Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-02-20February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 1) 87 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 20, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Perkins. 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. Mr. William Atwood, architect, said he is asking the Board to suspend the activities of the Architectural Review Board. He is not asking this because the ARB decided against a project of his, not because he disagrees with their decisions made to date, not necessarily because no members of the ARB are registered architects in Virginia, not because they have not ratified any specific architectural guidelines, not because he does not agree with the guidelines they are using, and not because the ARB is holding the Planning, Zoning and Inspection staff hostage while trying to understand their agenda. He is asking for a suspension of the ARB activities because this group oper- ates as a super planning commission which wants the first word on all planning decisions and the last work on architecture. Currently, in his opinion, this group is more powerfUl than the Planning staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. He does not argue that he better understands the appropriateness of architecture in this community. He is 'asking that the ARB members understand the frustration architects have with their statements relating to architecture in this community. He said the ARB statements are not based on training but rather on a formula of "neighborhood knowledge". He said he asked the ARB to stop their activities until a clear set of criteria for architecture in this community is established. Mr. Atwood agrees that he is not the appropriate one to set up guidelines for the ARB. He feels, however, that the members of the ARB have no business setting up those guide- lines either. Mr. Atwood suggests that the citizens of the community have input. He asked the Board to authorize the County Attorney to initiate discussions for a volunteer group to organize an entry study in which the 18 corridors into the community would be analyzed by well-organized teams. The teams of professionals, neighbors and individuals who live on these routes could report their analyses to a blue ribbon committee selected by the Board of Supervisors. The blue ribbon committee would establish a statement of architectural concept for each corridor and establish a process for implement' lng these concepts. Mr. Atwood asked the Board to initiate this process at no cost to the County and for a period of 30 to 60 days. He said he has had experience in this type of process, involving 1000 citizens and resulting in a 200-page report. Mr. Perkins said the Board will take Mr. Atwood's remarks under advise- ment. Mr. Herbert Tucker, representative of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Task Force on Economic Conversion, said his task force has been meeting for 12 months to study the role of military spending on the local economy. Mr. Tucker feels that this is a matter of vital concern to city and county resi- dents. Mr. Tucker said as the "Cold War" winds down, questions have risen as to how the federal government plans to adjust and to arrest the alarming growth of the national debt. Upon visiting Washington, D.C., the Task Force found there is time to plan for the sudden outbreak of peace. The Task Force February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 2) 88 decided to study the local situation and prepare a report in detail showing how much the community depends on military spending and what the community can do to prepare for reductions in military spending. Mr. Tucker said the study indicates that Pentagon money in the Charlottesville/Albemarle economy ap- proaches $100 million annually. Projections suggest that the impact of anticipated reductions in military spending may put as many as 3000 local jobs in jeopardy. Mr. Tucker said with the outbreak of the war in the Persian Gulf, it appears that military spending will not be cut in the short term. However, research by the Task Force proves that a day of fiscal reckoning must inevitably arrive. After the shooting in the Persian Gulf stops, the Task Force believes that the Pentagon budget will undergo significant reductions which will take a toll on the local economy. Mr. Tucker feels that economic conversion from military to civilian purposes will take place in Albemarle County whether it is planned for or not. It is clear that such economic conversion will take place with a minimum of hardship if it is anticipated with reasonable foresight on the part of local government. He said the Task Force is submitting this report to the Charlottesville City Council as well. Mr. Tucker then introduced Mr. Henrik Schutz, a resident of Albemarle County and member of the Task Force, to make a further report. Mr. Schutz said the Task Force is convinced that any measures to offset the reductions of defense spending will have to originate in the community and that the federal government will be preoccupied with its own deficit. He feels that any state-wide initiative will be focused on the eastern part of the state. Therefore, the recommendations of the Task Force focus on actions that can be taken locally. Mr. Schutz listed the recommendations as follows: Anticipate that a decrease in military spending will have substantial and detrimental effects on the local economy. Formulate a statement of policy that commits public resources to address- ing this prospect in a coordinated manner. Convene a long-range, City/County planning commission on economic conver- sion, to oversee implementation of the following recommendations. Develop programs that bring government and business leaders together, in order to redirect toward civilian commercial use the existing expertise of local industries that now depend on military contracting, and to interest successful businesses outside the City and County in relocating here. Foster new local enterprise, by encouraging already existing facilities that support startup or innovative businesses (UBIC, SBDC) to orient their efforts toward the challenges of conversion from military to civilian purpose. Work with the four local banks and other financial institutions to ensure the availability of start-up capital for new enterprises, and to investi- gate mechanisms for guaranteeing business loans through public sponsor- ship. Inventory the skills of area workers whose jobs now depend on military contracts; assess the programs that are currently available for retrain- ing such workers; institute different or additional retraining programs to anticipate the requirements of area businesses as they change in response to newly defined national needs. Mr. Schutz feels the primary recommendation is that the County and City form a long-range commission to oversee the other recommendations. He said that although the effect of reductions in military spending will not be drastic in this community, it will be substantial and it will be significant. However, there