Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-03May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 553 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 3, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:35 P.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 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, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the consent agenda. 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. Memorandum dated April 7, 1989, from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development, concerning the zoning and application plan for Mill Creek Phase 2 (South). "On April 6, 1988 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved a zoning and application plan for Mill Creek Phase 2 (South). The only modification that was required to that application plan was the submittal of a phasing plan to the Department of Planning & Commun- ity Development to ensure the orderly construction of various public improvements. Due to an oversight by th~ applicant, this applica- tion plan with the amended phase plans w~s not submitted within the 60 day period that is required by the Zoning Ordinance. Recently the applicant has submitted the preliminary plat for the first section of lots in this area and at thati~time was informed by staff that the application plan had not been amended within the time period required by the ordinance. The applicant has now submitted a revised application plan that shows the phasing. Staff has reviewed that and has no problems with the phasing as shown. The internal configuration and physical layout of the development has not change~ from the application plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Iihave confirmed with the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors as the representative of the Scottsville District and Chairman, that ~e had no problem with staff review and approval of the preliminary plat for Section 1 pending a reapproval of the application plan by th~ Board of Supervisors. It would appear to staff that his reapproval would be a likely item for Consent Agenda in that there is virtually no new information to be presented to the Board that they would n~ed to make a new' policy decision on. I am now submitting the revised application for Board of Supervisors review and reapproval." i Item 4.2. Copies of Planning Commission!minutes for April 4 and April 18, 1989, were received for information, i Item 4.3. Notice dated April 17, 1989, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Maintenance Highway Manager of the Department of Transportation, stating his intent to repair the bridge over Marsh Run (Route 641),~was received for information. ? 554 May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Item 4.4. Copy of Columbia Gas 1988 Annual Report, was received for information and is on file in the Clerk's office. Item 4.5. County Executive's Financial Report for the period of July 1, 1988, to March 31, 1989. In his memorandum of April 26, 1989, Mr. Agnor noted that the following departments could overexpend their budget allocations by June 30, 1989: Legal Services, Police, Sheriff, Soil andJWater Conservation and Refunds. Staff will continue to monitor those departments and make recommendations to the Board concerning additional appropriations, if neces- sary, before the end of the fiscal year. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1988 TO MARCH 31, 1989 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD ~YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL EXPENDITURES 42,043,289 35,255,444 6j787,845 83.86% 3,722,267 2,416,813 1,305,454 64.93% 109,440 47,423 62,017 43.33% 2~492~428 2~464~818 27~610 98.89% 48,367,424 40,184,498 8,182,926 83.08% 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 3,176,385 2,174,145 1,002,240 1,103,980 852,517 i~251,463 4,383,193 3,530,074 ~853,119 1,794,860 933,871 1860,989 2,907,438 2,087,336 820,102 25,367,126 19,025,307 6,i341,819 1,696,508 1,363,071 333,437 1,314,778 949,038 ~65,740 4,153,596 3,799,182 i354,414 2~469~560 2~320~399 !49~161 48,367,424 37,034,940 11,332,484 SCHOOL FUND REVENUES 1988/89 RECEIPTS BAI~NCE EST. REVENUE YTD ~TD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL 426,493 16,420,426 362,987 25~330~705 42,540,611 + 68.45% + 77.22% + 80.54% + 52.03% + 71.79% + 75.00% + 8O.35% + 72.18% + 91.47% + 93.96% + 76.57% EXPENDITURES 88/89 APPROP ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTION-REG DAY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE & HEALTH SERVICES PUPIL TRANSPORTATION OPERATION-SCHOOL PLANT FIXED CHARGES ADULT EDUCATION TRANSFER TOTAL COLLECTED YTD 228,626 197,867 - 53.61% 11,539,436 4,~80,990 - 70.27% 154,134 208,853 - 42.46% 18,989,063 6~341,642 - 74.96% 30,911,259 11 829,352 72.66% EXP/OBLIG BAiANCE EXP/OBLIG YTD ~D YTD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES 749,288 582,891 26,572,224 17,083,789 341,016 284,459 3,040,752 2,315,743 4,553,452 3,826,340 7,273,251 4,913,896 10,628 7,316 0 0 42,540,611 29,014,434 1988/89 RECEIPTS EST. REVENUE YTD %66,397 + 77.79% 9,~88,435 + 64.29% ~156,557 + 83.42% %25,009 + 76.16% 727,112 + 84.03% 2,359,355 + 67.56% !~i 3,312 + 68.84% :,i 0 + 0.00% 13,526,177 + 68.20% BA~CE COLLECTED YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH NONREVENUE RECEIPTS FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL 418,500 352,568 527,040 0 2,886,902 738,768 4,680,810 4,654,910 2~102,795 2~047~000 10,616,047 7,793,246 i65,932 84.25% 51~7,040 0.00% 2,~8,134 - 25.59% ~5,900 99.45% 155~795 - 97.35% 2,8~2,801 - 73.41% May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) EXPENDITURES 555 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL OTHER FUNDS 239,571 1,297,745 1,411,532 5,385,542 1,336,263 812,609 132~785 10,616,047 86,207 153,364 + 35.98% 103,981 1,193,764 + 8.01% 77,580 1,333,952 + 5.50% 3,769,593 1,615,949 + 69.99% 390,353 945,910 + 29.21% 524,944 287,665 + 64.60% 132~785 0 - 100.00% 5,085,443 5,530,604 + 47.90% 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED REVENUES EST. REVENUE !YTD YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 45,344 SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 28,540 MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 1,015,000 CDBG-AHIP 0 T J HEALTH EDUCATION 0 GYPSY MOTH. AIPM PROGRAM 0 FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 401,130 DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 110,900 TIPS 1,669 E. D. PROGRAM 440,463 CBIP SEVERE 377,550 FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 33,731 DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 16,771 DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 28,786 SUMMER SCHOOL FUND 113,579 COMMUNITY EDUCATION 263,636 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 5,937 CHAPTER I 474,354 CHAPTER II 63,423 MIGRANT EDUCATION 45,991 CAFETERIA FUND 1,394,845 JOINT SECURITY FUND 3,118,897 JOINT DISPATCH FUND 658,462 JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 195,066 TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 218,500 MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND 0 STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 463,037 FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT 143,140 VISITOR CENTER FUND 67,734 DEBT SERVICE FUND 2~043,666 TOTAL 11,780,151 3,415 28,540 621,346 184,488 15,323 7,500 506,573 93,435 1,669 135,215 158,586 8,771 0 6,286 69,067 273,915 1,649 217,477 8,776 22,772 922,895 1,188,379 466,272 27,558 206,277 5,743 242 510,145 143,140 50,801 1~745~047 7,631,302 41,929 - 7.53% 0 + 100.00% 393,654 - 61.22% (184,488)+ 0.00% (15,323)+ 0.00% (7,500)+ 0.00% (105,443)+ 126.29% 17,465 - 84.25% 0 + 100.00% 305,248 - 30.70% 218,964 - 42.00% 24,960 - 26.00% 16,771 0.00% 22,500 21.84% 44,512 60.81% (10,279)+ 103.90% 4,288 27.77% 256,877 45.85% 54,647 13.84% 23,219 49.51% 471,950 - 66.16% 1,930,518 - 38.10% 192,190 - 70.81% 167,508 - 14.13% 12,223 - 94.41% 4,257 - 57.43% (242)+ 0.00% (47,108)+ 110.17% 0 + 100.00% 16,933 - 75.00% 298,619 - 85.39% 4,148,849 64.78% 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT~PL FUNDS 45,344 5,582 SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 28,540 22,058 MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 1,015,000 578,227 CDBG-AHIP 0 184,488 T J HEALTH EDUCATION 0 15,254 GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 37,779 FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 401,130 ~147,341 DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 110,900 46,385 TIPS 1,669 1,668 E. D. PROGRAM 440,463 233,774 CBIP .SEVERE 377,550 268,512 FED. JOB TRAINING PART. ACT. 33,731 13,350 DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 16,771 11,056 DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 28,786 15,022 SUMMER SCHOOL FUND 113,579 63,781 COMM~JNITY EDUCATION 263,636 331,141 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 5,937 3,273 CHAPTER I 474,354 299,035 CHAPTER II 63,423 39,076 MIGRANT EDUCATION 45,991 32,233 CAFETERIA FUND 1,394,845 953,088 39,762 + 12.31% 6,482 + 77.29% 436,773 + 56.97% (184,488)- 0.00% (15,254)- o.oo% (37,779)- 0.00% 253,789 + 36.73% 64,515 + 41.83% 1 + 99.94% 206,689 + 53.07% 109,038 + 71.12% 20,381 + 39.58% 5,715 + 65.92% 13,764 + 52.19% 49,798 + 56.16% (67,505)- 125.61% 2,664 + 55.13% 175,319 + 63.04% 24,347 + 61.61% 13,758 + 70.09% 441,757 + 68.33% 556 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 May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 3,118,897 1,449,084 1,669,813 + 46.46% 658,462 468,936 189,526 + 71.22% 195,066 57,493 137,573 + 29.47% 218,500 104,051 114,449 + 47.62% 10,000 5,716 4,284 + 57.16% 0 0 0 + 0.0O% 463,037 55,256 407,781 + 11.93% 143,140 108,108 35,032 + 75.53% 67,734 50,801 16,933 + 75.00% 2,043~666 i~745~584 298,082 + 85.41% 11,780,151 7,347,152 4,432,999 + 62.37% Not Docketed: VA-89-13. Ivy Commons Partnership. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to authorize the County Attorney to file an action appeal to the variance VA-89-13 for Ivy Commons Partnerships granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, unless in the meantime, the applicant agrees to two conditions: 1) that the addition to the rear of the motor court building be limited to eleven feet along the entire rear of that structure; and 2) this variance will not increase the occupancy rights of the existing motel. Mr. St. John suggested that the first condition include wording that the applicant and the BZA concur in that condition. Mr. Bain added that to the nmotion and Mr. Perkins also accepted that wording. Mr. Lindstrom abstained for the reasons cited during the Board's after- noon meeting on this same date. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ~ ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-89-10. David J. Via. To replace a single-wide mobile home with a double-wide mobile home on 18.368 acres, zoned RA. Proper- ty on Route 788, approx, one-half mile northwest of the intersection of Route 684 and Route 788. Tax Map 55, Parcel 4lB. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 26, 1989.) The following letter dated May 3, 1989, from Mr. David J. Via, addressed to the Board of Supervisors was received: "This is to notify you that I wish to suspend the final approval of my application for a double-wide mobile home permit because perk problems have prevented the subdivision of my land. My daughter and son-in-law, Sand and Daniel Bucca, have decided to re~lace their existing single-wide mobile home with a new single-wi~te, for which they have already applied to the Zoning Department. Per phone call to your office, I am requesting a 'deferred without prejudice' status on my application, which will allow:2the possibil- ity of resuming the approval process should we so desk're in the future." Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bainj~ to allow with- drawal of SP-89-10 without prejudice. Roll was called and ii,he motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, {~erkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-89-13. JoAnn A. Ha~n (owner), !~lvey J. and Shirley A. Covey (applicants). To locate a double-wide mob~le home on 3.3 acres, zoned RA. Property on private road off Route 250 Ea~.~t, one-tenth mile May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) 557 (Page 5) west from the intersection of Route 250 East and Route 744. Tax Map 80, Parcel 55C. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 26, 1989.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Staff Comment: The proposed mobile home is to be located in a clearing as shown on the plat (on file).. The mobile home will not be visible from the state road. Five dwellings are visible from the proposed location. Currently, there are fourteen mobile homes within one mile of this property. One letter of objection has been received stating concerns of possible property devaluation, access ahd suitability of the site to support a well and septic system. The applicant has stated that the mobile home is to be placed on a permanent foundation, have a peaked roof and be of similar character to other homes in the neighborhood. The Health Department has approved a drainfield location for the proposed mobile home. The property is currently owned by Joann A. Hammwho is the sister of Shirley A, Covey. The property is ~ be deeded to Alvey and Shirley Covey after the issuance of a special use permit. Staff does not recommend two conditions' of approval typically found in special use permits for single-wide mobile homes. These condi- tions, 'Mobile home is not to be rented' and 'Special use permit is issued for use by the applicant only' are not necessary due to the permanent characteristics of the mobile home (permanent foundation and peaked roof). Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Recnmmended Conditions of Approval: ~ 1. Albemarle County building official approval; Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; 3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; 4. Provision of potable water supply iand sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; 5. Maintenance of existing vegetatioq, landscaping and/or screen- ing to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good conditions and replaced if it should die; 6. Mobile home is to be placed on a Permanent foundation, and have a peaked roof." Mr. Home said the Planning Commissioni: at its meeting on April 4, 1989, unanimously recommended approval of the aboPe-noted petition subject to the conditions of the staff, deleting condition:~i#3, rewording condition ~6 to read: "Mobile home is to be placed on a permanent continuous masonry founda- tion, and have a peaked roof" and then to r~number the conditions. Mr. Bowie noted that the first sentenc9 of the fourth condition should written as two sentences. He suggested tha~ the first sentence end after "landscaping"; the second after "Administrator". Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr~ Alvey J. Covey, one of the applicants, addressed the Boar~. He said h~ intends to maintain the and vegetative buffers. Rathe~ than devalu~ng property in the area, he said the proposed mobile home will be an asset. 558 May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Covey if he would object to the addition of a clause to the fifth condition stating that the mobile home will be in general compli- ance with the pictures presented by the applicant. Mr. Covey said "no"~ Since no one else wished to speak to this application, Mr. Way closed public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Bowie said he would like to change the fifth condition by putting a comma after "roof" and adding the words "in general conformance with the photographs and sketches shown to the Board on May 3, 1989" Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve SP-89-13 subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission and amended as follows: 1. Albemarle County Building Official approval; 2~ Conformance of all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by local office of the Virginia Department of Health; 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~iin good condi- tions and replaced if it should die; 5. Mobile home is to be placed on a permanent continuous masonry foundation, and have a peaked roof, in general 6ompliance with the photographs and sketch shown to the Board on May 3, 1989. (Original of photographs on file. ) 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. 7. ZMA-89-4. Evangelical Lutheran Ghurch. To rezone 5.29 acres from RA to LI. Property on the west side of RoUte 29, approx. one-half mile north of Hollymead Drive. Tax Map 32, Parcels 42A and 42C. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 26, 1989.) ~ Mr. Home presented the following staff report: "Character of Area: This property is vacant, wooded rolling land. Public water is available from Route 29 and public sewer from Forest Lakes development. This property is surrounded by R~, Rural Areas zoning. Property approximately 1000 feet north was r~cently rezoned to LI, Light Industry, under ZMA 86-02, Joseph Wrigh~ Applicant's Request: The applicant proposes rezoninglto Light Industry, with no development proposal at this time.'