HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 17 77 PC MinutesM
May 17, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on
Tuesday, May 17, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia, to consider a series of site plans and subdivision requests and
special use permit and rezoning requests.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Paul Peatross; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan
Graves; Col. William Washington; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Leslie Jones; and Mrs. Opal
David, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director
of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mrs. Mary Joy
Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer; and Mr. Frederick
W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
For the information of the public, Mr. Carr stated that the Monticello
Home Builders final Plat for Harold Paris, and the Flea Market site plan had been
withdrawn. Also removed from the night's agenda was Wilco Gasoline Pumps site
plan, which was to be deferred until June 21, 1977.
ZMA-77-07. Charlottesville Housing Foundation, Inc. ( Hillsboro
Residential Planned Neighborhood).
At the request of the applicant, Mr. Barksdale moved that this item
be deferred until June 21, 1977. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried
unanimously, with no discussion.
The Planning Commission minutes of May 3, 1977, were approved by the
chairman as submitted.
IVY WOODS PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Mrs. Scala reported that this A-1 zoned property is located on the east
side of Route 682. The proposal is a division of 18 lots, average size of 3.4 acres,
ranging from 2.0 to 10.15 acres. The residue of 29.5 acres has possible access to Rt. 708.
There is a proposed state road and one individual entrance on Route 682. Lots 1-8 were
approved in 1974. Lot 1 will have an individual entrance on Route 682. Lot 2 will have an
easement over the 50' strip of Lot 6. Lots 3 and 18 will enter from the new road.
Side setbacks of 75 feet from Route 682 have been shown on lots 3 and 18. Residue
acreage will be landlocked - a 50 foot easement to Route 708 should be shown. All
lots appear to have a good building site. The Highway Department is requiring 450'
sight distance from the main entrance which can be met with grading down a vertical
curve in the road and trimming limbs and scrub. No major clearing is necessary.
The Highway Department is also recommending that the Commission require
improvements along Route 682: grading from the centerline to the same cross-section
as the proposed new road. Surfacing is not required. If the Commission wishes
to impose this requirement, Mrs. Scala said that the staff feels it should be
applied consistently and equitably to all subdivisions, including those administratively
approved. Since this is a preliminary plat, the Commission could defer their
decision on this matter until the final plat comes before them, since a work session
on dirt roads is planned the end of this month. Health Department approval
has been received.
The staff recommended the two following conditions of approval:
1. Show the 50' easement from the residue to Route 708;
2. Highway Department approval of entrance and internal roads.
Mrs. Scala said that there has been an estimate of the grading costs
by the Engineering Department - $2,500.
( Mrs. Graves arrived at the meeting. )
Mr. Easter asked why the plat had been deferred a month ago when it
first came to the Commission. Mrs. Scala replied that the applicant had not had
an opportunity to meet with the Highway Department at that time.
Mr. Stevenson, the applicant, said that he feels it is a difficult situation
to require someone to improve a state road, especially when land is at a premium
today. The road would require a tremendous amount of grading, and he said
that if the Highway Department and Engineering Department feel that $2,500 is
sufficient for this grading, that he would like to see them do it for this amount.
This subdivision will put a minimum burden on the road anyway.
Mr. Peatross asked if the Highway Department has addressed the road situation.
Mr. Stevenson responded that they want him to cut back the banks and put in the ditches.
Mrs. Scala said that the Highway Department cannot make this a requirement,
but they want the Commission to make this a condition of approval. She said that
the staff recommends that this be addressed after the work session on dirt roads,
when the final plat comes in. This still gives the County the opportunity to address
this.
Mr. Peatross questioned the landlocking of the residue, and asked if there
is a right-of-way or easement provided.
Mr. Stevenson pointed to the plat, showing where there could be access.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that if this is where he intends the access to
be, perhaps he should omit the division line of the two parcels, making it one
large parcel.
Col. Washington established that Mr. Stevenson owns all three parcels.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subjection to Highway Department approval
of the entrance and internal roads( noting that condition #1 as recommended by
the staff is not necessary, since the same person owns all three parcels ).
Dr. Moore seconded the motion.
Col. Washington stated that he would like a note on the approval
that the re -grading of the state road would be addressed at final plat review,
not making it a condition of approval at this time, though.
Messrs. Barksdale and Moore agreed.
The motion to approve subject to the one condition, with the note,
carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter stated that it seems as though plat approvals are getting
more involved with the Highway Department and thus he suggested that a representative
from the Highway Department always be present at the Commission meetings.
He said that perhaps this would save probelms for all concerned.
Mr. Carr stated that the point is well taken.
EDNAM VILLAGE FINAL PLAT - Lot 10, Block B:
Mrs. Scala located the R-2 property on the south side of Route 250 West.
The proposal is a division of lot 10 on an existing private road which presently
contains 2/3 of a triplex residence. There is public water and sewer. The purpose
of the division will permit each unit in the triplex to be owned individually.
The remaining 1/3 of the triplex (lot 11) and all the duplex units in Ednam Village
were subdivided in 1973. Staff was not aware at that time that Lot 10 contained
two units. Since all the units were somewhat non -conforming, variances were
obtained for insufficient setbacks. In order to further subdivide Lot 10, two
variances were obtained: one for lot size and depth on February 8, 1977, and one for lot
width on May 10, 1977. Staff recommended approval subject to the following condition:
1. Waiver of the frontage requirement on Lot 10B.
Mr. Carr quesitoned if lot 11 extends beyond the level of approval of the road.
