The URL can be used to link to this page

1986-02-19February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 315 A reguiar meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 19, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John; and Director of Planning and Community Development, Mr. John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve Item 4.1 on the consent agenda, and to accept the remaining items as infor- mation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses in which the State Compensation Board partici- pates, for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of January, 1986, were approved as presented. Item No. 4.2. A copy of Planning Commission minutes for its meeting of February 4, 1986 was received as information. Item No. 4.3. Letter dated February 7, 1986 from Senator Paul Trible, re: Conrail to the Norfolk Southern Corporation, was received as follows: sale of "Because of your interest, I wanted to let you know that the Senate has approved Transportation Secretary Dole's plan to sell Conrail to the Norfolk Southern Corporation. I supported this sale because I believe that merging Conrail with Norfolk Southern was the best way to ensure railroad service on which Virginians depend. Norfolk Southern's operation of Conrail will provide the experience and financial resources essential to its continued operation. As a result of the sale, the federal government will receive $1.2 billion in payments and will not be required to bail out Conrail in the future. This gets the federal government out of the railroad business. I appreciated having the benefit of your thinking on this controversial issue and I hope you will continue to stay in touch in the days ahead." Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-85-31. Luck Stone Corporation. To rezone 29.512 acres from Rural Areas (RA) to Rural Areas with Natural Resource (NR) Extraction Overlay. (Deferred from February 5, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Location: Property, described as Tax Map 79, parcels 20, 23D, & 23E, is located north and west of Stone Robinson Elementary School at Shadwell. Character of Area: This site is b~rdered on the north by Luck Stone's main quarry operation. On the west is the Rivanna River. The property has about 600 feet of frontage on Route 729. The site surrounds a dwelling and Stone Robinson School on the east. Applicant's Proposal: Luck Stone produces a variety of crushed stone product most of which is consumed locally for road building and other uses (S. L. Williamson has an on-site plant). Stone from the quarry has an uncommon color resulting in some export (by rail and tractor trailer) for a variety of uses including tennis court surfaces. Production from the quarry is anticipated to con- tinue for 40 years or more. The requested NR zoning would incorporate three parcels into the existing quarry operation which is currently zoned NR/RA. One of these parcels (TM 79, P. 20; 11.5 acres) has been used for disposal of overburden and stock- piling of product for some years, however, was not designated with NR zoning 316 February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) on the 1980 zoning map. (Product stockpiled on this parcel is loaded to rail). As to the other two parcels (TM 79, parcels 23D and 23E consisting of 18.5 acres); Luck Stone has submitted a plan showing these areas as a site for overburden wastage. Approximately 375,000 - 450,000 cubic yards of primarily soil overburden would be deposited over a period of about five years. At this writing the Luck Stone has proffered that these three parcels shall not be used for extraction or crushing of stone. Staff Comment: In review of this petition and thru comment from property owners in the area, Education Department, Watershed Management Official, and County Engineer, staff has identified the following concerns: Stone Robinson School: The Education Department has commented that adequate buffering, dust control, and fencing should be provided to protect the public school. The plan submitted by the applicant proposes a 25 foot natural tree buffer along the school's property line. Due to possible damage to root structure or suffocation during the fill operation staff believes the 25 foot buffer would prove inadequate and recommends that a 50 foot natural strip would provide more service in terms of buffer and dust control. Rivanna River is of concern in terms of potential visibility of the opera- tion to river users and adverse environmental effects. The minimum tree buffer from the river as shown on the plan would be 75 feet. Combined with the elevation difference, staff opinion is the operation would not be highly visible from the river and that proposed measures would be adequate; provided that the plan was binding. As to the potential environmental effects to the river, these issues can only be addressed at the local level upon option of the applicant (Section 30.4.3 requires issuance of a permit by the Zoning Administrator before commencing any NR activity and permits the applicant to satisfy this requirement by either submission of plans to the County or obtaining plan approval from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Development in accordance with Title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia. Permitted Uses: The applicant's proffer prohibits excavation and crushing of stone on these three parcels, however, does not limit usage of parcels 23D and 23E to overburden wastage as shown on the plan. Staff has not reviewed this petition for other by right uses to which the property could be devoted: 30.4.2.1.1 Except as otherwise provided in sections 10.2.1.18, 10.2.2.40 or 30.4.2.2, removal of soil, sand, gravel, stone, or other minerals by excavating, stripping, quarrying or other mining operation. 30.4.2.1.2 Accessory uses to a use permitted by right such as blasting, washing, grading, sorting, stockpiling, grinding and the like; provided that such operations are located on the site of the main use. Access to Route 729: As shown on the plan, access to the overburden site would be internal from the existing quarry operation and the applicant has verbally agreed to proffer that TM 79, parcels 23D and 23E would not have access to Route 729. No limitation of access to TM 79, parcel 20 from Route 729 has been offered although access is currently provided internally from the quarry. Parcel 20 is located between the school and Route 250 East. Staff cannot support any access to Route 729. Staff Recommendation: Luck Stone has operated in Albemarle County for several years without local zoning control and has voluntarily taken measures to protect the community which surpass many quarry operations. However, the staff in its review must look beyond the applicant to the issues of public concern in a rezoning because zoning runs with the land and not the applicant. As with other zoning districts, the statement of intent and other provisions of the NR district are oriented towards establishment of zoning. In this case, the petition proposes expansion of a zoning which may or may not have been approved under a 'clean slate' review. Given this background and the sensitivity of the area as outlined in this report, staff opinion is that the provisions of the NR zoning and the applicant's proffer are insufficient in terms of buffering, permitted uses and access to protect the public interest in this particular case. More specifically staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal does not satisfy the stated intent of the NR district. In 1983, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to include Section 5.1.28 BORROW, FILL, OR WASTE AREA. In terms of local supervision and control of the wastage operation, staff opinion is that these provisions are superior to certain provisions of the NR district. (Conduct of the activity and inter- mediate measures including rapid correction of any problem areas will be as important as final reclamation measures). Should concerns outlined ~n this February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) report be adequately addressed and should local supervision be realized, staff could recommend favorably on this petition. Should those concerns not be adequately addressed, the staff recommends denial. Note: It should be emphasized that if overburden wastage is not authorized for the proposed site, Luck Stone would need to determine if overburden could be deposited within the existing NR zone or if it needed to be expor- ted. The second alternative could pose monetary and operation costs to the applicant as well as increased public costs due to increased truck traffic on public roads and associated dust/mud problems. Mr. Horne said since the Planning Commission meeting, there have been dramatic revisions to the plans and proffers. The staff does think the revisions adequately addresses the con- cerns of the 'staff, and would recommend approval. The Planning Commission at its meeting on January 21, 1986, unanimously recommended denial of the petition with the previously submit- ted proffers and plans. Mr. Horne then presented the following letters of proffer dated January 27, 1986 and dated February 6, 1986: "January 27, 1986 Ms. Estelle Neher Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: ZMA-85-31 Luck Stone Corporation Dear Ms. Neher: In addition to a revised site plan which is enclosed, we desire to proffer the following conditions to be included in the above referenced rezoning request: Luck Stone shall limit the use of Parcels 23D and 23E to filling and reclaiming. 