Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-01-18170 January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 18, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Home, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve Item 4.1 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of December, 1988, was approved by the vote shown above. Item 4.2. Financial Report from the Director of Finance for November, 1988, received for information as follows: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1988 TO NOVEMBER 30, 1988 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL EXPENDITURES 42,042,289 14,365,015 27,677,274 - 34.17% 3,722,015 1,346,639 2,375,376 36.18% 104,440 42,423 ~' 62,017 - 40.62% 2~429,818 2~429,818 0 + 100.00% 48,298,562 18,183,895 30~!114,667 - 37.65% 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD '~'YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS HEALTH AND WELFARE EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS NONDEPARTMENTAL TOTAL 3,169,025 1,320,894 1~i~848,I31 + 41.68% 1,103,980 465,088 638,892 + 42.13% 4,342,091 2,026,617 27315,474 + 46.67% 1,793,460 580,484 1~212,976 + 32.37% 2,888,438 1,278,729 1,609,709 + 44.27% 25,367,126 10,462,268 143904,858 + 41.24% 1,696,508 576,168 1~120,340 + 33.96% 1,314,778 559,940 '754,838 + 42.59% 4,153,596 2,405,735 1,747,861 + 57.92% 2~469~560 105~785 2~363~775 + 4.28% 48,298,562 19,781,708 28,~516,854 + 40.96% SCHOOL FUND REVENUES 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES 421,493 127,740 293,753 30.31% January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) COMMONWEALTH 16,420,426 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 362,987 TRANSFERS-IN 25,330~7'05 TOTAL 42,535,611 171 6,227,210 10,193,216 - 37.92% 0 362,987 - 0.00% 10,456,398 14,874~307 - 41.28% 16,811,348 25,724,263 - 39.52% 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTION-REG DAY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE & HEALTH SERVICES PUPIL TRANSPORTATION OPERATION-SCHOOL PLANT FIXED CHARGES ADULT EDUCATION TRANSFER 749,288 290,157 459,131 + 38.72% 26,572,224 7,675,927 18,896,297 + 28.89% 341,016 112,260 228,756 + 32.92% 3,040,752 1,342,708 1,698,044 + 44.16% 4,548,453 2,430,110 2,118,343 + 53.43% 7,273,251 2,347,998 4,925,253 + 32.28% 10,627 3,193 7,434 + 30.05% 0 0 0 + O.OO% TOTAL 42,535,611 14,202,353 28,333,258 + 33.39% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH NONREVENUE RECEIPTS FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES 418,500 248,561 169,939 59.39% 300,000 0 300,000 0.00% 2,886,902 738,768 2,148,134 - 25.59% 4,626,459 0 4,626,459 - 0.00% 2~102,795 2~047~000 55~795 - 97.35% 10,334,656 3,034,329 7,300,327 29.36% 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL 239,571 44,303 195,268 + 18.49% 0 0 0 + 0.00% 1,245,945 ~ 88,676 1,157,269 + 7.12% 1,383,080 26,831 1,356,249 + 1.94% 5,385,542 ~,433,091 1,952,451 + 63.75% 1,336,263 ~ 233,017 1,103,246 + 17.44% 611,470 i 516,160 95,310 + 84.41% 132~785 ~ 0 132,785 + 0.00% 10,334,656 ~,342,078 5,992,578 + 42.01% OTHER FUNDS REVENUES 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION MODERATE REHAB. GRANT CDBG-AHIP J HEALTH EDUCATION GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT TIPS RAGGED MOUNTAIN CBIP SEVERE FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT DRUG EDUCATION GRANT SUMMER SCHOOL FUND COMMUNITY EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH CHAPTER I CHAPTER II MIGRANT EDUCATION CAFETERIA FUND JOINT SECURITY FUND JOINT DISPATCH FUND JOINT RECREATION FACILITY TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 45,344 0 45,344 - 0.00% 28,540 21,405 7,135 - 75.00% 1,015,000 384,117 630,883 - 37.84% 0 109,747 (109,747)+ 0.00% T 0 8,562 (8,562)+ 0.00% 0 7,500 (7,500)+ 0.00% 401,130 158,247 242,883 - 39.45% 110,900 40,162 70,738 - 36.21% 1,669 0 1,669 - 0.00% 440,463 0 440,463 - 0.00% 377,550 223 377,327 - 0.06% 0 8,771 (8,771)+ 0.00% 16,771 0 16,771 - 0.00% 28,786 6,286 22,500 - 21.84% 113,579 49,688 63,891 - 43.75% 263,636 117,180 146,456 - 44.45% 5,937 0 5,937 - 0.00% 474,354 0 474,354 - 0.00% 63,423 0 63,423 - 0.00% 34,991 0 34,991 - 0.00% 1,394,845 343,817 1,051,028 - 24.65% 1,941,259 643,659 1,297,600 - 33.16% 666,826 296,028 370,798 - 44.39% 195,066 7,996 187,070 - 4.10% 218,500 152,616 65,884 - 69.85% 10,000 27 9,973 - 0.27% 172 JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND STORM WATER CONTROL FUND FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT VISITOR CENTER FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL OTHER FUNDS EXPENDITURES January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 0 141 (141)+ 0.00Z 463,036 44,008 419,028 - 9.50% 143,140 0 143,140 0.00% 0 28,223 (28,223)+ 0.00% 2,043~666 358~735 1,684,931 17.55% 10,498,411 2,787,138 7,711,273 - 26.55% 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION MODERATE REHAB. GRANT CDBG-AHIP VICTIM/WITNESS GRANT J HEALTH EDUCATION GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT TIPS RAGGED MOUNTAIN CBIP SEVERE FED. JOB TRAINING PART. ACT. DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT DRUG EDUCATION GRANT SUMMER SCHOOL FUND COMMUNITY EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH CHAPTER I CHAPTER II MIGRANT EDUCATION CAFETERIA FUND JOINT SECURITY FUND JOINT DISPATCH FUND JOINT RECREATION FACILITY TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND MCINTIRE TRUST FUND JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND STORM WATER CONTROL FUND FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT VISITOR CENTER FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL 45,344 3,113 42,231 + 28,540 13,476 15,064 + 1,015,000 337,772 677,228 + 0 109,747 (109,747)- 0 764 (764)- 0 11,434 (11,434)- 0 14,810 (14,810)- 401,130 123,643 277,487 + 110,900 19,701 91,199 + 1,669 1,668 1 + 440,463 88,036 352,427 + 377,550 103,932 273,618 + 0 4 117 (4,117)- 16,771 3 888 12,883 + 28,786 7 993 20,793 + 113,579 63 365 50,214 + 263,636 176 737 86,899 + 5,937 3 178 2,759 + 474,354 141,344 333,010 + 63,423 21,208 42,215 + 34,991 19,382 15,609 + 1,394,845 417,133 977,712 + 1,941,259 776,872 1,164,387 + 666,826 218,337 448,489 + 195,066 23,781 171,285 + 218,500 79,144 139,356 + 10,000 0 10,000 + 0 0 0+ 463,036 50,240 412,796 + 143,140 104,829 38,311 + 0 28,223 (28,223)- 2~043~666 359~272 1~684~394 + 10,498,411 3,327,139 7,171,272 + 6.87% 47.22% 33.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30.82% 17.76% 99.94% 19.99% 27.53% 0.00% 23.18% 27.77% 55.79% 67.04% 53.53% 29.80% 33.44% 55.39% 29.91% 40.02% 32.74% 12.19% 36.22% 0.00% 0.00% 10.85% 73.24% 0.00% 17.58% 31.69% T Item 4.3. a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes~for January 5, was received as information. ~ 1989, Item 4.4. Monthly Bond Report for Arbor Crest Apartments for the month of December, 1988, received as information. Item 4.5. Letter dated January 3, 1989, from Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Highway Commissioner, notifying that Route 1649 (Old OakslDrive) has been taken into the State Secondary System, received as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated October 5, 1988, the follow- ing addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective January 3, 1989: ADDITION LENGTH Ivy Oaks Route 1649 (Old Oaks Drive) cul-de-sac From Route 1647 to Southwest 0.07 mi." January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 173 Agenda Item No. 4a. Crozet School: Mr. Perkins. Mr. Way said the Board of Supervisors and the School Board would be meeting on Monday morning to discuss the Crozet School project. Most of the meeting will be in executive session and there will not be an opportunity for the public to speak at that time. He would not anticipate that a final decision would be made on Monday and that there would be another opportunity for comments. He said several citizens of the Crozet community had asked to have input to the Board before any decision is made. Mr. Perkins said there is great concern in the Crozet community from parents of school children that attend Crozet School and also of the citizens of Crozet about that project remaining in the Capital Improvements Program and being completed within the estimated time frame. He then introduced the following three people from the Crozet community who spoke. Mrs. Sharon Farmer, a parent, said the parents, teachers and students are disappointed, frustrated, angry and puzzled. They are disappointed because they have been working on this project for over three years and now find out that their work "may be for naught", even though a great deal of tax money has been invested in the project and they were told that priorities had been set. They are frustrated because they have been simple in their designs and desires. The school is not a palace and the project is not silver-coated. The increased costs are through no fault of theirs and the project should not be scrapped because of that. If the project~ is picked up at a later date, the costs will be even more. They are angry because a new school is needed as the existing school is in disrepair. This project is not full of wish list items. Finally, they are puzzled because they were told that they would get a new school and there have been other projects that have gone over budget. Most important is that they are asking their children to attend an unsafe school. She would hope that when the Board does make.its final decision that it not rely totally on the per pupil dollar figures, but consider the parents, teachers and students feelings and concerns. Mrs. Louise Ward, a parent, said she haS been on the School Building Committee for the last several years and has,found that the County used four architects on this school project. The first architect, Kamstra, Dickerson and Assoc., reported in 1985 the poor quality of the school and the many violations. The report also indicated that work on the school should be a priority. She read portions of the report (gopy on file) listing the many safety problems, code violations, and various other problems. The school is in no better shape today because nothing is going to be done on an old build- ing that is eventually to be replaced, although she can see no work beginning on the new school. All she sees is the Board hiring more architects. She understands the problems with acquiring the ~and, but the school needs to be located somewhere. A review has come back a~d suggested cutting the quality of the school. She talked to parents at Mer~wether Lewis and they have said that by cutting the quality of that school, Some of the walls only go so high and are so thin that a person can hear the n~xt class. June, 1990 is the date projected for moving into the new school, wh~chimeans that bids are needed by next month. She strongly urges the Board toipush this through and get the project going. The children are in an unsaf~ and hazardous building. If members of the B~ard vote against doing this, they will show that they do not care about children or education. Mrs. Sandra Jones, PTO President, asked how the members of the Board can consider not continuing with the new school. If this project is put off for another year, the costs will be even higher. The schedule of the project is already behind. The Board needs to take into! consideration the present day conditions and situations at Crozet, such as lthe falling ceiling, safety problems and maintenance problems. The expense of this project is through no fault of the children. The Crozet community needs a new school. This school should become the Board's top priority. The %hildren are important and their educational and safety needs must be met. The community is looking forward to the opening of a new school in 1990. Mrs. Jones then asked all of the persons present in support of the project to stand; aPproximately 30 people stood. Mr. Way said in the near future a final ~ecision on the Crozet School will be made. The Board appreciates seeing a~l of those persons who are present this evening. ~ 174 January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) Agenda Item No. 5. 