~As justifi- cation for this request, they note that it is alreadyidesignated in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial use, and is in ~eeping with current and future development plans of the County. i Comprehensive Plan: This property is located within 'the Community of Hollymead and is recommended for industrial use (c~rrent Plan) and industrial service (proposed Plan update). The p~oposed Plan recommendations relevant to this property include: The area on the west of Route 29 north is designated for industrial and office uses as an employment area? for the future. It is expected that these uses will be ~f a large scale and have a significant airport orientation~ May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 559 Transportation improvements are proposed, including limitation of access points of Route 29 North to joint entrances, frontage roads and side streets. Summary and Recommendation: A major problem with this site is access. Staff offers the follow- ing comments regarding ZMA-89-04 Evangelical Lutheran Church: Existing Zoning: Existing zoning provides reasonable usage of the land. One dwelling could be constructed on each lot, for a total of two dwellings without extensive work necessary to obtain commercial sight distance. (This commercial sight distance is required for an entrance which serves three or more dwellings, or commercial or industrial development.) Proposed Zoning: According to Virginia Department of Transpor- tation: 'Obtaining an adequate commercial entrance with a minimum of 550 feet of sight distance for this property would probably require regrading part of Route 29, due to the verti- cal alignment.' This would undoubtedly be cost-prohibitive for development of this small acreage. No industrial use may be made of the property without installation of a commercial entrance. Therefore, unless alternative access is provided to the property or it becomes a combined effort with others to do the work necessary to obtain a commercial entrance, industrial zoning would not provide reasonablelusage of the land. Indus- trial development traffic generatioh far exceeds that of Rural Areas development: 369 versus 14 vehicle trips per day. o Precedent for similar requests: Historically, rezoning requests have been reviewed in terms of developmental con- straints such as utilities, access,i~i~and the like. The Joseph Wright rezoning was approved with P~offers as to public sewer and access. Therefore, this review is consistent with past ac- tions. 4. Recommendation: Without an access ~olution, industrial zoning would not, in staff's opinion, provide reasonable usage of the land. The Comprehensive Plan provid~es general recommendations for potential development and is no~ to be used singularly without other considerations. Section 33.9 of the Zoning Ordinanc~ states 'Proposed amend- ments shall be reviewed in regard t~ Section 1.4, Purpose and Intent; 1.5, Relationship to Enviro~ent; and 1.6, Relationship to Comprehensive Plan; of this ordiqance. Section 1.4 outlines goals for the protection of public ~afety and convenience, including references to access. SeCtion 1.5 requires reason- able consideration of the suitability of the property for various uses and the transportation i~requirements of the commu- nity. ' In summary, due to the extensive work necessary to provide access on this property's frontage, industrial zoning does not provide reason- able usage of the land and the existing ~oning does. Therefore, staff recommends denial of th~s pet~t~on.~ Staff recommends a combined effort to construct a service rdad with this and adjoining properties, to provide access to Route 2~i at a crossover or 500 feet distant. If the applicant proffers an ac3cess solution, staff could support this request." Mr. Horn, said the Planning Commission, jt its meeting on April 25, 1989, unanimously recommended denial of the above-nd.ted petition. In their discus- sion, the Planning Commission mentioned that {t would be useful to know the sight distance presently available. If the p~ioperty corners on the Route 29 frontage were m~rked, then VDoT could recheck llthat distance. 560 May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. Cliff Anderson, a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ad- dressed the Board. He said the congregation once planned to build a new church on this property but, due to the changes along Route 29 North during the past 15 years, no longer feels it is a nice place for a church. He said the congregation has tried to negotiate a joint access with an adjoining landowner, but to no avail. Members of the church think this property is unusable for residential purposes. He said the congretation has found a prospective buyer for the property, a developer who, unlike the Church, will be in a position to negotiate an access with the adjoining landowners. He said the church has negotiated with this developer for a swap of parcels. He asked that the Board approve the request for rezoning, and said if it is conditional upon the new owner reaching an agreement about the access with the adjoining property owner, he feels that would be legitimate. However, he also understands that the Board has a job to do, so he will understand a denial. Since no one else wished to speak to this request, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Bowie said he is concerned about the lack of a safe access from the property to Route 29 North. He said he is not willing to ioverturn the Plan- ning Commission's decision simply because the potential buyer may be a good negotiator. If someone appears before the Planning Commission with a request to rezone this property and a solution to the problem of access, Mr. Bowie said, he understands the request for rezoning will be weli received. Mr. Lindstrom said it may be possible for the Church'~to proffer at a later hearing that the property could not be used until s~itable access was obtained through other parcels. He said he has gathered ~hat there has been some discussion between staff and the applicant concerningi such a proffer. If the Board were to approve this request with such ~i proffer, Mr. Horne said, the property could not be used at all. He said the jstaff would recom- mend approving this request only if an alternative access i~were negotiated and could be obtained. Mr. Bowie suggested that the request be deferred. M~-i. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John about the legality of deferring this request~i~i and then approving it later with a proffer that was not set out in writing b~'~ore the start of the public hearing. Mr. St. John agreed that this would not be "by the book". Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that a future owner of ~the property would not feel legally bound by an improperly accepted proffer. ~' He pointed out that denying this request would not force the applicant to wait a year before submitting another request, with proffers. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lin~strom to deny ZMA-89-4. Roll was called and the motion carried by the £Ollowing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-88-23. J. W. Sieg & Co. To rezone .75 acres from LI to CO. Property on the north side of Route 250 WeSt, approx, one-half mile west of intersection with Ednam Drive. Tax Map 59, Parcel 23C. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 26, 1989.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: ~ "Character of the Area: The Sieg property is zoned Li, Light Indus- tr-~al~nd~ev~op~ith a wholesale distributorship~ Public water and sewer are available to the property. This site i~ located among other properties which also carry industrial or commercial zonings. Bordered by Old Ballard Road on the west and U. S. RoUTe 250 West and the railroad, this area contains offices, warehou~i~/distributor- ships, an auto dealer, a publisher of religious materi'als, an auto parts distributor, and a petroleum products bulk storage/distri- butorship. Some development has occurred in the last ten years. Some properties are susceptible to additional development or redevelopment. May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Portions of this area (including a portion of the Sieg property) drain to the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir. (Exact boundaries of the watershed would require field verification). Public water and/or sewer is available to all properties. U. S. Route 250 West is a designated scenic highway subject to special setbacks and signage controls. History: An application was previously!submitted to rezone parcels 23C, 23D, and 23F (the current J. W. sieg Distributorship) from LI, Light Industrial, to C-i, Commercial, in order to develop a boutique-type commercial service center~ Staff recommended denial of this request. Subsequently, the Planning Commission deferred this item from further review until staff could perform additional analysis with respect to possibly adding these and adjacent parcels to the Urban Area. Staff provided the planning Commission with additional analysis, determining that it would be inconsistent with the County's growth management polices to add this area to the Urban Area. Applicant's Proffer and Request: The applicant proposes to con- struct a bank on the .75 acre proposed for rezoning. The applicant has also submitted an accompanying special permit request for a drive-in window at the proposed bank. %his current request substan- tially modifies the previous request, focusing development of the Sieg property on 'by-right' uses. The ~pplicant has stated that it is his intention to develop the majorit~ of remaining property as medical office space. For the current request the applicant p~offers and proposes the following: Proffer: To delete all other 'by-right'!