Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-06-175 .3 June 17, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 17, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, 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: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M., by the 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 Mr. Lindstrom, to approve Item 4.la on the consent agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. 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.la. Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Common- wealth's Attorney, and Regional Jail for the Month of June, 1987, were approved as presented. Item No. 4.1. Letter dated June 9, 1987 from Dan S. Roosevelt, Highway Department, transmitting a copy of the 1986 traffic counts for primary routes in Albemarle County, the average 24-hour traffic count per mile of primary roads and the vehicle miles traveled per 24-hours on primary roads within counties in the Culpeper District. The letter read as follows: "Attached (on file) you will find a copy of the 1986 traffic counts for primary routes in Albemarle County. The attached tabulation is a reprint from a larger publication. I have underlined the specific sections of each route which fall at least partially in Albemarle County. Also attached to this tabulation as the last two pages is some information which I feel would be of interest to the Board. The next to the last sheet indicates the average 24 hour traffic count per mile of primary road and lists the counties in order by highest volume. The last page indicates the vehicle miles traveled per 24 hours on primary roads within counties in the Culpeper District. Please pass this information on to the Board members." Item No. 4.2. Letter dated June 11, 1987 from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, re: Task Force on Children and Youth. The letter read as follows: "In November 1986, the City of Charlottesville and its school system spon- sored a Forum on Children and Youth (summary on file). From this forum it is recommended that the City and County form a community task force to develop a policy on children and youth for the community. The task force would be headed by a 'Blue Ribbon' panel to be selected by City Council and Supervisors. The proposed charge (on file) will hopefully be presented to you in July, in order for the task force to begin its work this coming fall. Suggestions for panel membership will also be forthcoming soon." Item No. 4.3. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for June 2 and June 9, 1987 were received as information. Item No. 4.4. Notice from the State Corporation Commission of an application filed by Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc., to revise its tariffs. Item No. 4.5. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for the Month of May, 1987. Item No. 4.6. Superintendent's Memorandum No. 14 from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Education, to Division Superintendents, re: Certification of Adequate Budgeted Funds in 1987-88 to Meet the Required Local Expenditure for Basic Operations Cost. Agenda'Item No. 5. $P-87-24. Sharon Jones. To allow day care center on part of 0.743 acre parcel, zoned R-15. Located on Rt. 656 (Georgetown Road) adjacent to Old Dominion Day School. Tax Map 60Al, Parcel 29 (part). Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1987.) 544 June 17, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Petition: Sharon Jones petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue special use permit authorizing expansion of the Old Dominion Day School from a licensing capacity of 75 children to 325 children. The additional enroll- ment would be house in a new DAY CARE CENTER (18.2.2.7) to be constructed adjacent to the existing school facility. Property, described as Tax Map 60Al, Parcel 29 (part of), consists of 0.743 acres zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development and is located adjacent to Westgate Apartments on Georgetown Road (Rt. 656) in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Back~round: This property lies within the 'Mowinckel Tract' an area which originally was approved under special use permit for 375 dwellings and 8,000 square feet of office area (SP-78-22 Great Eastern Management). The exist- ing Old Dominion Day School was established subsequent to special use permit approval in 1979. Applicant's Proposal and Justification The existing day school is located on 0.652 acres. The proposed additional building would be located on an adjoining 0.743 acre lot. The 9,000 square foot structure would be two stories with a 4,500 square foot footprint. Initially the applicant proposed phased expansion of enrollment. However, the applicant has identified need for licensed child care in the following areas: infant care; preschool child care; pre-kindergarten; kindergarten; and after school child care. For example, the applicant has stated that 'Westminister Child Care Center has six licensed spaces for infant care and a waiting list of 128 infants." Expanded facilities would also provide greater flexibility in adjusting to needs by varying enrollments in the various programs and between child care and nursery school. The applicant is also considering providing segregated facilities for sick children who do not require medical care but may need quarantine (i.e. - school aged children with chicken pox or other contagious disease). Staff Comment: The applicant has identified current and increasing future demand for child care needs. Staff favors satisfying this demand through state licensed facilities as the applicant proposes (relatively few local child caring facilities operate under state licensure). Locationally, the applicant's site is convenient to the most densely populated area of the County and to the City. Additional traffic on Georgetown Road is a concern. the following comment: However, staff offers Old Dominion Day School is currently using temporary access to George- town Road. Virginia Department of Transportation and staff recommend that a new permanent access be established to serve this use and the remaining undeveloped residential land (i.e. - Barclay Place): VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: A left turn lane will be required. This will involve widening Rt. 656 in front of this proper- ty. The Department also recommends that a right turn lane be built if the right-of-way is