769 "Rocky Hollow Road". January 10, 1989.) Public Rearing: Request from residents to name Route (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 3 and Mr. Agnor said that a petition had been submitted by some residents of State Route 769 requesting that this road be named "Rocky Hollow Road". He said the area is referenced as Rocky Hollow on most maps, and staff found no objection to this name request. Staff also did a historical search on the request and found no conflict with the name. The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. David Thompson, a resident at the end of the road, said he presented the petition requesting the naming of this road. Eventually the road will be named and there is no reason not to do so at this time. There has been little opposition to naming the road "Rocky Hollow Road". Ms. Candace Goodyear presented the Chairman with a letter (Clerk did not get a copy) from Mr. Alford Kilham, a landowner, who does oppose the change. Mrs. Rita Seale, a resident of Route 769 East, asked if eventually all of the secondary roads in the County will be named. She and her husband are happy to have a route and box number, but if at some time the roads are to be named they would favor Rocky Hollow Road. In response to Mrs. Seale, Mr. Agnor said the Dispatch Center 911 has requested that every building with a telephone in it be identified. Naming all of the roads may ultimately be the identification system used, but the staff is examining several other methods. Mr. Steven Goodyear said he is in opposition to naming the road. One of the characteristics of rural life is route numbers. It would seem to him that each residence could be more easily identified by painting the route and box number on the mailboxes. He urges the Board to not saddle the residents with an unnecessary road name, and instead keep an honorable, long-standing, national tradition of numbered rural routes. Ms. Nancy Thompsen, a resident of Route 769, said the west side of Route 769 has been named and she has been told by the Planning Commission that that name could extend over to the the east side of the road. ~Labelling the mailboxes would do no good because the mailboxes are no where near the resi- dents' homes. A solution could be that the people put n~bers on their houses. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said this road lies in his district. A minimum of ten signa- tures was received out of fifteen desiring the name change. He supports the name change. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, adopt the following resolution naming Route 769 "Rocky Hollow Road": BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the portion of Route 769 fromilRoute 20 East to the end of State maintenance, be named Rocky~Hollow Road. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom~ Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-88-99. Steven Sullivan (Clifford Land Trust). (Advertised on January 3 and January 10, 1989, in the Dai~y Progress.) For the conversion of the Old White Hall School building too ~ country store with gasoline and other fuel pumps, property on south side of Route 614, approxi- mately one-fourth mile east of intersection with Route 8lQ. Tax Map 41, Parcel 29, White Hall District. January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer SP-88-99 to February 15, 1989, at the applicant's request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. 175 Agenda Item No. 7. ZM_~-88-16. Forest Lakes Shopping Center (Deferred from January 4, 1989). (At 8:10 P.M., Mrs. Cooke abstained and left the room due to a conflict of interest.) Mr. Home said the major areas of discussion concerned the number of locations for entrances and/or crossovers on-Route 29 North. Originally the front portion of the property was proffered to allow certain access points, but due to changes in the plans by the developer and a change in conditions, one of the entrance locations does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for separation of crossovers. Mr. Home said when he presented the original staff report, he stated that it was the intent to move the Timberwood Boulevard crossover to an area further north. The reason for the move was to get the crossover into a location that had adequate elevation differences between the northbound and southbound lanes and to possibly line up with a crossover into a proposed industrial development area. He also discussed with the developer the option of regrading a portion of Route 29 North and~leaving Timberwood Boulevard alone. Mr. Home said he has since had discussions with Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department, and Mr. Roosevelt said there never was any consideration given to leaving the Timberwood Boulevard crQssover at its original location. In addition, Mr. Roosevelt said that he would not support the regrading of Route 29. It is Highway Department's recom~n~ndation that the crossover be moved to the proposed new location. '~ Mr. Horne said in terms of his memorandum to the Board dated January 10, since the last Board meeting the owners of Tilger Fuel and the developer have reached an agreement with proposed access to ~the development. Basically, the proposal is for joint ingress only on the so~thern side of Tiger Fuel. Also proposed at the entrance location, one entrance to Tiger Fuel is a relatively narrow, probably 20-foot wide lane, one-way into the shopping center. There is proposed one access point to the out-parcel as shown on the original plan and then a one-way egress only on the northern side of Tiger Fuel. The following analysis in the January 10 memorandum ms based on that scheme: "At the previous Board of Supervisors' m~eting on this request, the Board deferred action in order for staf~ to provide additional data on the traffic effects of development oD the properties in question with and without the proposed access to,Route 29. Enclosed (on file) for the Board's information are tables that illustrate the staff's analysis of the two scenarios, i~ince the Board meeting, the applicant and Tiger Fuel have submitted~an alternate proposal. That alternate is to provide a joint ingressiQnly on the south side of Tiger Fuel and a joint egress only north~of Tiger Fuel. Planning staff and VDoT have no objections to this scenario. The analysis in this memorandum assumes this alternate ~cenario. In summary, the staff's analysis mndmcates that about 1800 vehicles would utilize the Route 29 access from Tiger Fuel, the out-parcels, and the shopping center. If that accessipoint was not available and all properties were developed as shown (~ncluding Tiger Fuel), these 1800 vehicles would be distributed to Timberwood and the back access road entrances. The anticipated result ~ould be to add approxi- mately 1451 trips to the Timberwood entrance and about 362 trips to the back access road entrances. If eachfof these roadways were con- structed as currently proposed by the developer of the shopping center, the net effects on the level of service on Route 29, Timber- wood Boulevard, and the back access road: could be as follows: 176 January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) Route 29 - The addition or deletion of approximately 1800 vehicles onto Route 29, assuming the construction of a third lane as proffered, would in the staff's opinion have minimal effects on the level of service. Timberwood Boulevard The addition of approximately 1450 trips on Timberwood Boulevard would most likely decrease the level of service on the section of Timberwood Boule- vard from the back access roadto the entrance on Route 29. The level of service on this roadwayunder ultimate development is probably anticipated to be a level 'C' and the additional traffic count could potentially decrease the level of service on this roadway. The most dramatic effects would be during peak hours, but staff does not anticipate that the roadway would become Overly congested during normal operating conditions. 3e Back Access Road - The addition of approximately 360 vehicle trips to the back access road should have little or no effect on the level of service, if this roadway is constructed as currently proposed by the developer. The Board should note carefully the following assumptions: Ail out-parcels are developed with financial institutions with two drive-in windows. ~ me Even with the deletion of the direct Routg~ 29 access the current Tiger Fuel property is developed With a similar fuel facility. Be Assumed distribution to entrances is as shown in the following tables: I. Total Traffic Generation me Shopping Center (SC) Out Parcels (OP) Tiger Fuel (TF) 4,850 1,920 700 7,470 II. Distribution Assumptions me Tiger Fuel 80%~Rt. 29 20% Through SC 15% Timberwood 5% Back access Shopping Center 80% Timberwood 10% Rt. 29 10% Back access Ce Outparcel #1 50% Timberwood 50% Back access Outparcel #2 And #3 60% Rt. 29 40% Through SC 30% Timberwood 10% Back access III. Trip Distribution By Roads A. With Revised Rt. 29 Access Rt. 29 - 1813 (24%) Timberwood - 4689 (63%) Back Access 968 (13%) B. Without Rt. 29 Access January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 177 Rt. 29 0* *Assumes no separate use of TF parcel and all future use is with internal access only. Timberwood - 6140 (82%) Back Access - 968 (18%)" Mr. Bowie said he assumes there would be an entrance and exit that would not go all the way through to Tiger Fuel. Mr. Horne said that is correct and it is something of which the Board needs to be aware. As currently proffered, that access point is one of two potential access points to Tiger Fuel. That is something the Board may wish to discuss. It was never anticipated that deleting that access to the shopping center would in turn provide two access points to the Tiger Fuel parcel. The staff assumption is that deleting that access is for the entire property, subject to the proffer, and not just for the shopping center. Mr. Horne said the staff and YDoT have reviewed the proposal and have no objections. It is the staff's opinion that the difference between this proposal in terms of its effect on Route 29, or a two-way access point and its affects on Route 29 is minimal. To refresh the Board's memory, he said, the Planning Commission discussed whether to place a condition limiting the total number of vehicle trips generated from the entire commercial tract. The Commission recommended for the entire 24.2 acres, 10,350 vehicle trips per day. Given the proffers and past history of~this property, the staff does not object to approving the rezoning without a limitation on vehicle trips. Mr. Bowie commented that there is no way the number can be verified. Mr. Home said that is correct, but the staff uses traffic manuals and other data to arrive at a given number. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 20, 1988, had unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-88-16 subject to certain modifications and agreements between the applicant and the County. At this time, the public hearing was reTopened. Mr. Frank Kessler, the applicant, said one of the main concerns expressed by the Board is directing traffic from Timbe=wood Boulevard. A landscape planner has suggested that a 20-foot wide exit only be allowed to Timberwood Boulevard instead of traffic going back to Tfger Fuel and out on Route 29. He has not had the opportunity to present that proposal to staff for review, but would ask that it be considered by the Board.