~ uses in the CO district, with the exception of those uses that the County would not recommend that the owner delete (staff would reco~end that such uses related to public facilities and the like remai~ with the zoning designa- tion). Proposal: The applicant is requesting ~hat the Commission grant a setback reduction in accordance with Sec~ion 30.5.6.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, allowing the bank building to be placed 75 feet from the right-of-way of Route 250 West with all parking facilities to be located at the rear of the building (This segment of Route 250 West is a designated scenic highway, whi!ch requires a 150-foot building setback). This issue is to be .addressed with the special permit request. The applicant has submitted an accompanying special permit request for a drive-in window. 561 Summary and Recommendation: comments and recommendation: Staff offers the following summary Existing zoning: Existing zoning p~ovides reasonable usage of the land. In terms of access, util{ties and topography, the site is suited to industrial usage.. The Comprehensive Plan and Hunter's Hall decision indicated that industrial is a more appropriate designation than commercial in the rural areas. This is a rural area in the Comprehensive Plan, and existing development is not consistent with RA zoning. Staff opinion is that the 1980 zoning decision was correct and reasonable under the circumstances. LI is an appropriate zoning for this site. Proposed zoning: Commercial zoning~'~in this area is inconsis- tent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and inconsistent with the statements of!~intent of 21.0, Commercial Districts, Generally. Past rezoning actions have been 562 May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. No speculative rezonings or rezonings to allow establishment of wholly new uses have been approved in the rural areas. Vacant commercial zoning is more than adequate to accommodate future needs. o Precedent for similar requests: Approval of this petition would make other industrial properties in the area susceptible to commercial rezoning and establish argument to increase intensity of zoning for existing commercial properties. Approval could also rekindle past debate about 'convenient commercial shopping' in other areas such as Crozet. Recommendation: Based on the issues summarized above, staff recommends denial of ZMA-88-23. While the applicant's request has been substantially modified in terms of a reduction in the acreage requested for commercial zoning, the staff's opinion is that the outstanding policy issues cannot be overcome by this modification. In summary, staff has estimated that this request will generate less traffic than if the property is developed 'by-righttiwith medical office, but the outstanding issues remain: a) b) c) Existing zoning provides reasonable usage of th~ property; This request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; Approval of this request may set a precedent fo~ similar request on adjacent parcels." Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 17, 1989, by a vote of 3-2, recommended approval of the above,noted petition. This recommendation for approval is subject to proffers outlined in letter dated January 17, 1989, signed by Denise Etheridge, addressed to Mr. John Pullen, Planner: "January 17, 1989 ZMA-88-23. J.W. Sieg, Inc. Dear John: On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Terence Y. Sieg, I hereby make the following proffers with regards to the above referenced request: 1. We hereby delete all permitted uses by right under Section 23.2.1 with the exception of Sections 23.2.1.3,:ii~3.2.1.7 and 23.2.1.8. In addition, we proffer to delete all!uses by Special Use Permit with the exception of Section~ 23.2.2.3 and 23.2.2.5; ~ We hereby proffer to limit access to one point on Route 250 in accordance with the recommendation by the Virginia Department of Transportation; and 3. We hereby proffer to limit traffic generation tol,that generated by a 44,000 square foot medical office facility ~nd a 2500 square foot bank with two drive-in windows. Sincerely, (SIGNED) Denise Y. Etheridge" Mr. Way opened the public hearing. ·i Mr. Terry Sieg, the president of J. W. Sieg and Company, addressed the Board. He said he decided to move the Company from the property under discus- sion when it became apparent that the Company would need, in about eight years, about twice the warehouse and office space it currently uses. Although May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 563 it may have been more economical to expand the business on the Route 250 site, Mr. Sieg continued, he thought some of the expansion might be inappropriate along a scenic highway. He said he was also concerned about the effect of increasing truck traffic on Route 250 West. Mr. Seig said that moving the business to its present site on Route 29 South leaves the Company with a non-income-producing piece of real estate on Route 250 West. Rather than selling this property for another light indus- trial use, he originally intended to developlabout 26,000 square feet of retail use. He submitted detailed building and landscaping plans of this shopping plaza to adjoining landowners and the County staff. With one excep- tion, he said, the adjoining landowners he contacted supported the shopping center. The Planning staff did not support the proposal, citing the danger of setting a precedent and the opposition of the neighbors. Because the staff opposed the proposal, Mr. Seig continued, he!revised the plan and came up with what is before the Board tonight. : Mr. Seig said the proposal now before the Board would establish a commu- nity-oriented bank and medical offices. He §aid the Company is committed to quality, long-range planning and providing services to the community. He then introduced Ms. Denise Etheridge of The Kessler Group to describe the plans in detail. Ms. Etheridge addressed the Board and said she would like the Board to keep four facts in mind. The first fact is that this property is already developed and is surrounded by property developed for commercial and indus- trial uses. Even though this property may lie outside the growth area, she said, it is a developed area nonetheless. Denying this request will not cause this property to revert to a rural area; it Will remain industrial. The second fact, she continued, is that these non-conforming industrial and commercial businesses are surrounded by established, residential communities. She said the third thing to keep in mind is the location of this property along a scenic highway. The fourth fact, sh~ said, is that the applicant has proffered to delete all uses from the designation of Commercial-Office, except for a financial institution with a drive-in ~indow. ! Ms. Etheridge said the staff is concerned that approving this request would set a precedent. She said she believe~ the proffer and the fact that the land is already developed make it unlikely that approving this request would set a precedent. She then read a lettgr from Mr. St. John to Mr. Ron Keeler, which stated: "... I do not see ho~ our past denial of requests for the rezoning of vacant, RA land to commercia~ would be rendered arbitrary and capricious by this rezoning [the Sieg request]. Those cases are in my judg- ment readily distinguishable and I would hav~ no trouble defending those decisions". She said she does not believe t~at approving this request would cause other property owners to seek to have commercial, because the fact that this prope' could be invoked as a special circumstance Ms. Etheridge said the staff is also co~ ndustrial property rezoned to ty lies along a scenic highway this case. cerned that rezoning this prop- erty to Commercial-Office would reduce the a~ount of land the County has available for light industry. She said Mr. ~eg has actually added to the County's inventory of property zoned for industrial use by moving his business to Route 29 South. She added that the applidant plans to use the Route 250 site for medical offices anyway, rather than more traditional light industrial USeS. Ms. Etheridge said the staff has stated ithat approving this request would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ~i She said the Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial use to act as a transitiion between residential and industrial uses. She said approving this reqhest would provide such a transi- tion. Moreover, she said, this proposal wou~ not result in undesired popula- tion growth, because the property is already surrounded by established, residential neighborhoods. ~ Ms. Etheridge said the staff is also concerned about the impact of this proposal on traffic along Route 250 West. S~ pointed out that this proposal, with 44,000 square feet of medical office sp~ce and a bank of 2500 square feet with two drive-in windows, would generate les~!