Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-07Adgust 7, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors o£ Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 7, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., and Peter T. Way. Abesent: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., Deputy County Executive; Robert W. T~cker, Jr.; and Deputy County Attorney, Frederick W. Payne. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to accept the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley~an~Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Item 4.1. Letter from D. French Slaughter, Jr., dated July 16, 1985, re: Superfund hazardous waste clean-up program was received as information. The letter read: "July 16, 1985 Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Dear Miss Neher: Thank you for your recent letter concerning renewal of the Superfund hazardous waste clean-up program. Recently a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee approved HR 2817 on Superfund which would renew the program at a funding level of $10 billion. The Senate has cleared a Superfund bill at the committee level, but has yet to pass such a proposal on the floor. The Senate bill, S. 51, calls for total revenues of $7.5 billion. I shall certainly consider your views on any Superfund legislation which may come before the House of Representatives. Thank you for writing me. Sincerely (SIGNED) D. French Slaughter, Jr." Item 4.2. Monthly Building Activity Report for June 1, 1985, from the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received as information. Item 4.3. A copy of the FY 1986 budget of the Albemarle County Service Authority was received as information. Item 4.4. Planning Commission minutes for its meeting of July 23, 1985, were received. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-85-17. Charles W. Hurt. To rezone a total of 19.309 acres from R- to HC. Located on west side of Rt. 29 North, adjacent to Rivanna Amoco Service Station. Property is comprised of part of parcels 109 and 108A on Tax Map 45. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 23 and July 30, 1985.) Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission had not acted on this request and, then requested deferral until September 4, 1985. Mr. Bowie made motion to defer this request until September 4, 1985. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom. 458 _ August. 7, 1985_ (Regular_ ~ ...... . ~Ni ht Meetin Agenda Item No. 6. SP-85-42. James K. Barr Estate. Allow for 28 lots on a 241 acre parcel zoned RA. Property located at northeast intersection of Rt. 20 North and Rt. 610. Ta~ Map 63, parcel 30. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on ¢uly 23 and July 3o, 1985.) - Mr. Tucker stated tha~ the applicant has requested deferral until August 21, 1985 so as to. allow him time to examine some design alternatives. Mr. Fisher said he has become concerned about requests for deferral of actions before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tucker stated that it has always been understood that a request for deferral should be received a week prior to the scheduled meeting date which allows staff time to notify adjacent property owners. Mr. Way made motion to defer this request until August 21. Mr. Bowie se¢onde¢ the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 7. SP'-85-31. Woodlane Partnership. Build professional office building on 1.492 acre site zoned R-10. Located on east side of Rt. 743, 300 feet north of Whitewood Road. Tax Map 61, Parcel 23A. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 23 and July 30, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the 'following staff report: "Characer of the Area This undeveloped property shares access to Hydraulic Road with Lincoln Heights cemetery (zoned R-10) to the north. To the east is land approved for development of the Sachem Village office/retail complex (zoned C-i). A convenience store and restaurant are to the south. Property directly across H~draulic Road is developed with R. E. Lee Construction and UPS Czoned LI) while other properties are zoned rural areas. Staff Comment Three site plans have been approved for apartments on this property since 1980 (Rodman apartments; Woodlane Apartments). Currently Woodlane Partnership is proposing construction of professional offices on the property. Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with the crit.eria for issuance of a special use permit (31.2.4.1) and offers the following comment: e The use Will''n'ot be Of substantial detriment to adjoining property; the charact'er 'Of t'he area 'Will not be changed: Staff opinion is that office usage of this property would be consistent with other uses in the area. The use WoUld be harmony with the purpose and intent 'of the' Zoning Ordinance: Among other things the Zoning 0rd&nance is intended to 'treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties...' (1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT). Due to the character of adjoining properties on the east side of Hydraulic Road, sta~£ open&on is that offices would be a reasonable use of this land and would not set precedent for similar requests in the