0 Luck Stone shall abide by Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 5.1.28-BORROW, FILL, OR WASTE AREA to accomplish the subject filling and reclaiming. Fill material shall be hauled across Luck Stone property and not on public roads to get to the subject fill area. 0 Other than seeding and planting activity, work on the fill area shall be limited to winter months (November 15th through March 15th), summer vacation period (June, July and August), and any day school is not in session. Access to 729 from Parcel 20 shall be limited to light vehicles (autos and pickups) and emergency needs. In previous letters we have proffered: Luck Stone shall not extract stone from or crush stone on the three subject parcels (T.M. 79, Parcels 20, 23D and 23E). Luck Stone shall install a chain link fence between Stone-Robinson and the fill area. Luck Stone shall not have an entrance or access onto State Road 729 from either Parcel 23D or 23E of Tax Map 79. Please make this letter and revised site plan a part of our rezoning file. Thanking you in advance, I remain Yours very truly, LUCK STONE CORPORATION (SIGNED) Joseph Andrews, Jr. Vice President-Corporate Development" "February 6, 1986 Ms. Estelle Neher Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: ZMA-85-31 Luck Stone Corporation Tax Map 79 - Parcels 20, 23D and 23E 318 February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Dear Ms. Neher: This letter is to serve as a summary of the proffers that have previously been submitted by Luck Stone in regards to the above referenced rezoning application. Also, as a result of our meetings with the Advisory Board of the Stone-Robinson Elementary School Parent-Teachers Organization, we are adding one additional proffer - number 10. Should ZMA-85-31 be granted, we hereby proffer the following: Luck Stone shall limit the use of Parcels 23D and 23E to filling and reclaiming. Luck Stone shall abide by Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 5.1.28-BORROW, FILL OR WASTE AREA to accomplish the subject filling and reclaiming. Fill material shall be hauled across Luck Stone property and not on public roads to get to the subject fill area. Other than seeding and planting activity, work on the fill area shall be limited to winter months (November 15th through March 15th), summer vacation period (June, July and August), and any day school is not in session. Access to 729 from Parcel 20 shall be limited to light vehicles (autos and pickups) and emergency needs. Luck Stone shall not extract stone from or crush stone on the three subject parcels (T.M. 79, Parcels 20, 23D and 23E). Luck Stone shall install a chain link fence for a distance of 1057.91' as indicated by the red line on the submitted plat. The chain link fence shall be of equal quality and height as the chain link fence that now exists on the Stone-Robinson School property. Luck Stone shall not have an entrance or access road onto State Route 729 from either Parcel 23D or Parcel 23E of Section Map 79. o 10. Luck Stone shall abide by the site plan (Revision Date: January 29, 1986) that was submitted to you on January 29, 1986 along with our letter of proffers dated January 27, 1986. Once the filling and reclaiming are completed according to the above site plan, Luck Stone shall not request at a later date that more fill be allowed to be placed on the fill area. Please make this letter a part of our rezoning file. advance, I remain Thanking you in Yours very truly, (SIGNED) Joseph Andrews, Jr. Vice President-Corporate Development" Mr. Horne said the new site plan submitted by Luck Stone proposes a change in the configuration of the area intended for fill. Fill activity has been decreased to preserve the wooded nature of the area. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the area of property in the setback from the boundary line would remain in its natural state. Mr. Horne said there is only minimal setback in the heavily wooded area. The staff is concerned about adequacy of the setback and feels there should be a 50 foot margin as opposed to a 25 foot margin. The staff is more concerned with the root system of the trees than visibility, as it is difficult to accurately project where the fill activity will end. Mr. Horne said, although it is hard to speak for the Planning Commission, he feels that the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission have been addressed by the revised plan and proffers. Mr. Fisher asked for the definition of "overburden wastage". Mr. Horne said in order to get to the underground stone, the top soil must be removed and stored somewhere off of the site. Mr. Fisher asked if it is the intent that the excavated soil will be used to refill the quarried area. Mr. Horne said he does not believe so. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Joseph Andrews, Jr., Vice-President of Corporate Development, representing Luck Stone, addressed the Board. Mr. Andrews said this is the first time in Luck Stone's 50 years of business that concerns such as these have been ex- pressed concerning its operations. As a result of the concerns, Luck Stone revised its original site plan and proffers. In addition, Luck Stone met with a group of concerned citizens and explained in detail the proposal. Luck Stone has gone to great length to include citizen's suggestions in the proposal. This is a good plan, one which will benefit Albemarle County, its citizens, Stone Robinson School, and will allow Luck Stone Corporation to utilize its property in a controlled manner. The motto at Luck Stone is "we care". Luck Stone cares about its neighbors, customers, employees and the community. In keeping with this tradition, Luck Stone have responded to community concerns in a positive manner. Mr. Andrews said this is an excellent proposal and he asks that the Board approve the request. Mr. Fisher asked if it is Luck Stone's intent to reuse the soil to cover the quarry operation at a later date. Mr. Andrews replied no. Luck Stone intends to stabilize the soil, seed it and plant pines. Mr. Fisher asked if this process will be done over a period of years. Mr. Andrews said it will be done in small increments over five years. Activity 319 February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) will not be going on every day. Mr. Andrews said one reason for change in the high berm coming towards the secondary road was because of concerns expressed at the meetings with the PTO. Building the berm would prevent potential future acquisition of property near the school, by Luck Stone. The land will remain flat and fit with the topography of the school. Mrs. Sharon Wood, PTO President from Stone Robinson SchoOl, said the PTO feels that Luck Stone has worked fairly with the PTO members. Luck Stone has been present at several meetings and has attempted to respond to all of the concerns expressed by the PTO. The PTO does support the new proposal with the proffers. Dr. William Orr, a parent with children in Stone Robinson, next addressed the Board. Stone Robinson is the third largest school in the county but only has 11.1 acres of land. He said Luck Stone has agreed to fill in the lower end of the school property while it is filling in its property to level the land to allow for expansion of the school facilities, if the County will allow this. A fence runs into a gully that could be placed along the tree border of the school property which would allow the property to be filled. He also is in support of Luck Stone's revised proposal, but if the school property is not filled, it will leave a big dip and it will eventually require filling. Since Luck Stone is willing to do the work, it would be an advantage to Luck Stone and the County and it will hopefully allow for future expansion of the school. Mr. Pete Craddock addressed the Board and said the revised plan is an improvement. A provision of adequate screening will allow better control of the school and the river. then suggested that an increased step program usage be in operation during the summer for dust control and noise control. He Mr. Jeff Kirwan, a parent with a child at Stone Robinson, said he still is against the proposal. His wife is also a volunteer at Stone Robinson. It is a mistake for this opera- tion to be so close to the city limits (three miles). Presently parents and residents of the area can tolerate the blasting and shaking of the houses. He lives within one and one-half miles of the operation and his house shakes during blasting and the same is heard and felt at the school. He feels that any expanded operations of the quarry are unnecessary. The present situation is tolerable, but may not be after expansion of the operation. There is still room for negotiation. This new plan is basically the same, just dressed up a little bit. Without the berm, noise will be a major problem. Because of the major earth-moving processes taking place, it will be difficult teaching classes in the trailers and difficult supervising outdoor classrooms. This is one of the entrances to Monticello and it is impor- tant that the county keep the integrity of the view from the roadway. He also thinks that protection of the Rivanna canal system can be negotiated. Luck Stone proposes to fill in the ravine which is the logical access for anyone who wants to study the Rivanna canal system. There is less buffer than that indicated by the pictures presented. This, together with exclusion of the berm, means a major noise problem. Mr. Andrews again addressed the Board and presented a photograph to the Board which indicates the area to be left in its natural state. This operation will be a considerable distance from the old canal bed and the river. The canal is totally in the floodplain area and not on Luck Stone's property. Mr. Fisher commented that Luck Stone is not allowed, by this rezoning, to do any fill in the floodplain. Mr. Andrews said that is correct. Mr. Bowie asked how many truck loads of dirt are to be removed. Mr. Andrews said 30,000 to 40,000 tons of dirt, with the removal taking place over five years. Mr. Bowie said he had the impression that some of the property near the school would be filled. Mr. Andrews replied no; the dotted lines as shown on the plan are the existing topography. If an arrangement could be made with the county, Luck Stone could possibly fill some of the area. With no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way commented that this rezoning first came to his attention six weeks ago. He has been impressed with the cooperative spirit of Luck Stone and of the Stone Robinson PTO. A tremendous amount of hard work has gone on between the two parties and he appreciates the effort. The result of the efforts by everyone involved is a plan that is reasonable and one which he can support. Dr. Orr's comments about possibly negotiating for some fill dirt around the school is a good idea. He, therefore, supports this rezoning request. Mr. Bowie thanked Mrs. Wood for her patience and work in helping to resolve the concerns of the PTO. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to approve ZMA-85-31 as proffered dated February 6, 1986 to Ms. Estelle Neher from Mr. Joseph Andrews, Jr., Vice President-Corporate Develop- ment, Luck Stone Corporation, as set out above. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Way asked if it is appropriate to suggest that the Education staff meet with Luck Stone concerning possible fill. Mr. Fisher said it can be suggested, but he does not think it should become a part of the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks when more is known about the expansion plans for Stone Robinson School, that would be the time to consider the fill. He also supports the motion, but after visiting the site he is concerned about the stability of the soil on the boundary between the back of the school and the quarry. He is also concerned that with all of the activity taking place, that measures be taken to establish healthy vegetation. He does not want a thin layer of vegetation to remain for a long period of time. He has seen other Luck Stone operations and has been impressed with their operations. Mr. Fisher commended Mr. Andrews and the staff for working together. Not only has Luck Stone's local operation improved over the last several years, but there has been an honest attempt to deal with the issues raised by concerned parents. He also supports the motion. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. 32O February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Agenda Item No. 6. SP-85-96. Hallie M. or Junior B. Gibson. To locate a single-wide mobile home on 12 acres zoned RA. Property on southwest side of Rt. 667, south of inter- section with Rt. 776. Tax Map 17, Parcel 41. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February 11, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Location: The property, described as Tax Map 17, parcel 41, is located on the southwest side of Route 667, approximately one-half mile south of its intersection with Route 776. White Hall Magisterial District. Character of the Area: The surrounding area is predominately rural in character with only one single family residence visible from the proposed trailer site. There is an existing single family residence located on the property. Within a one mile radius of the site, there are two mobile homes. The property has moderate to steep slopes and consists of open fields. Staff Comments: The applicant (Hallie Gibson) is the owner of the property and resides in the house located on the property. The applicant is applying for the special use permit on behalf of her daughter, who intends to reside in the mobile home. One objection was filed against this petition. The objection came from the adjacent owner whose house is visible from the site. Their concern was that a mobile home was not an appropriate use for the area and would have an adverse affect on property values. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Compliance with section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Location and/or screening to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator so as to minimize visibility from adjoining landowners." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 11, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-96 subject to the conditions as recommended by the staff. The proposed location of the mobile home is 1200 to 1500 feet from the objecting property owner. Staff opinion is that there is existing vegetation in the area that provides adequate screening. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Betty Yowell, daughter of Mrs. Gibson, addressed the Board. She presented some pictures (on file) showing the location of the proposed mobile home. The house that is visible from her mother's property has been vacant for about ten years. The objecting property owner lives in Illinois. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Henley offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve SP-85-96 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Location and/or screening to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator so as to minimize visibility from adjoining landowners. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-85-91. Cardinal Industries. To allow for a motel on 3.749 acres currently used as residential, zoned C-1. Located on west side of Rt. 29, north of Westfield Road. Tax Map 61M-01, Parcels 6 and 7. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February 11, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Location: Property, described as TM 61M, section 1, parcels 6 and 7, is located between Route 29 North and Berkeley Subdivision. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: This site, currently in use as a mobile home park, consists of Lots 6 and 7 of the Mary Patricia Brown commercial subdivision which is served by an internal private road. A 48-unit motel is located on Lots 4 and 5. A site plan for an office building has been approved for Lot 3. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes construction of a 116 unit motel in four one-story buildings and a swimming pool. Staff has reviewed the petition for consis- tency with the criteria for issuance of a special use permit and offers the following comments: February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 321 a) The (motel) would not be of substantial detriment to adjoining property: This site abuts five lots in Berkeley Subdivision. Combined with the existing motel, staff opinion is that 164 motel rooms could generate night traffic which would warrant substantial screening along the property boundary and internal road to commercial Lot 1. Section 5.1.16 contains regulation governing the proposed swimming pool loca- tion and operation (on file). b) The character of the district would not be changed (by location of the motel): Staff opinion is that a motel would be consistent with the character of development permitted in the C-l, Commercial district. With proper buffering and limits on usage of the swimming pool, the motel should not be objectionable to Berkeley; c) The (motel use) will be consistent with the (supplementary regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance and with the public health, safety and general welfare: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented that traffic generation would be toward the low range of uses permitted in the C-1 district. Therefore, no additional burden would be placed on Route 29 North. Staff opinion is that subject to appropriate conditions of approval, the proposed motel would be consistent with criteria of issuance of a special use permit. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Staff approval of site plan to include agreement between applicant and owners of Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 in Berkeley Subdivision as to screening measures. Should no agreement be reached, the site plan will be referred to the Planning Commission for disposition; 2) Compliance with Section 5.1.16 of the Zoning Ordinance for the swimming pool. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 4, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-91 with condition $2 as recommended by the staff and a change in condition 91 as follows: "Planning Commission approval of site plan; site plan to include staggered double row of 5' - 6' white pines planted 10 feet on center along the Berkeley boundary from the western corner of Berkeley Lot 24 to the eastern corner of Berkeley Lot 17. In his review of the site plan, the County Engineer shall be particularly mindful of drainage from the motel site to Berkeley subdivision." Mr. Horne said there was considerable discussion at the Planning Commission meeting concerning the impact of commercial development on Berkeley Subdivision. There is an exist- ing motel on lots 4 and 5, and a site plan has been approved for an office building in the general location. Considerable discussion has also taken place concerning the need for screening along the loop roadway. Screening has been required as part of the site plan for the office building. Cardinal Industries is proposing screening on its property to consist of five feet to six feet white pines, ten feet on center. The Planning Commission recom- mended that the screening continue along the Property line to the point where the road intersects with Lot 1 which would cover the remainder of the internal loop road that abuts the Berkeley lots. The screening was the original intent of the Planning Commission for the subdivision plat. The cumulative effect of the motel and other existing uses will increase night traffic and hopefully the screening will prevent headlights from shining directly at some of the lots. Mr. Lindstrom asked why nothing was done after the previous discussions concerning screening. Mr. Horne said at the time the road plans were submitted, the engineering staff did not adequately absorb the impact of fill activity needed for the roadway. There is actually some fill on the adjoining properties. A condition of approval for the permit was monitoring of existing vegetation by the Soil Erosion Committee. He cannot see, from the records, that it was successfully done. Mr. Fisher asked if road plans are included in the area up to the Berkeley property line. Mr. Horne said the road plans are for the area immediately adjacent to the Berkeley property line. Mr. Fisher asked if the owners can plant on their side of the property line. Mr. Horne said the property owners can plant on the fill that is on their property through an easement or through the plans that were approved for the 36 foot wide pavement which is more than necessary for the roadway. If an agreement can be reached whereby the applicant revises the road plans to 24 feet, that would be adequate space for planting. Mr. Fisher asked if 36 feet was originally required. Mr. Horne said there is no direct reference in the record, but the approved road plans are for 36 feet. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the property owners consented to the placement of fill on their property. Mr. Horne said no, he thinks it just happened. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not understand how this happens when there is a County inspections department. There is inten- sive development in the area. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the owner of the tract that perpetrated the present problem is the owner of the tract for which the application is being made. Mr. Horne replied yes. Mr. Bowie commented that staff's recommendation $1 provides for a negotiated solution to the problem, but the Planning Commission's recommendation $1 provides for a finite course of action which may not solve the problem. Mr. Horne said when this same discussion came up during site plan review, the Planning Commission thought that a solution would be negotiated and an agreement reached between the private parties, but it is now apparent that there is no agreement. During the process of writing the staff report, there was again discussion with the applicant concerning an agreement. When this application was presented at the Planning Commission meeting, there was no agreement, so the Planning Commission took the opportunity to add a finite condition to the special permit. The Planning Commission's condition $1 encompasses the eastern corner of lot 17 in Berkeley. 