Mrs. Scala said that it does not, since nothing has been added since 1973.
There was no comment from the public or the applicant.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the condition recommended
by the staff.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 8-0-1,
with Col. Washington abstaining.
SP-77-14. SHERLY DAVIS - request for a mobile home on County Tax Map
19, Parcel 7, White Hall and Rivanna Magisterial Districts.
Mr. Keeler said that it is customary that requests for mobile homes
come to the Commission and Board only if there is opposition. The objection to
this request has been withdrawn, via a letter from the attorney of the objecting
adjoining property owner. Mr. Keeler read the letter from Mr. James Murray, Jr.
to the Commission.
Mr. Jones moved that the request for SP-77-14 be returned to the
staff for administrative approval, since the objection from the adjoining
property owner has been withdrawn.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with
no discussion.
ZMA-77-06. Daniel A. and Lorene L. :Robinson - request for RPN/R-1.
Mr. Tom Batchelor, representing the applicant, said that they had followed
the time schedule on the agenda, and that not everyone involved in the presentation
had arrived at the meeting. He asked that -the matter be delayed until 8:30 p.m.,
the time on the agenda.
There was a discussion about this, in which it was pointed out that
the time schedule provided on the agendas is merely a guide and not to be completely
relied upon.
Mr. Peatrosssaid that it has been the policy of the Commission in the
past to defer any public hearing or discussion until the applicant is present.
Mr. Carr agreed that this is the case, and told the public and the applicant's
representative that the Commission would wait until the time set on the agenda for
the public hearing.
In attempting to proceed with the business at hand, Mr. Carr suggested
that the Commission consider Foxwood preliminary plat.
Mrs. Graves noted that there might be citizens interested in this matter
and moved that the Commission follow the agenda as it is stated.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which lost by a vote of 4-5, with Messrs.
Carr, Easter, Barksdale, Peatross, and Gloeckner dissenting.
The Commission then deferred until later in the evening James Earhart
final plat and Mountain Hollow final plat, since the applicants nor their representatives
were present. Jneither
FOXWOOD PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that the property is zoned
A-1, and located on the east side of Route 640 near Gilbert. There are 46 lots
in the proposed subdivision, with an average size of 2.7 acres, ranging from 2.0
to 9.0 acres. There are proposed state roads, and individual well and septic systems,
The Highway Department has recommend improvement of the roadway along the frontage
of the property in terms of grading. Surfacing is not being required since Route 640
presently has an experimental surface treatment. The plan shows two joint driveway
arrangements over the pipestem lots. Lots 1 and 46 will enter on Foxwood Drive.
z6
Mrs. Scala stated that perhaps the Commission will want to consider
the Highway Department recommendation regarding the improvement of the roadway
along the frontage of the property in terms of grading as it had Ivy Woods,
waiting until after the discussion of dirt roads, and until the applicant
presents a final plat.
The staff recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. Health Department approval;
3. Maintenance agreement for joint easements;
4. Waiver of frontage on lots 5, 6, 26, and 27;
5. Reduction of frontage on cul-de-sac lots.
When questioned by Mrs. Graves, Mr. Boggs, the applicant's representative,
stated that this subdivision is approximately 2 miles from Lake Gilbert subdivision.
Mr. Boggs also stated that Route 641 is surface treated.
There was no comment from the public.
Mr. Carr said that this grading of the road could be discussed at final
plat approval.
Mr. Boggs told the Commission that the applicant is going to secure
a grading permit and construct the roads prior to final plat approval.
Mrs. Graves said that in view of this information, the Commission should
defer any further discussion and action until the neighbors in that area have an
opportunity to arrive at the meeting.
Mr. Boggs said that the applicant is willing to meet any requirements
regarding the road that the Commission recommends.
Mr. Barksdale said that in that case he feels sure that the Commission
will require that the state road along the front of the subdivision be upgraded.
Mr. Payne reminded the Commission that his thoughts on this are the
same as they were two weeks ago , and he does not feel that the ordinance can
require this.
Mr. Gloeckner said that this could be addressed at the time of final
plat approval, since the preliminary approval does not guarantee that the final
will be approved in the same fashion.
Mr. Jones said that he prefers to see the state road upgraded to a surface
treated road.
Mrs. Graves moved that any further discussion and action be deferred until
later in the meeting.
Mr. Carr suggested finalizing the opinion of the Commission on this,
in case no one from the public has any input.
This was agreeable to all the Commission members.
Mr. Boggs reminded the Commission that the Highway Department intends
to experiment with surfaces for this road.
Col. Washington again stated the fact that the Commission can address
this matter at final plat review.
Mr. Easter. seconded Mrs. Graves motion to defer till later in the meeting.
Dr. Moore pointed out that the road is only unpaved through Route 641.
There was a unanimous vote on the motion to defer any action until later
in the meeting, to give the residents of the area time to arrive for input.
( Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the discussion and vote of the
following item by leaving the room.)
ZMA-77-06. DANIEL A. AND LORENE L. ROBINSON have petitioned the Board
of Supervisors to rezone 81.4 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RPN/R-1.
