this means a security guard would be hired. Mr. Carter said it would probably be a security officer or off-duty uniformed police officer. Mrs. Humphris asked how the lighting is being addressed. Mr. Cilimberg said the lighting is concentrated on the site so no off-site glare occurs. Lighting of any commercial site is handled during site plan review. Mr. Martin asked how there could be so much discrepancy between the Police Department's statement in the original staff report and what was received tonight. He does not understand why this was received after the Planning Commission members based their decision on what was originally provided which shows that the original report may not be factual. Mr. Cilimberg said he had asked the Police Department to verify this information because there were concerns expressed about safety and security in the residential areas. When he asked the Police Department to verify this, Lee Catlin, their spokesperson, offered to take another look at the concerns. Mr. Martin asked if the information in the staff report entitled security was basically generic. Mr. Cilimberg said it is a general statement that has existed in a number of comments made by the Police Department. Mr. Cilimberg said the Ordinance requires that any commercial use next to a rural area zoned property be separated by 50 feet. Another requirement in the Zoning Ordinance is that there be an undisturbed 20 foot buffer provided between the commercial development and residential property line. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Zoning Ordinance states specifically that the building must be 50 feet from the rural area property line. Mr. Cilimberg said the Ordinance states: "adjacent to residential or rural area districts, no portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be located closer than 50 feet to any residential or rural areas district. No off-street parking or loading space shall be located closer than 20 feet from any residential or rural areas district." Mrs. Humphris asked if the batting cages would be considered a structure. Mr. Cilimberg said the Zoning Administrator would have to make that determination. If parking is no more than 20 feet from a residential or rural area district, he thinks the batting cages may be considered a structure and need to be 50 feet away. July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 8 000882 Mr. Jack McDonald, President of the Forest Lakes Community Association, said Mr. Shields contacted him on June 2 or 3, 1994 and advised him of this project. Mr. Shields expressed a desire to work with him and the Association to provide information about his amusement park. He told him he knew nothing about the proposal and asked him to explain. After hearing the proposal, he raised his concerns and told him there would be a meeting on June 9, 1994, and he would present the proposal to the Association. The Association Board decided it needed additional information from Mr. Shields. The following day (June 10, 1994) he asked Mr. Shields for the information the Board requested. The information received alarmed the Board and raised additional questions. An emergency Board meeting was called on June 11, 1994. The Board met and several members still had questions and wanted to know the feelings of the community. A flier was then sent out to the 500 residents of Forest Lakes. On June 13, 1994, he spoke with Mr. Shields on the telephone. Mr. Shields offered to author the letter and the Association declined the offer. Mr. Shields then offered to co-author the letter and was also told that would not be acceptable, however, he could read the letter before it was distributed. He contacted Mr. Shields the next morning and read the letter to him. Mr. Shields had three objections to the letter. One objection was eliminated. One objection was substituted with wording of Mr. Shield's choosing. The third objection could not be agreed upon and a different phrase was used. At that time, Mr. Shields stated that it was not the letter he would write, but that it was "basically fair." The letter went to the members of the community along with the survey. Mr. McDonald said the results of the survey was 32 people in favor of the project, five had no opinion and 152 were opposed. One-half of the 152 people who voted against the proposal sent in comments of great alarm and emotion. The Board took an official vote and the results were six against the proposal, zero in favor of the proposal and one abstention. Mr. McDonald said on Thursday, July 7, 1994, as a result of the vigor with which the Board and community was against the proposal, he went to the County Office Building to review the minutes on the four previous denied requests. Three requests failed on a vote and one did not come before the Board of Supervisors. During his review he read the minutes from the Planning Commission's meeting of June 7, 1994. On page five of those minutes Mr. Shield's stated "the President of the Forest Lakes Homeowners Association was contacted and he stated he is unaware of any dissention regarding the pro- ject.'' He then told Mr. Shields that he was unaware of the proposal and was concerned about it. The minutes are dated June 7, 1994, yet, during his conversation with Mr. Shields on June 2 or 3, Mr. Shields stated that the proposal had been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. McDonald said the Homeowners Association opposes the project for seven reasons: 1) noise; 2) safety; 3) traffic impact; 4) the proposed "amusement park" seems undefinable; 5) visual pollution; 6) crime; and 7) loss of property values. For