~ This is a major project for the community with homes costing over $175,000. ~He would ask that the Board take into consideration that the roads are being ~uilt to maximum standards and not limit the traffic count. He is developing t~is project in the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. He said this project will be a great asset to the commu- nity and as a developer he would certainly like to have the Board's support. Mr. David Sutton said he would like to Confirm what has been previously stated by Mr. Home and Mr. Kessler. He thin-ks the plan is a good one and it does alleviate some of the concerns expressed by Board members. As previously stated, when this property was first rezoned~'i it had three proffered entrances and exits; as the proposal is before the Boa~.d tonight, the plan has one entrance and one exit. He thinks the project as designed will work to every- one's benefit and he would urge the Board to ~.~pprove it. He has reviewed the plan with Mr. Roosevelt and it also meets wmth hms approval. Mr. Bowie asked the width of the frontag~ of the Tiger Fuel property. Mr. Sutton said the frontage is approximatelyi! 200 feet. Mr. Craig Van de Castle said he wrote th~ Board a letter last week sug- gesting that it use this application as an opportunity to examine whether it would be advantageous for the County to deve~0p some guidelines for the replacement of recycling centers on commercial or residential developments of a certain size, density or acreage. Here is .a large commercial development on Route 29 North, 14 acres, 71,000 square feet,::~i serving hundreds of homes and a large geographical and populated area, and the Board should consider requiring the developer to put in an area for a recycling center. A recycling center would serve an important need in reducing the~ amount of solid wastes. Also, 178 January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) if a developer is willing to incorporate a recycling area in his project, then the staff should try to work with that developer and ease whatever problems that may arise due to County regulations. Their being no further comments from the public, public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie asked if the exit only on Timberwood can be handled with the Bighway Department during site plan review. Mr. Horne replied yes, and the Board can add a general statement in the conditions authorizing the Planning Commission, should the Commission find the location acceptable, to proceed with the exit at the proposed location. He does not think the exit should be shown on the plan until the staff has had an opportunity to study it further. Mr. Bowie asked where the 10,350 vehicle trips per day figure came from. Mr. Home said the staff has routinely placed traffic limitations on rezoning~ in the urban areas, particularly in the area from Rio Road to the South Fork Rivanna River. Although, there are some differences at this location which would support there being no limitation on traffic generation, the staff was concerned about what could be generated from other unrestricted Highway Commercial zoning in the area. Mr. Lindstrom said he needs more clarification as t6 what the Planning Commission's concern was in setting the 10,350 limit. ME. Home said the Planning Commission did not want to over-restrict the limited commercial area~ provided for in Bollymead. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked how much other land is currentlY, zoned for commercial between the proposed development and the South Fork Rivanna River. Mr. Horne replied approximately 20 to 25 acres. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff felt this limitation was adequate to serve the development. ~r. Horne said yes, but it all depends on what type of commercial development~ w~ll be proposed. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board is to accept this aI~proach, what changes are recommended in the conditions. Mr. Borne said the d~wing presented to the Board tonight needs to be made a part of the approve~!Application Plan. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that Mr. Horne initial and date the drawing. Mr. Lindstrom then asked about Mr. Kessler's suggestion for an exit only onto Timberwood Boulevard. Mr. Borne said, if that suggest~oml is acceptable to th~ Board, the Board would amend Agreement #3 by adding the ~011owing sentence: "Staff may approve an additional exit only to Timberwood !~oulevard near Outparcel 3". Mr. Lindstrom asked if any change is need~ concerning the "cross easement" referenced in Modification #3. Mr. Borm~ replied no. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve ZMA-88-iI6 subject to the Modifications and Agreements as recommended by the Planning Commission to include the following changes: Agreement #2, Second sentence, add the follow- ing language: "Ail plats shall reflect appropriate acces~ easements and carry notes regarding restriction of access to U. S. Route 29 N~rth to the satisfac- tion of the Planning staff", Agreement #3, add the following sentence: "Staff may approve an additional exit only to Timberwood ~oulevard near Out-parcel 3. To include revised access plan of entranceionly and exit only as shown on sketch of the Tiger Fuel site~ initialed by M~. John T. P. Horne and dated January 18, 1989." Mr. Lindstrom said he feelsi'fthat given this development's size and other zoning on Route 29, the 10,3~0 limitation should remain. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion with the changes as stJted. Be also is in agreement with the vehicle trip limitation. If, after th~ property is devel- oped, the developer has a problem, he can come back to th~ Board for further review. Mr. Bain said he thinks this plan is an improvement and he appreciates the landowners working together. Be thinks this is a bet%er solution for the County and is happy to support the proposal. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the concern about recycling is important, but he does not think it is appropriate for the Board to ~ttach a condition to. any development until a comprehensive review program is d6ne. Because of the population, he does think this is a logical place for a recycling center. January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 179 To make everything perfectly clear, Mr. Horne suggested that Modification #1 include the following additional sentence: "To include revised access plans of entrance only and exit only as shown on sketch of TiBer Fuel site~ initialed by Mr. John T. P. Home and dated January 18~ 1989," Mr. Lindstrom accepted that in his motion, as did Mr. Bowie as seconder. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke (The Modifications and Agreements are set out in full below:) MODIFICATIONS TO APPLICATION PLAN: Note on plan that outlots are not approved for uses involving drive-in window. To include revised access plans of entrance only and exit only as shown on sketch of Tiger Fuel site, initialed by Mr. John T. P. Horne and dated January 18, 1989; Relocate access near Timberwood fo= Outlot 1 to align with main access aisle parallel to Phase I of the shopping center; Provide joint or cross easement between 0utlots 2 and 3. AGREEMENTS MADE BY THE COUNTY AND THE ARPLICANT: Agreement to develop property in general compliance with the Application Plan. Variations may ~e permitted as provided in Section 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; Staff approval of shopping center s~bdivision plats and Tiger Fuel subdivision plat. Ail plats Shall reflect appropriate access easements and carry notes regarding restriction of access to U. S. Route 29 North to the satisfaction of the Planning Staff; Staff approval of site plan for Fo=est Lakes shopping center and revised site plan for Tiger Fu61 service station. Staff may request administrative approval~of site plans for indivi- dual outlots. Staff may approve an!additional exit only to Timberwood Boulevard near Outparcel 3. To include revised access plan of entrance only and exit only as shown on a sketch of the Tiger Fuel site, initialed by Mr. John T. P. Home and dated January 18, 1989; ~i (Note: Agreement by applicant that trafficlgeneration from the ±24.2 acres of commercial zoning shall not exceed 10,350 vehicle trips per day. ~ Mrs. Cooke returned to the meeting at 8:57 P.M.) (Note: The following two petitions were!heard concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 8. SP-87-81. JWK Properties. To allow commercial stable/horse show grounds on 820 acres, zonedi~'RA~ Property on east side of Rt. 20 at Carter's Bridge, part of Viewmont Farm. Tax Map 112, Parcels 20, 21, 33A, 37D and Tax Map 113, Parcel 6A. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 3 and January 10, 1989.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: This property is primarily level to gently rolling open meadow. It is presently improved with two residences on the main tract (Parcel 20). It is bo=dered to the north by the Hardware River. Harris Creek and an unnamed stream cross the property. ~ 180 January 18, 1989 (Regular' Night Meeting) (Page 11 Directly across Route 20 is a developed area of residential lots and the Montdomaine Winery. Properties to the north, east and south are large agricultural tracts. This property is across Route 20 and Route 627 from the Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District. Applicant's Proposal: To operate a driving center for training carriage horses and drivers, and have occasional driving competi- tion. The commercial stable aspect of the use will involve training about ten students for sessions of one to several weeks. Horses will be provided and will not be boarded. Student lodging will not be provided. The applicant proposes one to two major international competitions per year that may generate 2000 to 3000 visitors. In addition, approximately three similar scale seasonal events may attract up to 500 people each. The future stable location is behind the proposed mUseum. A major part of the driving centre will consist of paddocks for grazing. The driving course for training follows the perimeter of the prop- erty. At its closest point, it is approximately 150 feet from a property line. Three lakes are proposed to be constructed of puddled clay with the edges planted in trees and native wildflowers. The driving course route will be over undulating topography. Certain stretches, if not the entire driving course,~ will be streng- thened with fiber reinforcement or a layer of clean~.~stones beneath the grass surface. Certain stretches of the course;i especially in the valleys, will use drains. Alternate routes wil! be provided where there is a danger of soil erosion due to heavy rainfall. The course will be landscaped, and steeper slopes will Se planted to protect against wind or water erosion. The competition course follows part of the same rouCe as the driving course, but includes more difficult stretches and s~eeper gradients. It incorporates prepared hazards as required for the!. competltmon (shown as squares on the concept plan), such as a fo~.d across a shallow lake. The area crossed in the lake will be !3 reinforced lake bottom. No structures such as bleachers are anticipated. Instead, specta- tors will sit upon grassed areas which are graded t°!i!produce an amphitheater type of slope for viewing the competition. Two areas, which can also be used as a parade ring and a small !~olo field, will be constructed on the plateau on the northern portiOh of the property. A screen will be planted along the western boundary?