322 February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) The public hearing was opened. Mr. J. R. Copper, a land surveyor from Harrisonburg representing Cardinal Industries, addressed the Board and spoke about some of the concerns expressed. He then presented a colored rendering of the proposal that defines the activity to take place on the property. The applicant proposes to build a one-story motel complex on the property. A topographic survey of the site has been done. There are presently on the site 32 trailers, utilities, a house and an outbuilding which will be removed and the site regraded. The adjoining property owners at the rear of the property have signed a petition concurring with the development. To alleviate drainage problems, preliminary plans are proposed to divert 99 percent of the water back onto the site. The applicant intends to retain the water through underground or aboveground detention which then will be dumped into the proper storm sewer system. He is not familiar with past concerns regarding screening. Mr. Copper said landscaping is an important part of this project and the plan submitted to the county for approval will include a landscape plan. He then introduced Mr. Jim Oldnam, a representative of Cardinal Industries, to speak about screening. Mr. Oldnam said Cardinal Industries wants to be a good neighbor. He assured the Board that screening requirements will be met by Cardinal Industries. As indicated by Mr. Copper landscaping is a major issue. Cardinal Industries has approximately 10,000 motel rooms throughout the midwest and has spent over $17 million in landscaping. Mr. Fisher asked how condition %1, recommended by the Planning Commission, will be accomplished. Mr. Oldnam said the condition will be accomplished through an agreement with the seller for installation of the material or if need be by Cardinal Industries. Mr. Clifton McClure, representing Ms. Mary Brown (owner of the property), addressed the Board. Mr. McClure said his client has been the owner, but not the applicant in the last two petitions. The owners are satisfied with the screening condition and the proposed project. The owners are not responsible for the way this project has turned out. A reputable engineer- ing firm was hired to do the plans which were approved by county officials, and a reputable contractor was hired to do the work. Fill dirt did spill onto Mr. Ragland's property, but it was not a substantial amount. The County is still holding the $5,000 bond that was posted to build a retaining wall. In addition, the County is holding a $97,500 bond to insure the work is completed. He has met with Mr. Ragland and is attempting to work out an agreement whereby there can be a slope easement. Mr. West and Mr. Gorman are present tonight and are the other owners of lots adjacent to this road. It has been agreed to plant two rows of white pines ten feet apart for the entire length. The Planning Commission will not review the final site plan until this work has been done. He has spoken with persons from several nurseries and has been informed that the trees should not be planted until March 15. The subdivision road was originally approved for 24 feet of tar and gravel and then somehow as the site plans were reviewed, pavement was expanded to 36 feet. It has been agreed by all parties that the pavement should be 24 feet wide. All of the concerns are going to be remedied through the site plan or through the actuai'work. Mr. Leon Gorman, property owner of Lot 18, next addressed the Board. He and Mr. West met with Mr. McClure this afternoon. It was understood that the water will be diverted frOm the western side of the road back onto the site. It was agreed that there would be two rows of trees planted and there is no need to widen the road. He is not sure if a slope easement would be required on Mr. Ragland's property. He has no problem with Cardinal Industries' proposal. The reason for his presence tonight is that in June, 1984, the residents came before this Board and left thinking everything had been settled regarding the screening. Subsequent to that he went around to different offices in the County and learned that the plans did not include screening. Mr. Fisher emphasized that any agreements between the residents and the applicant are not enforceable by the Board. The Board can only enforce the conditions of the permit. Mr. Gorman then asked how he can be assured that screening will be done. Mr. Lindstrom said screening is now a condition of approval for the special permit, and as such is enforceable by the County. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he is not sure what happened two years ago, but there is nothing in the conditions about the drainage except a statement that "the County Engineer should be particularly mindful of drainage." Mrs. Cooke said when this came before the Board two years ago, she remembers concerns about screening, and remembers distinctly Mr. Fisher explaining that it was a matter between the lot owners and the applicant. She is surprised that in all this time nothing has taken place. Mr. McClure interrupted by stating that ground was not broken for the service road until January 15, 1985. The reason the trees have not been planted is because of problems with fill dirt on Mr. Ragland's property. According to the applicant's present plans the trees will be planted on March 15. Mr. Raymond Ragland who lives on Lot 19 said his main concerns are drainage and erosion. If the applicant takes care of that, he has no problem with the request proceeding. Mr. Fisher asked that Messrs. Raymond Ragland, Leon Gorman and William West be notified at the time the Planning Commission reviews the site plan. Mr. Horne commented that he does not intend to schedule review of the site plan before the Planning Commission until there is a firm resolution engineered for both the water and the screening. Mr. Lindstrom said language recommended by the Planning Commission states, "The County Engineer will be mindful of drainage from the motel site to Berkeley Subdivision", and asked if that is sufficient language. Mr. Horne said the reason the condition is not more specific is because the Commission did not have plans in hand and could not absolutely assure (based on plans avail- able) that all of the water could be diverted to the east. The language is strong enough to accomplish its intent. In addition, the approval will not be done administratively but through the Planning Commission. With no further discussion, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to approve SP-85-91 subject to the following conditions: 1) Planning Commission approval of site plan; site plan to include stag- gered double row of 5' - 6' white pines planted 10 feet on center along the Berkeley boundary from the western corner of Berkeley Lot 24 to the 32.3 February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) eastern corner of Berkeley Lot 17. In his review of the site plan, the County Engineer shall be particularly mindful of drainage from the motel site to Berkeley subdivision. MESSRS. RAGLAND, WEST AND GORMAN ARE TO BE CONTACTED AT THE TIME OF REVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN; 2) Compliance with Section 5.1.16 of the Zoning Ordinance for the swimming pool. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if the 32 mobile homes presently on the property are to be relocated. Mr. Horne said the staff intends to act as a middleman between those persons in mobile homes and the existing mobile home parks in the area. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-85-92. Harvey H. and Barbara Tapscott. To allow for a country store on about six acres zoned RA. Existing use as single family residence. Located on south side of State Rt. 726 east of intersection with Rt. 627 near Warren. Tax Map 135, parcel 15B. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February 11, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Petition: The Tapscott's petition the Board of Supervisors to issue special use permit for location of a COUNTRY STORE (10.2.2.22) on +6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property, described as TM 135, parcel 15B, is located on the south side of Route 726 approximately 3/4 mile east of Route 627 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: This property is located on the eastern fringe of the Hatton Agricultural/ Forestal District. Most properties in the area are larger tracts in agri- cultural use. The proposed store may be visible from two dwellings in the area, however, the closest dwelling is about 1,000 feet away. Staff Comments: The applicant proposes construction of a country store of less than 2,000 square feet in floor area (Zoning Ordinance regulations permit a maximum floor area of 4000 square feet). The store would be located at the front of the property which is currently a cornfield. A dwelling is located on the site which appears to be setback adequately from Route 726 to permit future division of the property. Primary sales would include groceries, gasoline, and kerosene. Country .stores to serve the area are located at Howardsville, Esmont, and Scottsville, the closest of which is about five miles from the Warren area (a country store was formally located in Warren). Staff opinion is that a country store in the proposed location: Would not be of substantial detriment to other uses in the area, nor interfere with the integrity of the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District; Would provide convenient service to the area; and Would otherwise be consistent with the requirements of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the criteria for issuance of a special use permit. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Site plan approval to include demonstration that the property can be subdivided consistent with local ordinances; 2) Building area limited to 2,000 square feet. Building expansion shall require amendment of this special use permit. NOTE: Alternate uses of the proposed building under RA zoning may be limited by location, size, and site area. Location of drink machines outdoors may invite loitering, vandalism, and the like." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 11, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-92 subject to the conditions of the staff. Mr. Lindstrom asked why the application was conditioned on demonstration that the property could be subdivided. Mr. Horne said past experience with this type of use indicates that it sometimes becomes necessary to subdivide the property for resale if the commercial venture does not work. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Harvey Tapscott, the applicant, said he wants to open a small country store to sell gasoline, food, kerosene and hardware items. With no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. 324 February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Way offered motion to approve SP-85-82 subject to the following conditions: 1) Site plan approval to include demonstration that the property can be subdivided consistent with local ordinances; 2) Building area limited to 2,000 square feet. Building expansion shall require amendment of this special use permit. Mr. Henley seconded the foregoing motion. Mr. Fisher asked if with property such as this located in a noncommercial area, does the staff work with the applicant in anticipation of the possibility that the commercial venture may not survive? Mr. Horne said he does not know what has been done in the past, but it is a good suggestion. Mr. Fisher commented that to encourage someone to build a facility that could only be used as store in a rural area could be a disservice to the applicant and others. Mr. Horne said current building codes will allow this new structure to be easily converted to a residence. If the structure meets commercial standards, it can meet single-family standards. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-85-93. Brass, Inc. To allow continued operation of a noncon- forming commercial use for general store at Keene Market building. Located at northwest quadrant of intersections of State Rt. 20, 712 and 715 at Keene. Tax Map 121, parcel 91. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February 11, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Location: Property, described as TM 121, parcel 91, is located in the northwest quadrant of the Route 20/Route 712 intersection at Keene. Scottsville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: A country store is currently in operation across Route 20 from this property. Several dwellings are located on Route 712 east of Route 20. A dwelling is to the south. This is the site of the old Keene Market. The property is physically split by Route 712. On the north side of Route 712 (~3/4 acre) are the market and temporary post office (temporary trailer approved in 1985). On the south side of Route 712 (~5.5 acres) is a garage type building which has been used for nonconforming commercial purposes in the past. This portion of the site was approved for permanent post office location in August 1985. Staff Comment: As can be seen in the correspondence (on file) from the applicant, buildings on this property have been used for a variety of nonconforming activities in the past. There is currently disagreement between the applicant and Zoning Department as to the nonconforming status of the market building. Approval of this special use permit would bring the market into conformance with zoning regulations and once established, permit permanent use of the build- ing as a country store. (Under zoning regulations, a nonconforming activity ceases for a period exceeding two years is deemed abandoned. Once an activity is established under special use permit, activity may be suspended for an indefinite period without abandonment). Staff review of this request has been limited to the market building and does not address buildings on the south side of Route 712. The first floor of the market building has been used for a variety of commercial purposes while the Second floor has been used for storage and residential uses. Staff opinion is that a country store would not be objectionable in the area and would be within the requirements of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of this special use permit would limit and stabilize usage of the building. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Country store approval is for the ground floor of the existing Keene market building. The second floor may be used for accessory uses to the country store including storage but shall not be open to the general public. The second floor may be used for a dwelling in accor- dance with Section 5.1.21 of the Zoning Ordinance; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access and staff approval of parking in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comments of January 17, 1986; Should gasoline pumps be installed the same will require staff approval of circulation/access and Fire Official approval. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 4, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-93 subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 325 Mr. Fisher asked why there is a condition on usage of the second floor. Mr. Horne said the second floor currently will not meet code requirements for public access. The public hearing was opened. Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., the applicant, said he has no problems with the conditions recommended. He is trying to abandon the commercial use of this property until a good commercial use comes along. The property was originally purchased to protect the surrounding farmland. A variety of commercial uses have been used in the build- ing to maintain the value of the property and keep its nonconforming nature. The applicants now wish to stop nonconforming uses, set the zoning and leave the building empty until a suitable commercial use comes along. Mr. Fisher commented that the Highway Department took a dim view of access control on this site. Mr. Murray said he has discussed the situation with Mr. Dan Roosevelt. Presently there is a tract of land at the corner of the property owned by the Highway Department that is being used as a defacto public parking lot. A plan has been discussed to create public parking on Highway Department property to be maintained by whoever operates the store. With no further comments for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way offered motion to approve SP-85-93 subject to the following conditions: Country store approval is for the ground floor of the existing Keene market building. The second floor may be used for accessory uses to the country store including storage but shall not be open to the general public. The second floor may be used for a dwelling in accor- dance with Section 5.1.21 of the Zoning Ordinance; 0 Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access and staff approval of parking in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comments of January 17, 1986 (following): "This building does not appear to be in continued operation and has not recently been operated as a general store. The access to this property is currently uncontrolled. Should this building be used as a store, the Department recommends that the access be upgraded. This would entail controlling access and providing for parking on site. No parking will be allowed on the Department's right of way. Currently traffic will have to back up onto Route 712 to exit this site. There is currently adequate site (sight) distance at this location"; Should gasoline pumps be installed the same will require staff approval of circulation/access and Fire Official approval. Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion. following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-85-95. John B. Moon, Estate. To allow for a landfill in the floodplain for road construction on part of 462.20 acres, zoned RA with Natural Resource overlay on parts. Located on east side of Rt. 631, adjacent to Rivanna River (part of Dunlora Estate). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February 11, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Location: Property, described as TM 62, parcels 16 and 16A, is located on the east side of Rio Road across from Charlottesville Albemarle Technical Education Center. Rivanna Magisterial District. Staff Comment A preliminary subdivision plat for this property known as Dunlora, was approved by the Planning Commission in July, 1985. The plat showed division of the property into six large tracts to be served by a private road. Conditions included County Engineer approval of private road and drainage plans for upgrading the existing farm road. Upgrading the road occasions the need for a landfill permit. The roadway crosses through the floodplain of Town Branch, a tributary of the Rivanna River. The County Engineer has approved plans for this stream crossing. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 4, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-95 as presented. Mr. Fisher asked if any properties upstream will be affected or if water can back up into the adjacent subdivision. Mr. Horne said Mr. Steve Pack of the County's Engineering Department has said the amount of fill that will be required in the floodplain will have no detrimental effect on any upstream property. The plans will include drainage structures to be designed and approved by the County Engineer. This is not a dam per se, but a bridge or structure with culverts underneath. Mrs. Cooke asked if Town Branch runs through any subdivisions. Mr. Horne said he does not believe so. Mr. Fisher asked if this permit will have to meet all of the requirements for soil erosion. Mr. Horne responded yes. 326 February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) The public hearing was opened. Mr. Wendell Winn, attorney representing the applicant, said this application regards a court ordered partition. It is a family division of Dunlora into five parcels and one of the conditions for approval is posting of a road bond to bring Dunlora Road up to County private road standards. The special permit is required because the road does cross Town Branch. If the road is built (the applicant does not contemplate doing so) it will require grading and filling in the floodplain to elevate the road so that it will not be underwater if a flood occurs. Mr. Fisher commented that the road is for a private road to serve six large tracts, not to serve development contemplated in the future. Mr. Winn said the applicant understands that. With no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve SP-85-95 as presented. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-85-34. Crutchfield. Request to rezone 13.25 acre parcel from RA to LI. Property on east side of Rt. 606 near northern end of Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport runway. Tax Map 32, parts of parcels 9C and 10. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February 11, 1986.) Agenda Item No. 12. SP-85-97. Crutchfield. To allow warehouse on 7.61 acre parcel located on east side of Rt. 606 near the northern end of Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport runway. Tax Map 32, parts of parcels 9C and 10. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February 11, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff reports: "Location: Property, described as TM 32, parcels 9C (part) and 10 (part), is located on the east side of Route 606 across from the northern end of the Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport runway. Character of the Area: This vacant parcel was recently created through land exchange between the applicant and airport. Most adjoining lands are under airport ownership or zoned for industrial usage. (Land to the east was rezoned from LI to RA under petition of the property owner). Background~ Applicant's Proffer: During review, staff advised the applicant that a conventional rezoning would not meet all criteria set forth in the statement of intent of the LI district and the Industrial Land Use Standards of the Comprehensive Plan. To overcome these issues the applicant has proffered limitation of uses as follows: Warehousing Mail order operations. Staff Comment: Given the similarity of the rezoning and special use permit requests, one review is offered. The applicant proposes initial development of a 20,000 square foot warehouse. Future expansion would include a total floor area of 200,000 square feet and relocation of the mail-order sales operation from the current site. Staff offers the following comments: The rezoning request is consistent with the Land Use recommendatiOns of the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning request is consistent with the land use recommendations of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport master plan. Staff opinion is that LI zoning would be consistent with the intent to limit uses in the area to those compatible to the airport operation. Additionally, development of the site would be subject to the special regulations of 30.2 Airport Impact Area overlay zone. Approval of these petitions would permit expansion of an existing use which is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy. e Public water is currently available at the existing Crutchfield site to the south. In a cooperative effort among the Albemarle County Service Authority, Caleb Stowe Associates and Crutchfield Corporation, public water would be extended about 1/2 mile north of this site to existing (Milodon) industrial uses and would also be available to undeveloped properties in the area. Two aspects not supportive of a conventional industrial rezoning are the current lack of public sewer and nontolerable status of Route 606. Under the applicant's proffer, sewer demand would involve only domestic February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) waste as opposed to industrial waste. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that 'traffic generation for a warehouse is in the lower range for light industrial property. Therefore, the Department has no problem with this special use permit request.' Staff opinion is that the applicant's proffers overcome negative aspects of the rezoning. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-85-34 with acceptance of the applicant's proffer. Staff recommends approval of SP-85-97 with no condi- tions. Mr. Horne presented the following revised proffer received from the applicant: "February 10, 1986 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Director of Planning County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ron: This letter is to modify our proffer dated January 23, 1986. In regards to SP-85-97, I hereby proffer to limit the use of the property subject to this special use permit to the following conditions: 1. The property will only be used for warehousing and other mail- order operations. 2. Domestic strength sewage waste only shall be generated from the site. Please advise me if there is any problem with this language before the Supervisors meeting on February 19, 1986. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, (SIGNED) William G. Crutchfield" Mr. Horne said the second proffer is in response to discussions at the Planning Commis- sion meeting to enforce prevention of industrial discharge and to emphasize that the restroom facilities are for employees only and only domestic waste will go into the drainfield. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 4, 1986, unanimously recom- mended approval of ZMA-85-34 subject to the proffer dated January 23, 1986 and signed by William G. Crutchfield, as outlined above. The Planning Commission, also at its meeting on February 4, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-97 subject to the following condition: "Domestic strength sewage waste only shall be generated from the site". Mr. Lindstrom asked if the rezoning and special permit would allow a retail-type opera- tion on the other Crutchfield site. Mr. Horne said the special permit application is speci- fically for warehouse uses 'and a mail-house operation. Mr. Horne said it is not the intent of the applicant to move the retail operations. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any comments received from the Highway Department. Mr. Horne said the Highway Department commented that the overall traffic generation is in the low range of industrial uses and thus it does not object to the permit or rezoning. Individual access and its relationship to the highway will be addressed when the site plan is submitted. Mr. Fisher asked what other zoning categories are shown in the area. Mr. Horne said essentially two sides of the property are surrounded by industrial, the airport is on the third side and RA is on the other side. The public hearing was opened. Mr. William G. Crutchfield, the applicant, said Mr. Horne presented the application adequately and he has no further comments unless there are questions. Mr. Fisher asked if it is the intent to expand current operations onto this property. Mr. Crutchfield replied yes, but not the retail section. The warehousing opera- tions are to be moved after completion of the new facility. The second phase of the con- struction is proposed in three years which would be relocation of mail-order operations to include telephone sales personnel, customer service staff and data processing staff, but again not to include the retail store. Eventually the retail store will be moved closer to town. Mr. Fisher asked how the land exchange with the airport came about. Mr. Crutchfield said for several years the airport attempted to purchase a piece of the land because the front portion was needed for aerial right of way. He eventually purchased the land from the bankruptcy court. He exchanged the land that the airport needed to comply with the FAA in return for this parcel of land which the airport would never need. He now has a contiguous piece of property. Mr. Agnor commented that a requirement of the FAA is a "clear zone" which is 750 feet from the centerline of the run way in which all tree and vegetation has to be cleared. The FAA provided money to purchase the land but negotiations got nowhere under the previous owners. With no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve ZMA-85-34 as proffered dated February 10, 1986, to Ronald S. Keeler from William G. Crutchfield of Crutchfield and outlined above; and to approve SP-85-97 subject to the following condition: 1. Domestic strength sewage waste only shall be generated from the site. 328 February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Mr. Bowie seconded the foregoing motion. following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. At 9:53 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:59 P.M. Agenda Item No. 13. ZTA-86-01. Proposed amendments to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to correct errors and deficiencies in the existing regulations for mobile homes; to provide for mobile home parks in additional zoning districts; and to expand and make more specific the regulations for establishing a new mobile home park. a. Amend Section 3.0 definitions for mobile home and mobile home parks; b. Delete Sections 10.2.2.8 and 12.2.2.8, mobile home parks by special use permit in Rural Areas and Village Residential districts; c. Add Sections 15.2.2.14, 16.2.2.14, 17.2.2.17, 18.2.2.17 to provide for mobile home parks by special use permit in R-4, R-6, R-10 and R-15 districts; d. Delete Section 5.4 Supplementary Regulations for temporary home parks; e. Amend Sections 5.6.2.c, d and e, (conditions of approval for mobile homes on individual lots) in Supplementary Regulations; f. Add Sections 22.2.1.b.23, 23.2.2.11, 24.2.1.40, 27.2.1.16, and 28.2.1.23 to provide for temporary non-residential mobile homes by right in C-l, (Commercial), CO, (Commercial OffiCe), HC, (Highway Commercial), LI, (Light Industrial) and HI, (Heavy Industrial) districts; g. Add new Section 5.8 Supplementary Regulations for temporary non-residential mobile homes; h. Amend Section 4.8.2 Temporary Mobile Homes in General Regulations to allow tempo- rary non-residential use of mobile homes; i. Amend Section 6.4.1 Nonconformities - Expansion or Enlargement to permit the replacement of a non-conforming mobile home without a special use permit; j. Amend the bonus provision, for Low and Moderate Cost Housing in the VR, Village Residential, through R-15, Residential, districts to clarify the application of bonus factors in mobile home parks and subdivisions; k. Add new Section 5.5.6 to require an application plan for mobile home subdivisions; 1. Replace Section 5.3 Mobile Home Parks in Supplementary Regulations with new wording for Section 5.3 Mobile Home Parks. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February 11, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Origin: In June, 1984, the League of Women Voters requested the Board of Supervisors to initiate a study of the location of mobile home parks since many of the existing parks were being planned for new development. A study was prepared by staff in the fall of 1984. Staff's recommendations from that study are on file; the most important being that mobile home parks and subdivisions should be encouraged to locate in growth areas where public utilities are available. These amendments result from that study. Public Purpose Served: The purpose of the proposed amendments is to correct errors and deficiencies · in the existing mobile home regulations; to provide for mobile home parks in additional zoning districts; and to expand and make more specific the regulations for establishing a new mobile home park in order to protect the residents of both the park and nearby areas. During the Planning Commission work sessions on these amendments the Commis- sion made several important policy decisions: 1) Mobile home parks shall not be distinguished from conventional develop- ments in determining maximum permitted density. As a result of this decision, the Commission recommended that mobile home parks by special use permit be deleted from the RA and VR dis- tricts. The reasoning was that parks at such low densities would not be viable. (Staff had originally proposed that parks be permitted in the RA and VR districts as well as the higher density districts, provided the park conformed to the density requirements of the district in which it was located.) 