area. The use woul'd b'e consistent with the ~ublic health¢ safety,' and $eneral welfare: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has provided comment regarding Hydraulic Road: 'At the current zoning, this parcel would generate 100 vehicle trips a day. A general office building would generate approximately 12 trips for each 1,000 gross square feet. Therefore, an office building of 8,300 square feet would generate 100 vehicle trips a day. The Department cannot endorse a rezoning request that would generate more traffic than is allowed under the current zoning. The section of Route 743 that this site would have direct access to is currently non-~olerable. The existing entrance to the cemetery does no% have adequate sight distance due to the rock wall.' The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has indicated that a gross floor area o~'8~300 square feet would be comparable to residential development of the property in terms of traffic generation. Comparing this site to realized office development patterns, a gross floor area of about 15,000 square feet could be anticipated (i.e. - 180-vehicle trips per day). Therefore, anticipated office development would increase traffic generation by 80 vehicle trips per day. This portion of Hydraulic Road was deleted from the recent road improvement project.. The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors may wish to limit intensity of development until the road is improYed. Staff recommends approval subject to the following condition: 1. Office development limited to 8,300 square feet of gross floor area. 459 August 7, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 18, 1985, recommended by a vote of 4/2, approva& with the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Bowie asked the reason for the two dissenting votes. Mr. Tucker replied that staff had indicated with this size parcel, t5,000 square feet of gross floor area, would generate 180 vehicle trips per day and the dissenting members did not feel traffic should be limited to that for residential development and office space based on the location of the property. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Bill Roudabush, representing the applicant, presente his plans. He felt that the condition recommended by the Planning Commission was too ~'a~. restrictive for the following reasons: 1) The condition is based on gross floor area and not net floor area and it is not unusual for at least 25~ percent of gross floor area to be deducted from the total floor area to obtain net leasable area. This would severely limit the amount of space that could be developed, b) The ratio of office space to land area, if it is limited to 8,300 square feet, would be one square foot per 7.8 square feet of land area. The study from which the Highway Department took its recommendation also indicates that the normal floor area for a one-acre tract is 19,500 square feet which is one square foot per 2.2 square feet of total site area. The owners want something in between this amount, c) This property is to be used as a real estate office in conjunction with some other uses which the applicant ~oe~ot feel will be high traffic generators, d) No other tract of land in this area has this L~ limitation and staff report is favorable in that it compares this use favorably with others in the same general area. e) The owners chose to ask for the special use permit rather than a rezoning and under a general rezoning without a proffer, this limitation would not apply. Route 743 is destined to be improved; plans have already been developed. Route 743 is only access this property has to any road. The property is just at the end of the recent improvements on Hydraulic Road and the owners, for site plan approval, will agree to construct an additional lane across the full frontage of this property which would allow adequate access to the site. A prior site plan approval was given for 18,000 square feet to be used for apartments, so this 8,300 square feet limitation is a small fraction of the original plan. There is more than adequate land available for a 15,000 square foot building and parking. is not a good site for residential apartment use. The owner wants the special use permit granted without any square footage limitation becauae his intended use will generate only a small amount of traffic beyond what the apartments would have generated. Also, the numbers very statistical, based on sites all over the United States. The numbers are not repz of the type of use the owners plan. Mr. Fisher said the condition could be changed to limite the building to 8,300 square feel of gross floor area until such time as Hydraulic Road is brought up to a tolerable status. go from 100 vehicle trips per day to 180 vehicle trips per day would seem to be an 80 percent increase. This could create a considerable problem. Mr. Bowie asked if there was any type of specific office use already planned. Mr. Roudabush said thea~pPt~aa~thhasaaaconstruction division, but few customers will come to the office. Mr. Fisher questioned if this was ~ guaranteed forever or a temporary use. Mr. Roudabush stated that nothing is ever guaranteed. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke said she was of the opinion that the amount of traffic this type of operation generated would not be of a nature to cause a problem on Rt. 743. It seems, the only way to get any improvement on a road is for the road to become so bad that something has to be done. This business is mainly employee-related and does not generate high volume customer traffic. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mrs. Cooke and supports this request without a restriction. Mr. Way asked Mr. Roudabush if there are plans for a turning lane. Mr. Roudabush said yes. Mr. Fisher questioned Mr. Roudabush if there was going to be full frontage improvement. Mr. Roudabush stated this was also true. M~. Fisher reminded the Board members that since thi~ is a special permit, the Board has discretion to set standards by limiting the gross building area whether or not the road improvements mentioned by the applicant are required. Mr. Way said he will support this petition with the condition of a full frontage improvement. Mr. Payne stated there is not likely to be a great problem if such a condition is added. Mr. Fisher restated his question that if the road is nontotera~!e and if the Board goes against th~ recommendation of the Highway Department, is it reasonable to request that there be a full frontage improvement whether or not that is required for the Highway Department for the ~ entrance? Mr. Payne said it is permissible to do that unless the Board finds that the need th~at lane is substantially generated by the proposed development. It is not proper to require a road improvement which is primarily necessitated by existing traffic or traffic not related to this development. Mr. Bowie said it seems the issue is the extra 80 trips which obviously is not going to increase traffic that much on this particular road. Secondly, the applicant's representative said that if the restriction was lifted their intent is to build a full fronta lane. Mr. Payne said that is why he said if the condition is imposed it would be difficult to convince the court that the Beard was reasonable in finding the need for it was generated by this development. Mr. Fisher suggested the condition be changed to say that the office d ~.development would be limited to 8,300 square feet of gross floor area, or there would be no limit provided the applicant provides a full frontage improvement. Mr. Payne said that was consistent with his reading of a past case. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roudabush if he wished to comment after the previous discussion. Mr. Roudabush had no problem with either proposition. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Payne if a full £rontage improvement was specific enough to define what the Board wants. Mr. Payne said yes. Mrs. Cooke made motion that SP-85-31 be approved with one condition reading: "Office development limited to 8,300 square feet of gross floor area, or there will be no limit on square feet of gross floor area provided there is a full frontage improvement to Route 743". Mr~ Bowie seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. 480 Agenda Item No. 8. SP-85-43. M. Clifton McClure, Trustee. To allow for construction of dam and lake on 284.73 acres zoned RA, located jointly on lots 6, 7 and 8 of Virginia Farms Subdivision. Property on southwest side of Rt. 648, east of Keswick and south of Rt. 22. T~ Map 81, Parcel llA. Rivanna District· (Advertised in the Daily Frogress on July 23 and July 30, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Dam Construction, Section 30.3.5.2.1, Zoning Ordinance. Acreage: 284.31 acres. Location: Property, described as Tax Map 81, parcel llA, part, is located on the south side of Route 648, east of Route 22. near Keswick. Charact. er of-Area Large acreages and scattered single-family dwellings along Route 648. Applicant's Proposal Virginia Farms Subdivision was heard and approved by the Albemarle County Planning Commission on December 12, 1984. This proposal is to construct a dam and-lake on Lots 6, 7 and 8, in the 10 lot subdivision. The acreage ranges from 21 to 52 acres per lot. Staff Comment This stream is not large enough to form a network suitable for canoeing. it will not hinder public use if the dam'is constructed. Therefore, The County Engineer has been consulted concerning this request and will need detailed plans and computations before his approval can be granted. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this request, staff offers the following conditions: Determination of floodway and floodway fringe Cnot determined at'this time); No increase in the flood height that would affect other properties shall be allowed; County Engineer approval of plans and computations for dam and outfall structures; Issuance of an erosion control permit; Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies'; Amend Virginia Farms Plat to include dam and lake site." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 2, 1985, voted unanimously o recommend approval of this petition with staff conditions 1, 3, 5 and 6, deleted #4 and added the words "outside this subdivision" at the end of #2. The Commission added a condition reading "County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement of pond". Mr. Way asked Mr. Tucker about condition number four in the staff's report concerning issuance of an erosion control permit. Mr. Tucker stated this had already been taken care Of. The Planning Commission deleted that condition. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Bill Roudabush, representing the applicant, I~.? presented his comments to the Board. Mr. Roudabush did not feel he needed to add anything. The applicant has no problems with the conditions. This lake is an amenity being added to the project to provide a more desirable setting. Mr. Fisher questioned if any of the lots that would be affected by the maintenance agreement have been sold. Mr. Roudabush said no. Mr. Fisher asked if the maintenance agreement will require that the dam be replaced in the event of a disaster from an act of God or whatever. Often that is a very heavy burden if it is placed on a few property owners. Mr. Roudabush stated that the amendment to the plat will be such that the lake is only on one tract of land. That includes the entire lake, dam and ar-?.~.~ appurtenances. It will be that property owners responsibility to replace the dam if necessary. Mr. Fisher said he would like to make sure that somebody will take care of the dam and replace it if it is washed out. The dam could cause a lot of problems to downstream property. Mr. Roudabush said he is. aware of the potential problems and that he hopes the expensive design and construction will eliminate such a possibility. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie stated this will to be an attractive addition to an expensive subdivision. Since there is to be County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement, he supports apl with the conditions as specified by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher agreed but he felt that in order to make it clear, condition number six should be amended to include a provision for replacement. Mr. Payne wanted to know exactly what the Board wanted in this agreement. Typically with these maintenance agreements, the people who have the enjoyment of the amenity are the ones required to maintain it. Mr. Roudabush said one lot owner will own the whole lake; he wanted to know if the Board would consider this as an amenity for the entire subdivision and wants the owners in the entire subdivision to participate. Mr. Fisher stated that is not so however, he feels there should be assurance that if the dam washed out and caused damage to other property owners, somebody would fix it. Mr. Payne said there are already law which take care of damage. As to replacement, that contemplates some sort of enjoyment by other parties. Mr. Fisher said not if the private person who buys this lot is 'willing to take on that responsibility. Mr. Fisher said he worries about how the dam would be repaired should it wash out. Mr. Henley stated that it is possible the owner may at some time in the future wish to get rid of the August 7 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) if the applicant is asking for permission to buiId should be some provision for permanent maintenance the lake as a lake. Mr. Fisher said that and replacement permanent improvement, there is issue. if necessary. Mr. Fisher asked that the County Attorney's office address th Mrs. Cooke asked what if the applicant never sells the lot. Mr. Fisher, said the applicant would remain responsible. Mr. Henley said he can see the problem of people~estering the owner over the lake and the owner may wish to get rid of it. Mr. Roudabush'sa~d can understand the need for a maintenance agreement if there is more than one owner, but if the lake is entirely on one tract of land, there should be no problem with what the owner decides to do with the lake. The condition could be amended to say that if more than one owner is involved in the ownership of the lake, then a maintenance agreement must be approved. Mr. Henley agreed with Mr. Roudabush's statement. Mr. Fisher once agaih stated there should be a maintenance agreement no matter who owns the lake. Mr. Payne said where there is more than one lot _ involved, he would ordinarily require the lot owners directly affected by the amenity to participate in the maintenance agreement. Mr. Bowie questioned if someone L~ought lot seven and decided to build a dam on their own property, would they have to come to the Board to get permission to' do that. Mr. Tucker said yes they would. Mr. Bowie then asked if the Board would require them to provide a replacement. Mr. Fisher said if it is a matter of a special permit the Board has discretion and the owner can request a change in the special permit if conditions change. In past cases, there have been multiple owners. Mr. Fisher said he will agree with Mr. Roudabush. There should be a maintenance agreement under any circumstances, and if there are multiple beneficiaries they should all participate in an agreement which should include a provision for replacement. Mr. Agnor asked if a single-lot owner is solely responsible for a lake, who does he have an agreement with. Mr. Fisher said it would become a deed restriction for that lot. Mr. Payne asked who~enforce this agreement. In other