these reasons the Forest Lakes Homeowners Association requests that the Board deny this project as it has done for the four previous requests. Mr. McDonald also said Mr. Shields has his house in Forest Lakes for sale. Mr. Tom Terrell, an 11 year resident of Deerwood Subdivision, said the residents of Deerwood were not asked if they had any comments about this project. He was an owner of an amusement park on Route 29 in 1963 that had a driving range and batting cages. The type of people who frequent these establishments are not families. There may be a few families participatin~ early in the evening, but as the evening goes on, beer drinkers and others arrive. He had to hire special security to help control what went on at the driving range. He is vehemently against this project. He lives in Deerwood and knows the types of people these uses attract. He thinks it is foolish for anyone to think that there will not be a increase in crime, noise or traffic. Mr. Bowerman asked how many homes are in Deerwood Subdivision. Mr. Terrell said there are presently 57 homes and some are currently under construction. Mr. Gary Taylor, a resident of Albemarle County and business owner, said he has lived in Charlottesville for 31 years. He is involved with children and family issues. He supports Mr. Shields' proposal. He feels there is a lack of programs for children and families as well as an opportunity for families to come together and interact. He is surprised at the number of "monsters" and "teddy bears" that have been created because of this proposal. He has seen the quality of work done by the Shields. He thinks this will be a nice project, well done, attract families and young children, and will be a place for people, families and teenagers to gather. He will not be at the amusement park at 1:00 a.m., but there are people who will be out at 1:00 a.m. and they need to be somewhere. If the people are not at this facility at 1:00 a.m., they may be somewhere that may serve alcohol and/or where there are unsavory people. He respects Mr. McDonald's opinions, but was surprised to hear that because children will be in attendance it will attract people who prey on children. He hopes the Board will support the proposal. Mr. Bowerman asked what type of business Mr. Taylor is in. Mr. Taylor said he owns an insurance business. July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 9 0003;33 Mr. Dave Marchefka said he has lived in Albemarle County for five years and has five children. One of his concerns when they moved here was the limited recreation. He was happy to see a project of this type being pro- posed. He knows people have concerns, but after hearing the presentation, he believes the project will be family oriented and hopes the Board will approve the request. Mr. John MacDonald, a resident of Forest Lakes and former President of the Board of Directors of the Forest Lakes Homeowners Association, said one of the greatest fears of the residents in Forest Lakes is to have a dramatic change in the environment in the surrounding areas. Noise is an important issue. He would consider a go-kart amusement park to have a fairly high noise level. It seems the Board would not put a noisy commercial development in an area where there is little noise. He recommends the Board of Supervisors look at the issue of noise carefully and have tests done to find out how much noise this development is going to create and if it will make a dramatic change in the environment of Forest Lakes. Mr. Martin said it is his opinion that the residents of Forest Lakes would hear the traffic on Route 29 much easier than these go-karts would be heard. Mr. MacDonald said he would equate a go-kart to something similar to a chain saw. Mr. Martin said these go-karts have special Honda, water-cooled engines that are nothing like a chain saw or noise of a regular go-kart. The Board has not ignored the issue of noise. Mr. MacDonald said he heard an earlier comment that the people of Forest Lakes live in a somewhat noisy area. He does not feel this area is noisy. A go-kart motor will be a continuous whining noise and he does not know how far this noise will travel. Forest Lakes is a country environment after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Vince Scoffone said he and his wife are new owners of the Silver Thatch Inn in Hollymead. He purchased the Inn in April, 1992. He objects to the proposed recreational center. He concurs with the reasons stated by Mr. Jack McDonald. As owners of the Silver Thatch Inn, he and his wife host thousands of visitors to the County for both dining and lodging° These visitors come from all corners of the world and are from all walks of life. Many of the tourists come to Charlottesville to visit Monticello and the University of Virginia, most are here for the first time, but some return from a previous visit of a number of years ago. As Inn keepers, he and his wife have an opportunity to spend quality time with the guests and listen to them discussing their travels around the area. Some of these views are not flattering. The tourists love Monticello, UVa, the wineries, mountains, antique stores, craft shops and even the Silver Thatch Inn. When it comes to the Route 29 corridor, the tourists use words such as "shocked, .... dismayed," "appalled," saddened," and talk about the commercial development that is "haphazardly from the Rivanna River to the Route 250 Bypass." Ail of these tourists have agreed that progress is necessary, but they came to Charlottes- ville with high expectations of a quaint, southern, college town with wonder- ful historic