available for this to occur. Currently, the driveway serving the existing residence has access to the turn lane near the existing entrance and if possible, should be relocated. The Department recommends that a 26' of pavement from the center line of Rt. 656 to the curb, be constructed along the frontage of this property and tie into the existing curb and gutter at the Westgate property near Rt. 743. Therefore, while traffic would increase, access would be improved. Westgate V (currently pending) has been redesigned so access would be through existing Westgate as opposed to this proposed entrance. Based on research by the applicant, together with the revised Westgate V plan, staff has reduced projected traffic from 2,336 vehicle trips per day to 1,940 vehicle trips per day (includes 124 units for Barclay Place). Based on plans approved to date, total development of the original Mowinckel tract will be 345 units while 375 units were author- ized (also additional land has been added since the original approval with no increase in authorized units). The new access would be close to Hydraulic Road, therefore, traffic to and from Hydraulic would not substantially affect Georgetown Road. Currently, traffic on this section of Georgetown is 10,825 vehicle trips per day (July-October 1986). One segment to the south carries over 12,000 vehicle trips per day. Therefore, most traffic on George- town Road is through traffic. Some enrollment could be .captured from this existing through traffic. As can be seen from the applicant's submittal, continual search has been made since the 1970's for a permanent location where expansion could occur. June 17, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (P_~e 3~) 545 Generally speaking, commercial areas are not conducive to day care uses. Historically, proposed day care uses have met opposition from residents in residential areas. While this may not be an ideal location due to traffic concerns, it is convenient to residential areas and staff is unaware of any opposition. Staff recommends approval of the proposed expansion subject to the following conditions: Compliance with 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires among other things licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare; Combined enrollment of existing and proposed facilities shall not exceed 325 children; Site plan approval to include access in accord with Virginia Department of Transportation recommendations outlined in this report." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of SP-87-24 subject to conditions 91 and 92 recommended by the staff and condition 93 amended as follows: "Site plan approval." The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Sharon Jones, the applicant, said she is present to answer any questions Board members may have. Mr. Fisher asked the number of adults for the 325 children. Mrs. Jones said State regulations require the ratio of adult per child as follows: infants, 1:4; toddlers, 1:5; teacher per student, 1:5; preschool ages 2-3, 1:10; ages 4-5, 1:12; and 6 and older 1:20. It is anticipated that infants and toddlers will be approximately 60 percent of the enrollment. There will be two levels for the children to enter the building with a separate entrance for sick children. There will be a nurse on duty at all times. Next to address the Board, Mr. Don Wagner, of Great Eastern Management, said they are the seller of the property. He stated for the record that this property is part of a .743 acre parcel. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked the reason the Planning Commission eliminated Department of Transportation approval. Mr. Horne said the Commission felt that since comments are normally obtained at the time of site plan approval from the Highway Department, it would be easier to address same at that time. Mr. Lindstrom commented that improvements cannot be required at the site plan level that can be required at this level and he thinks it would be appropriate to require approval at this time. Mr. Fisher asked the use of the other part of the 0.743 parcel not being sold. Mr. Wagner responded that the other part of the parcel belongs to another person and he does not know the proposed use. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to approve SP-87-24 subject to the same conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom said he would feel better if Virginia Department of Transportation approval was included. Those are conditions that may or may not be required at site plan approval. He then suggested a fourth condition as follows: "Vir- ginia Department of Transportation approval of access to Georgetown Road." Mrs. Cooke then amended her motion to approve SP-87-24 subject to the following conditions: Compliance with 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires among other things licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare; Combined enrollment of existing and proposed facilities shall not exceed 325 children; 3. Site plan approval. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of access to Georgetown Road. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the 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. 6. SP-87-35. Mary K. Wood. To locate single-wide mobile home on 3.5 acres, zoned RA. Located on west side of Rt. 743, 0.2 mile northwest of intersection with Rt. 660. Tax Map 31, Parcel 14H. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1987.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Petition: Mary K. Wood petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue special use permit for a MOBILE HOME (10.2.2.10) on 3.5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcel 14H, is located on the west side of Rt. 743 approximately 2/10 mile northwest of Rt. 660 at Earlysville in the White Hall Magisterial District. Character of the Area: A mobile home which has not been in use for seven to eight years is located on the site. A single family dwelling is immediately to the northwest and two single family dwellings are visible across Rt. 743. An extensive wooded area screens the site from a dwelling to the southeast. June 17, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Staff Comment: The existing mobile home is setback about 25-30 feet from Rt. 743. The replacement mobile home would be setback 100 feet from Rt. 743 behind two small outbuildings. Also the property slopes away from Rt. 743 further reducing visibility. Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal repre- sents an improvement over existing conditions though some additional screen- ing may prove warranted. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Screening from Rt. 743 to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator; Existing mobile home to be removed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 9, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of SP-87-35 subject to conditions 91 and 93 by the staff and an amended condition 92 as follows: "Maintenance of existing vegetation and installation of screening from Rt. 743, and location of mobile home to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator." The public hearing was opened. Mr. Franklin Sprouse, husband of the applicant, ad- dressed the Board. He and his wife will live in the mobile home and they have no problems with the conditions. Mrs. Virginia Hahn, a resident of Earlysville, presented the following petition signed by 38 residents of Earlysville opposing SP-87-35: "We the residents of Earlysville, Virgin- ia, are totally and adamantly against a mobile home, a mobile park, a mobile court or any other type of mobile-based residence being established along Route 743, but especially in the vicinity of Earlysville Heights or Earlysville Forest." Earlysville has been an established village for many years. It was designated as village residential in the Comprehensive Plan and is a growth area and not as a rural area. She does not feel that removal of the present mobile home with the replacement of this one is an appropriate application. This mobile home would hinder the integrity and atmosphere of the village of Earlysville, and would set a precedent for future unacceptable applications. Next to address the Board, Mr. Robert Taylor, a resident of Earlysville Heights, said he was also present to speak against the application. He would like to reiterate Mrs. Hahn's statements that Earlysville is zoned VR and is a growth area. He also strongly objects to a new mobile home because it would establish a precedent. He asked the persons present in opposition to the petition to stand; approximately 14 people stood. The public hearing was closed. .Mr. Henley offered motion to approve SP-87-35 subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie said he has never voted against a mobile home permit that was going to be occupied by the owner, but Earlysville is a designated village and growth area. There have been discussions concerning providing utilities. By encouraging this growth, the obvious intent is for a village and not a rural area. He thinks that those persons present in opposition are correct; this would not be a mobile home in a rural area, but one in a desig- nated village now being commercially developed. He does not feel a mobile home in this location would be appropriate. Although the motion has not been seconded, he does not intend to support it. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion suggesting a fourth condition that the mobile home must be owner occupied. He does not think the mobile home is in the village proper. He feels that the Board is on thin ice when it rejects a mobile home proposed for occupation by the owner. It is a matter of aesthetics. Although he does not think mobile homes are a wise choice, he does not think the Board has much to distinguish them from. He also does not want to jeopardize the Board's authority with regard to screening, setbacks, etc., by being arbitrary and determining the type of design someone will have. Mr. Henley said he is agreeable to the fourth condition. Mrs. Cooke said she will support the motion if added to the fourth condition is the clause that should the owners vacate the property, the mobile home has to be removed and cannot become a rental property. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with the amendment. Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve SP-87-35 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Maintenance of existing vegetation and installation of screening from Rt. 743, and location of mobile home to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator; Existing mobile home to be removed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy; The mobile home must be owner-occupied, cannot be rented .and the mobile home must be removed at such time as the owner vacates the property. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the 5 .7 June 17, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-87-36. Gayle and Walter Jaeger. To amend SP-84-01 to allow for additional employees. Property located on St. Rt. 641 at Burnley is zoned RA. Tax Map 34, Parcel 52. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1987.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Petition: Walter Jaeger petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend a conditions of approval of SP-84-01 to increase the number of employees from five to ten persons at a custom woodworking shop at Burnley's Station. Property, described as Tax Map 34, Parcel 52, consists of 23.09 acres zoned RA and is located on the south side of Route 641, west and adjacent to the Southern Railroad in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Staff Comment: In 1975, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-454 authorizing a custom woodworking shop with not more than three employees. In 1984, under SP-84-01, the applicant successfully petitioned the Board of increase the number of employees to five (not including the applicants). Under this current petition, the applicant proposes a 2,400 square foot building addition and also requests a maximum of ten employees. A setback variance from the railroad is required for the building addition. In special use permit approvals, the County has sought to control intensity of usage through various means including limitation on number of employees. In the 12 years this woodworking shop has existed, staff is unaware of any problems or complaints in the area. To the contrary, two letters have been submitted in support of this proposal (on file). Virginia Department of Transportation has recommended entrance improvements. Staff requests administrative approval of the site plan. Staff recommends approval of SP-87-36 subject to the following modified conditions of SP-84-01: Any renovations of the existing structure shall have County Building Official approval; Production be limited to custom-made items, i.e., no assembly line production to be permitted; Employment to be limited to a maximum of ~ve-~, ten (10) persons not including applicants. Any additional employment will require an additional special use permit; Signing be limited to one free-standing sign, not to exceed six (6) square feet; 5. Ail woodworking equipment shall be located within an enclosed area; 6. Sales be limited to only products of the applicants; Special use permit is issued to the applicants only and is nontrans- ferrable. 