words can the owner of lot six come in and say the agreement needs to be enforced. Mr. Fisher then said he will go along with what the Planning Commission recommended and let the County Attorney's office and the owners work out what is involved. Mr. Bowie stated that he was prepared to make a motion, but wanted to add to a condition number two of the Planning Commission recommended conditions. Add to the end of the condition "or lot if lake is located on single lot". If this is not a community lake, but an individual lake, the other lot owners should be protected. Mr. Bowie made motion that SP-85-43 be approved with the following conditions: Determination of floodway and floodway fringe; No increase in the flood height that would adversely affect other properties shall be allowed outside this subdivision or any lot in the subdivision if the lake is located on a single lot; County Engineer approval of plans and computations for dam and outfall; Approval of appropriate local, state and federal agencies; Amend Virginia Farms plat to include dam and lake site; ~ ~~' ~~ County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement of pond. Mr. Way seconded the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-85-41. Kurt A. Henschen. Allow the operation of a country store, gifts/crafts/antiques and public garage on 5.55 acres, zoned RA. Property on north side of State Route 810, 0.2 mile west of intersection with Rt. 664 at Nortonsville. Tax Map 8, parcels 31 and 32 (part of). White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 23 and July 30, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Req. uest: County Store (10.2.2.22) Gift, craft, antique shop (10.2.2.36) Public Storage Background In August, 1982 the Planning Commission reviewed a rezoning for C-1 Commercial on this property under which the applicant requested as many as seven uses. Staff expressed concern about intensification of usage. Later, the applicant made special use permit request identical to this current request. This petition was approved subject to six conditions, but the special use permit was not perfected and subsequently expired. Staff Recommendation Staff has reviewed this petition to determine if a change of circumstance has o~curred since prior approval which would warrant additional review or change of recommendation. Staff can determine no such change of circumstances and recommends approval subject to conditions identical to SP-82-57: Ail uses shall be limited to the existing floor area of the buildings in which such uses are to be located. The gift/craft/antique shop shall be located in the dwelling which is physically connected to the store. The country store shall be located in the store building and the garage shall be located in the garage building; 462 August 7, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) The public garage use, in addition to other conditions contained herein, shall be subject to the following: The public garage use shall be limited to repairing and equipping of vehicles. Body work and/or spray painting of Yehioles shall be permitted only as non-conforming use and shall be unaffected by the issuance of this permit. No sale or rental of vehicles shall be permitted; Ail work shall be conducted within the garage building; No outside storage of parts including junk parts or junk cars. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers; Not more than six (6) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on the property outdoors at any time; Hours of operation shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and no ~peration of the garage on Sunda~; Reinstallation of gas pumps shall require Fire Official approval and may require site plan approval; Fire and Building Official approval and Health Department approval of all uses; No auctions and' no permanent outdoor display of merchandise; Should sale of gasoline not occur, the Fire Offical may require removal of, filling or other safety measures for the underground storage tanks." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 2, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-41, with the conditions recommended by the staff but added a number 2f reading: "Modification of the garage doors to the reasonable satisfaction of the Chief of Planning". Mr. Tucker said this condition was added at the request of the Virginia Department of Highway and Transportation because the garage doors are extremely close to the edge of Route 810. Mr. Tucker~ said-~.this.:~.is~asi~al~iy a renewal of the previous permit. The ~-~ I~public hearing was opened and Mr. Henschen presented his comments. The conditions he seeks are lithe same as those placed in 1982. Previous plans for the property have been delayed for llvarious reasons, but he will use this special use permit before it expires. The garage door I]condition will be met. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Henley then made motion that SP-85-~1 be approved with the following conditions: 1. Ail uses shall be limited to the existing floor area of the buildings in' which such uses are to be located. The gift/craft/antique shop shall be located in the dwelling which is physically connected to the store. The country store shall be located ~in the store building and the garage shall be located in the garage building; 2. The public garage use, in addition to other conditions contained herein, shall be subject to the following conditions: The public garage use shall be limited to repairing and equipping of vehicles;~ Body work and/or spray painting of vehicles shall be Permitted only as ~a nonconforming use and shall be unaffected by the issuance of this permit. No sale or rental of vehicles shall be permitted; Ail work shall be conducted within the garage building; ~ No outside storage of parts including junk parts or junk cars. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers; Not more than six (6) vehicles awaiting repair, shall be parked on the property outdoors at any time; Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and no operation of the garage on Sunday; Modification of the garage doors to the reasonable satisfaction of the Chief of Planning. Reinstallation of gas pumps shall require Fire Official approval and may require site plan approval; Fire and Building Official approval and Health Department approval of all uses; No auctions and no permanent outdoor display of merchandise; Should sale of gasoline not occur, the Fire Official may require removal of, filling or other safety measures for the underground storage tanks. Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion which passed with the following recorded vote: ~YES:- Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ~BSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. August 7, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 10. SP-85-35. Howell J. Cotten. weekend outing lodging/camping on limited basis. of Stony Point intersection, zoned RA. Tax Map 48, parcel 15. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 23 and July 30, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Cabins for weekend lodging/camping C10.2.2.20) To allow the use of four existing cabin~ Located on west side of Rt. 20 North, Rivanna District. Acreage: 40.84 acres Zoning.: RA Rural Areas (portion containing camp area) and VR Village Residential Location: Property, described as Tax Map 48, parcel 15, is located on the north side of Route 20 North about 1800 feet east of Route 600 at Stony Point. Character of the Area A single-family dwelling is located near Route 20 North. A religious meeting hall is located about 1500 feet north of Route 20 in a wooded area. Four small storage buildings which are proposed for cabin usage are located at the meeting hall. The closest dwelling to the meeting hall is about 950 feet away. Staff Comment In June 1981 the Board of Supervisors approved the meeting hall for usage as a private school (see SP-81-18). Conditions of approval were met and the school was established. In regard to compliance with the conditions: O O Fire lanes were established by posting "no parking" signs in the driveways; The County Engineer found the entrance road and parking areas to be satisfactory; The entrance at Route 20 North was improved; The Health Department approved the water supply but noted that the well did not meet current standards in regard to grouting. The school has since been discontinued, however, religious gatherings continue to be held including weekend religious camps twice a year [Labor Day weekend; July 4 weekend). While most participants sleep in campers or tents, the applicant would convert the four storage buildings into cabins for sleeping purposes only. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Due to inadequate construction of well, annual Health Department review to insure potability of water; Fire and Building Official approvals of cabins~for sleeping purposes including limitation of occupancy; Camping limited to two weekends per year; provided that the Zoning Administrator may permit a reasonable increase in the number and/or duration of such events upon a finding that such increase would not be obtrusive to the area; Compliance with 5.1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance: am Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall be subject to Albemarle County Fir~ Official approval whether or not site development plan is requir, ed; Ail such uses shall conform to the requirements of the ¥irginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other applicable requirements." Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 2, 1985, recommended approval with the staff conditions, but modified number one by adding the words "or verificatio by Health Department that the well to be used meets current standards" at the end of same. In addition, Mr. Tucker noted receipt of a letter dated August 6, 1985, from Robert J. and Vera A. Runser, adjacent property owners, who request that an additional condition be added to SP-85-35. "That the rights and privileges granted by this petition apply to the applicant on!y and would not be transferable with the land. The above petition (SP-85-35) would not be applicable to property owners subsequent to Howell J. Cotten." Mr. Fisher did not feel it was very clear in the staff report as to what exactly the L applicant wanted. The request sounds like commercial usage, but limitating it to two weekends year sounds absurb for commercial usage. Mr. Tucker said he did not have information spelling out exactly what the request is. Then, Mr. Fisher questioned the provision that the Zoning Administrator may permit an increase in the number and/or duration of such events. How far can that be expanded before it becomes a problem? Mr. Tucker replied that what may be a problem to the Board may not be a problem to the Zoning Admininstrator. The Board may want to set a limit or simply delete that portion and leave it to the two weekends that were requested by the applicant. 