~:to minimize traffic noise from the main entrance road. A second;~ry access point is proposed for exiting traffic and emergency servic~ during peak periods, such as after a competition. A screened sewage treatment plant will be located near the Hardware River. It will treat discharge from the museum, sta~les, etc. The use of the Hardware River as discharge water and thei~presence of numerous springs on the property indicate that the ngcessary central sewage plant and central water supply should be fea: {ble. Comprehensive Plan: This property is located in Rur~ Route 20 in this area is shown in the current Compr~ a future road deficiency with Carter's Bridge noted road deficiency. Route 20 is a designated scenic hi Hardware River is noted with others in the Plan for scenic quality. Area IV. .ensive Plan as a current 'hway. The ts unusual The Comprehensive Plan outlines the general goal of ~upport and preservation of agricultural activity within the Rural Areas. The statement of intent of the Rural Areas zone in the Z~ning Ordinance reinforces that goal. Staff Comment: The Albemarle Driving Centre is propQsed as the second phase of development, to be constructed after ~he Albemarle Carriage Museum. The major competition events will Piroduce the most January 18, i989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) intensive impact on this property and the area, with the introduc- tion of as many as 3000 visitors in a day. (As a comparison, at each event there are 15,000 to 20,000 visitors at Foxfield, and there were 5,000 to 8,000 visitors at the County Fair this year.) Assuming two people/one car times two trips, a major event could generate 3000 vehicle trips in spectator traffic. Ultimate by right development could generate 378 vehicle trips per day. All visitor traffic will enter only at the main gate, or Keen, entrance. Staff recommends the installation of both left and right turn lanes. Route 20 is a high speed, high volume primary route which includes traffic from southern outlying counties, Scottsville, etc., and nearby local attractions such as the Hatton Ferry and Montdomaine Winery. Traffic control would include the assistance of the County Police Department. Traffic will exit from the main gate and a second point along Route 20. Staff recommends the second access be located north of th, main gate to avoid exiting traffic crossing. It is staff's opinion that this proposal is appropriate in this area and meets the intent of the commercial Stable and hors,show grounds provision, the Rural Areas district and ithe Comprehensive Plan. As a result of the proposed setback, landscaping and site design, it will not be contrary to the intent of the scenic highway (Route 20) or the scenic quality of the Hardware River. Due in part to its siting within large acreage so as to be~.physically distant from other properties, it should not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. This use is supportive of the agricultural industry, and, therefore, is supportive"~'of the agricultural/forestal district intent. While this proposal will generate more ~raffic than by-right devel- opment, it is a type of bona fide agricultural use and should be supported. The applicant requests admin:istrative approval of the site plan. Conditions of approval reco~]nended here are similar to those for Foxfield. Staff recommends approval subject to th~ following: '~lan; 1. Administrative approval of the site<~ 2. Virginia Department of Transportatiqn approval of commercial entrance with right and left turn 1 ~aLnes; 3. Approval of appropriate state and l~cal agencies; 4. Major competitions to be held not mqre than twice a calendar year; 5. Ninety days prior to each major eve~, the applicant shall notify the following: a. The Health Department for appro~D1 of the provision of restroom facilities b. The Fire Department and Rescue S~guad; and c. The Police Department for traffic control, as deemed neces- sary by the Chief of Police. No billboards, grandstands, or lighting on the track; No more than one additional entrance~ other than the main entrance, may be permitted; its location shall be subject to staff approval." 181 Mr. Horn, said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 5, 1989, recommended approval of SP-87-81 subject to the following conditions of the staff and amendments: 1. Virginia Department of Transportati6n approval of commercial entrance with right and left turn lanes; 2. Approval of appropriate state and 16cal agencies; 3. Major competitions to be held not more than twice a calendar year; 4. Ninety days prior to each major event, the applicant shall notify the following: 182 January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) The Health Department for approval of the provision of restroom facilities; The Fire Department and Rescue Squad; and The Police Department for traffic control, as deemed necessary by the Chief of Police; No billboards, grandstands, or lighting on the track; The noise level shall not exceed 40 decibels at any property line; No more than one additional entrance other than the main entrance may be permitted, its location shall be subject to staff approval; This special use permit is for the use described by the appli- cant in the application and materials in the public record of the public hearings. Mr. Lindstrom asked what is envisioned as a major competition and why not limit the number of non-major competitions. Also, why should no more than 2,000 to 3,000 visitors be anticipated? He would imagine that initially there would be a tremendous amount of curiosity. Mr. Horne said the staff defined a major competition as ~ne which would be a major international competitions generating 2,000 to 3,000 visitors. With regard to minor competitions, the staff relied on the applicant's description of what carriage competitions are like. The staff has limited knowledge of how many people come to carriage competitions and the demand for such competitions. If that is a particular concern of the Board, he can draft more specific languag~i. Mr. Lindstrom said limiting the number of events might be worth considering~ Mr. Horne said the staff has no problem with that suggestion. Mr. Lindstrom~ said the Board initially thought there would be only two events per yea~il at Foxfield; now, howver, many events are held there every year. Mr. Horne'~ said in this case, the applicant has provided a detailed description of the~i~nticipated use. Given the improvements to be made, the staff did not include a limitation on the number of smaller scale events because at a level of i~pproximately 500 people per event, the staff did not think that would be al major strain on the highway system. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a separate permit process is .required for the sewage treatment plant. Mr. Horne said the applicant must obtain a discharge permit, which sets stream limits, from the State Water cQntrol Board. In accordance with Chapter 10 of the County Code, the County' Engineer must revie~ the sewage treatment plant design, but that does not inc~hde approval or denial of the discharge system. Mr. Bain asked how many i0f these treatment systems are presently in the county. Mr. Horne said he dpes not know the total number, but it is not a large number. Mr. Lindstr~ asked who inspects the plans for the system. Mr. Home said the State Wate={ Control Board has an inspection program. Samples and reports are submitted t0! the State, but on-site inspections are not done frequently. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-87-98. JWK Properties. To allow a museum for display of horse drawn vehicles on property zoned RA. P~perty on east side of Rt. 20 at Carter's Bridge, part of Viewmont Farm. Tax.~Map 112, Parcels 20, 2lA, 33A, 37D and Tax Map 113, parcel 6A. Scottsville Dii~trict. (Advertised on January 3 and January 10, 1989.) "Character of the Area: This property is primarily i~evel to gently rolling open meadow. It is presently improved with ~wo residences on the main tract (Parcel 20). It is bordered to th~ north by the Hardware River. Harris Creek and an unnamed stream ~ross the property. Directly across Rt. 20 is a developed area of residential lots and the Montdomaine Winery. Properties to the north, eagt and south are large agricultural tracts. This property is across ~t. 20 and Rt. 627 from the Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal D%strict. Applicant's Proposal: The proposal is to construct ~nd operate an agricultural museum for the purpose of research and public display of the horse drawn carriage. A limited area will be!~utilized as a museum gift shop for the sale of material related to ~museum January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 183 artifacts. The museum will be the first phase of development, to be followed by (SP-87-81), the Albemarle Driving Centre for training and competitions using these carriages. Because this proposal is unique with few close comparisons, description will beextensive. The museum will be designed to resemble a barn/stable that would have been built in the eighteenth century and converted to a car- riage barn and museum. The materials will be of the period: brick water table, beaded board siding, and a slate roof. The windows will have actual divided lights and all details will be historically derived. The concept plans shows the museum to be set back approximately 2000 feet (0.4 mile) from Rt. 20. It will be situated at the end of the existing drive and alley of trees. A new entrance south of the existing entrance will be established and the existing entrance closed, due to insufficient sight distance. Employee and service parking will be located to the rear. Parking areas are proposed to be extensively screened from Rt. 20. Visitors will walk or use a shuttle van to enter the museum. Future plans include the use of horse drawn carriages for taxi service. Improvements will include new parking lots, new footpaths and an ecological program to rejuve- nate the soils and provide shade. The applicant further states: The operation of the museum is planned to be as follows: Visitors Admittance: On Tuesday through Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.; Visitor flow for the first five years is projected to be less than 100,000 annually. Visitors w~ll arrive by car and bus; Museum Employees: The museum will employ 18 on a daily basis. There is also an existing farm house that may be used as quarters for the museum curator. A security guard will be on duty at all times; Services: Ail deliveries and disposals will be scheduled during non-operational hours. These will include material delivery, rubbiSh removal, equipment servicing (if possible), etc; There will be a package sewage treatment plant for the museum. There will be two new wells needed per our preliminary testings. Staff Comment: This property has historical significance as Viewmont. The original Fry house, since burned, was built prior to 1744 and was long believed to be the oldest house in Albemarle County. Unfortunately, no significant historical structures remain. This proposal initiated the Zoning Text ~nendment provision for 'agricultural museum.' It is defined as 'an establishment operated as a repository or collection of Curiosities or objects of agricul- tural interest or significance for public display.' The Virginia Department of Transportation comments 'this request will certainly generate more traffic than is allowed by the current zoning.' Carter's Bridge is the only truss bridge on a primary route in Albemarle County. Staff estimates additional traffic generation to be 336 vehicle trips per day(except Monday), or 2016 vehicle trips per week. Ultimate by-right development into 54 lots could generate 378 vehicle trips per day~ or 2646 vehicle trips per week. The applicant has agreed to construction'of a left turn lane and to a right turn lane, if further required by the County. Due to the fact that