attractions and were not prepared for Route 29. There is not a lot that can be done with Route 29 south of the South Fork Rivanna River, but something can be done about Route 29 north of the South Fork Rivanna River. It is clear to him that there is an opportunity to make a statement about how the area surrounding Route 649 and Route 29 will look in the future, where the Airport is located and the gateway to Charlottesville. He said visitors will not see the wonderful neighborhoods being developed unless they drive off of Route 29 to Holtymead, Forest Lakes, Airport Acres or Deerwood; they will see commercial development compatible with residential neighborhoods like Forest Lakes Shopping Center but will not see the State Farm Building in Hollymead which is also compatible with residential neighborhoods. If the Board approves this request, the visitors and tourists will see something that, in his opinion, is not compatible with a gateway concept or a residential concept. Further, if the Board approves this center, it is sending a message to residents of Route 29 north and visitors to the area that what has tran- spired south of the South Fork Rivanna River will be more of the same north of the River. He asked the Board to think of this intersection as the gateway of Charlottesville and to approve future commercial development from that perspective. He requested the Board reject this request. Mr. Mark Frankel, an educator, business person, father and Forest Lakes resident, said he chose to live in a development that is tasteful, quiet and near the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport. He received the Forest Lakes Newsletter which described Mr. Shield's project (negatively). After reading this newsletter, he phoned Mr. McDonald and from that conversation he learned that Mr. Shields approached Mr. McDonald to inform him about the Comprehensive Plan and AdventureLand. He does not remember any other business person or developer approaching the Forest Lakes Board. He also does not remember any other proposal being surveyed. He does not recall any surveys being done regarding present or future businesses which are now adjacent to Forest Lakes, nor were they defined for him. Mro Shields offered an informational form for the Forest Lakes Board and residents and got a survey paraphrased by someone biased against the project. Mr. McDonald stated that he would address the Board tonight regardless of the survey results. He is not sure if Mr. McDonald's title is representative or self-appointed on this issue. The survey was unclear whether he and his wife counted as two votes or one household. In different surveys these signatures and coalition may conflict. The alleged returns could not provide a quorum for the entire development in Forest Lakes. He received the survey and an edited newsletter which reflected negative aspects, but was not given an opportunity to hear Mr. Shield's proposal to understand what the project was about. He does not understand why July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 10 Forest Lakes residents are requesting forums and dialogue from a large representative group by this Board when it did not occur in their own neigh- borhood. As far as he is concerned, the survey is invalid and the County continues to need family oriented activities such as AdventureLand. Mr. Wes Folger said he moved to Charlottesville approximately two years ago from Oklahoma City where he supervised a park called Celebration Station. Celebration Station is a project exactly like the project Mr. Shields is proposing. A lot of people perceive a go-kart as what their children used to have (big engine similar to what is in a lawn mower); that is not the type of engines in these go-karts. The engines are made by Honda and are two- or four-cylinder engines. When all 20 to 25 go-karts were running at Celebration Station, a person could be at the batting cages, 200 yards away, and not hear these cars. The go-karts are not going to be loud enough to hear them over the traffic on Route 29. He supports this proposal and feels Charlottesville and Albemarle need something like this. Mr. John Rindge, a member of the Forest Lakes Board of Directors, said he has lived in Forest Lakes for one year. Ne, as a family member and individual vehemently opposes this proposal. He and his family moved to Forest Lakes because of the environment which did not include an amusement park or anything like it. He is concerned about this request for all of the reasons previously stated. It is apparent to him that this project has been brought forward to this level of voting quickly and without any concept from the members of the surrounding communities. This is a concern to him. He feels this request should be taken north and away from communities. Mr. Dell Hanley, a resident of Hollymead and member of the Board of Directors of Hollymead, said his comments represent the Board of Directors of Hollymead. There are other Board members from Hollymead who are present and he requests that they make their comments known if they do not agree with his comments. He has three teenage children and would be the type of family who would attend this amusement facility. He, too, has a problem with the location of the facility. If this request is approved, he would like to see it conditioned so that no alcohol sales would be permitted at any time and a police officer would be present at peak times. Mr. Byron Dalton, a resident of Forest Lakes, said he grew up in Chatta- nooga, Tennessee. Outside of Chattanooga there was a park like the one proposed. At first, this park consisted