2) 'Fringe! areas adjacent or near to the growth areas are not to be considered distinct areas in the review of rezoning or special use permit requests. References to 'fringe' areas shall be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan. This decision confirms the importance of the growth area/rural area boundaries. Mobile home parks or other types of developments proposed outside the growth area will require a comprehensive plan amendment to extend the growth area boundary and jurisdictional area for public water and sewer. (Mr. Horne said no definition of "fringe" area is in the Comprehensive Plan, but the intent seems to be those areas near the growth areas, but outside of the growth areas. This discussion took place because there was some belief that the most likely place for applica- tion of mobile home parks is in lands currently zoned RA, but adjacent to urban areas with access to Urban facilities. The Commission did not feel that "fringe" areas should be used February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 329 in specific land use decisions, if there was no clear definition in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission also felt that if the growth areas and urban zoning are expanded they should be done on~h~ own merits with the assumption that the growth area expanded for general residential use and not specifically for mobile homes. Considering that mobile home parks can be removed, it would leave a zoning that would allow other urban density residential use.) 3) Gravel surfacing shall not be permitted for roads in a mobile home park. The County Engineer has developed standards intended to provide mobile home park roads which are economical yet attractive and easy to main- tain. Surface treatment is required. A rural cross section in lieu of a roll curb is permitted if the average lot frontage is 85 feet or greater. The County Engineer is in the process of preparing a design manual which will contain engineering standards not found in the County ordinances. These mobile home park road standards will eventually be contained in that document. Until the design manual is adopted by the Board, staff suggests that these road standards be included with the Supplementary Regulations for mobile home parks. (Mr. Horne said the County Engineer felt that if the lot frontage drops below 85 feet, entrances into individual sites would make any grading on the roadway awkward and allow very little room to move the entrance around to adapt it to a grade to get into the site.) Summary: The most significant change proposed by the amendments is to permit mobile home parks by special use permit in the higher density residential districts rather than in the RA and VR districts where they are currently permitted by special use permit. Several sections of the Supplementary Regulations have been revised. Section 5.3 Mobile Home Parks has been deleted and replaced with new regula- tions. Major revisions regard density, application plan, internal street standards, recreational requirements and screening requirements. Other changes to the Supplementary Regulations include: Deletion of the provision for temporary mobile home parks for construc- tion workers which has not been utilized recently; Amendments to conditions of approval for mobile homes on individual lots to correct existing problems; Provision for temporary nonresidential mobile homes in commercial and industrial districts; Requirement for an application plan for mobile home subdivisions. No other changes recommended to the regulations for such subdivisions. The low and moderate cost housing bonus has been expanded to address the application of bonus factors in mobile home parks and subdivisions. The assumption has been made that all mobile homes can be considered low or moderate cost housing, based on typical sales prices. The Nonconformities section has been amended to simplify the replacement of a nonconforming mobile home. Definitions for mobile home and mobile home park have been amended." Mr. Horne said there have been a lot of interest by persons in the community on these proposed revisions. The document presented to the Board is a technical document and allows for a special permit to be applied for under very specific standards in higher density zones which the Planning Commission felt was the appropriate place for mobile home parks. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 28, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-86-01. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ray Beard, owner of Cedar Hill Mobile Estates located on Route 29 North, addressed the Board. He said he presently has 75 mobile home spaces and has tried for several years to expand, but to no avail. His mobile home park is located in R-4 zoning. He recommends that the Board adopt these revisions. Although he does not meet all three requirements set forth in the ordinance, if these changes are adopted, he will apply for a rezoning. There are several comments he would like to make concerning the changes. It is recommended that lots contain 4,500 square feet which is a minimum of 45 feet wide. Single-wide mobile homes in Virginia are required to be 14 feet wide, and there are also ones 16 feet wide. The revisions recommend a minimum of 32 feet between the mobile homes. If the lot were 45 feet wide with a 14 foot wide mobile home installed, there would remain only 31 feet between two lots instead of the 32 feet recommended. If a double-wide mobile home were installed on the lot, there will not be adequate space to install a mobile home on the next lot. If the standards remain at 45 foot wide lots, small parks will remain in the County. There are virtually no available mobile home spaces in parks in Albemarle County at this time. Mr. Beard said he has three empty spaces, but is not going to rent them because he also sells mobile homes. He. does recommend approval of these amendments. With no further comments, the public hearing was closed. 330 February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) Mr. Fisher said he has not had ample time to thoroughly review the proposed revisions and suggested that a work session be scheduled. Mr. Way and Mr.~agreed. Mr. Fisher suggested that a work session be set for March 5 at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the width of the lots has been considered in light of Mr. Beard's comments. Mr. Horne said 45 feet will allow for two single-wide mobile homes. Ms. Mary Joy Scala of the Planning Department prepared the study and she 'will be present at the work session to go through the history of the amendment. The Planning Department did receive comments on the proposed changes and some of those comments were included in the ordinance to make it work as smoothly as possible. The separation requirement is 30 feet. In addition, requirements are minimum, and do not necessarily have to be adhered too. The lot sizes can be larger than the minimum requirements. Mr. Henley asked what happens if the width of mobile homes is increased. Mr. Horne said if the mobile home park is designed to the minimum lot size and the mobile home becomes larger, it will create a problem for the owner. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to schedule a work session on ZTA-86-01 for March 5, 1986 at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 14. ZTA-86-02. Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to replace current recreation requirements found in the higher density and planned residential district with new requirements which are expanded and more specific. The new requirements will also apply in mobile home parks. a. Amend Sections 15.7 (R-4), 16.7 (R-6), 17.7 (R-10), 18.7 (R-15), 19.6,2 (PRD), and 20.8.3 (PUD) to delete current recreation requirements and to refer to new Section 4.16 for new requirements; b. Add new Section 4.16 Recreation Requirements under General Regulations. Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Public Purposes Served: To insure that active and passive recreation facilities are made available to residents of developments where individual lots are not provided, or where lots are not large enough to permit recreation uses. The following proposed recreation requirements are intended to replace the current requirements which are found in the higher density and planned residential districts. The proposed mobile home park regulations will also include these recreation requirements since parks will have the same needs as other types of urban developments with similar densities. There are several reasons for making the current requirements more specific: 1) 2) 3) To speed approvals by reducing debate before the Commission; To review all developments using the same standards; To permit the developer to plan and budget for the amenities which he is expected to provide. The requirements will not apply to single family or two family dwellings on conventional lots, since the lots will most likely be large enough to accommodate individual recreational equipment. Rental, condo and cluster developments of minimum four dwellings per acre density must provide recrea- tional amenities in proportion to the total number of units. Tot lots and basketball half courts are intended to provide activities for all ages. The Director of Planning and Community Development may approve substitutions of equipment or types of facilities provided they offer an equivalent amenity. The Commission must determine that the recreation area is appro- priate in terms of size and shape, slope, ground cover, access and location. The guidelines have been clarified regarding the use of existing wooded or steep areas. It is not the intent that such areas be unnecessarily cleared or graded. The proposed requirements exceed the current requirement of 50 square feet/ unit which was based on a national recreational standard for a children's play area. The proposed 200 square feet/unit is consistent with zoning requirements in other localities and provides active recreation area for older children and adults as well as tots. It also provides a certain amount of usable open area for unspecified activities. As an example, the following calculations compare the proposed requirements with existing recreational amenities at a townhouse development: Total units: 122 Total acreage: 20.4 (5.9 dwelling units/acre) Current requirement: 50 square feet/unit or 6,100 square feet of recreation area. February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) Existing recreation provided: 143 square feet/unit as follows: (1) tot lot (climber, swing, bench) @ (1) basketball court @ (2) tennis courts @ Total active recreation provided is (2 percent of the site) 400 square feet 2,700 square feet 7,200 square feet 17,500 square feet Recreation required under proposal: percent of the site as follows: 200 square feet/unit or maximum five (2) tot lots (1) half court Total active recreation Undeveloped recreation Total required recreation This equals 2.7 percent of the site 2,000 square feet 900 square feet 4,900 square feet 19,500 square feet 24,400 square feet The area provided for active recreation exceeds the proposed requirements but the tot lot area and equipment are inadequate. Specific approval would be required to substitute a tennis court for the tot lot requirement. Also, additional open area would have to be reserved for unspecified recreational purposes under the proposed requirements.'~ Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 28, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-86-02. A drawing of a typical tot lot is included with the staff report. There are no requirements for recreation in the ordinance. It is left up to the developer to design something to the staff's satisfaction. The staff tries to be consistent in its requirements for recreational amenities. These standards make recreational require- ments specific. It is also the intent that substitutions are allowed. If a substitution can be demonstrated as an equivalent recreation amenity, the Director can approve the substitu- tion. This amendment enables the developer to know what is expected with regard to recrea- tion. Mr. Fisher commented that the amendments look very specific. Mr. Horne said that is true, but he has used this exact procedure before. The staff will be conscientious about informing people that substitutions are allowed. Comments have been received from the Blue Ridge Home Builder's Association and other developers in the community. The public hearing was opened. the public hearing was closed. There was no one present from the public to speak and Mr. Lindstrom said that as long as substitutions are permitted, this provision informs the developer that there are minimal standards. He is agreeable with the amendments and relies on the judgment of the staff and Planning Commission concerning the proposed changes. He does support the concept. Mr. Bowie said he is not prepared to vote on this today and would like to have a chance to look at it further. Since the section on substitutions is important, he would like to see it strengthened and clearly defined that substitutions are allowed. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is clear in the amendments that recreational areas are not going to double as drainage basins. Mr. Horne said it is clear to him, but the Planning Commission must rule on the appropriateness of the area. Mr. Bowie offered motion to schedule a work session on ZTA-86-02 for March 5, 1986 at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: To amend the 1985-86 Albemarle County budget for $386,000 for purchase of the Mahanes tract and for funds to begin final planning, design and engineering for the proposed County/City Recreational Park. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 11, 1986.) Mr. Agnor said this request is to amend the Capital Improvements budget and provide for the transfer of funds from the General Fund to the Capital Fund to accommodate the purchase of the Mahanes tract and provide for beginning funding for consultants to develop a master .plan. Mr. Agnor commented that the original request was for ~381,900 which was amended by adding $5,000 in the event there is successful purchase of additional land belonging to the Snow's. The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public present, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution to approve a budget amendment in the amount of $386,900 for purchase of Mahanes tract and funds to begin final planning, design and engineering of the site: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $386,900 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the Capital Improvements Program as follows: 1-1000-93010-591004 1-9000-71002-300212 1-9000-71002-702000 Transfer to CIP Engineering Fees Purchase of Land $386,900 24,400 363,500 33 2 February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County budget is hereby amended by the addition of $386,900 to the following Revenue Codes: 2-1000-51000-510100 2-9000-51000-512004 Appropriation from Fund Balance Transfer from General Fund $386,900 386,900- FURTHER, that this transfer is effective this date. Mr. Bowie seconded the foregoing motion. following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Deleted. Agenda Item No. 17. Appointment - Jail Board. Mr. Henley offered motion to reappoint Ms. Patricia L. Smith as the joint City/County appointee to the Jail Board with said term to expire on April 30, 1989. Ms. Smith is the Director of the local office of the Offender Aid & Restoration (OAR) Program. He suggested that the recommendation be forwarded to City Council for consideration. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Minutes: August 14 and September 4 (Afternoon), 1985. Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of August 14, 1985, pages 38 to end and with the excep- tion of typographical errors, found them to be in order. Mr. Fisher also read the minutes of September 4, 1985 (Afternoon), pages 1 through 13 and found them to be in order. Mr. Way had read the minutes of September 4, 1985 (Afternoon), pages 14-25 and found them to be in order. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the minutes read. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the Board and Public. Mr. Lindstrom referenced a letter dated February 11, 1986 received from Senator Thomas J. Michie, Jr., concerning popular election of school board members (House Bill No. 123 and House Bill No. 191). Senator Michie indicated in his letter that Virginia is among the few states that do not have popular election of school board members and he feels that this issue deserves further study. Mr. Fisher commented that Virginia is also among the few states that have independent cities, but apparently Senator Michie is not interested in abolishing cities. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board respond to Senator Michie or request a meeting with him. Mr. Fisher suggested that a request be sent to the three legislators requesting a meeting at the end of the legislative session and to be sure that Senator Michie receives the request. Mr. Lindstrom said he received a complaint from a constituent who had received a letter from the County Finance Department stating that he was four years behind in paying his business license taxes. The constituent was informed that a penalty would be assessed for all years. The only income is royalties for a book written. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about what constitutes a business. He would like to know the category in which this person would be classified. Mr. Bowie said he would like to know why it took four years to make the assessment. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Bowie would like to request some information from the School staff for consideration of the School budget. The request includes staffing for both the middle and the high schools; a copy of the staffing guide that was provided to the school board; the total number of teaching positions in this school year, the number budgeted, and the number actually employed; the average teacher salary for budgeted positions and the average salary for those actually employed; and the same statistics for the new teaching positions for this school year. Mr. Fisher said he has received a communication from the School Board that it would prefer such requests for information come from the Board, and that the School Board then be given adequate time to respond. Mr. Bowie said this is simple information. The School staff has the staffing sheets and he would just like to have copies. He cannot believe that whenever a Board member wants some information, there must be a resolution adopted. He feels that he has the right to ask the County Executive to get this information in preparation for the budget work sessions. Mr. Lindstrom said he is willing to pass a resolution that if anybody asks for information from the County Executive that it be considered a request from the Board. Mr. Bowie seconded Mr. Lindstrom's comment. Mr. Way said he supports Mr. Lindstrom. He believes that the School Board recently adopted a policy whereby before they February 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 333 as individuals, request information, the members must make the request through the Chairman and he then makes the request in the name of the Board. Mr. Agnor said that is correct. The staff became bogged down on priorities of individual requests and concluded that any request from a Board member would be considered by the Chairman and then be passed to the Superinten- dent. Mr. Fisher said he has received a verbal response on the Board's letter to the Planning Commission concerning the Board's liaison member on the Planning Commission. The Commission is in agreement with the Board's position that this member be deleted. He suggested that the staff draft a resolution for adoption by the Board and then set a public hearing to amend the Planning Commission ordinance. Mr. Way offered motion for same, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher referenced a letter dated January 29, 1986 transmitted to the Joint City/ County Park Committee concerning abolishment of non-resident fee to City residents. Mr. Fisher requested that the staff review the information and make a recommendation at a later date. Mr. Fisher commented that a letter was received from a constituent in Dyke concerning Police patrols and the ways County tax dollars are spent. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Henley if he wanted to respond to the citizen. Mr. Henley said he is not sure what the person wants done. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not necessarily disagree with the statements. Mr. Henley commented that he thinks the Chairman should respond. Mr. Fisher said a letter was received from Delegate George Allen concerning House Bill No. 284 which would change exemptions for elderly people under certain tax laws. Mr. Fisher said his impression is that the Board has generally supported these bills in the past. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no trouble with the proposed change. Mr. Fisher asked that a response be transmitted to Delegate Allen indicating the Board has no objection to House Bill No. 284 as long as setting the limits remains at the option of the local government. Mr. Agnor said the Federal Tax Reform Act, passed by the House of Representatives in December, had a revision that requires localities to provide IRS 1099 forms to every taxpayer for all taxes paid to the County starting in 1987. Looking at the burdens and financial costs of local governments, he does not know why this should be the responsibility of local government since taxpayers are given receipts. He has written a letter to Senator John W. Warner and Senator Paul S. Trible, Jr. requesting that the requirement be removed as it is a burden on local government and he thinks it is unnecessary. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Agnor and offered motion to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has been notified of a revision inserted into the Federal Tax Reform Act and passed by the House of Repre- sentatives in December, 1985, which requires that state and local govern- ments furnish Internal Revenue Service 1'099 forms to individuals for pay- ments of income, property and sales taxes received during a year; and WHEREAS, such a mandate only adds to the burdens and financial costs of local government at a time when General Revenue Sharing funds are diminish- ing, and when local governments are expected to assume more responsibilities for the costs of governmental programs and services; NOW, THEREF©RE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia does hereby request that this requirement be examined and removed from the final legislation, AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be sent to the Honorable John W. Warner and the Honorable Paul S. Trible, Jr. Mr. Way seconded the motion. recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to March 5, 1986, at 4:00 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None.