a large majority of visitors to the site will be coming 184 January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) from the north, staff stresses the necessity of a left turn lane. In accordance with the general policy on primary route commercial entrances, and due to the traffic generators (Scottsville, Hatton Ferry, Montdomaine) to the south, staff also recommends construction of a right turn lane. The use of the Hardware River as a discharge water and the presence of numerous springs on the property indicate that the necessary central sewage treatment plant and centralwater supplies should be feasible. It is staff's opinion that this proposal is appropriate in this area and meets the intent of the agricultural museum provision, the Rural Areas district and the Comprehensive Plan. As a result of the proposed setback, landscaping and site design, it will not be contrary to the intent of the scenic highway (Rt. 20) or the scenic quality of the Hardware River. Due in part to its siting within large acreage so as to be physically distant from other properties, it should not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. This use is supportive of the agricultural industry~ and, therefore, is supportive of the agricultural/forestal district~intent. There- fore, staff recommends approval subject to the following: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval!of commercial entrance with right and left turn lanes; 2. Appropriate local and state agency approval of ithe provision of sewage disposal and water supply; 3. Museum gift shop is permitted for the sale of material related to museum artifacts; sales area shall not exceed ten percent of the total museum building area; 4. Administrative approval of the site plan; 5. Landscape screening shall be provided from Rt. hO in accordance with Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.'! Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meetiing on January 5, 1989, unanimously recommended approval of SP-87-98 subjec,~ to the conditions of the staff and amendments as follows: 1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval ~f commercial entrance with right and left turn lanes; 2. Appropriate local and state agency approval of ~the provision of sewage disposal and water supply; 3. Museum gift shop is permitted for the sale of m~terial related to museum artifacts; sales area shall not exceeR ten percent of the total museum building area; 4. Landscape screening shall be provided from Rout~ 20 in accor- dance with Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ord~nmnce; 5. This special use permit ~s for the use descr~be~ by the appli- cant in the application and materials in the public record of the public hearings; 6. Agricultural museum shall be operated in conjunction with SP-87-81. Mr. Horne said the reason the Planning Commission ad'ed condition ~/6 was the concern that the museum was not directly tied to the ~gricultural industr] in the County. This was an attempt to not have a precedent for unrelated museums that did not have much bearing on t~ agricultura~ industry. Since horses are an industry in this county that was the connection. Mr. Way said he understands the reasons for tieing t~e two applications together, but if the driving center runs out of students Roes that mean the museum will no longer be operated. He thinks the two appiications should stand on their own. He does not see why continuation of ~he museum~ should depend upon the driving course. Mr. Horne said that was ~riefly discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, but as long as there is ~n active operation involving commercial stable and horse competitions of som9 type, that would meet the intent of SP-87-81. Mr. Way Said he agrees that ~ithe use needs to be January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 18 tied to agriculture and if this property were to change hands that the facili- ty not be turned into a museum for antique cars. Mr. Bain asked about the the size of the museum. Mr. Home said he does not know because it is still being designed. Mr. Perkins asked if the reason for the sewage treatment plant is because it is cheaper. Mr. Horne said he does not know, but he would imagine that due to the volume a mass drainfield would be difficult to install. Also, the Health Department is becoming more leery of large-scale commercial drain- fields. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Representing the applicant, Mr. John F. Williamson, said he has no prepared presentation and is present to answer any questions Board members may have. The notion of the museum is unique in that the applicant wants to marry the idea of the horse with the vehicle and that it will be a living museum. In response to Mr. Bain concerning the size, the present building is approxi- mately 32,000 square feet including office space. In response to Mr. Perkins, the reason for the sewage treatment plant was an ecologically based decision which seemed the best solution for the property. Mr. Nick Carter, owner of property adjacent to Viewmont, said he was also present representing two other property owners. He questions whether the owner has made any long term commitment as to what would happen should the operation fail. The proposed operation will change the face of the community. His other question is that if the applicant Commercializes this portion of the property, can he develop the remainder. He also thinks that the type of vehicles that will be traveling Route 20 to get to this operation needs to be described. Mr. St. John said the special permit supersedes and preempts any other kind of use on the property until such time as the special permit is revoked and the underlying zoning reinstated. Although he does not think the special permit covers the entire farm, the applicant cannot get a special permit and then come back and use the underlying residehtial zoning density. The later has been preempted by the former. He does q6estion and think the boundaries for the special permit use should be clarified. Mr. Horne said the special permit is tied to parcels. Mr. St. John sai~ that in granting the special permit, the Board can state either the underlying residential by-right zoning is not extinguished, or the Board can state its intent to extinguish the underlying zoning. Mr. Home said the appligant and staff have discussed ways to preserve some development ability on the portion of the property not subject to the true improvements. Mr. Perkins asked if this property would still qualify for land use taxation. Mr. St. John said if the applicant is still actively farming parts of the property that portion would qualify. ~' Continuing with the public hearing, Mr.!iEric Seller asked if approving this request would open the door for the applicant or future owners to set up a track for trotters or paramutual betting. Mr. Home said the intent of condition #8 is to preclude anything such as~hat. Mr. Nick Carter asked if the applicant ~as made any commitment to endow- ing this use for 80 or 90 years in case the land does change hands, so that the use will remain as it was intended. Mr. Way said he does not know the answer to the question. I There being no further public comments, ~he public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said his problem is not wi~h the museum, but with the driving center. This is a proposal that can &asily generate a lot of activity and traffic, and there is no condition in the~iapproval about the driving center. There is a description of the activity included with the staff's report. He would consider tieing condition KS to the staff report. He also thinks the Board needs to be particularly careful about approving this request. He does not know where the estimate!~of 2000 to 3000 people came from, but he would expect thousands of peoplei~to attend this first event, if 186 January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) for no other reason than curiosity. He is concerned that the Board has no idea when a competition becomes a major competition or the difference between that and a minor competition. He would feel better if there was an absolute limit on the number of competitions per year. He can support the application if a limit is placed on the number of events and if condition #8 is tied to the staff's description of the applicant's proposal. Otherwise, he is not willing to support the application because it is so open-ended. Mr. Bain said he is concerned with the duration, size and number of the events and thinks the Board needs to somehow control those. Mr. Lindstrom said condition #4 only applies to major competitions. There needs to be some language which would allow the staff further review if problems with traffic congestion or something unanticipated occurs. A condi- tion could be added that 90 days prior to each of the ten events, a review would be conducted by the staff or that the staff be notified of every event. Mr. St. John suggested wording to the effect that if the~number of people anticipated exceeds the number set out in this application, then the Board reserves the right to review the conditions and impose whatever amendments or new conditions are necessary to alleviate the problems generated by the crowds. Mr. St. John said in response to Mr. Carter, th~ Board cannot require that the land be endowed and if that is a concern the only way to handle it is to deny the application. Mrs. Cooke asked if there would be training of horses owned by others the use?~arriages owned by other than the applicant. Mr.~Horne said it is his understanding that other people may have the use of the Course for their carriages and horses. He has no idea of the volume or daily occurrence. Mrs Cooke said she would like to know how much traffic is goi!ng to be generated the training center. She then asked Mr. Williamson if sQme sort of definite program is being set up to facilitate people to come in ~nd train on the course'either on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. Mr. Williamson responded yes. The driving center program wouldbe for prescribed ~orses for one week, two weeks, etc. This would mean as many as perhaps ten at any given time. There is no way to know how many would take advantage of this because the driving community is not a huge one. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many days each competition involves. Mr. Williamson responded a major event is a three-day competition. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the applicant would be expecting two, three-day i~ompetitions a year and the other competitions would basically be one-day evehts. Mr. Williamson responded yes to the three-day competitions. There is on~ competition pres- ently held in Charlottesville that is a one-day event. T~e applicant also expects to hold day outings with neighbors. Mr. Lindstr°~ asked if admission would be charged to nonparticipants. Mr. Williamson replied he did not know The numbers are simply estimates. As he understands it, ~here are two major competitions that occur at the present time on the east c~ast. One is in Hills, New Jersey, south of New York City,'and it draws a~proximately 8000 persons, and then there is one in Maryland which draws le~s than 1000 persons. There is no way to get a better estimate of the numbers. !!Mr. Lindstrom asked if the applicant intends to advertise the events in tradeli~magazines or publi- cations. Mr. Williamson said he does not know. ~ Mr. Home asked Mr. Williamson if he had an idea of ~he anticipated number of smaller competitions per year. Mr. Williamson ~aid two or three have been suggested, but nothing final. ~ Mr. St. John said in light of the questions that hav~ been raised, and if it is the Board's intent to approve the petition, there s~ould be another condition added which specifically states that agricultural activities under the County's definition of agriculture are not precluded 5y this special permit, but that development of the underlying residentia~ zoning is ~ by this special permit. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with Mr. St. John and that wording would address some of his concerns. He woul~suggest that condition #3 be amended as follows: "Not more than ten cdmpetitions be held per calendar year of which no more than two shall exceed ~ne day and none shall exceed three days." He would also suggest adding ai~ondition ~10: "Further review by the Board of Supervisors shall be required in the event that attendance at events exceeds 3000 persons". Mr. St. John said a better wording would be that "The Board reserves the right to rev~iew and amend the January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 187 conditions if the number exceeds." Mr. Lindstrom said he is not sure about tieing the two applications together because if something happens to the driving center, he does not think the Board will do away with the use. It is in the Board's authority to see that the driving center not become something else. Mr. Bowie said he would suggest that condition #5 read: "This special use permit is for an agricultural museum." Mr. Home said he personally thinks there is a somewhat tenuous link between the proposed carriages and agriculture in Albemarle County and he thinks the link is through the horse industry. That is the reason he would agree that there has to be an active use, either in horse raising, display, or training in order to avoid future applications for museums that are not related. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-87-81 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and modified as follows: Condition #3: "Not more than ten competitions shall be held during any calendar year of which no more than two shall exceed three consecutive days and the remainder shall not exceed one day per event." Condition #4: Replace the word "event" with "competition". Add a condition #9: "Agricultural activities under our definition of agriculture are not precluded by this special use permit, but that the,development of the underlying residential zoning is precluded by this special use permit." Condition #8: "This sPecial use permit is for the use described under Applicant's Proposal in the ~taff report presented and dis- cussed at the Board of Supervisors' meeting on January 18, 1989." Mr. Horne said he would prefer that the Board leave condition #8 as recommended by the Planning Commission and add the new language as an additional condition. Mr. Lindstrom responded he knows what is in the Staff report, but does not know what all has been said in the public hearings. If there is a conflict, he would rather go with what he has seen in wri{ing rather than something that has been said. Mr. Lindstrom said continuin~ with the conditions, add a condition #10: "The Board reserves the righ~ to review and amend the condi- tions if attendance at the events exceeds the numbers estimated in the staff report." Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Mr. Williamson asked what the condition~i do to the large amount of property not directly involved in the application. Mr. Lindstrom responded the special permit would have to be amended ~o apply any other use to the property. Mr. Williamson asked if constructing an incidental house would fall into that category. Mr. St. John responded ~es, but not if it was a farm building or something related to the agricultural use. There being no further discussion, roll!~was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. (The conditions as approved are set out'~in full below:) Virginia Department of TransportatiOn approval of commercial entrance with right and left turn !anes; 2. Approval of appropriate state and iocal agencies; Not more than ten competitions shall be held per calendar year, of which no more than two shall exceed three consecutive days and the remainder shall not exceed .one day per event. Ninety days prior to each major competition, the applicant shall notify the following: The Health Department for appr6val of the provision of restroom facilities; ~ The Fire Department and RescuelSquad; and The Police Department for traffic control, as deemed necessary by the Chief of Poli~e; 188 me 10. January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Pagelg) No billboards, grandstands, or lighting on the track; The noise level shall not exceed 40 decibels at any property line; No more than one additional entrance other than the main entrance may be permitted, its location shall be subject to staff approval; This special use permit is for the use described under Appli- cant's Proposal in the staff report presented to and discussed at the Board of Supervisors' meeting on January 18, 1989; Agricultural activities under our definition of agriculture are not precluded by this special use permit, but that the develop- ment of the underlying residential zoning is precluded by this special use permit; The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to review and amend the conditions if attendance at these events exceeds the numbers estimated in the staff report. With regard to SP-87-98, Mr. Lindstrom suggested the following amendment to condition ~/6: "The agricultural museum shall be operated in conjunction with an agriculture use~.~related to the purpose of the museum." The reason being that there needs to be some agricultural use in conjunction with the museum. Mr. Home said he has no objection to that amendment and agrees that there needs to be a link that references the fact that this is an agricultural use. Mr. Bowie then suggested that condition ~/5 be amended as follows: "This special use permit is for an agricultural museum as described in the staff report presented to the Board on January 18, 1989." Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-87-~ subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and amendment of condition f/6 as stated above. Mr. Bain asked about condition ~/5. iht. Lindstrom said he would feel more comfortable stating the use will be as d~Scribed in one particular document. Mr. Bowie said he does nOt have an~iireal feelings one way or the other, but this has all been read into the re~6rd and this is the staff report. Mr. Lindstrom said instead of "the application" he would like amend to read: "... the letter dated November 28, 1988, ~6 Mr. Horne, by the applicant..." because he has seen that document. Mrs. C~bke seconded the motion. There being no further, discussion, roll was called a~d the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke., Messrs. Lindstron~ Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. (The conditions as approved are set out in full beloW:) 1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval ~f commercial entrance with right and left turn lanes; 2. Appropriate local and state agency approval of ~he provision of sewage disposal and water supply; 3. Museum gift shop is permitted for the sale of material related to museum artifacts; sales area shall not excee~ 10 percent of the total museum building area; 4.Landscape screening shall be provided from Rout~ 20 in accor- dance with Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance; 5. This special use permit is for the use described by the appli- cant in a letter dated November 28, 1988, addressed to Mr. John Home, signed by Philippe de Villegas, Directori Albemarle Carriage Museum & Driving Center; January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 6. The agricultural museum shall be operated in conjunction with an agricultural use related to the purpose of the museum. (At 10:21 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. 10:30 P.M.) 189 The Board reconvened at Agenda Item No. 10. SP-88-103. Lois Beckwith. To allow one additional development right to parcel, zoned RA. Property on west side of Rt. 787 (Gilliums Ridge Road), approximately 1,100 feet south of intersection with Rt. 682. Tax Map 57, Parcel 5lB. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 3 and January 10, 1989.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: The property is presently improved with a single family residence. It is located approximately 600 feet off Rt. 787. The property is heavily wooded, with a small clearing around the existing residence. No public roads or other dwellings are visible from this site. The area of the existing and proposed dwellings is fairly level; the rear and~sides of the lot slope sharply down to an unnamed stream tributary to the Mechums River. Property immediately surrounding it consists primarily of large farm parcels. Across Rt. 787 there are several subdivisions, including Ivy Woods, Eglinton, and Skyline Crest. These subdivisions total 69 lots, with an overall average lot size of 2.0 acres. Parcel 5lB is comprised of 3.329 acres. An additional 0.8 acre portion of Parcel 51 is to be added to Parcel 5lB. By right, this property cannot be further developed or<idivided. Therefore, this is a request for one additional dwelling ox lot than is allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant's Proposal: The application states 'a special use permit is desired to allow the construction of ia small four room cottage on the edge of the Beckwith property. The ientire parcel will be purchased by Dr. and Mrs. David Hawkes (~son-in-law and daughter), who will live in the main house. Mrs. Beckwith, now age 75, will live in the cottage, providing maximum independence but close enough to be cared for as necessary. The property will not be subdivided at any time. Long term use might include housing for the Hawkes children during college, or as a rental~unit in the distant future. Surveying is completed and a building permit obtained. Legal work has already been finished, with the purchase of 0.8 acres from the Leavell's expressly facilitated to build this cottage with their approval. We do not believe this construction should adversely impact upon anyone. Please note: The applicants attempted tO purchase 2.0 acres and a development right from the Leavells (owners of Parcel 51 and adja- cent Parcel 52) to accomplish their intent by right, but were not able to obtain their consent. They were. able however, to purchase sufficient acreage to provide the minimum 2.0 acres minimum per dwelling unit. Comprehensive Plan: I. Important Farmland. This property ~%s not of sufficient size to qualify for the land use program or to p~actically be farmed. The residue of Parcel 51 is in the land use ~rogram for forestry and agriculture, i~ II. Water Supply Watershed. This property is located within the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna Wate~supply Reservoir. A small stream runs through the western portion ~f the property. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends the m~ximum density of one dwelling unit per ten acres for an impo~dment watershed. 