of a lake, carrousels and picnic area. A group bought it and decided to open a family amusement park° After the first year, people stopped coming to the facility and the budget had to be cut. The first thing that was deleted was security. When he was in high school, the park was where you went to get drugs. This park began the same way this proposal has been presented. This facility may be a good thing, but not for a residential area. He feels this park will turn into a place where parents will drop their children off instead of paying to send them to a daycare facility when they are not in school. This proposal may be good for families if this is what will actually occur, but he does not feel this is the proper location for the facility. Ms. Karen Strickland, President of the Earlysville Area Residents League (EARL), said EARL has several concerns about the proposed amusement park. The major concern is the traffic congestion on Route 649. Mr. John Sweeney, President of the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company, asked her to speak for him regarding this proposal. This fire company serves Route 29 North to the Greene County Line, south to the Reservoir, Nollymead and Forest Lakes. The firemen have trouble getting through these intersections with the fire trucks. The fire company is worried about the increased traffic congestion that will be created, especially along the intersections. A member of the community did a survey about the traffic in the area and found that in 1992 there were 14,000 cars going through the proposed area per day and the "rule of thumb" is that if more than 5500 cars use a road there should be left turn lanes. People feel that if this development is approved, the road improvements must be made, a left turn lane installed and a 150 foot right taper lane added. These improvements should be funded by the developer not the taxpayers. EARL was also concerned about the hours of operation. If this proposal is marketed to families, the hours do not need to be as extensive as they are. EARL also expressed concerns about the cost of the rides and attractions proposed in the facility. She called Williamsburg which has a similar facility and found out the cost of a go-kart ride is $3.75 for five minutes. The final concern is the character of the area. The Comprehensive Plan states this area is for regional and office service and that the use should support both the communi- ty, neighborhood and the airport. This proposal does not seem to support any of those. Ms. Strickland said if this request is approved, EARL feels the roads should be improved, the hours of operation should be limited and the use should be monitored as to impact on neighborhoods. She has not heard anyone say who will manage this facility and what kind of training the management will have. Ms. Strickland said representing herself, Mr. Bowerman asked her at another meeting if she felt there was any place in Albemarle County that a facility like this could go and she replied, "yes, but not by a school or entrance corridor, etc." The more she thinks about the proposal~ the more she feels this type of facility is not for Albemarle County. Mr. Garth Anderson, a resident of Forest Lakes, said he would like to address the proximity of this request to the schools. Children ride bikes in July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 11 Forest Lakes, Hollymead, Forest Lakes South and Proffit Road to Hollymead Elementary and the soon to be opened middle school. He thinks that this park will be a huge magnet for children with ready access to Route 29. He fears that this will be an area that will become used by unsupervised children. Ms. Robin Ward, a resident of Charlottesville for less than one year, said she moved here from Philadelphia and is a graduate student at I/Va. She feels it is time for Charlottesville to offer affordable entertainment. There was always a lot to do in Philadelphia and she is glad something is finally being offered in this area. There have been concerns about pedestrian traffic at the intersection of Route 29 in terms of people crossing from the park into the shopping center. She finds these concerns unfounded because UVa has a number of students who walk back and forth from the University to the Corner. She asked if the Corner should be shut down because of people crossing the street. Mr. Carter has mentioned that there will be refreshments supplied at the park and she sees no reason why~people would want to wonder across Route 29 and into the Forest Lakes Shopping Center. In terms of the concerns with children crossing the road, why should Mr. Shields' project be jeopardized when a "no pedestrian crossing" sign can be installed to avoid the problem. She has concerns about the statistics presented by Mr. McDonald. She has a Masters Degree in Mathematics and is working on her Ph.D. in math education. She has a hard time digesting the numbers presented. He mentioned that out of the surveys distributed 152 people were opposed. Mr. McDonald stated that there are 500 residences in Forest Lakes and she assumes a survey was distrib- uted to each residence. If this is the case, out of the 500 sent out, 152 were against the project, this represents 30 percent of the population. She asked about the other 70 percent. Out of the returns, 189 were received out of the possible 500 sent out and this only accounts for a 38 percent reply. She does not feel this is a representative example. Mr. Greg Johnson, a local attorney, a resident of Forest Lakes and a former Board member of the Forest Lakes Board of Directors, said when he came