464 Au u~t 7~1 8 'Re ular Ni ht Meetin ~ The public hearing was opened and the applicant, Mr. Cotten, presented his comments Mr. Cotten sa~d he is a christian and'meets with other christians from around the State and the County several times a year. They usually get together the latter part of October to cook apple butter, but it is too cold at that time to camp Out. If couples want to go camping he would ..... '~ grant them the opportunitY to do that. The-use of the cabins is requested because they usually meet together as families, and the g~rls use one cabin, while the boys use another cabin. Labo~ Day weekend and July 4 weekend were stated because those are the two most commonly used ?~ weekends. Mr. Fisher said he has no real problem with twice a year use, but feels owners chang~ and uses change so the Board must think about what might happen in five or ten years. Mr. Cotten said 'they have been meeting on this site for about twenty years on an occasional basis without use of the cabins. Mr. Bowie said the site is being used more than two weekends out of a year. Mr. Cotten said the site is used weekly, but the cabins will only be used for camping on holiday weekends. Individual couples do use the area for camping purposes now. Mr. Cotten stated this request is for the use of the cabins. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Cotten if he had any problem with the Board adding the provision that this permit would be granted only to him and would not run with the land. Mr. Cotten had no problem with that, as he has no intention of selling the property. With no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie then made motion to approve SP-85-35 with the following conditions as recommen~ by the Planning Commission: Due to inadequate construction of well, annual Health Department review to insure potability of water, or verification by Health Department that the well to be used meets current standards; Fire and Building Official approvals of cabins for sleeping purposes including limitation of occupancy; Camping limited to two weekends per year; provided that the Zoning Administrator may permit a reasonable increase in the number and/or duration of such events upon a finding that such increase would not be obtrusive to the area; Compliance with 5.1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance: Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfire, cooking pits, etc., shall be subject t Albemarle County Fire Official approval whether or nov site development plan is required; Ail such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other applicable requirements. &YES: NAYS: ABSENT: 5. Approval of SP-85-35 is for the current owner only and is not transferable. Mrs. Cooke-seconded the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-85-18. Frank Hereford. To incorporate as part of the proffer fo] ZMA-84-32, Section 24.2..1(20.) of the Zoning Ordinance permitting hotels, motels, and inns. Property located on Greenbrier Drive between Flowers Bakery and E1 Paso Rib Company. Tax Map 61W, Section 01, parcel A5. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 23 and July 30, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Amend ZMA-84-32 as to uses permitted by addition of 24.2.1(20) Hotels, motels, inns. Acreage: 4.34 acres. Zoning: uses)· HC, Highway Commercial (proffered as to limitation of permitted Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 1, Lot A5, is~-located on .the north side of Greenbrier Drive about 25.0 feet west of U.S. Route 29N. Staff Comment A site plan was recently approved for construction of a 40,000 square foot building on a portion of this site. The building would accommodate multi-tenant office/warehouse uses. The remainding 1.25 acres is proposed for motel usage. Many uses in the immediate area are compatible to and supportive of motel usage of this property (i.e. - restaurants, convenience store, theater within short walking distance). Generally, staff does not offer comment regarding signage. In this case, however, staff is concerned that, since the motel would not be located adjacent to Rt. 29, variance may be sought from sign regulations (i.e. -.increased height and/or area, lighting, etc). Except for this concern, staff would not oppose addition of '24.2.1 (20) hotels, motels, inns' to-the accepted proffer of ZMA-84-32." 