190 January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) Special Use Permit Criteria: Soils in this area include Hayesville clay loam and Hayesville loam. The Hayesville clay loam is deep, well drained, and strongly sloping. This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops, but can be permanent pasture or woodland. The Hayesville loam is deep, well drained and gently sloping. This soil is well suited to crops, pasture, etc. This property has not been used for agricultural or forestal produc- tion since 1950. The discussion of the proposal's impact on agri-- cultural or forestal use of the property is not relevant. The property is not of sufficient size or topography as to be useful for agricultural or forestal activities unless combined with other property. This property is surrounded by two parcels (51 and 52) which are in agricultural and forestal land use. Horses are kept on the fenced meadow in front of this property. The Zoning Ordinance and Compre- hensive Plan discuss direct and indirect effects of development on the agricultural and forestal industry. Direct effects include the desire to regulate routine farm activities by the residents of development. Staff estimates that one-half of the land within a one mile radius was in lots of five acres or less. Therefore, thisiis a developed rural area. There are at least six major subdivisions with a total of about 300 lots with an approximate two acre average lot size within a one mile radius. Staff Comment: The proposed development meets the ihtent of the 'family division' exemption provision of the Subdivision Ordinance by maintaining the family estate within the family. There are, however, no such provisions within the Zoning Ordinance. To staff's knowledge, this is the first request to allow additional development for use within the family and not for commercial sale or rent. While staff is sympathetic to the request because (~) the applicant has invested considerable time and money and was even issued a building permit in error; (b) it will provide for maintaining the family estate within the family; (c) the applicant has made a genuine attempt to obtain sufficient acreage and a development right to do this 'by-right'; and (d) it will provide independent housing for an elderly person, it does not meet the criteri~outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Therefore~:ilstaff recom- mends denial of this petition. In this recommendation of denial, staff has considerRd these addi- tional points: 1. It would be difficult to deny other requests w!~h no develop- ment rights. If the FAMILY aspect of this pet~'~ion is grounds for distinction from other past requests, it will. be likely to catalyze many future requests which may utilize a short-term pretense of FAMILY estate planning for future c~mmercial gain. 2. This property is within the watershed reservoirl and development limitation protects water quality. In fact, iti~..,has been discussed that special use permits for additional lots should not be permitted on land that drains to the reservoir. 3. As the Planning Commission and Board of SuperviSors have recognized with their Comprehensive Plan work s~ssions, growth in the rural areas in general and particularly ~n the western portion of the County, far exceeds that intended by the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. While the impact of this one additional dwelling is negligible, the precedence is signifi- cant. Please note that the applicant has the option of expanding the existing dwelling to accommodate both Mrs. Beckwith and the Hawke family. This would not, however, allow for the physically separated independent living arrangement desired." January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) 191 Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 5, 1989, unanimously recommended denial of the request. Mr. Home read a portion of the following letter from Mrs. Beckwith, addressed to the Board, which was received after the Planning Commission meeting: "I have applied to Albemarle County for a special use building permit for the following reasons: Over fifteen years ago my husband and I felt that we had reached an 'age of slowing down'. We bought 3.3 acres of land from Dr. and Mrs. Leavell, Sr. and built a house for our retirement. My husband, Dr. Beckwith, died a little over six years ago. Since we had lived here for some years and loved the area, I wanted to remain, be it alone. However, after having had a heart attack last summer, I felt it was time for me to make different plans for the future. My daughter and her husband, Dr. Hawkes, felt it would be advanta- geous to them and me to sell them the house and build a cottage for me close by. I agreed and so we started on the plans. Much effort and expenses have already been incurred towards these plans. We feel this is a unique situation. If this permit is granted, I will be willing to place certain restrictions on it as follows: There will be no subdivision of the property; The cottage will contain only two bedrooms; and The cottage will contain approximately only 850 square feet. I hope that you will act favorably on my request." Mr. St. John said a point of clarification, the original Beckwith tract had 3.32 acres and by enlarging it to more tBan four it would then meet the density of the Zoning Ordinance, and at less ~han four it had only one devel- opment right under RA zoning. Mr. Horne said there is only one development right associated with the Beckwith tract andlobtaining additional acreage did not give it an additional development right so it could be divided or an additional dwelling unit built. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked if someone from staff gave the Beckwith's advice that lead them to believe that all they had to do,was add this eight~tenths of an acre. Mr. Home said he does not know, but Mrs. Beckwith did speak to someone on the staff. That conversation seemed to lead Mrs. Beckwith to believe that having the four acres was the only thing needed to be satisfied. Also, a building permit was issued. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any work has been done pursuant to the building permit. Mr. Home said there has been some clearing of the vegetation. He does not know if the tltansfer of property has taken place. Mr. St. John asked if it was before or after a mistake was realized that Mrs. Beckwith tried to get the additional land and development right from the Leavells'. Mr. Home said he does not know. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board believes that, in good faith reliance on erroneous information, the applicant put herm~lf in this position, is that a distinction that would allow the Board to approve this request without setting a precedent. Mr. St. John said he believes it is a distinction, but the Board will always be faced with the factual determination of whether something like this was done in good faith or not. It was all done in the Board's absence and there is no way the Board can get direct proof on whether it was done in good faith or not. Under strict legal rules as opposed to rules of equity, a permit issued which was contrary to the law either in good faith or not, is a void permit and vests no right. He thinks this is a distinction which would 192 January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) enable the Board to treat the next applicant differently~ He also thinks that if the next applicant convinced the Board that the same thing happened in good faith, then this precedent would apply but only in the case where the Board is convinced it happened in good faith. Mr. Bain asked if it would stand up in court if the Board denied the next application. Mr. St. John said a good faith issue is always something of valid distinction in court. The problem is determining which cases are of good faith and which ones are not. At this time, the public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mrs. Lois Beckwith, said it was all in good faith. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mrs. Beckwith to describe the process she went through. Mrs. Beckwith said she came to the County Building and talked to someone concerning the possibility of building a cottage and the person told her there would be no problem. He told her she needed to acquire some additional acreage to have a total of four acres. Based on that, she had the property surveyed and acquired the additional acreage. She then turned everything over to a contractoc who drew up the plans and got the building permit. Mrs. Beckwith said she has a conditional contract in that she has no~ yet paid for the property and will do so only if this request is approved by the Board. Mr. Lindstrom asked at what point Mrs. Beckwith became aware of the problem with the developmen~ right. Mrs, Beckwith said right before Christmas. Mr. St. John asked. Mrs. Beckwith how she found out there was a problem. Mrs. Beckwith said s~e received a letter from someone on the staff. Mr. Lindstrom asked-how much money Mrs. Beckwith spent before she received the notification. Mrs. Beckwi[h responded $845. Mr. Home said Mrs. Beckwith received a letter from the Z~ning Department. Mr. St. John asked Mrs. Beckwmth mf mt was before or after she received the letter telling her there was a problem that she went to ~r. Leavell to try to get an additional development right. Mrs. Beckwith said ~fter she received the letter. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this permit is not approved if she can give the land back and won't have any additional expenses~ Mrs. Beckwith responded yes, but she has lived in the country for 20 years and she dreads the thought of having to move back to town or into a retirement home. Mr. Perkins asked if it would not be desirable to live in the~existing dwelling the property. Mrs. Beckwith responded that she could not+ She has lived by herself for six and one-half years, and is too old to start living in the laps of her children and grandchildren. Mr. Byrd Leavell said he and his wife are the surrounding landowners and are in support of Mrs. Beckwith's plans. He has always m~de it clear that they would sell Mrs. Beckwith the property without the additional development right. Dr. David Hawkes, Mrs. Beckwith's son-in-law, said h~ thinks this is a unique situation and he understands the reason the Plannijg Commission denied the request. This request is simply for a four room cottage. The proposed site is level. There is no extra erosion that would add to the watershed. There is no extra driveway to be built. The land is not ~or any other intended use. This does not appear to him to have much o~ an impact on anybody except for some potential precedent. Again, the ~ottage will have minimal impact. There being no further comments, the public hearing ~as closed. Mr. Lindstrom said when he first got married he lived in a cottage that was built for exactly this purpose, but it was physically ~attached with a long breezeway and asked if that is something that is preventedby not having the development right. Mr. Home said the distinction made b~ the Zoning Adminis- trator is whether the apartment or separate unit is an independent living unit. The prima facie evidence that the Zoning Administrator uses is the existence of kitchen facilities and bathroom facilities which constitutes a separate living unit. Mr. Lindstrom said he appreciates Mrs. Beckwith's honesty and frankness, but he does not think anything has been done that cannot b~ undone. Consider- ing that Mrs. Beckwith has proposed some restrictions and ~here is a way to insure that the property could not be subdivided, then the~e is not much of a precedent for creating an additional development right. M~. Home replied that is correct and would somewhat limit the potential precedent. January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) 193 Mr. Lindstrom said, for example, he has 90 acres, with no development rights remaining, if this request is approved, could he use it as a precedent to build 45 rental units, if he is willing to build the roads in accordance with County standards and file a site plan. Mr. Home said no, because you would need the development rights for the units also, not just the lots. Mr. Bowie said the letter the Board received from Mrs. Beckwith is undated and handwritten and he asked to make sure it was from her. Mrs. Beckwith replied that she wrote the letter. Mr. St. John said he is not trying to advocate one way or another but if the Board were to find itself in court because of its approval of this request, a judge is not going to say the Board must grant every other special permit because of this approval. The applicants who come afterwards have to show that their situation is indistinguishable from this application. Every factor in this case would be compared with every factor in the second case. Mr. Bain said the sole reason for this request is for an additional development right. The Board must consider the magnitude as well as the other criteria for a special permit. That is the problem he has as well as this is in the area of the reservoir. He is sympathetic with Mrs. Beckwith's posi- tion, but in his mind it carries much weight.with the Zoning Ordinance and enforcement of the Ordinance. For those reasons and reasons given by staff, he would offer motion to deny SP-88-103. He~ring no second, the Chairman ruled that the motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Home said there are factors that dd establish the relatively minimal neighborhood impact of this specific proposaL. This proposal does have some topographical conditions which would minimiz~ its impact on surrounding units. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board could condition the special permit in ways that would relate it to the application. He!.then offered motion to approve SP-88-103 subject to the following condition~: 1. There shall be no further subdivision of the property without Board of Supervisors' approval; The cottage will contain only two bedrooms; The cottage will contain approxima~:ely 850 square feet; The cottage shall be used by a member of the immediate family or-the applicant for a period of not less than five years. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the conditions should be such that this could not become a ruse for some other purpose. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. He can see enough specifics in this..¢ase that he thinks it would be tough for someone to convince him that they had the exact same situation. Mr. Bain commented that he thinks it would be ha~ to convince the courts. Mr. Lindstrom said he is cognizant of all of the facts that have been represented to the Board and thinks the facts are legitimate to take into consideration. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstr~m, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain. ~ Agenda Item No. 11. SP-88-109. Glenn Mi Davis. To locate a double-wide mobile home on 5.325 acres, zoned RA. Property on northwest side of Rt. 635, approximately one mile southwest of intersection of Rt. 636 and Rt. 635. Tax Map 85, Parcel 4I. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 3 and January 10, 1989.) Mr. Home presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: The area surroUmding the property is largely wooded and has scattered residences. The property itself is heavily wooded with evergreen and decidupus trees. Currently the 194 January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) property is vacant. There are five mobile homes within a one mile radius of this property. History: June 18, 1970, Board of Supervisors approved SP-70-46, Annie N. Furr, for a permanent mobile home. November 18, 1971, Board of Supervisors approved SP-137, James H. Nay, for a 12 lot mobile home park on 10 acres subject to conditions. July 27, 1982, SP-137 voided due to failure to use special use permit within 18 months of issuance. Staff Comment: Three letters of objection have been received (on file). These state general objection, concern of possible property devaluation and concern of possible pollution of a stream by the septic system. The mobile home is to be located in a stand of mature evergreens which provide screening. However, topography allows a dwelling opposite Route 635 to be partially visible. A dwelling to the east of this property is also visible. The mobile home will not be visible from the state road. Currently the property is owned by James H. and Margaret H. Nay who have made this application on behalf of Glenn M..Da~is. Should this special use permit be issued the land shall be purchased by Glenn M. Davis. Should the Planning Commission and Board of SuperviSors choose to approve this petition, staff recon~nends the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1) Albemarle County building official approval; 2) 3) 4) Conformance to all area, bulk or other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; Provision of potable water supply and sewerageifacilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the local office of the VirginiaDepartment of Health, if applicable under current regulations.; 5) Maintenance of existing vegetation. Landscaping and/or screen- ing to be provided to the reasonable satisfactipn of the Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die; 6) Mobile home is to be located as shown on the at~ached plat; 7) Mobile home is not to be rented; 8) Mobile home permit is issued for use by the app~iicant only. Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 10, 1989, unanimously recommended approval of SP-88-109 subject to the conditions of the staff with an amendment to condition ~3 as followSi "Mobile home to b~ sited on a permanent continuous foundation." That condition was based on statements by the applicant at the Commission's meeting t~at that was the intent. Mr. Horne said Mr. Frank Ryder, an adjacent and objecting landowner, telephoned today and requested that if this request is approved there be a condition added that the mobile home have a peaked roof. At the Planning Commission meeteing, the applicant stated that it was his intent that the mobile home have such a peak roof. January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) 195 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Glenn Davis~ the applicant, said he had no comments and would answer any questions. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Davis if he made the statement that it was his intent that the mobile home have a peak roof. Mr. Davis replied yes. Mr. Dan Huddy, owner of the parcel west of the site, said he is opposed to the mobile home, although he understands that it will probably be approved anyway. If this is approved the model shown by the applicant at the Planning Commission meeting should be the one approved. He does feel that mobile homes devalue property and once one is allowed it is hard to prevent others. Mrs. Ellen Huddy, referenced a letter (on file) she wrote to Mr. Bain, dated January 14. She is concerned about keeping the foliage in its present state. She is concerned that the applicant may have to remove a large number of the trees to put in a new septic system which would take away the screen- ing. She would ask that the Board add a condition that when the septic system is installed the trees on the boundaries of the property be preserved. She thinks a mobile home would be detrimental to the value of her property should she wish to do something with it in the future, if there is not sufficient screening. Mr. Frank Ryder said the landowners entered into this process with the feeling that their concerns could carry some weight in the denial or approval of this special permit. If it is a foregone conclusion that a certain type of mobile home will be granted a permit, then it should be so stated in advance. He would like to say that the Davises have been cooperative in all respects and the house shown at the Planning CommissiOn meeting looks good. The peaked roof might sound picky to some persons, but it would prevent the abutting of two flat roof mobile homes. He thinks the D~vises have done everything they possibly could do and he hope they realize there is nothing personal in his opposition. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. St. John said in one place it says that Glenn Davis is the applicant but in another place it says the property is~'~owned by Mr. and Mrs. Nay. It should be noted Mr. and Mrs. Nay made the application on behalf of Glenn Davis. One of the conditions states that the mobile home is to be occupied by the applicant only. It is not clear who theiapplicant is. The Board does not want a situation where a landowner can get a special permit for a mobile home and then sell it to the highest bidder. It is his understanding that the entire tract will be purchased by the Davises, if this permit is approved. He suggests that the condition be changed to state that the special permit will become effective only upon purchase of the property by Glenn M. Davis or Glenn M. Davis and his wife, and shall be occupied!~only by Glenn M. Davis and his family. Mr. Bain asked about the screening and {he location of the septic field. Mr. Horne said although he thinks it will be located downhill from the site, he does not have any firm information on the septic system's location. It is possible that some vegetation will have to be removed, but if the Board is concerned with screening then it should direct the Zoning Administrator to provide screening at least equivalent to existing vegetation or screening from the private driveway or public roadway. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-88-109 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and modified as follows: Additional sentence to condition #5: "Partic61ar attention to be paid to screening along the drive and along the road ~rontage." Add a condition #9: "Special use permit to be effective upon transfer of title to Mr. Glenn M. Davis and occupancy limited to Glenn M. Davis and his immediate family." Add condition #10: "Approval is for a double-wide mobile home with a peak roof." Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. (The conditions as approved are set out in full below:) 196 Se 7. 8. 9. January 18, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)~ (Page 27) Albemarle County building official approval; Conformance to all area, bulk or other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; Mobile home to be sited on a permanent continuous foundation; Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; Maintenance of existing vegetation. Landscaping and/or screen- ing to be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Adminis- trator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condi- tion and replaced if it should die. Particular attention to be paid to screening along the drive and along the road frontage. Mobile home is to be located as shown on the attached plat; Mobile home is not to be rented; ~l~ f~l,~j~ ~ Mobile home permit is issued for use by the applicanhonly; Special use permit to be effective upon the transfer of title to Mr. Glenn M. Davis and occupancy limited to Glenn M. Davis and his immediate family; 10. Approval is for a double-wide mobile homewith a peak roof. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: March 26,.April 9, May 14 and May 21 (N), 1986; November 4 and December 16, 1987. Mr. Way had read the minutes for April 9, 1986, Pages 24 - End; May 21 (N), 1986, Pages 9 End; and November 4, 1987, Pages 11 - End, and found to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom andMr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public and Board. Mr. Lindstrom said even though it is a School Board issue, he thinks the Board should consider whether the sites for the new schools should be tested for radon and if there is a problem, then provisions be made in the buildings to deal with that. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to January 23, 1989, at~ 8:00 A.M. At 11:45 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adjourn January 23, 1989, at 8:00 A.M. AYES: NAYS: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None.