Property is located off Route 654 ( :Barracks Road ) on the northeast
side, behind Montvue Subdivision and Jack Jouett School. County
Tax Map 60, Parcel 77, Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He read to the Commission the
memo of May 16, 1977, from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, to Mr. Robert
Tucker, Director of Planning; the letter from John F. Smart, Chief of Police for
Lower Gwynedd Township ( Montgomery County, Pa. ) to Mr. Martin Trueblood;
the letter to Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, from D. Martin
Trueblood, Esecutive Director of Broadmead; the memo from John Massie, Albemarle
County Schools; the letter to Mr. Robert Tucker from Mr. Max Evans, landscape
architect for the applicant; the letter from Mr. E. E. Thompson, Executive Director
of the Albemarle County Service Authority, to Mr. T. M. Batchelor, one of the applicant's
representatives; and the letter from the Virginia Department of Highways to Mr.
Ronald Keeler. In the staff report, Mr. Keeler recognized the favorable and unfavorable
aspects of the request. He then read the recommended conditions of approval for
ZMA-77-06.
Mr. Carr admitted into the record a :Letter from the Colthurst Property
Owners Association, signed by Mr. Tom McEachern, Jr., President. Mr. Carr
stated that he had also received a telephone call of support for this request
from Mr. Church Hutton.
Mr. Keeler stated that there does seem to be some question about
the access to this property, and he stated that the staff has no knowledge of the
facts of this matter.
Mr. Payne stated that it would not be necessary for the Commission to
defer action on the request to get this matter straightened out. However, he
did suggest a condition that satisfactory evidence there is adequate access to
the property be provided by the applicant. He said that he felt that a certified
lawyer's title search would be sufficient.
owner
Mr. Daniel Robinson/of the property said that he has lived here since
1951, and he and his wife do plan to continue living on the property, perhaps
in one of the units, if the proposal is approved. He said that he does feel this
is a good use of the property, and pointed out that such a facility for the elderly
is desparately needed in this area.
Mr. S. W. Heischman stated that he is the individual with the option on
the Robinson property, and he has been serving as the coordinator of the proposal.
He said that such a facility has been researched up and down the east coast.
He submitted the resume of Mr. Martin Trueblood as an expert in the matter and
asked that Mr. Trueblood be permitted to address the Commission and public.
Mr. Martin Trueblood discussed with the Commission the plight of the elderly,
pointed out that most do not want to become a burden to their families and want to
have some independence and self-respect. He said that such a facility as this
provides them with this opportunity. He said that this is a proposal for a life -care
facility. There are currently 8 in the Delaware Valley, most successful. The
community will permit these older individuals with the prospect of independence
and productivity. It is especially ideal with the geriatric facilities that
will be located on the grounds. Upon entry the average age is usually 75 years.
He said that such a facility never generates more people needing health care than
the number living there.
Mr. Batchelor said that he himself has visited the facilities in Delaware.
He said that he has surveyed the area, and there is a need and a desire for such
a facility in this area. He said that several areas in the county have been looked
at for this proposal, and that everything that is desirable about this location
is what is recommended by the authorities on the matter - country setting, rolling
land with a view. Nearby and quite accessible are shopping areas, theatres,
restuarants, cultural activities, etc. There will be contractural arrangements
with the University of Virginia Medical Center and Martha Jefferson Hospital.
Furthermore, because of the existing terrain, existing vegetation, and planned
buffering, there will be little impact on the neighbors. Mr. Batchelor stated that
there are many local citizens who support this proposal because of their needs.
He also felt that it would be an attraction to former students at the University
as they grow older.
Mr. Max Evans, landscape architect for the project, gave the location of the
site. He described the location as being very desirable, with close proximity to
the urban area. He discussed the plans for the access drive, and proposed an
alternative route, if necessary. He said that the land is characterized by gentle
slopes, and is fairly open. The woodland separates it from Montvue. He showed
through graphic illustrations the property's relation to other land uses. He said
that the open area is best for development. He also showed through graphics the
main building complex and the clustered units that are planned. He said that the
attempt of the applicant is to visually and physically separate it from adjoining
properties. Mr. Evans pointed to the walking paths and the heavy buffer planting
adjacent adjoining properites. 11% of the property is proposed for parking, building
and drives, leaving 88% for open space and recreational uses.
Mr. Carr at this point questioned the percent of land use, noting that
the staff report had stated that 25% of the site is proposed for development.
Mr. Evans stated that the plan has changed, and that only 11% will be used for
parking, buildings, and drives.
Mr. Evans showed cross sections of visual and physical impact from adjoining
properties. He also showed a conceptual view of the property if developed with
R-1 zoning in a straightforward subdivision.
Summarizing, Mr. Evans stated that the site is well -located for a retirement
village, and will be physically and visually separated from adjoining residents. He
2l'?
stated that this separation would be of benefit to the potential residents
of the retirement village since it would afford them seclusion.
Mr. Woodford discussed the financial impact of the proposal, stating
that there are no appropriate facilities in this area for the elderly. Not only
is this needed in Albemarle, it is needed nationally as well. He said that this
community would afford financial benefits to Albemarle, since the project will
range in cost from $13 - $16,000,000. It will be raised from the private
sector over a two-year period. This means jobs for the community now, as well
as once the village is underway. There will be approximately 100 permanent employees,
as well as 100 part time employees, hopefully, teenagers. This proposal would
mean $100,000 in taxes to the County, as opposed to the $1100+ dollars collected
on the property with its current use.
Mr. Russell Phillips urged the Commission to approve the plan. He said
that he has been trying for some time to start a retirement village in the area,
since the closest and most desirable ones are in Pa. and Md. He said that he
wants a place for lifetime care without caring for a home, lawn, etc. Besides,
this permits couples to stay together longer, since health care is provided.