is time to prepare for the inevitable reductions. He hopes that both the City and County recognize that this is a proper function of local government. After the Board members have time to read the report, Mr. Schutz said he or Mr. Tucker will be available to answer questions or to return for a meeting. February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 3) 89 Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Chairman of the Architectural Review Board, handed out a letter to Board members which he said accurately describes the work of the ARB to date. He said the ARB welcomes a work session with the Board of Supervisors if it is deemed to be a~propriate. Mr. Lindstrom summa- rized his letter which is set out in full as follows: "I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board. I am writing in response to an article which appeared in today's Daily Progress regarding the Review Board. It appears that the article was written in response to complaints about the ARB, primarily from Mr. William Atwood. Although Mr. Atwood did appear before the ARB last week to voice his concerns to us, he has never presented any plans to the ARB for review. I do not know if he has ever filed an application with the staff for review by the ARB. The ARB has acted promptly upon every application which has been scheduled for review and none of its members have taken any action to delay the scheduling of any application. To date, the only applica- tion which the ARB has denied has been for an additional sign for the Taco Bell on Route 29. This sign would have been in violation of both the County sign ordinance and the zoning setback for Route 29. There is no question that uncertainty still exists as to the nature of the ARB review and the timing of that review within the existing development review process. I think that such uncertainty is inevita- ble whenever a significant new element is introduced into an existing and established routine. The ARB is undertaking not only the work which would normally be done by an ARB, but its members are simultaneously developing detailed application forms and guidelines. In so doing, the ARB's members are saving the County tens of thousands of dollars in consultant's fees. We have made significant progress: --A formal application has been developed and approved as well as a list of information to be submitted with the application. --A formal meeting schedule has been developed designed to integrate ARB review into the already existing development review process. --The ARB has agreed to establish a preliminary review meeting as a recommended part of the review process to make implementation of the Entrance Corridor Overlay provisions relating to the siting of struc- tures upon the site as efficient as possible. --The ARB is actively developing a set of specific interim design guidelines for use pending completion of detailed, corridor specific guidelines. The ARB plans to review these interim guidelines with representatives of the development and design community prior to presenting them to the Board of Supervisors. It is hoped that these interim guidelines will be presented to the Board of Supervisors by the end of March. --The ARB has reviewed and approved a number of applications, mostly for signs within the EC Corridor. Major projects which have been reviewed and either approved, or where tentative agreement between the developer and the ARB has been reached regarding design and landscape elements, are the UREF linear accelerator on Route 250W, the Wilton Apartment project on Route 2ON, and the Walmart/Sam's shopping complex on Route 29N. I know that it has been suggested that ARB authority to review devel- opment proposals within the EC Corridors be suspended until final design guidelines have been approved. Although the AllB members would appreciate relief from their current work load, they have not asked for such relief, and are willing to proceed with the work they have been given by the Board of Supervisors. February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 4) 9O I believe that suspending the review process would deny the County what has already proven to be an important tool in enhancing the compatibility of major new projects with their surroundings. For example, with respect to the three major projects described above, the I~tEF project, the Wilton project, and the Walmart/Sam's project: in each case the ARB was able to suggest to the developer changes in the appearance of proposed structures and landscaping which would not otherwise have been considered using the temporary guidelines approved by the Board at the time of enactment of the EC Overlay ordinance. The suggested changes include substantial additional landscaping of the UREF linear accelerator which will minimize the impact of this otherwise major building on Route 250W; substantial additional land- scaping along Route 20N in front of the Wilton Apartments project and minor design changes in the detailing of the structures which will make them more compatible (in the case of Wilton the landscaping and design changes will render the project more like the description of the project shown to the Board of Supervisors at the time of zoning approval for the project); in the case of the Walmart/Sam's project the ARB suggested that the split face cinder block facade (similar to the car wash on Route 250E) be changed to brick and that substantial tree plantings along the face of each building be undertaken to break up what would otherwise be a blank wall facing Route 29; in addition the ARB suggested a landscaping berm along Route 29 in front of Walmart with substantial additional tree plantings over that initially proposed. In each of these cases the developer has agreed, or pending final approval of a Certificate, has tentatively agreed, to the changes suggested. In each case none of these important changes would have occurred if the ARB had been unable to review the project pending approval of final guidelines. Both I and other members of the ARB would be happy to meet with the Board of Supervisors to discuss further the matters contained in the newspaper article and this letter." Mr. Lindstrom said the ARB is working vigorously on developing guidelines and intends to involve both the design and development community in the process. He asked that the ARB be given the latitude to continue with the charge it has been given so that neither consultants nor large citizen groups will be necessary. He feels that a large group of citizens will not be efficient and will not achieve the intent of the Board of Supervisors. He said the ARB is ready, willing and able to design guidelines and perform reviews and is working assiduously to do that. He feels that suspension of the review process will deny the citizens and the Board of the benefits it intended when the ARB was created. He said time is needed to finish the work begun, and he welcomes an opportunity to meet with the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said the ARB takes seriously the concerns expressed by