to the meeting tonight he had two major concerns. One of his concerns was the noise. Mr. Martin and other residents present have allayed his fears as to the noise. The other concern was the road and Route 29 North. There have been concerns raised regarding the traffic and pedestrian problems that may be created. Since the access is going to be to Airport Road and the turnoffs that the developer has agreed to, that concern too has been resolved. He also had minor concerns regarding the spill-over into Forest Lakes. He does not see this being a major problem of the development and is not as concerned with the spill-over into the community of Forest Lakes. He does not feel spill- over into the commercial shopping center at Forest Lakes is a. major concern because most of the businesses there are closed by 9:00 p.m. He is in support of the project and feels it provides another means of entertainment, not only for the young, but adults as well. He feels Mr. Shields has taken a lot of time and effort to design a facility that will be both attractive and benefi- cial to the community. He requests that the Board approve this proposal. Mr. Rick Carter said there was a lot of'wisdom in what Mr. Martin said. Based on 600 homes in Forest Lakes, he calculated that approximately 25 percent of the residents opposed the project and 75 percent were not repre- sented. He does not feel this is a valid survey. Mr. Shields will be managing the facility and during the first year of operations a consultant will be hired to work with and train employees in the management of the facility. Mr. Shields will either be there or someone trained in this type of business will be on-site. As far as the location, this is in a growth area, the property is zoned highway commercial, everything around the proposed site is zoned commercial and has been or, if the zoning remains, will be developed commercial. From this parcel there is another parcel of commercial land before reaching Route 29, a four-lane divided highway, a shopping center, clubhouse and swimming pool, then there are residences. Forest Lakes was designed this way because it was good planning to put the commercial business- es to the front and the residences to the rear. This proposal is in an entrance corridor and it must meet the Architectural Review Board's (ARB) requirements. The ARB has reviewed this request and made suggestions that is agreeable to the applicant. At 9:13 p.m., with no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Martin said he feels a lot of these concerns could be addressed with conditions. He does not think this project is in the best interest of the County regardless of what residents around it think. Since he feels that way, he thinks it is important to take into consideration the people. He looked at the survey and read the letter and his first instinct was not the numbers, but the way it was sent with the attached letter. It was more like a petition against, rather than a poll of. Based on his conversations with people there is probably overwhelming support for this proposal. The survey distributed tells him that the support is not there. Based on his feeling that this is not something that will benefit the entire County, he would like an opportuni- ty to meet with the residents of Forest Lakes, Hollymead, Deerwood, Airport Acres, and Proffit Road to try and get a feel for their reaction to the project. Most of the people he has talked with have been mad at him because he has not supported this request in other areas. He does not see the support represented tonight and would like to make his decision based on a better feel of what the community wants. July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 12 000336 Mr. Bowerman asked if this public hearing would be closed and the Board's next consideration of this would be discussion among the Board and a vote taken. Mr. Martin said "yes," and he would invite all Board members to any kind of public forum that he arranges. Since he has been a member of the Board this has not been done, and if the Board members object to this or want to vote on the request tonight, he will do so and make his decision based on conflicting information. Mrs. Humphris said she is concerned because this is the public hearing, the public is here and have spoken. She cannot think of anything else that can possibly be said. It seems to her that unless the public hearing is going to be continued so more people can address the entire Board at a later date, it is the Board's responsibility to make a decision based on what has been heard. Mr. Martin asked Mrs. Humphris~f she would agree to having a special Board meeting in the community as opposed to here at the County Office Building to try and increase the amount of public participation. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the concept is a nice democratic idea, but is unsure whether the logistics are possible. She does not know where a meeting could be held that would be better than in this forum with the microphones and public address system. Mr. Martin said he is sure Hollymead Elementary School could be used and there is an intercom system and microphones there. Mrs. Humphris said she does not understand what more the Board could learn from having such meeting. Mr. Martin said he has received conflicting opinions. He has never been in a situation like this because all of the other decisions he has made, he basically knew whether he was going to vote for or against the proposal. This is not a situation where he wants to vote on the request then find out later that a majority of the people felt a different way. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that any poll will still be divided. Either way the vote is taken, it will be against the wishes of a lot of people. Mr. Martin previously stated that there are issues that come before this Board that are of such County-wide significance that there can be a majority group of people whose wishes are opposite of the Board's action. It does not seem that this is one of those issues, but it is a discretionary decision by the Board. This special permit has characteristics that the Board in the past decided could be a substantial public detriment because of the nuisance potential and other reasons. He does not think he could support this applica- tion in light of the significant opposition and in the absence of overwhelming community good. Mr. Martin said he has heard overwhelming support for this proposal. Until Sunday, he had not received one phone call in opposition to this request; however, he talked with many people who were in favor of the request. He would like the Board to defer this request to get a sense as to whether there is overwhelming opposition or support from the community. If the Board is concerned that two Board members are not present to hear this public hearing, he is willing, if rules permit, to exclude them from the vote. He is not trying to delay this so he can get a favorable vote if he were to support the request. Mr. Davis said it would be up to the absent Board members as to whether they want to vote on the matter. If the Board members who are absent tonight feel they have reviewed the records and are able to make an informed vote, it would be their option to do so. Mrs. Thomas said she feels having more public input will just multiply the type of comments this Board has heard tonight. It is always good to involve more of the community. She suspects that there will always be the type of fears that have been eluded to and imagines that if. people are brought together in a slightly different atmosphere that those fears could be talked through and a solution brought forth, but she is taken aback by this sugges- tion. She does think there is County-wide interest in this type of facility. Mr. Bowerman said in his four years on the Board and prior ten years on the Planning Commission, he does not remember an instant where a suggestion like Mr. Martin's has been brought forward. He is not saying that this is not a good suggestion for discussion. Mr. Martin then made a motion to defer SP-94-12 until August 10, 1994. Mrs. Thomas asked if there were any legal or procedural ramifications with this being done. Mr. Davis said the Board has the ability to defer any matter it is not prepared to vote on. Mr. Tucker asked if the public hearing would be reopened at the meeting on August 10, 1994. Mr. Martin said he will leave that issue to the Board. Mr. Tucker said he asked this because there are several items that are expected to be very controversial on the Board's agenda of August 10, 1994. Mr. Martin then amended the motion to defer SP-94-12 until August 17, 1994. The motion failed for lack of a second. July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 13 000387 Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Martin had an alternative motion. Mr. Martin said "no." Mr. Bowerman said based on what he has heard tonight, he has mixed emotions about the project. There are arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. He has heard, from the four applications for this type of use that have come before the Board a considerable amount of concern about the possible effects of such use in any location. Sometimes appearance is reality. There is a lot of concern by a lot of people about this use. Since this request is nots in his opinion, a matter of overwhelming public benefit, he made motion to deny SP-94-12. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Martin said he is not trying to make this matter dramatic or prolong the meeting, but he is trying to do what he feels is best, given the informa- tion provided. He is also including information that he has, not as a party to this meeting, but as a member of the public~ That~is the information that makes him want to support the reqUest. He realizes that this information was not received at the meeting tonight. Because of that information, the only thing he could do at this time is defer or abstain. He cannot offer or support a motion of approval. This is not a situation where he has informa- tion and there are conflicting views. He does not mind making a tough decision but this is a situation where he is unsure of what the majority of the people support. Tonight he has heard overwhelming opposition and during the last month he has heard overwhelming support. He is uncomfortable voting on the issue with the responses he has received thus far. Mr. Bowerman said if there is a motion to defer, it should be understood that the whole issue is before the Board and the public hearing be reheard. Mr. Martin said that is fine with him. Mr. Carter said the applicant did not have any objection to deferral of the request. Mr. Martin then made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer SP-94-12 until August 17, 1994. Mr. Carter said he will be out of town on August 17, 1994, but he will have someone from his office present to represent the applicant. Mrs. Humphris said she will support the motion because this is an unusual circumstance. She commented that she received one phone call in opposition, one letter in opposition and one letter in favor of the reqUest. She was surprised to hear what the public said tonight. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-94-14. Harcros Lumber & Building Supplies, Inc. Public Hearing on a reqUest for outdoor storage & display on 4.87 ac zoned HC & EC located on S sd of Rt 250 approx 400 ft E of Rt 20. Site, in Neighbor- hood 3, is recommended for regional services. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 27 and July 4, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The applicant originally proposed placing four sheds, a deck, a swing set, lawn, fence and mulch for display. These items would be adjacent to the existing building. After further discussions with the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the applicant intends to delineate approximately 25 by seven feet along the building and locate the sheds along the fence. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has reviewed this application for compliance with Section 31.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Given ARB issuance of a Certifi- cate of Appropriateness, this use should not change the character of the district. Given staff review for a minor site plan amendment, this use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and should be in harmony with the purposes and intent of the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board; While the display items may vary, display areas shall be limited to areas highlighted on the plan initialed YAH and entitled "Attachment B" of this report (on file). Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 7, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of the reqUest, subject to the follow- ing conditions: Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board; July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 14 000835 2 o While the items placed in the display may vary, the display area shall be limited to areas highlighted on the plan initialed YAH and entitled "Attachment B" of this report (on file). Mrs. Thomas asked if the display will be seen from the highway. Mr. Cilimberg said the display is not intended to be inventory for display, but is to be representative of the items. The ARB has addressed screening of the display area. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Gary Hoffman, representing Harcros Lumber and Building Supplies, Inc., said he would be happy to answer any questions Board members may have. Since 1991, the displays have been hidden behind the fence and it is hard to sell them without being seen by the customer. Sales have dropped off since the displays were moved to the back of the building.' The displays are utility buildings, swing sets and items that go in people's backyards. The way the store is situated, the display would not be very visible from the highway. Mrs. Thomas asked if the screening the ARB has suggested is agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Hoffman said he does not have any problems with installing the fence to screen the displays. The deck displays and sheds need to be seen. There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-94-14, subject to two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission (set out below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas. None. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. (Approval is subject to the following conditions:) Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board; While the items placed in the display areas may vary, the display area shall be limited to areas highlighted on the plan initialed YAH and entitled "Attachment B" of the staff report (on file). Agenda Item No. 10. Request to set a public hearing to amend Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl of the County Code, to provide authority to control dangerous or vicious dogs. Mr. Davis said the General Assembly amended the Virginia Code effective July 1, 1994, to provide explicit authority for counties to adopt ordinances to control dangerous or vicious dogs. Although many localities have adopted such ordinances in the past, including Albemarle County, the enabling authori- ty was not clearly granted. New enabling authority requires that any such dangerous and vicious dog ordinance contain certain mandatory provisions. The County Code must be amended to comply with the new legislation. Mr. Davis said staff recommends that the Board authorize the draft ordinance be adver- tised for public hearing and be considered for adoption. Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to set a public hearing for August 3, 1994 to amend Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl of the County Code, to provide authority to control dangerous or vicious dogs.. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: July 1, 1992. Mr. Martin said he has read the minutes of July 1, 1992, pages 13 to end, and found them to be in order. Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the minutes of July 1, 1992, pages 13 to end. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. 000339 July 13, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 15 Mr. Tucker advised the Board that members of the Planning commission had expressed concerns about the public not being able to attend the joint meeting scheduled for August 3, 1994. There was CONSENSUS of the Board to hold the meeting as planned on August 3, 1994. Mrs. Thomas requested that the Board expedite the George Clark request. Motion to this effect was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Bowerman, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. At 10:06 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.