~ traffic than a by-right devel- opment with 66,000 square feet of medical off'~lce buildings. In conclusion, 564 May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) she said, Mr. Sieg is asking that the Board substitute one non-conforming use for another, because his proposal would generate less traffic, would be more appropriate along a scenic highway, and would serve the a~ready established residential con~nunity in this area. Mr. W. J. Kirtley, Jr., an adjoining landowner, addressed the Board and presented a letter, dated January 26, 1989, which stated his objections to the request for rezoning. He said his property is zoned industrial and he has taken pains to landscape his property and make it compatible with the scenic highway designation. He said he has no objection to Mr. Sieg's proposal, but he is concerned that the rezoning could affect the zoning!on his own property. Since no one else wished to speak to this application, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John if approving this requestlwould set a prece- dent for rezoning other industrial properties in the same area to Commercial- Office. Mr. St. John said "no". He said he thinks approving this request would set a precedent only for those Light Industrial properties which were designated Light Industrial in the first place, in contravention to the Comprehensive Plan, because they were already developed Light Industrial when the Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1980. Moreover, if the Board finds that the use proposed by the applicant generates less traffic and is less detrimen- tal to the surrounding area than uses allowed under the c~rrent zoning. Unless the next application fits all of these criteria, t~ere would be no precedent. Whatever action the Board may take on this request, Mr. St. John said, he recommends that it act on the basis of land use 6riteria, rather than legal precedent, which he does not think should be a prob~Rm. Mr. Bain said he thinks this request for rezoning involves the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as the Comprehensive Plan. He said he appreciates the applicant's efforts to make something attractive in an area which is not now attractive. Mr.~s~a~d he realizes that some of the buildings were there before the original z~o~ing ordinance was adopt~d some 20 years ago and some were there before the massive changes which were~i~ade in zoning categories in 1980. He thinks the zoning should be left as is because it was placed to recognize an existing use in 1980. If it had n~t been for that existing use, the property would now be zoned Rural AreasJ? He does not see that there have been any significant changes withing that!izoning category, and the applicant would still be able to have any uses allowed under Light Indus- trial if this request is not approved. By denying this applcation, the Board would not be refusing the applicant a legitimate, appropriate use. Leaving the Light Industrial zoning will recognize the integrity qf the Zoning Ordi- nance and the urban growth areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bain said he thinks the application should be denied, i~ Mr. Way said he agrees that leaving the Light Industrial zoning gives th~ applicant a legitimate use of the property, but the appliq~nt's proposal would result in less traffic and building coverage. Mr. Way sa}d that makes the proposal logical to him. Mr. Bowie asked if the schematic presented to the Board by the applicant is part of the proffer. Mr. Home said "no". Under the Pcoffer, Mr. Horne continued, the size of the bank and its location, the location of the parking lot, the one access point to Route 250 and the total squar~ footage of build- ing space would be as they are on the schematic. While th~ layout and the conceptual plan displayed on the schematic are not addressed in the proffer, Mr. Horne said, he thinks the applicant may be willing to include these elements of design as well. Mr. Bowie asked how the Board can be sure that mini storage warehouses or some other light industrial use will not be built on the P~operty. Ms. Etheridge said the applicant is willing to proffer that office space will be built on the property rather than any typical light industrial use, that the property will be bermed and heavily landscaped and that tH~ development will look virtually as it appears on the schematic. She said she is not sure whether the development will consist of one or two buildings, but the square footage will not exceed 44,000 square feet. Mr. Bowie asked if this building would be the medical office facility. Ms. Etheridge said !~yes". She said the May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) applicant will proffer out all of the light industrial uses, except for professional offices. 565 Mr. Lindstrom said this property is described in the Comprehensive Plan as a rural area. In fact, he continued, it is not a rural area; nevertheless, he thinks it is important to adhere to the theory of the Comprehensive Plan. He said he thinks approving this request will set a precedent, but he is not sure he minds setting this kind of precedent, thatof reducing the intensity of zoning in the rural areas. He does not think that denying this request will make the property more likely to revert to agricultural usage in the long run. He thinks he can support setting this kind of precedent, in which the proprietor of a non-conforming use appears before the Board and requests a change in the designation that would bring the use of the property closer to what is recommended by the Plan and that does not stimulate further develop- ment that is inconsistent with the Plan's recommendation. Denial of this application will not make this use revert to Rural Areas. He said he can support the request in this case, although it is a close call. Mrs. Cooke said she can support the request and thinks the Board will have more control over the development if it approves this request than if the applicant builds a by-right development. She said this proposal can do nothing but enhance that area of Route 250 West. Mr. Perkins said he supports the reques~because the applicant is propos- ing a less intensive and more attractive use than what could be established on the property by-right. Mr. Bowie said he supports the request. He sees a great deal of differ- ence between this request and an earlier request near Meriwether Lewis Elemen- tary School and a similar request near Hunter~' Hall. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Planning CommSssion has waived the 150-foot setback required along scenic highways and instituted instead a setback of 75 feet, if the parking lot is placed behind the' building. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission has agreed to waive the setback requirement, but the actual waiver will not take place until the C6mmission reviews the site plan. He said the waiver will take place unless the ilBoard places a limitation on the setback now that would preclude the waiver. ~: Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, secpnded by Mr. Bowie, to approve ZMA-88-23 as proffered in letter dated January 17, 1989, signed by Denise Etheridge, and verbally amended that the property will be developed essential- ly as shown on the schematic drawing for Westridge dated January 13, 1989, by Clower Associates, Inc., presented to the Board on May 3, 1989, including berming and landscaping, with the applicant reserving the right to combine the two buildings into one. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstr~, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain. .~ Agenda Item No. 9. SP-88-106. J.W. Sieg & Co. To allow for a bank with a drive-in window. Property on the nortk.side of Route 250 West, approx. one-half mile west of intersection with Ednami!Drive. Tax Map 59, Parcel 23C. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the D~ily Progress on April 19 and April 26, 1989.) "Staff Comment: Staff's recommendation ~or approval of this request contemplates Planning Commission and Boa~ of Supervisors approval of the rezoning request. In 1984, staff ~ecommended that uses involving drive-in windows (i.e. banks,~.~i~fast food restaurants, etc.) be permitted by special use permit ~nly due to transportation considerations. Primary concerns are acclDss and circulation pat- terns combined with high traffic volumes.~ If the rezoning application is successfu~ the applicant plans to construct a 2,500 square feet bank with two drive-in windows. 566 May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) In regard to traffic generation, staff has determined, given the applicant's proposed development scheme for the total parcels, this request will generate less traffic than if the property is developed 'by-right' with medical offices. The Virginia Department of Trans- portation's comments for this request parallel those noted in the rezoning report. The Virginia Department of Transportation has verbally commented that since Route 250 West is a primary highway, it was designed to accommodate a wide range of vehicle trips and, therefore, this request will have minimal effect on its capacity. In terms of site circulation, the bank will be located in the southeastern most portion of the proposed development, remote from on-site traffic movement associated with the medical offices. In addition, the proposed bank conceptual design affords substantial stacking room for the drive-in window. The applicant is requesting that the Commission grant a setback reduction in accordance with Section 30.5.6.