Mr. Atwood and is working quickly to address those concerns. Mrs. Humphris said she has not read today's newspaper, but she feels fortunate to have citizens available to serve on the ARB. Mrs. Humphris thinks that the Board should support the ARB and have a work session as suggested by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Bowerman concurred and added that he is aware of concern in the development community about the formation of the ARB and the lack of guide- lines at present. He feels it is appropriate to have a work session with the ARB so that comments from the development community can be heard as well. Mr. Bain said he feels that the Board took appropriate action in forming the ARB. However, he wants to hear what is happening from all points of view. Mr. Tucker said he will let the Board know the date for a work session after consulting with the Clerk about the March meeting schedule. Mr. Atwood added that he concurs with Mr. Lindstrom on many points. However, he feels that the professional community is frustrated by not having a clear understanding of where the ARB review fits in the whole process of February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) development. He said there is genuine confusion as to whether the ARB review is before or after the Planning Commission review or where exactly it fits in the process. He feels that it is imperative to get that clear as quickly as possible as step one of eliminating confusion. He also feels that citizen participation will be invaluable. Mr. Cilimberg noted that a flow-chart has been developed showing the pro- cess, which should be available next week. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2 and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Bowie. Item 5.1. Revised resolution requested by the Department of Engineering in order to accept Woodbrook Drive Extended into the Secondary System of Highways was approved by the vote shown above and set out as follows: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Rio Hills Shopping Center: Woodbrook Drive Extended Beginning at Station 10+25, a point in common to the centerline of Woodbrook Drive Extended and the edge of the southbound lane of U. S. Route 29, thence in a northwesterly direction 1325 feet to the edge of Berkmar Drive (Station 23+50). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans- portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 75-foot unobstructed right- of-way and drainage easements along the requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 985, pages 698-704, pages 709-715, pages 731-737; Deed Book 996, pages 138-139; Deed Book 1038, pages 92-93; Deed Book 1132, page 155; and Deed Book 1139, page 127. Item 5.2. Memo from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, recom- mending concurrence with the Planning Commission's review of the Albemarle County Service Authority water line installation along the Northern Portion of Route 250 East in Neighborhood 3 for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. There was no comment by the Board on the staff report set out below. This item was approved by the vote shown above. "As per Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia, the Albemarle County Service Authority has requested that the Planning Commission review the installation of a water line along the northern portion of Route 250 East. The ACSA plans to install a 16-inch water line as part of the Route 250 East road improvements from Riverbend Drive to State Farm Boulevard. The Worrell Investment Group will contract with VDoT to install casings under Route 250 East for future sewer crossings and several water line sub-outs to eventually extend 12-inch lines to the property located just east of State Farm Boulevard. Currently, water service extends to State Farm Boulevard. The Kessler Group will also contract with VDoT to extend the water line from State Farm Boulevard east to Interstate 64. This water line is planned to eventually be extended to serve the Glenmore Planned Residential Development, which is a large portion of Rivanna Village, and Stone Robinson Elementary School. This future extension to the Rivanna Village will be subject to a similar review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. February 20, lggl (RegUlar Meeting) (Page 6) 92 The ComprehenSive Plan recommends the following for utility improve- ments: Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban Area and Communities (Objective p. 146). Support the development of Villages to their ultimate design capacities through the programmed provision of planned central utilities (Objective p. 151)~. To protect resources in the area, utilities shall be sized to serve the Rivanna Village and the Stone Robinson School/Capacity (Recommendation of Comprehensive Plan Amendment-Rivanna Village). Encourage effective coordination between Albemarle County plans and policies and those of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (Objective p. 152). Build all public water and sewer facilities to an ultimate design capacity consistent with the recommended land use densities in the Comprehensive Plan and coordinate with the timing of develop- ment (Strategy under Objective #3, p. 152). New Route 250 East water lines to be coordinated with Route 250 East improvements (Recommendation for Neighborhood Three - Utility Improvements, p. 169). Sewer pump station and new lines along Route 250 East to be based on development activity to the east of State Farm Boulevard (Recommendation for Neighborhood Three - Utility Improvements, p. 169). Water line extensions from Pantops to eastern sections of the Neighborhood based on development activity (Recommendation for Neighborhood Three - Utility Improvements, p. 169). The ACSA has stated that this water line is expected to adequately serve and provide necessary fire flow for potential development based on the Land Use Plan in the portion of Neighborhood 3 east of State Farm Boulevard. As mentioned earlier, this water line will be sized to permit extension to the Rivanna Village and Stone Robinson Elemen- tary School. This appears to satisfy the intent of items 1 through 5 listed above. The widening of Route 250 East, from the City of Charlottesville to near Interstate 64 is in VDoT's Six Year Primary Road Improvement Program. Construction is expected to begin in the summer of 1991 and installation of the water line will correspond with this road improve- ment. This appears to satisfy the intent of item 6 listed above. There has been development east of State Farm Boulevard and more is expected in the near future. Glenorchy is a residential subdivision located in this area with 28 platted lots and currently nine homes have been constructed. The property adjacent to the west of Glenorchy (Jefferson Pointe Townhouses) was rezoned in 1989 to R-10 and approxi- mately 75 units are expected to be constructed. A large portion of the remaining land east of State Farm Boulevard in Neighborhood 3 is owned by the Worrell Investment Group and this company is in the preliminary planning stages of developing this land. Finally, the Glenmore Planned Residential Development, which will consist of approximately 750 units, was approved in December of 1990. Ail of the area will be served by this line (Glenorchy is currently served by a private water system, but could be connected to this line.) This appears to satisfy the intent of items 7 and 8. Staff believes this project complies with the intent of the Comprehen- sive Plan and staff recommends favorable action by the Commission. February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) 93 (Page 7) Item 5.3. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for January 29, 1991, received as information. Item 5.4. Letter dated February 12, 1991, from Mr. Ray D, Pethtel, Commissioner, Department of Transportation, approving the addition of Mill Ridge Road to the Secondary System of Highways, received as infOrmation, as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated December 19, 1990, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective February 12, 1991. ADDITION LENGTH MILL RIDGE Route 1060 (Mill Ridge Road) - From Route 614 to 0.14 mile South Route 614 0.14 Mi" Item 5.5. Letter dated February 12, 1991, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Department of Transportation, approving additions to the Secon- dary Systemof Highways in Mill Creek Subdivision, received as information, as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated November 14, 1990, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective February 12, 1991. ADDITIONS MILL CREEK Route 1150 (Mill Creek Drive) - From Route 1151 to 0.27 mile West Route 1157 LENGTH 0.27 Mi Route 1156 (Quail Crossing) - From Route 1150 to 0.05 mile North Route 1150 0.05 Mi Route 1157 (Gristmill Drive) - From Route 1158 (Bryan Court) to Route 1159 (Spring Mountain Road) 0.16 Mi Route 1158 (Bryan Court) From Route 1157 to 0.07 mile Northwest Route 1157 0.07 Mi Route 1159 (Spring Mountain Road West) From Route 1157 to 0.04 mile West Route 1157; (Spring Mountain Road East) - From Route 1157 to 0.09 mile East Route 1157 0.13 Mi Route 1160 (Spring Mountain Road Cul-de-sac) - From Route 1159 to 0.03 mile South Route 1159 0.03 Mi" Agenda Item No. 6. Request to Abandon Rights-of-way in Rosemont and Ragged Mountain (Deferred from February 13, 1991). Mr. Perkins said there is a request from staff, with the applicant's approval, to defer this item to March 6, 1991. Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Way to defer to March 6, 1991, as requested by staff. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-90-08. John Townsend. Public hearing on a request to amend Sec 27, Light Industry District, to allow arbories by special February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 8) 94 use permit & to amend the definitions. January 14 and January 21, 1991.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant originally requested that arbories be allowed in the Light Industry, LI, district and that the zoning definitions be amended for that use. The arbory use would be allowed by special use permit or as a subordinate use for landscape contractors. He said the Planning Commission deferred action at its November 20, 1990, hearing on this matter to allow the County Attorney to review the proposed language. He said staff felt that the original arbory definition was too specific to incorporate into the ordinance. Therefore, staff, the County Attorney and the Planning Commission worked together to revise the language of the amendment to allow a more general definition as proposed today. Staff's current recommendation allows subordinate retail sales in the LI district by special use permit for uses which by their nature are bulky and require nonintensive use of the land and where the retail sales exceed 15 percent. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Townsend's request results from his desire to have a landscape contracting business which also allows him to sell at retail prices items which he stocks to use in his contracting business. The changes recommended by the Planning Commission provide for a general definition of where subordinate retail sales will be allowed and whether they would be by right or by special use permit. He said the Planning Commission on January 15, 1991, recommended the following changes in the Zoning Ordi- nance: Add under Section 27.2.1(3): 3. Delete Reference 5.1.24 Add under Section 27.2.2: 13. Uses listed under Section 27.2.1 with subordinate retail sales exceeding fifteen (15) percent of the floor area of the main use. Add under Section 5.1.24: Retail sales area, including but not limited to showroom and outdoor display area, shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the floor area of the main use except as provided for in Section 27.2.2(13); In approval of any retail sales area, the Board and/or the Planning Commission may limit the areas for retail sales in both size and location; Retail sales area exceeding fifteen (15) percent of the floor area of the main use pursuant to Section 27.2.2(13) is intended to allow for uses which by their nature are bulky and require non-intensive use of the land. The Board and~or the Planning Commission in approval of such increased sales area shall be be mindful of the intent of this section to provide for only subordinate retail sales and avoid incompatible land uses. The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. Jay Townsend, applicant, said the staff report accurately describes the proposal. He said the basis for his request is related to the concept of inventory of merchandise. The current Ordinance does not allow for the ability to inventory landscape materials and plants. He is asking that the text of the ordinance recognize the uniqueness of the type of inventory he uses and that provision be made for it. There were no other members of the public present to speak and the public hearing was closed. February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting)' (Page 9) 95 Mr. Bain asked if the proposed language clarifies all the problems for this use and for future requests for special use permits. Mr. St. John said in his mind it clears up the problems. He explained that the Zoning Ordinance currently contains a provision for up to 15 percent of floor space devoted to retail sales in the LI district wherever retail sales is a subordinate use. He said the Ordinance does not address retail sales that exceed 15 percent. The applicant originally requested language to allow a new use tailor-made to this applicant. Staff agrees that it is a better idea to allow, in uses in LI where retail sales are a legitimate subordinate use, retail sales above 15 percent by a special use permit. He feels this is a better solution than allowing a new use described as an arbory and defined as a nursery with retail sales of more than 15 percent. He said there may be applications for special use permits, but there will not be repeated requests for zoning text amend- ments as a result of this language. Mr. Bowerman offered a motion to adopt the following ordinance approving ZTA-90-08 as recommended by the Planning Commission and outlined in the staff report. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. (The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 5.0, SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, AND SECTION 27.0, LI, OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Sections 5.1.24, 27.2.1 and 27.2.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be amended and reenacted to read as follows: Under Section 5.0, SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, amend Section 5.1.24, SUBORDINATE RETAIL SALES to read: "This provision is intended to permit retail sales as subordinate to the main use. To this end, the following regulations shall apply: Retail sales area, including but not limited to showroom and outdoor display area, shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the floor area of the main use except as provided for in section 27.2.2.13;" b. Remains as worded. Add the following: "C. In approval of any retail sales area the board and/or the commission may limit the areas for retail sales in both size and location; Retail sales area exceeding fifteen (15) percent of the floor area of the main use pursuant to section 27.2.2.13 is intended to allow for uses which by their nature are bulky and require nonintensive use of the land. The board and/or the commission in approval of such increased sales area shall be mindful of the intent of this section to provide for only subordinate retail sales and avoid incompatible land uses." In Section 27.2.1, Uses BY RIGHT in the LI district, No. 3, delete the words "(reference 5.1.24)" February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) add: 96 In Section 27.2.2, Uses BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT in the LI District, "13. Uses listed under section 27.2.1 with subordinate retail sales exceeding fifteen (15) percent of the floor area of the main use." Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-89-16. Jay Townsend. To rezone 10.3 ac from R-1 to LI. Property located on W side of Rt 29N approx 2000 ft S of bridge over North Fork Rivanna River. TM32,P22B (part). Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 14 and January 21, 1991.) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90-108. Jay Townsend. Public hearing on a request for a contractor's office & equipment storage yard with retail sales on 10.3 ac described in ZMA-89-16 above. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 14 and January 21, 1991.) Mr. Cilimberg said the application for a special use permit is predicated upon a rezoning of the property from R-1 to LI. Mr. Cilimberg said he will give the staff reports on both requests together as follows: "CHARACTER OF THE AREA:" The site is currentlywooded and vacant. The property to the south is developed with a fabric outlet. Property to the north is currently vacant, but was recently rezoned to HI, Heavy Industry, with proffers to accommodate a mobile home refurbish- ing/sales business. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to rezone 10.3 acres to LI, Light Industry, and obtain a special use permit in order to allow a landscape contractor's office and equipment storage yard with retail sales. The special use permit for retail sales is envisioned by ZTA-90-08. The applicant has submitted the following proffers: Not limiting uses by right or by special use in the LI, Light Industry District. 2. Any use will be in general accordance with the submitted sketch. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This area is recommended for Industrial Service. Uses recommended in the Industrial Service Areas are found in Table 46 on page 161 of the Comprehensive Plan. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION ZMA-89-16: It is intended that LI districts may be established in areas having all of the following characteristics: Areas served by water and sewer facilities or if such facilities are reasonably available; Areas served by major highway, rail or air service, or secondary road improved to standards approved by the county; Areas having clearly demonstrated suitability for intended uses with regard to physical characteristics and relationship to surrounding development. This site is served by public water. However, sewer capacity is not currently available. Health Department approval has not been obtained at this time and will be required during site plan review. Soils on this property have only moderate limitations for sanitary facilities and building construction. The proposed development will be served by Route 29. The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that the crossover located February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) 97 immediately to the south of this site is scheduled to be closed due to lack of sight distance and turn lanes. It is uncertain at this time as to whether the applicant will be required to close this crossover at the time of site plan review. The entrance does not meet the site plan provisions of a 500 foot separation from the crossover. Entrance improvements will be determined at the time of site plan review. The applicant's proffered sketch does indicate a right turn lane. Vehi- cles traveling north on U.S. 29 will be required to make a U-turn at a crossover located 950 feet north of this proposal to enter this site. The site is currently wooded and the applicant's proffered plan retains a buffer between the developed area and adjacent properties. The applicant's proffered plan provides for a building setback of approximately 100 feet from property recommended for residential use. Required setback is 50 feet. In addition, the required undisturbed buffer has been increased from 30 feet to a minimum of approximately 40 feet. The applicant's plan shows that parking will be located approximately 400 feet from Route 29 and only limited clearing is proposed on the front of the property. New landscaping is proposed across the frontage of the property. In the opinion of staff, the proffered plan addresses the concerns of the Comprehensive Plan. Setbacks from Route 29, the preservation of existing vegetation and installation of new landscaping are in keeping with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors' concern of Route 29 as an entrance corridor. The applicant's proffers do not limit any of the uses in the LI, Light Industrial District. Staff does not recommend the acceptance of the applicant's first proffer as it is intended as information. However, staff opinion is that the proffered plan limits the developable area Such that staff would not recommend deletion of any uses. The site is not served by public sewer and any industrial use would require Health Department approval and compliance with Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance (Performance Standards). Development of this property will result in U-turns, some of which will occur at a currently existing crossover within less than the minimum required distance from an entrance. Staff opinion is that this should be addressed at time of site plan review. Staff opinion is that this rezoning request with its proffered plan is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, Sec- tions 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purpose and intent of the Light Industrial District. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's second proffer. 1. Any use will be in general accordance with the submitted sketch." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended appro- val of ZMA-89-16, subject to proffer No. 2 only. Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report for SP-90-108 as follows: "The applicant proposes a contractor's office with retail sales on this site. The applicant proposes to have approximately 23,705 square feet of area devoted to retail sales. The breakdown of space devoted to the contractors use and retail use is found in Attachment E (on file). About 33 percent of the total area will be devoted to retail sales. Staff believes the amount of sales area is subordinate to the primary use as a landscape contractor's office and equipment storage yard. The increased area is due to the nature of materials stored on site, which are to be trees and shrubs, mulch and topsoil. These items cannot be stacked and require large storage areas. Staff opinion is that approval of this request will not result in an unwanted mix of industrial and non-industrial traffic due to the site's location on Route 29. Staff has reviewed various trip genera- tion rates to determine if this use will result in an increase in February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) 98 traffic. Uses permitted in the LI district could generate 52-56 vehicle trips per aQze based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers. No figures are available for the specific landscape retailing use proposed by the applicant, however a nursery use could generate 86 vehicle trips per acre. Staff opinion is that the pro- posed retail sales will likely generate trips at a somewhat lower rate than a nursery, which should be consistent with the rates possible under general LI uses. In addition, this use would not be of substan- tial detriment to adjacent properties as the proffered plan notes increased setbacks which will provide sufficient buffers to adjacent land and Route 29. This site is subject to the recently adopted Entrance Corridor requirements. Staff opinion is that this special use permit request is consistent with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Material and area devoted to retail sales shall be in accordance with that noted in Attachment E (letter to William D. Fritz from J. Townsend dated November 5, 1990), and sales shall be limited to the following materials: trees and shrubs, mulch and topsoil, and similar materials; 2. Compliance with ZMA-89-16; Equipment storage and mulch storage areas shall be screened with evergreens from adjacent residential land. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 29, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-108, subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report. Mrs. Humphris said she is concerned that the words, "similar materials", in the first condition can include many things. Mr. Cilimberg said the intention is to allow only materials which are directly associated with tree and shrub planting. Mrs. Humphris said she is uncOmfortable with the language because it gives latitude for future misinterpretation. Mrs. Humphris noted that there is no mention of security lighting in the conditions. With the storage of bulk material, she feels that there may be a need for security lighting and she is concerned that this property abuts an area of future residential development. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a buffer between this property and the residential property which is greater than that required by the County's ordinances. Mrs. Humphris said she still feels that the Board should ensure that there is no light spillover onto the adjacent property. Mr. Cilimberg said the buffer is a mature wooded area at present. Mr. Bowerman said the site plan portions of the ordinance specify engi- neering standards for controlling light spillover, and this property is subject/%~ose provisions. Mrs. Humphris noted that Westminster-Canterbury is an example of light spillover even though the site plan ordinance was applica- ble. Mr. Bowerman said the property at Westminster-Canterbury is higher in elevation than the adjacent areas. Mr. Bain said the site plan ordinance should still prevent light spillover if the engineering standards for control- ling the light are followed. Mrs. Humphris said lighting is a major concern and she wants to prevent future problems where possible. The public hearing was opened on both the rezoning and special use permit requests at this time. Mr. Jay Townsend, the applicant, came forward to speak. With regard to lighting, Mr. Townsend said he feels sure there is lighting available for businesses to meet security lighting needs without encroaching on the future residential area. He pointed out that because of the location of this prop- erty, the majority of security lighting will be necessary at the entrance. The entrance will have to be secured with a gate and lighting because that is the only access into the property. February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 13) Mr. Townsend said he is a landscape contractor and has been in business for a number of years. His goal is to continue his landscaping business and to offer the materials he holds in inventory for limited sales to the public. Regarding the words, "similar materials", Mr. Townsen'd said his concept is the sale of materials he uses in his landscaping business only. He does not build walls or walks and does not handle yard statutes or yard trinkets. Mrs. Humphris asked what specifically is included in "similar materials". Mr. Townsend said it includes perennials, for example. Mr. Bowerman suggested the words, "and related planting materials" Mr. Townsend said he would like some flexibility without having to list every single item in his inventory. Mr. Bain asked if green gravel and railroad ties would be included in "similar materials". Mr. Townsend said he does a limited amount of edging work and has a small stock of timbers to use as needed for that purpose. Mrs. Humphris said she is trying to find wording that will prevent this use from expanding into a commercial sales venture. She wants to have a clear understanding of what "similar materials" are. Mr. Townsend said if he is planting azaleas for a customer, he would like the option of selling a bag of fertilizer as well. He said that is an item he uses constantly to prepare planting areas. Mr. Townsend said his understanding of this condition is that nothing will be sold in this limited retail sales use that is not used in his land- scaping business. He does not install yard statutes or pink gravel. His goal is to have limited sales of the items he stocks. Mr. Tucker suggested that it might be easier to exclude any items Board members have in mind. Mrs. Humphris said there are so many possibilities in a list of exclusions that she would rather have a limited number of items for sale. Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Townsend's business is liable to change in the future to become broader, thereby causing the definition of "similar materi- als'' to become broader. Mr. Townsend said he has done the same type of business for nine years. He hopes his business will grow, but he specializes in plantings. He does not intend to build retaining walls or gazebos. Mr. Perkins suggested the words, "similar materials related to the landscaping business". Mr. Townsend said his interpretation of subordinate retail sales is that it includes materials used in his business. Mr. Perkins said if Mr. Townsend goes into another business such as building walls, this wording would prohibit sale of those types of items. Mrs. Humphris said there are other landscape contractors who deal in gazebos and who build retaining walls as part of their landscape business. She feels this wording is a matter of broad interpretation also. Mr. Townsend suggested that the words, "similar organic materials" be inserted. He said that limits the sales to items related to horticulture, which is what he intends. Mrs. Humphris said that satisfies her concern. Mrs. Humphris asked if staff is indicating that her lighting concerns will be addressed through the site plan review process. Mr. Cilimberg said staff attempts to address lighting issues through the ordinance requirements at site plan review. In this case, the lighting seems to be essentially for security reasons. Mr. Townsend pointed out that beyond the wooded buffer area in the rear of the property, there is a considerable slope which falls straight down. The northern property line abuts the heavy industrial area. There are no resi- dences bordering the property at the moment. The mobile home sales operation is located about 300 feet away from the left property line. This is an indication of how lighting will affect the neighboring property owners. Mr. Tucker said staff is aware of the Board's concerns regarding lighting and can report those concerns to the Planning Commission during site plan review. February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) lO0 Mr. Bain said although he is not concerned as much about this piece of property, he would like staff to review the site plan ordinance for possible amendments to cover situations such as the Westminster-Canterbury location. There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Bain noted that the proffer on ZMA-89-16 does not refer to a specific sketch. Mr. Cilimberg said the proffer refers to the sketch on the wall. He then initialed and dated the sketch for the record. Mr. Townsend indicated that he has no objection to the sketch being dated and initialed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve ZMA-89-16, subject to proffer No. 2 which reads, "Any use will be in general accordance with the submitted sketch dated February 20, 1991, and initialed by V. Wayne Cilimberg." Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to approve SP-90-108, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission with condition no. 1 amended to add the word, "organic" after the word, "similar". Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Material and area devoted to retail sales shall be in accordance with that noted in Attachment E (letter dated November 5, 1990, from J. W. Townsend); and sales shall be limited to the following materi- als: trees, shrubs, mulch, top soil and similar organic materials; 2. Compliance with ZMA-89-16; Equipment and mulch storage areas shall be screened with evergreens from adjacent residential lands. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-90-101. Barbara Scribner. Public hearing on a request to operate a commercial stable (riding school) on 67.485 ac zoned RA. Property on NE side of Rt 649 approx 1/2 mi E of inters with Rt 643. TM48,P8. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 14 and January 21, 1991.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows: "CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The property is mostly open pasture. A fenced riding area currently exists on the site. No dwellings are visible from the riding area and it is not visible from the public road. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to operate a riding school at the site. Horses will be kept at the existing stable on the property. The applicant currently has no students and does not anticipate there to be more than five students at any time. No employees are proposed. The applicant has submitted a brief descrip- tion of this request. February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) 101 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This site is in the Rural Areas of the Comprehen- sive Plan. This use represents an agricultural use of the site which is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The applicant currently leases the pasture from the owner of the property, James D. Johnston. This use is supportive of the agricultural use of the site. The Virginia Department of Transportation has commented that the existing entrance has adequate sight distance. No dwellings are visible from the riding ring. The applicant does not propose any employees and class sizes will be small, therefore, impact on adjacent properties will be limited. The existing private road currently serves nine lots. This use should result in traffic volumes similar to that expected for a single family dwelling and should not adversely impact the private road. Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the character of the area and will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent proper- ties. Staff recommends approval of SP-90-101 Barbara Scribner subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: Riding rings and riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material such as pine bark to minimize dust and erosion; Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall be main- tained at all times; 3. No employees; 4. Hours of operation shall be during daylight hours only; 5. No more than five students." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 29, 1991, unanimously recommended approval subject to condition 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the staff report, but changing #5 to read: "No more than five students receiving instruction on site at any one time." The public hearing was opened at this time. The applicant, Ms. Barbara Scribner, said she has nothing to add to the staff report, but will answer any questions Board members may have. There being no other members of the public present to address this issue, the public hearing was closed. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve SP-90-101, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. (The conditions are set out below:) Riding rings and riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material such as pine bark to minimize dust and erosion; Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times; February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 16) 102 3. Hours of operation shall be during daylight hours only; No more than five students receiving instruction on site at any one time. Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: December 19N, 1990; January 2, January 9 and January 16, 1991. Mr. Bain had read the minutes for-December 19(N), 1990, pages 17 through 35, and found two minor typographical errors. Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. lla. Resolution: Women's History Month. Mrs. Humphris said she was asked to introduce a resolution on Women's History Month by the Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Voters. Mrs. Kay Peasley came forward and record the resolution into the record as follows: WHEREAS, American women of every race, class and ethnic back- ground have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our national, state and local communities in countless recorded and unrecorded ways; and WHEREAS, American women have played and continue to play critical political, economic, cultural, and social roles in every sphere of activity both inside and outside of the home; and WHEREAS, American women have provided the majority of the volun- teer labor force of the Nation; and WHEREAS, American women were and are particularly important in charitable, philanthropic, and cultural institutions; and WHEREAS, American women were and are in the forefront of every major progressive social change movement; and WHEREAS, American women have been leaders, not only in securing their own rights of suffrage and equal opportunity, but also in the abolitionist movement, the emancipation movement, the industrial labor movement, the civil rights movement, and the peace movement, whose goals are to create a more fair and just society for all; and WHEREAS, despite these contributions, the role of American women in history has been consistently overlooked and undervalued in the literature, teaching and study of American history; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the month of March shall be designated "Women's History Month". Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adopt the resolution as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 17) 103 Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board Members. Mr. Tucker requested approval of an appropriation to record the revenue anticipated from a Division of Motor Vehicles grant obtained by the Police Department. Funds received will be used to conduct a number of sobriety checkpoints. Matching funds are available in the Police Department budget; therefore, no increase in local expenditure is anticipated. The appropriation amount is $6500. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the following resolution approving the appropriation as requested. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. FISCAL YEAR: FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: 90/91 GENERAL STATE FUNDING FOR DRIVER DEATH RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $ 0.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 $(6,500.00) 2100033000330012 GENERAL FUND BALANCE DMV GRANT-DRIVER DEATH REDUCTION 6,500.00 TOTAL $ 0.00 Mr. Tucker requested approval of an appropriation for a grant recently awarded by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice to assist in pre-trial diversion. This grant will be administered by Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) with the County being fiscal agent. The County will receive these funds and pass them on to OAR, who will perform the required services and file all applicable State reports. The amount of the grant is $30,881. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the following resolution approving the appropriation as requested. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. FISCAL YEAR FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: 90/91 GENERAL OAR PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100039000566110 OAR PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION GRANT TOTAL $30~881.00 $30,881.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100024000240421 STATE GRANT-PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION TOTAL $30~881.00 $30,881.00 Mr. Tucker said staff held a public forum on redistricting a few weeks ago. At that time, members of the public requested that the Board of Supervi- sors consider holding a public meeting on the matter of redistricting magiste- rial districts before a work session and the legal public hearing is held. Mr~ Tucker suggested that such a meeting could be held at the March 6 Board meeting. February 20, 1991 (Regular Meeting) (Page 18) There were no objections from Board members. 104 Mr. Bain asked if any action is needed by the Board on the presentation made earlier in the meeting regarding economic conversion. Mr. Tucker said he plans to review the material handed out, especially the recommendation which calls for the formation of a committee to consider what can be done in the community along these lines. Mr. Tucker said he will discuss this matter with officials from the City and the University of Virginia and possibly establish a joint committee to consider this issue. Mr. Way requested that the recently adopted ordinance regarding false alarms be placed on the Board's agenda for discussion on March 13. He has received a number of complaints concerning the registration of alarms. Mrs. Humphris agreed that there is considerable confusion over the ordinance. Mr. Ed Eitelberg, resident of Old Salem Apartments on Barracks Road, asked if the County simply follows the arrangements made by the City with Adelphia Cable Company or if the County has its own restrictions. Mr. Tucker explained that the County has no franchise with any cable company. The Board of Supervisors made a decision many years ago not to get involved in franchises. Therefore, there are no restrictions by the County on any cable company. Mr. Eitelberg asked how rates are set for the County residents. Mr. Tucker said that is a matter of free enterprise. If another cable company wants to create competition, it has the right to do so. Mr. Tucker said there is a different cable company in some areas of the County. Mr. Eitelberg asked the Board to consider establishing regulations on the cable company because he feels the customers are being taken advantage of. Adelphia Cable is currently asking their customers to pay a $50 charge with no explanation for it. The customers have no choice but to pay if they want to continue their service. Mr. Bain explained that there are federal regulations going into effect in the near future, and the County Attorney's recommendation to the Board has been to not take any action on this matter until the new regulations are in place. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. There being no other matters to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 P.M.