Mr. Heischman closed the discussion by stating that Albemarle County
needs this village -that it will be good for the community and good for the
County.
Mr. Don Halden, representing the Montvue Citizens Association, said
that he does not quarrel with the desirability of this idea or its need in
Central Virginia. He did question the impact. it would have on this general
area of the County ( see attached letter for the entire presentation ).
Dr. Wilheim presented a petition on the behalf of the Montvue Citizens
objecting to the request.
Mr. Preston Locher, one of the adjoining property owners - holding
81 acres, addressed the Commission and the public. He said that he has been in
the heavy construction business for many years and asked to be permitted to
ask the applicant or his representatives several questions.
He asked if this would be a non-profit business for the team that is
presenting the proposal.
Mr. Woodford said that there will be a reasonable profit for the risk
that is involved. It will be non-profit for the operating company, though.
Mr. Locher said that he will be looking directly at the main building
of this planned retirement village from his residence.
Mr. Locher also pointed to the fact that the average age of entering
citizens to this village will be 75, and after the village is established the
average age will be 82 years. He said that he had calculated that there will be
a 72 foot drop to the lake that is proposed for the village, and he said that
he feels this to be a safety hazard to the potential residents. However, he
said that a lake does look in the cross section of the project.
Mr. Carr questioned the maximum height of the main complex. Mr.
Evans responded that it will be 25 feet high.
"Cot �_
.41 19
VAL
276
MONTVUE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION
n
Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman
Albemarle County
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director
Albemarle
Gentlemen,
May 16, 1977
Planning Commission
of Planning
County
On behalf of the residents of Montvue, the 32 families that
are members of the Montvue Citizens Association, the following comments
and positions are for the record in connection with the ZMA-77-06
request for rezoning to RPN-R1 the 80 acre. -Robinson tract (abutting
Montvue) in connection with "Vueland", which we refer to herein, for
convenience, as the "project".
We observe among the purposes of an RPN District (Art. 19 of
the Zoning Ordinance) that such is intended to "be consistent with the
best interests of....the area in which it is located" and "try promote
........harmonious physical development.......".
The "project" is not in -accord with either of these intents.
,%NW We oppose this rezoning request. Some of our reasons are:
general characteristics and density of occupancy, and traffic and
access.
We observe that this "project" is not consistent with develop-
ments in the general area in recent years - witness Montvue, Colthurst,
Stillfield and Ivy Farms - all conforming to high standards of single
family residences on lots, for the most part of two acres or more.
First we comment on the considerations of traffic and access:
Traffic, by whatever access, will be substantial. The devel-
opers of the "project" claim most of it will occur between 10am and
4pm, which are off-peak hoLrs, and that it will be equivalent to one
round-trip per day per person of, or connected with, the "project".
This can well result in a frequency of not less than one, but probably
more nearly equal to four, vehicles per minute, average over a long
period of the day that will pass a given point. And this does not
include service vehicles (trucks, large and small, and also ambulances)
which will be needed to supply and service a $3.5 million per year
business. Also add mini -bus service -for the residents.
V9
I
-2-
The access route proposed for the "project" is the lane
currently used by Mr. Robinson. It is grossly inadequate for the
oject". The boundaries of this lane are only 20 ft. apart for
h1f of its length where it abuts Montvue property, a segment about
900 ft. long. In this section the lane is neither straight nor level.
On one side there is a hill, and on the other side there is a bank
dropping off to a creek. There is a problem with the creek eroding
the bank. Even assuming that the bank were to be shored up to handle
the weight of trucks, and the sturdiest of guard rails were installed,
there is only room for a narrow road, with no shoulders, and virtually
no way to get around obstructions should such arise. It must be re -
me tiered that the average age of residents of the "project" is, accord-
i_ng,o the developers, expected to be 82 years, and these residents will
drive this corridor along with trucks, mini -buses, service vehicles and
staff operated automobiles. We frankly are shocked that the developers
would view this lane as being adequate for sole access to the I)roject".
From simple logistic and safety viewpoints we would not think
that use of this lane as main access would be permitted by the County.
Also there is another factor you should consider. Owners of property
abutting this lane would be disturbed and annoyed in many ways by the
traffic. Some owners would readily see the trucks and cars from their
homes. All would suffer from the noise, fumes and pollution that
would inevitably arise from such a volume of traffic.
Alternatively, there is available a right.of way at the end
of Montvue Drive which leads to the Robinson property. It was estab-
shed when Montvue subdivision was established, for whatever reason
''fit the wisdom of those involved at the time (20 years ago) a and to
date it has never been paved or used.
Aside from transforming a quiet residential street to an
access highway, we point out that the intersection of Montvue Drive
with Barracks Road is a dangerous one with substandard visibility that
cannot be improved, and which is not at all suited to the aforementioned
volume of traffic nor for the use of a substantial number of people
whose average age is 82.
We also question the advisability of adding substantial
volume of traffic to Barracks Road. itself, a highly loaded highway.
Normally all densely populated areas have their own direct
access to highways by being bordered thereon, eg. Old Salem, Georgetown
Green, Hessian Hills, etc. To permit traffic generated by the proposed
"project" to flow through Montvue Dr-1ve would create an impossible
situation and substantially degrade the neighborhood.