465 A_~ugust 7, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) The following proffer was attached to the staff report: "August 6, 1985 Richmond and Fishburne 0 Court Square PO Box 559 Charlottesville, VA 22902-0559 Ms. Amelia Patterson County of Albemarle Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 Re: Frank L. Hereford Greenbrier Drive Project Gentlemen: Please accept this letter as the amendment of the proffer under ZMA-84-32 to include as a permitted use the following: 'Hotels, Motel's and Inns on that portion of the 4.34 acre tract containing approximately 1.25 acres and being the eastern portion of said 4.34 acre tract.' The above proffer was made orally before the Planning Commission at its meeting July 30 and was approved at that time. Very truly yours, Joseph W. Richmond, Jr." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 30, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition subject to the amended proffer made by the applicant's attorney. The Planning Commission also stated that they wanted to be notified if a variance from the existing sign regulations is requested. Mr. Fisher stated that the zoning map amendment approved in 1984 was proffered to include number of potential uses. He asked if none of those were attractive to the applicant and now wants to broaden the uses. Mr. Tucker stated that the applicant made an application with proffers. His proffer included hotels, motels and inns. When the proffer was rewritten by his attorney, this use was inadvertently left out. The Planning staff would not have changed its recommendation if hotels, motels and inns had been a part of the original application. The staff report was based on the applicant's original application and when the proffer was ~ resubmitted by the attorney and this use inadvertently left out, Planning did not mention this in terms of any additional or lessening of the impact on the property for highway commercial zoning. Mr. Fisher said he feels this is a piecemeal approach to get full highway commercial zoning by a proffer, an amended proffer, and maybe another amended proffer next year. Mr. Tucker said that many applicants proffer to delete those uses that are most objectional to an area. Mr. Tucker felt that was what happened in this case, however a mistake was made at the time the original proffer was written. The public hearing was opened, and Mr. James Murray, Jr., representing the applicant, said the applicant has no objections to the condition and urged approval of the application. Mr. Fisher asked if it was intended all along to include hotels, motels and inns in the proffer. Mr. Murray said that the applicant had a binding contract to sell the property for a hotel at the time of the original application. Mr. Fisher stated that the proffer is limited tc the 1.25 acres on the eastern portion of the whole tract. Mr. Murray said the applicant is aware of this and there is no prospect of coming back in the future for amendments to the proffer since both sites are ready for construction. With no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to amend ZMA-84-32 to include as a permitted use as allowed by Section 24.2.1.20 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, hotels, motels and inns on that portion of the 4.34 acre tract containing approximately 1.25 acres and being the eastern of said 4.34 acre tract (Proffer dated August 6, 1985, signed by Joseph W. Richmond, Jr.). Mr. Bowie seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: February 13, 1985. Mr. Bowie had read pages 23 through 34 and requested that the word "obliquely" be omitted from the text. The remaining p~ges were found to be acceptable. Mr. Bowie offered motion to accept that section of minutes. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom. 468 August 7, 1985 (Regular ,Ni ht Meetin ........ = r ,~i ht Meetin. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters NOt listed on the Agenda. Mr. Bowie said that at a recent meeting about a trailer, a comment had been made by a citizen about another trailer where the la~d had been clear cut in viol'ation of conditions. He had asked the Zoning Administrator to inspect the property and a response was included with the agenda tonight which shows that the conditions were met. Mr. Kingrea owner of the trailer, is not violating the special use permit. ' Mr. Fisher brought to the attention of the Board an invitation from 'the CharlottesVille Bite Company to participate in the 99th Virginia State Firemen's Convention Parade to 'be held ol August 14, 1985. This is also the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Charlottesville Fir. Department. He said the efforts of the volunteers in both the City and the County should be recognized. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel. At 9:18 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Way to adjourn .into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom. The Board reconvened into open session at 9:43 p.m. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appoint Mr. Edward B. Lowry of 1808 Meadowbrook Heights Road to the Board of the Airport Authority and the Airport Commission as the joint County-City appointee. Mr. Lowry.will fill the appointment and term vacated by Mr. George Prill (term expires December 1, 1987). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley-and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjournment. With no further business to conduct, the Board adjourned at 9:45 p.m.