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, allowing the bank building to be placed 75 feet from the right-of-way of Route 250 West with all parking facilities located at the rear of the building. Staff recommends approval of this request given the applicant's proposal: a) Ail required parking facilities for the bank shall be located on the rear side of the structure; b) The parking area and bank will be screened from~Route 250 by extension berming and landscaping; In the opinion of staff this use will not be of substantial detri- ment to adjacent property, will not change the character of the district, and will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Staff recommends approval subject to the following: a) A site plan shall be submitted in general accordance with the conceptual plan titled 'Schematic Plan C', dated November 15, 1988, by Clower Associates, Inc." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 17, 1989, by a vote of 4-1 recommended approval of the above-noted petition subject to the condition as recommended by the staff. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Ms. Etheridge offered to answer any questions. Since no one else wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.~Bowie, to approve SP-88-106, subject to the following condition as recommended by the Planning Commission: A site plan shall be submitted in general accordance with the conceptual plan titled "Schematic Plan C", dated November 15, 1988, by Clower Associates, Inc. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain. (Note: At 9:07 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvehed at 9:19 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 10. Addition to Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District. An ordinance to amend Chapter 2.1 of the Code of Albemarle, 2.1-4, by amending subsection (i) entitled "Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District". The proposed addition is located west of Route 743 near the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. The proposed time is six years from January 6, 1988. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 26, 1989.) May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 567 Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Location: The proposed addition is located west of Route 743 in two locations: near the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, and south of Route 764. Acreage: The proposed addition contains about 500 acres in one parcel and parts of two parcels. The existing Jacob's Run District contains 722.282 acres. Time Period: The time period is the same as the original district which is six years from January 6, 1988. Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the proposed district is being used for pasture and hay and forestry. Significant Lands Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The land use tax program is a good indicator of the actual use of the proper- ties. Ail parcels are enrolled in the program. About 393 acres are being used for agriculture, about 100 acres are being used for forestry and about seven acres are non-qualifying because of dwell- ings. ~ Land Use Other Than Agriculture and Forestry: There are five dwellings in the proposed district, or one dwelling per 100 acres. The frontage of Adventure Farm (within .~500 feet of Rt. 743) is not included in the addition. The Airport has easements on part of this acreage. A contractor's business (Hale~, Chisholm and Morris) and a borrow pit are also located in this area. Teledyne Avionics and the Airport are located to the east across Route 743. Local Developmental Patterns and Needs:! Both farms are located at the boundary of the Rural Area and the growth areas of the Hollymead Community and Earlysville Village. Route 743 is largely a residen- tial area. Bedford Hills Subdivision iS adjacent to Adventure Farm to the south. Panorama Agriculturat/Forestal District is adjacent to the southwest. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The proposed addition is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is located in Rural Area I. Light Industrial (LI) zoning is located on the residue acreage of Adven- ture Farm and across Route 743 (Teledyne). The Planned Residential Development (PRD) to the north (Happy Va. lley Farm) is approved for 66 lots on 140 acres but is not yet developed. Environmental Benefits: The proposed addition is located within the South Fork Rivanna River Watershed. Th~ watershed boundary in this area is Route 743. Staff Comments: Staff recommends approval." Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, 'iat its meeting on April 18, 1989, unanimously recommended the approval of the ~ddition to Jacob's Run consisting of 500.431 acres for a time period the same ~s the original district, or six years from January 6, 1988. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Ms. ~iSherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed th~ Board and offered to answer any questions Since no one else wished to spea~, to this application, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the mat~er before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the following ordinance adding Tax Map 31, Parcel 23 (part); Parcel 23D (part); and Parcel 8, for a total of 500.431 acres tq the 3acob s Run Agricultural/ Forestal District for a period of six years from January 6, 1988. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: 568 May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE 'OF ALBEMARLE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle COunty, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Code of Albemarle be, and the same hereby is, amended in subsection (i) by the additiOn of certain parcels, reading as follows: Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. (i) The district known as the "Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 18, parcels 40, 40F; tax map 19, parcels 25, 25A; tax map 20, parcel 7A; tax map 31, parcels 8, 16, 16B, 23 (part), 23D (part), 44C, 45 (part), 45B, 45C. This district shall be reviewed no more than six years from the date of its creation.on January 6, 1988. Agenda Item No. 11. Addition to the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District. An ordinance to amend Chapter 2.1 of the Code df Albemarle, 2.1-4, by amending subsection (h) entitled "Hardware Agri~ultural/Forestal District". The proposed addition is located south of Rou%e 692 in North Garden and consists of 207 acres. The proposed time periQd is ten years from November 4, 1987. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on A~ril 19 and April 26 1989.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Acreage: The proposed addition contains 206.880 ac~es in one parcel. The existing Hardware District contains 6,0~3.940 acres. Time Period: The time period is the same as the original district, which is ten years from November 4, 1987. Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in thei~roposed addition is being used for forestry and pasture for g~ttle. Significant Lands not in AEricultural/Forestal production: The land use tax program is a good indicator of the actual us~! of the prop- erty. About 102 acres are being used for forestry, about 102 acres are being used for agriculture and two acres are non,qualifying because of a dwelling. ~ Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: There~is one dwelling in the proposed addition. A country store is located to the west at Crossroads. Two lumberyards are located on Route 71M to the east. Local Development Patterns and Needs: This farm is ~ocated adjacent to the Village of North Garden. There are many residences on small parcels in the village area, but farmland surrounds the village. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: This farm~was originally included in the proposed North Garden Village area as~recommended by the Planning Commission. But, the Board of Supervisors recently amended the village boundary to exclude this farm. The area of the farm west of the stream is currently zoned VI{, Villag~ Residential, but this should be changed to RA zoning after the proposed· Compre- hensive Plan is adopted. Environmental Benefits: Environmental benefits provided by the conservation of wooded areas include protection of ground and surface water quality, wildlife habitat and critical slopes. The southern part of the farm contains steep slopes of Cook Mountain. May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) Staff Comment: This farm is a logical addition to the Hardware District, which almost encircles the North Garden Village." 569 Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 18, 1989, unanimously recommended approval of the addition to the Hardware Agricultural/ Forestal District consisting of 206.880 acres for a time period the same as the original district, or ten years from November 4, 1987. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following ordinance, to include Tax Map 99, parcel 52, for a total of 206.880 acres, in the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal:District for a period of ten years from November 4, 1987. 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. ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS,- OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Code of Albemarle be, and the same hereby is, amended in subsection (h) by the addition of certain parcels, reading as follows: Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. (h) The district known as the "~ardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the follO.~Wing described properties: Tax map 73, parcels 24, 38, 39B, 4lA, 411B1, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48; tax map 74, parcels 26, 28; !tax map 86, parcels 13, 13A, 14, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16F, 22, 22A, 23, 23~, 25, 26, 27; tax map 87, parcels 2, 3, 10, 13A, 13E; tax map 88, ~.parcels 4, 5, 5A, 6A, 23, 24 26B, 40, 4lA, 42 42A; tax map 99 p~arcels 29, 52 This dis- trict shall be reviewed no more than ten!~ years from the date of its creation on November 4, 1987. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: T°~amend the Code of Albemarle by adopting an ordinance regulating smoking in p~blic places and certain places of employment. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 20 and April 27, 1989.) Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John to summarize %he proposed ordinance for the public. Mr. St. John said the proposed ordinance opens with the statement that the Board finds there is a health hazardi to the public by virtue of exposure to tobacco smoking. Following this Mtatement is a list of defini- tions and Mr. St. John called attention to th~ terms "public meeting" and "public place". He said the proposed ordinance defines "public place" as a place where the general public is invited or ~hat is accessible to the general public, whether that place is privately or publicly owned. After the defini- tions comes a list of public places in which ~moking would be prohibited under the ordinance, although owners of these place~ may provide designated smoking areas. He said the ordinance would also prohibit smoking in shared work areas in places of employment with five or more employees, unless all employees sharing a work area agree in writing that smoking may occur in that area. Mr. 570 May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) St. John said the ordinance also includes a list of spaces in which smoking is not prohibited: designated smoking areas and the County Courthouse. Mr. Lindstrom asked if anything in the General Assembly's legislation adopted in January would prevent the County from adopting this ordinance. St. John said "no". Mr Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Leinbach, speaking on behalf of the Virginians for Clean Air, addressed the Board. He said over 50,000 studies have been completed on passive smoking. In 1986, the Surgeon General summarized these studies in a book entitled The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smokinc, which stated that "involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy non-smokers". The National Research Council in 1986 estimated that between 2500 and 8500 lung cancer deaths per year resulted from environmental tobacco smoke. Mr. Leinbach said this is why localities all across the country have enacted clean air legislation. He said the .government has an obligation to protect the safety of employees in the workplace. He said the General Assembly has adopted no clean air legislation; instead the Assembly adopted legislation that bans localities from enacting clean air legislation after July 1, 1989. He urged the Board to adopt the ordinance. Mr. Dave Southall, an employee of Centel, addressed the Board. Accordin~ to a recent survey conducted at Centel, 87 percent of the employees wish to prohibit smoking at Centel. Nevertheless, he said, the company still allows employees to smoke as long as they use clean air machines~ He said smokers take away the rights of non-smokers. He urged the Board to vote for the ordinance. He said he knows Mr. Bowie does not wish to impose the ordinance on small businesses, but Mr. Southall said smoking is a nuisance whether it is done in the company of two people, or two hundred. ~ Ms. Elizabeth Seabrook, the Director of the Senior C~nter, addressed the Board. She said she speaks for many senior citizens who exercise in Fashion Square Mall and who wish to see malls included in the lis~ of smoke-free areas. ~ ~ Mr. Dennis Blankenbaker, a resident in the Rivanna D~trict, addressed the Board. He said he is allergic to cigarette smoke. HE has worked for a company in the County, one of the largest employers in thel County, for the past 13 years. For a long time, things were fine, but th~ii company grew and before long, he was surrounded by smokers. When he complained and tried to get his division to pass a no-smoking policy, he said, he ~as accused of crusading on the company's time and his request was refused. He said the Board is responsible for the health of employees in this County, for the people in this County who work hard and pay their taxes. .iHe said it is not often the Board has the chance to do something good for r~sidents of this County without raising their taxes, and he urged them to ~ake this opportunit~ and adopt the ordinance as quickly as possible. ~ Mr. Bruce Southall addressed the Board and said the ~mployees of the company he works for have voluntarily adopted a policy of lDot smoking in the building. He said he does not like going to other places ~f business and having to breathe cigarette smoke. ~ Ms. Beth Whitaker, an employee at the Jefferson Park .~eventh Day Adventist Church Clinic, addressed the Board. She said hem clinic helps people quit smoking. She said it would be easier for people to quit smoking if they were not surrounded by cigarette smoke in the workPlace and other businesses. She said cigarette smoke interferes with the health of people who do not smoke and she does not think the health of non-smokers should be at risk simply because other people choose to smoke. Ms. Katherine Jones, a resident of Madison County, said her daughter has chronic lung problems and is allergic to smoke. She said She and her daughter shop in the Fashion Square Mall and many times they have had to leave simply because her daughter could not breath the smoke-filled air~ She said this ordinance would make it easier for her daughter to lead a ~ormal life. She said she thinks smoking should also be prohibited in convenience stores and small grocery stores. ~ May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 57 1 Mr. Larry Friedland addressed the Board and said he thinks the Board's constituents would appreciate the chance to breathe clean air. Ms. Cheryl Schnell, Regional Director of the American Lung Association (ALA), addressed the Board. She said the goal of the ALA is the conquest and prevention of all lung disease, mainly by educating the public. She said involuntary smoke is an avoidable and preventable cause of lung disease. She said the ALAhas done its job to educate the public about the dangers of passive smoking, and now it is time for the BOard to do its part. She urged the Board to adopt an ordinance that is as strong as the dangers of second- hand smoke. She presented a petition with many signatures in support of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Andrew Martof addressed the Board and sHid he does not want anyone to interfere with his right to breathe clean air. He asked the Board to be courageous and not to allow the special interest groups in control of Richmond to control the County as well. Mr. Doug Horowitz addressed the Board and said he is concerned about several details of the proposed ordinance. From the Surgeon General's report, he read the following: "the simple separation of smokers and non-smokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, exposure of non-smokers to environmental tobacco smoke". He said he is not sure the proposed ordinance as written will be effective in protecting non-smokers. He thinks the following areas should be included in the ordinance: retail stores, banks, auditoriums, sports arenas, concert halls, gymnasiums, and shopping malls and their walkways. He said the ordinance regulates smoking only in restaurants that seat 75 people or mo~e. Moreover, the ordinance does not require the smoking areas in restaurants ~o be completely separated from the area serving non-smoking patrons. Despite these shortcomings, he said, he is pleased to see that the Board is considering such an ordinance. Dr. Albert Huber, a lung specialist, addressed the Board. Over the years, he said, he has taken care of many patients who have suffered from cigarette smoke. He said he agrees with the ~omments made before him. He said the County must take this opportunity toibring the laws up to date that govern the air we breathe. ~ Since no one else wished to speak to thi~ proposed ordinance, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with the comments made by Mr. Horowitz con- cerning other public spaces that should be ad,ed to the list of areas in which smoking is prohibited. She does not think th~ ordinance will be effective if smoking is restricted in some places and not dthers. She said that smoking in restaurants particularly bothers her. She sa~'d smoke drifts from smoking to non-smoking areas and ruins her meal. She thinks the proposed ordinance should prohibit smoking in all public areas. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that t opportunity to adopt such a ordinance after J~ free from some of the influences that sway the may provide some things for its citizens that supports Mrs. Cooke's suggestion to amend the he County may not have the ly 1. He said the County is General Assembly, so the County he State cannot. He said he proposed ordinance to include all public areas, such as retail areas, banks,.enclosed shopping malls, but he feels arenasand auditoriums are public places icontrolled by the City and County, or other entities over which the County has no control, so there is no need to add that category. He said he thinks ithe ordinance should apply to small as well as big businesses. He said he works for a small business in the City and he does not think this business has experienced any problems adhering to the City's smoking ordinance. Mr. St. John said that retail areas, bank~, enclosed shopping malls and sports arenas could be listed as paragraphs un~er 16.1-4, "Smoking prohibited in certain public places". If those are the o~ly changes the Board wants to make to the ordinance, he said, it can be adopted tonight. He said the Board could also prohibit smoking in all grocery stores by deleting the words "in which the aggregate retail, storage, and offic~ exceeds 8,000 square feet" from 16.1.4 (j). Mrs. Cooke said she thinks s~oking should be prohibited in all grocery stores. 572 May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) Mr. Bowie said he has some concerns about the details of the ordinance, but he supports it in principle. Mr. Way said he thinks he can support an ordinance, but he is not sure hE can do it tonight and does not suggest that all of the things mentioned tonight be incorporated into the ordinance. He would be willing to do that prior to 3uly 1. He thinks the Board should direct staff toward some specifi changes. He does not understand why banks and certain other areas were left out of the City's ordinance. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt a resolution of intent to adopt an ordinance similar to the one proposed tonight, with the addition of retail stores, banks, savings and loans and enclosed shopping malls in the list of public spaces in which smoking would be prohibited, and to ask staff to bring back language for final adoption, and he makes this motion in order to get a sense from the Board members as to their individual intent. Mrs. Cooke said she will second the motion because she felt it would be helpbul to see that language first. She asked if members~'of the Board would support prohibiting smoking altogether in restaurants. Mr. Lindstrom sug- gested that staff draft some language to that effect and(Said he could support the prohibition. Mr. Bain said he has no problem supporting the resol6tion of intent, but he is more optimistic than other members of the Board concerning the role of the General Assembly in passing legislation on this issue~ He does not think anything would be lost by waiting a year before considering the ordinance. He said he does not wish to commit himself to supporting the~!ordinance at this time. Also, more specific definitions may be needed for ithe changes sug- gested. Mr. St. John said no definition is needed for common words. Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion. He said he would not support a ban on smoking in restaurants; he thinks a restaurant's~i!ipatrons should be able to smoke somewhere besides the parking lot. He sale,he would prefer to see the final revision of the proposed ordinance before k~ commits himself to its support. In response to Mrs. Cooke's suggestion about prohibiting smoking in restaurants, Mr. St. John said that restaurants could be ~ncluded on the list of public spaces in which smoking was prohibited, but thei~proprietor of each restaurant would still be free to establish a designated Smoking room or area if desired. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that the longer the Board looks at this ordinance the more the ordinance may unravel. He suggested that the Board adopt the ordinance tonight, let the staff look at provisions for restaurants, and then the Board amend the ordinance lat~ ~! He said he agrees with Mrs. Cooke, but he is afraid that the process may grind to a halt if the Board concerns itself with details now. '~ Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion. He moved to ~dopt the ordinance proposed tonight, adding to section 16.1-4, "Smoking prohi~bited in certain public places": "(k) In any retail store", "(1) In anylibank or savings and loan", and "(m) In any enclosed shopping mall"; and deleting the following from section 16.1-4 (j): "in which the aggregate retail, ?storage, and office space exceeds 8,000 square feet". Mrs. Cooke seconded t~ amended motion. Mr. Way said he will vote against the motion because ihe felt he was being hurried and he does not want to vote on this ordinance tonight. Mr. Bowie said he would have voted for the resolution'of intent, but will not vote for this motion. There was no further discussion. failed by the following tied vote: The roll was called'~· and the motion AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: Messrs. Bain, Bowie and Way. May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) 573 Mrs. Cooke said she does not usually make a comment after the vote on a motion, but in this instance she has to say that she is very disappointed with this Board. The public present responded to the remark with applause. Mr. Lindstrom said he would move his initial motion to adopt a resolution of intent to adopt the ordinance, deferring action until June 7, 1989, to allow staff time to make the following amendments: adding to section 16.1-4, "Smoking prohibited in certain public places": "(k) In any retail store", "(1) In any bank or savings and loan", and "(m) In any enclosed shopping mall"; and deleting the following from section 16.1-4 (j): "in which the aggregate retail, storage, and office space exceeds 8,000 square feet". Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Bowie repeated that he supports the ordinance but does not like to have several verbal changes "thrown at him",and his only reservation concerns imposing the ordinance on businesses with only five employees. AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: May 18, June 8, July 6 (N) and July 19, 1988. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of July 19, 1988, and found them to be in order with the exception of one typographical error. Mr. Lindstrom had read the following minutes: May 18, 1988, pages 21 (beginning with Item No. 10) end, and found~ithem to be in order; June 8, 1988, pages 1 16 (ending at Item No. 6e), a~d found them to be in order;; and July 6 (N), 1988, pages 12 (beginning with Item No. 6) - 30, and found them to be in order with the exception of one typographical correction. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconde~ by Mr. Perkins, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the mot;ion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to reappoint Ms. P~tricia L. Smith as the joint City/County representative on the Jail Board,-~ith said term to expire on April 30, 1992. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: it AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not lfsted on the agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Bowie suggested that staff prepare a letter of thanks to the gentle- men from Loudoun County who spoke on conditional zoning. Mr. Perkins asked if the Board had ever ~ictated that teachers have regular classes on the last day of school. He had received a phone call from a teacher wanting to verify that. The consensus of the Board was they had not. Mr. Bain volunteered to address Albemarle~ High School government students during the week of May 15-19 on the role of CoUnty Supervisors. 574 May 3, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn to May 4, 1989, 4:00 P.M., Albemarle High School, Media Room. There being no further business to come before the Board~ at 10:45 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adjourn to May 4, 1989, at 4:00 P.M., Albemarle High School, Media Room. Rol 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.