To route this volume of traffic through this quiet residen-
tial street - a privately maintained roadway not built to state
standards and populated by a goodly number of children and dogs -
would be outrageous, would seriously endanger lives, and would be most
impractical. Traffic on this neighborhood street at its beginning at
p^.rracks Road would be inar.eased by a factor of 10, and by a factor of
*,,,over the greater part of its length, all as compared to the traffic
it now carries. This would be an entirely unreasonable situation.
Z 72-
-3-
--,)
You can see why we StL2nr,.I�r obj24L,o the use of 14c),Avi. fj
Drive as a principle access to the proposed "project+-
It'le are cnn-
I.. Ldent you will share our opinion.
If, by any chance, this "project" ss1loald be approved, -v:- note
an emergency access fcP fire trucks and ambulances iiiay 1,e requir,_Ji
County Authorities in add-Ition to whatever main access may b pi
Should Montvue Drive be considered for this purpose yota wo,,il.- cn:f -,-e
impossible situation that co-ul_d not be policed to insure us,- ont ,- h y
emergency vehicles, and no others.
Now we comment on the fundamental considerations, thor cf
general characteristics and density.
Rezoning to the proposed hPN-R1 ph-ilosoph.joa-i],y
will make a basic change in the characterof the whole arer,
definitely downgrade and devalue e:=isting adjacent and
property. Likewise it will be detrimental to the 1ti I L te, v al 1, fa
development of adjacentland now CUrl-elltly0—L 00 r_1 -
The County has judged Vb-nJ_vi-,e arld COIL st 3 for
be valuable and desirah-, - e property as shown by the gan.erai i e v e, I of t h- e
1, n r c c-- �7
L
recent appraisals. These appraisalsc-,sc7
4
out these areas by amounts that i,.-,ere much hihighert 4-
the County as a whole.
, I I L .� , -, n C 4-
The general area to the test, and away I Ll _EC
`,-hat have been permitted adjacent to Georget,,,-r caF,
been developed over time in your highest e s_J g C.,Co S,-"
to us that this atmosphere has (unfortunately) attracted
kled 1-he "1310-ect-
But, if permitted, the injection into the neighborhood of the
will produce a counteracting effect.
The nature of this proposed as 1,C) d�nsit-
appearance is quite vague and 'indet,:-11-111.n I
tomary to make rezoning judgements on the basis of qutie p al i 1_1
4 riformation. But this case is different. I tl-1 2 s
concept. The developers say by the-4 C s r_
versation, that it will have 335 units and a ion cJ 4(,0
plus a service force to support them and the proper-',-, c v
Yet, with 1 and 2 bedroom units, there could
occupancy and thus accommodate a C, f c
And the service force mtght well !)e b
ratio to good qual-ity resort
people to occupants, as the developers si-'FfC-tJ
be rather marFinal for operating iri clay,
ity envisioned. Further, there to not, 1
sequently f om changing bl, m rfod
a.n� soliciting ting clientele other ti�,an y.
C
'L',Uil advai-.itaFo be takon of the PPI','J� ty
more units, and 21-;r` more people.
The question of
density must
be
L) al, �t zi I
L
khan the usudl sLibd]- vJ_s1 on
analysi s. The
nu-11,)er
()-:f` In( opIc,
p(
the criteria that, miast be
cons_`.6ek,U` �at
� I - I ,
t
11
27,5
i✓ j units foi, ths Iy7 s:: at" is 4.2 per acre in gross terms on the tract.
but only about half is to be built upon and landscaped and treated (the
, zorc, for VvIsis reasons, should be eliminated from any calcu-
S+" ion- s) . ' has theso 3 w�lits, on t e useable 40 acres, will, for all
t_f cal T r , y � . r ` ��� n units per acre. Service people on board
„. be counted in t , occupancy fi g ares, same as a resort hotel complex,
since tha are uart of the population of the RPN. All of this will
_ asM in un sr_Q_ e h.: tvicen 6 fusing the developers numbers) and 11 people
_i acre of .,he •o V acre tract - or between 12 and 22 people per
mare on t�o use__.._e �-0 acres.
romTar
-' - er r.or,r'_e
tti l s japulat on density with the following estimated
r, P„ a .
c.✓f.Seasons
r tme_ct
G_ eni_ _ ar Heights
lverereen (;proposed)
i_`s s; �..- ..n Hills
1 1. s
r, .r coursp, there are
Georgetown Green.
21 people per acre
12
9
.- 6
higher amounts in Old Salem and
Should this _ P7 to granted, the County will be leap -frogging
o-;_.- residential areas cf its highest designated class with a density
ec.,t-valent to urban sprawl.
We otct' _ _ is neither right nor proper, and it is not
_ der y development, nc= _ s it at all condistent.
`fir We don't kncw, and '.;hat surety is there, that this proposal for
hcnsing and caring for the affluent elderly can be made workable. We
have no way to evaluate the business feasibility of this "project".
Ve also realize it is not your obligation to so evaluate. To the best
gf our Knowledge, from what we have been told, the developers have had
no experience in bufldfng or operating such a facility, and have not
detailed architectural studies. We do not know the basis of their
c st estimates, no_ of what m'rVet analyses as to possible customers
have been made.
We consider it reasonable on our part to wonder about the
ennec ed populatiDn they speak of. Some features of the l project" arc,
SM2,11Mt var7in- Wo he a_ f ; r e1 .,_p , confl-, ct _rc stories as to pos`1,
`
nst_ r' -. __ _� ' _ , _ zonp" adjacent .'cent to Mom. vne. Also, to .11 ,"
e 1he ohfusch7lnr nature of soms of the _ nf0 m t ..on being P&L C'. . Is
fcl,o7jnF statement ! . ..ae on _'- �� nth by a rep es�'t-1'.,�'t } ve of the •vel-
a h c is . s in the .puC � c :, .cord, that: "we have Soft . wi lt. h
0 , rost of the length (of :- € nal 20 n b
r,
0 1 � e 11 hc.(.
__ C yc2vsent_yedon't h i tar •nrr r t the
21 1. of qth o tho lanc thal _._ . Robinson n(.w has `.:'as sold to h
h
so e afro _on befog_. M-
any�� n i " " t �', a s y l., ' !-� F c � � r P ; _ ye"''
1 t.
., - _ �Cot��
rt� Y ; ��; ,�_ ,. 1 C..�--....�C off 1<.�. ll�. � ..E; u�)1. o� shcP
poo f t . ) sp C`ar! along l,ho bo
tofour dfir ' ust owners ;all of whom, to tk,-
syst of , t•n t if,.it . r e no des. or 1 nc i 1 nan : on to sell 30 _i ,.
EoYnyow or o t o developers, for purposPs of this 1)roject
-5-
27�1
Should the requested RP:' e granted, and the developers proceed
-ith their detailed designs, estimates, analyses and marketing endeavors
o ,d they suddenly find their concl'asions are that it will not work as a
bus -Hess venture, we would expect they would come back to you with some
alt .,mate proposal for a different, and with, likely, a different
density. And the County, once having moved in the direction of high
density in this location and justif_ed same to itself, would be hard
pressed to deny the relief requested. None of us can today envision
w at may b(s the ultimate configuration and population on this tract.
urea?
Will ycl permit destruct` on of the character of the general
We respectfully request the proposed rezoning be denied
Montvue Citizens Association
by
Sec'y/ Treas
z75
Mr. Peatross asked if the main building will be visible from the Locher
residence. Mr. Evans said that it will not be.
Mr. Locher said that he currently can see the Robinson house. He also
said that he feels that this residential planned neighborhood is a guise to get away
from the access problem by saying that this will be under one ownership.
Mr. Tom McEachern, Jr., President of Colthurst Property Owners Association,
recognized that there are certain merits to a retirement home in Albemarle County,
but he said that he wishes to address the merits of the existing neighborhood.
He cited such neighboring subdivisions as Colthurst, Montvue, Ivy Farms, and Stillfield
as having much larger lot sizes. He said that he objects to this proposal on the
basis that there is a proposed density letdown.
Mr. Channing Daniel, from National Bank, who said that he is not part
of this team presenting the proposal, informed the Commission that he has been in
the trust business for 25 years. In the last 7-8 years, he has been helping
retired citizens who have retired here in their sixties find another place to
live when they become unable to take care of home, lawn, etc. He felt that a
facility like this retirement village is needed in Albemarle County to enable
those who have retired here to remain in the area in their very old age.
Mrs. Gary said that there are other places in the County or City that
are desirable and already have proper zoning without disrupting the character of
an existing neighborhood that is primarily in larger acreage lots.
Mr. Keeler took this opportunity to tell the Commission that if
this were a proposed subdivision a category 3 road would be needed with a 60
foot right-of-way. He said that he had suggested the variance for parking
spaces since all the employees will not be on the site at the same time.
Mrs. Gary said that she does not feel that the access is nearly adequate
in view of the innumerable services that are scheduled to be provided.
Mrs. Virginia Rovnyak said that the access to the property is very
important. She said that everyone talks as if there is a problem determining
the access, whereas she said that she has researched its width in the clerk's
office through deeds. She said that Mr. Evan's calculation is off 300 feet.
Actually the road is 2013 feet long, and she determined this through plats
of the Montvue subdivision which show this road. She said that 964 feet of the
Montvue Subdivision adjoin this road, and this 964 feet is divided among four
property owners, and she and her husband are one of these four owners. She
said that none of these four owners have shown any interest in selling land to
Mr. Robinson to widen his access. She said that in her mind there is no mystery
about the width of Mr. Robinson's road - all the deeds show it to be 20 feet,
or very close to 20 feet. She said that in the 1951 deed when Mr. Robinson bought
the property, the deed refers to the width as 20 feet ( she read from the deed at
that point ). She said that the road is mentioned as 20 feet in the deeds of the
adjoining land owners. The next description was in 1914, which also mentioned
in several places that the road is 20 feet in width. She said that the 964 feet
of roadway where the road is 20 feet in width is certainly inadequate for a proposal
of this type, especially with elderly drivers and all the service vehicles to the
property.
MR
z7&
Dr. Robert Cary listed the dangers of the potential access. He said that
if the developer has any idea of using the road through Montvue, he wishes to
remind the Commission that this is a private road maintained by individual
property owners. He questioned the slope of the alternative road Mr. Evans
had mentioned in the presentation.
Mr. Evans said that if the road is constructed it would have a slope
of 8-100 - but he emphasized that this is the alternate route.
Dr. Cary also noted the dangerous Montvue Drive/Barracks Road intersection.
The sight distance is bad either way, and in the winter, road conditions in the
area are often treacherous. He said that the most common accident with elderly
people is falls. The second most common accident is with crashes, simply because
of slowed reflexes, they fail to yield the right-of-way, improper stopping and turning.
He presented to the Commission a series of articles dealing with problems in aging
from the New York State Journal of Medicine, November, 1974.
Mr. Evans stated that the aplicant is not in agreement with the matter
of the access - that the applicant owns 50 foot fee simple from the power line to
Barracks Road, and that there is only 75 feet of roadway where the access is 20 feet.
Mr. Robert Langbaum opposed the request, stating that there is no way to
screen the property. The road will be disturbing with all the traffic next to
him - noise pollution. He said that this proposal will further decrease property
values in the area.. Mr. Langbaum said that he is not opposed to appropriate
growth in Albemarle, but this retirement village does not fit with the neighboring
subdivisions. He said that once the area is spoiled, it will never be the same.
He said that he also objects to the false philanthropy which is being offered
by the team. Mr. Langbaum said that he much preferssingle family development
for this tract of land.
Dr. Fank Langford surmised that the property might not develop as it
is proposed. He said that then the zoning would exist, and the neighborhood
would be subjected to something perhaps even worse than this. He told the
Commission that he is under the impression that the entry fee to the Village
will be $50,000, and $20,000/year thereafter.
Mr. Steven Braden, a resident of Colthurst, said that this is not
really in the general concept of the Comprehensive Plan. He said that development
is to take place in certain areas, like the satellite communities. He said
that approval of this proposal would contribute to the urban sprawl problem.
Mr. James Jessup said that if this is to be allowed, the entrance is
most important. He said that he does not trust the Virginia Department of
Highways to determine what is safe, and cited the exit/entrance at Old Salem
Apartments as an example. He also noted that this should be very carefully
studied if the elderly citizens are to be driving.
Mr. Trueblood said that the car average in the other retirement villages
is .5-.75 cars/unit. He also noted that this village does not support the staff
on the grounds.
Mrs. David questioned the number of units in the other retirement
villages. Mr. Trueblood said that, exclusive of the nursery care facilities,
the units in four of the villages are 215, 240, 300, and 300.
/7T
Mr. Rovnyak reminded the Commission that there is a tendency in the
elderly to hold onto their drivers license too long. He cited the very bad
road conditions in the area as matters of concern. He further noted that a road
only 20 feet in width is easy to become obstructed, and there is not room to turn
around such an obstruction.
One of the citizens questioned the visitor traffic to the site. Mr. Keeler
read from the staff report.
Mr. Locher said that he feels that the first matter the Commission should
consider is the right-of-way problem. This is a requirement of the staff, and
if it is not met, then the applicant cannot proceed with the proposal.
Mrs. Langbaum asked that the Commission consider all that density concentrated
in one area.
Mrs. Rovnyak said that surely there is already appropriately zoned R-1
land. Besides, these senior citizens cannot walk to the shopping areas, restaurants,
theatres, etc. that Mr. Batchelor had spoken of.
Dr. Langford asked Mr. Trueblood the character of the neighborhoods
of other retirement villages he is familiar with. Mr. Trueblood responded
that one is in open country, but many have substantial residentially developed
neighborhoods around.
Mr. Evans said that the plan has been based on careful study of the
topography of the land. He said that the topo maps are done to the 100 and 200
scale. He said that there is the problem with the 75 feet of roadway which is
only 20 feet in width, though the applicant does prefer this roadway to the
alternative route.
Mr. Bailey, County Engineer, in responding to a question about the
road, said that he has not searched any deeds or records to know the width
of the right-of-way, that he had been working with information submitted by
the applicant. He said that the road is certainly a crucial matter, and he
felt that purchasing the needed amount of land would take care of this problem.
Mr. Carr replied that there are some facts that need clarification.
Mr. Gloeckner said that since the right-of-way is so crucial, this
problem needs to be worked out before the Commission further iiscusses the proposal.
Mr. Payne said that the right-of-way is a legal problem, not an engineering
problem. A safe road can be proposed only after it is determined what the applicant
owns. He felt this would not be a difficult problem to solve, and could be done
through a competent title examiner with certification by an attorney as to its
width. No engineering problems can be discussed until the legal matter is solved.
Mr. Bailey said that sometimes the legal problem is solved through the
physical survey of the road..
Mr. Peatross said that the title search can reveal if the need for the
suzey
physiealvrs. Mr. Peatross said that he is concerned about the traffic as
�exis
well as the right-of-way. He noted that there were problems with the Stillfield
Subdivision. He asked if 500 vehicle/trips per day is a realistic figure.
Mr. Keeler said that the staff has nothing available on this and
in some cases the staff must rely upon the applicant to furnish the data.
He did note that the Virginia Department of Highways sees no problem with
this, and they said that the same problem that existed with the Stillfield
subdivision does not exist here. Stillfield"s problem was with the sight
distance.
Mr. Peatross asked one of the neighborhood associations ( Montvue )
if they would object if 42 units, with the road through Montvue, would be
objectionable.
Mr. Halden said that each case would have to be considered individually.
Mr. Keeler at that time presented the zoning map, which he had not
presented in the staff report. He said that this would not be a case of spot
zoning, though this use is not provided in the R-1 zone. He said that areas
that have R-1 zoning in the area have not developed to the maximum R-1 density.
Mr. Jones said that the main issue is certainly the 20 foot right-of-way.
Col. Washington said that throughout the presentation there have been
references to this having single ownership. lie asked the difference in criteria
for the roadway to this and to a subdivision.
Mr. Keeler said that the criteria for the road depends upon the ownership
and the use.
Mr. Carr said that this is a judgement issue.
Mr. Keeler said that it is based somewhat on safety.
Col. Washington said that he feels the roadway should be addressed from
another point, and that is what is safe and appropriate for elderly drivers. Also
he noted that if it is approved, the neighbors seen to want a higher standard.
He said that he questions if even an 18 foot: road is adequate.
Mrs. Graves read the statements of intent of the A-1 zone and the R-1 zone.
The statement of intent of the R-1 zone prohibits all activities that are commercial
in nature. She said determining if the application fits the intent of the zoning
ordinance may be even more important that the road issue.
Mr. Keeler said that he had asked the Zoning Administrator if the application
meets this criteria, and the Zoning Administrator had ruled that it does when he
accepted the application.
Mrs. Graves said that the entire tract of land under this proposal is
being used commercially.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the application be deferred. ( After a long
discussion of when the appropriate date to hear the request would be, the Commission
decided that June 28 was most convenient for the applicant in order that he
could answer some of the questions regarding the roadway. ) Col. Washington
seconded the motion for deferral, which carried unanimously.
JAMES W. EARHART FINAL PLAT:
Mrs. Scala said that the A-1 property is located on the northeast side
of Route 601. The proposal is a division of three parcels, 3.3, 3.1 and 4.5 acres
on a proposed private access easement across a 40' pipestem. There will be
individual well and septic systems.
The Virginia Department of Highways is requiring that the existing entrance
be upgraded to commercial standards. It has adequate sight distance. Health
Department approval was presented by Mr. Earhart that evening.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. Dedication on Route 601.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by
the staff. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
MOUNTAIN HOLLOW FINAL PLAT:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, located the A-1 property on
Route 690. The proposal is a division of four lots, average size of 2.2 acres.
Individual well and septic systems will be provided. Lots 1-9 were approved by
the Commission in October, 1974. Lot 10 and Lots 12-15 were approved by the
Commission on Novmeber 16, 1976. Lot 23 was approved in December, 1976, with
conditions, though the plat was never signed. The plat shows 75 feet of setback
on both sides of the future road. The location of this road has been approved
for sight distance by the Highway Department. Health Department approval has
been given. The staff recommended approval subject to the following condition:
1. Joint entrances between lots 24/25 and 22/23, subject to Highway Department
approval.
Mr. Holmes, a resident of Mountain Hollow,said that all the houses
under construction are on a clay hill. Every time it rains there are 6-8 inches
of mud on Route 690 and 796 at the intersection. Adequate drainage is needed
under Route 796 to handle this problem.
Mr. Tucker said that this is an engineering problem that should be
addressed with the Virginia Department of Highways. He said that the problem
might be with the accesses.
Mr. Gloeckner did not feel that the Commission could require the applicant
to dedicate a 25 foot strip, but suggested that there be grading permits as development
occurs, if the property is being developed under one ownership. He asked if erosion
plans could be required with single-family dwellings.
Mr. Payne said that if there is an erosion problem, it is subject to the
erosion ordiance if all the land is being developed under one ownership. However,
if the land is being developed by individual owners, and the Commission feels it is
necessary, it can require erosion preventive measures from them.
Mrs. Tiffany said that the land is being sold to individuals, who in some
cases have employed their own contractors.
Mr. Payne said that whether development is going on or not, a soil
erosion problem must be handled by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Gloeckner said that the condition requiring grading permits as development
occurs should be added to the approval.
Mrs. Graves questioned the residue, and asked that the amount be shown on
the plat.
Mrs. Wood questioned if the houses to be built will be comparable to what
exists there.
Mr. Carr said that he does not think the Commission can give any assurance
that this will happen, though the land cost is probably comparable to what has
been paid by others. He established that the previously platted lots are in
Mountain Hollow.
Mrs. Tiffany said that there are deed restrictions covering this subdivision.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Joint entrances between lots 24/25 and 22/23 subject to Highway Department approval;
2. Grading permits to be required as development occurs;
3. Erosion problems to be referred to the Zoning Administrator;
4. Residue to be shown on the plat.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no
further discussion.
FOXWOOD PRELIMINARY PLAT:
This plat, which had been deferred from earlier in the meeting for possible
citizen input, was discussed. No citizens were present for comment.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval.;
2. Health Department approval;
3. Maintenance agreement for joint easements;
4. Waiver of frontage on lots 5, 6, 26, and 27 granted;
5. Reduction of frontage on cul-de-sac lot_;
6. NOTE: Roadway along the frontage of the property ( in terms of grading ) will
be addressed at time of final plat review.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
LAKE SAPONI FINAL PLAT:
Mrs. Scala stated that this A-1 property is located on the east side
of Route 29 North at the Greene County line.
.Zy/
There are six lots, average size of 4.26 acres, ranging from 2.98 to 9.16 acres.
Individual well and septic systems are proposed, as well as a 50' access easement.
This property lies in Albemarle County but is taxed in Greene. Access is through
Greene from Route 29 North. The subdivision roads within Lake Saponi are not
bonded, however road plans for them have been approved. Staff has concern about the
Route 29 entrance which is not paved and does not provide deceleration area.
Staff recommended approval subject to two conditions.
There was no public comment and no discussion from the Commission.
Mr. Peatross moved approval of the plat subject to the following two
conditions:
1. Route 29 entrances constructed to commercial standards;
2. Maintenance agreement needed for the easement, and to be reviewed and approved
by the County Attorney.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion for approval, which carried unanimously,
with no discussion.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at midnight.
Ro t
rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Se etar
M