8. Staff approval of site plan. Completion of entrance improvements in accordance with Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation letter of May 6, 1987 (Attachment C of this report) prior to issuance of any building permit." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of SP-87-36 subject to the same conditions as recommended by the staff. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Walter Jaeger, the applicant, said it will be to the applicant's monetary advantage to do the roadway construction and entrance improvements at the same time. He, therefore, requests that condition 99 change to read: "Completion of entrance . . prior to issuance of an occupancy permit." Mr. Horne said he has discussed this change with Mr. Jaeger and the staff has no objection to the amendment, but the correct wording would be: ". . . prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy." The staff is concerned that the entrances be done. Mr. Jaeger presented a petition (on file) signed by the immediate landowners and residents in agreement with the application. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said this property is in his district. He knows most of the people on the petition and is familiar with the business. He supports the application and thinks it is good for the neighborhood. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to approve SP-87-36 subject to the following conditions: Any renovations of the existing structure shall have County Building Official approval; Production be limited to custom-made items, i.e., no assembly line production to be permitted; June 17, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Employment to be limited to a maximum of ten (10) persons not including applicants. Any additional employment will require an additional special use permit; Signing be limited to one free-standing sign, not to exceed six (6) square feet; 5. Ail woodworking equipment shall be located within an enclosed area; 6. Sales be limited to only products of the applicants; Special use permit is issued to the applicants only and is nontrans- ferrable. 8. Staff approval of site plan. Completion of entrance improvements in accordance with Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation letter of May 6, 1987 (Attachment C of this report) prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. 'Attachment C, a letter from the Highway Department dated May 6, 1987, read as follows: For SP-84-1, the Department reviewed the existing entrance and it was determined that adequate sight distance can be obtained with trimming of some vegetation. Attached is the entrance design that was submitted along with the comments fort this previous SP. The entrance has not been upgraded in accordance with the comments for this previous SP. The entrance design shown on the current plan sheet is partially on property not owned by the applicant and there is a sight distance problem for vehicles turning left into this proposed entrance. A sight easement on the property across the road would be needed along with the removal of some trees and fence line. Therefore, the Department recommends that the entrance be upgraded in accordance with the previous comments and the attached sketch.' Mr. Lindstrom seconded the 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. 8. SP-87-38. Mediplex of Virginia (Mountainwood). To amend SP-80-60 to allow addition of 3,300 sq. ft. for admitting and modified parking, zoned CO. Located on east side of Rt. 780 (Old Lynchburg Road) south of 1-64. Tax Map 76, Parcel 46F. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1987.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Request: In accordance with Section 23.2.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to amend Special Use Permit 80-60 to allow an addition of 3,300 square feet for admitting area· Acreage: 6.261 acres. Zoning: CO, Commercial Office, with SP-80-60. Location: Property described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 46F is located on the east side of Rt. 780 (Old Lynchburg Road) across from Sherwood Manor and just south of 1-64. Character of the Area: The southern portion of the site is wooded and the northern portion is open. This parcel is adjacent to undeveloped parcels and 1-64, and is across from a developed residential area. History: SP-80-60 Wellagain Limited Partnership was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 15, 1980 subject to the attached conditions. Approval was granted for an 80 bed residential care facility with antici- pated employment of 30 persons per shift. The Mountainwood Site. Plan for Phases I and II was approved by the Board of Supervisors December 10, 1980. The Planning Commission requested site plan review for Phase II development. There have been several minor site plan amendments. Staff Comment: The applicant describes this proposal as follows: The current admitting function is housed in the back of the existing facili- ty. This does not work properly in that admitting is the first place where residents will be seen. The addition will house a small lobby with a receptionist; three (3) admitting offices; two (2) doctor's offices with exam rooms; director's office; toilets and a primary care office. The addition will also allow for new storage, nurse station and utility rooms for the admitting wing. These functions will all be housed within the 3,300 square foot addition. No increase in number of staff or residents are anticipated as a result of this expansion. Therefore, no increase in traffic will result. ,549 June 17, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) _ (Pag~ 7) A site plan showing the admitting addition, modification of existing parking and an addition of six spaces, has been reviewed by the Site Review Commit- tee. The applicant requests administrative approval of the site plan. The applicant has determined that the existing stormwater detention facility is adequate to handle the proposed addition. The Virginia Department of Transportation has determined that sufficient right-of-way on this parcel has previously been dedicated for the project to relocate Rt. 631 and realign Rt. 780. This project is in the present Six Year Plan for Secondary Improvements. In staff's opinion, the proposed addition will not be more visible from 1-64, Rt. 780 or adjacent properties. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Administrative approval of site plan; 2. Compliance with conditions of SP-80-60." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 9, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of SP-87-38 subject to the conditions of the staff. The public hearing was opened. Present representing the applicant was Mr. Fred Landess. He introduced Ms. Judy Goodin, Executive Director of Mountainwood. Mr. Landess said a condition of approval of SP-80-60 was that any expansion would require an additional special use permit. This request is for improvements of the administrative and reception area. Mr. St. John said, for clarification, the reason this is before the Board is because the Board wanted to see any amendments made to the site plan. Under normal circumstances this request would just go before the Planning Commission for approval. Ms. Goodin said the new building will house She admissions offices and nurses offices. This is for the patient's and staff's convenience to increase the quality of services and needs. The vacated space will be used for counselor offices, The nursing station is to be renovated into a patient lounge. There is not proposed to be an increase in patients or staff. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked if the condition by the Planning Commission authorizing administrative approval of~site plan applies only to this application and any future expansion must still come before the Board of Supervisors. Mr. St. John said the condition applies to this site plan. If the Board wants requests for future expansion to come before it, then such should be specified. M~. Horne suggested the Board may wish to reference this specific site plan in the conditions. Mr. Fisher said he would like to maintain the same level of review. Mr. Fisher suggested the condition read: "Administrative approval of site plan entitled 'Additions and Alterations to Mountainwood' dated 4-27-87, by Architecture, Incorporated." Mr. Landess said the copy of his site plan is dated 5~30-87. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the condition read: "Administrative approval of site plan to be limited to the request approved by this special p.~rmit." Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve tions: 1. Administrative approval of site plan approved by this special permit; 2. Compliance with conditions of SP-80-6 Roll was calle, Mr. Way seconded the motion. recorded vote: SP-87-38 subject to the following condi- ~o be limited to the request and the motion carried by the following AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-87-44. Braeburn Limited Partnership. To locate double-wide mobile home on 59.196 acres, zoned RA. Located one-tenth mile on north side of Rt. 240, approx. 0.3 mile east of its intersection with Rt. 810 and Rt. 788. Tax Map 56, Parcel 66. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1987.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Request: This is a request to allow the location of a double-wide mobile home (Section 10.2.10). Acreage: Total area of the parcel is 59.196 acres. Zoning: The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Location: The property is located approximately .10 mile off of the north side of Route 240, and approximately 0.3 mile east of the intersection of Route 240 and Route 810. Character of the Area: The site, part of Braeburn Farm, is partially vegetated with hardwoods. There are four small lots located along the right-of-way to the site, three of which have dwelling located on them. These lots are zoned either R-2 residential, or C-l, Commercial (location map on file). There is an existing house on the property which is in a state of disrepair and will be torn down. There are four (4) mobile homes located within one-half mile radius of the site. There are two mobile home parks located within a one mile radius of the site. 55O June 17, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Staff Comment: The proposed mobile home is to be used for a full time farm employee. The proposed location of the mobile home would be visible from three dwellings adjacent to this property. The applicant, as indicated on the attached plat, will locate the mobile home a minimum of 75 feet from the front lot line and over 100 feet from the side lot lines. The existing hardwoods will at least partially screen the mo'bile home from two of the adjacent dwell- ings. Five letters of opposition have been received, and are attached (on file) with this report. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2. of the Zoning Ordinance. Screening and/or location of mobile home to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 9, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of SP-87-44 subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Fisher asked if consideration has been given to the removal of the dilapidated structures on the property. Mr. Horne replied no. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Patrick Nuesch, representing the applicants, addressed the Board. This is a double-wide mobile home to be placed on either a concrete or cinder block foundation. He is the son of the applicant. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Nuesch if the dilapidated structures would be removed. Mr. Nuesch replied yes. The mobile home is to be used only to house farm employees to allow the employees to be accessible at all hours. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked how close this property is to Crozet. Mr. Horne replied that it is essentially in Crozet, but north of the growth area. Mr. Henley offered motion to approve SP-87-44 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2. of the Zoning Ordinance. Screening and/or location of mobile home to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Bowie 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. 10. Appeal: Heritage Hall Site Plan. Proposal for additional grading on both sides of the entrance road off Rio Road on 9.37 acres of a 11.6 acre tract. Zoned R-6, Residential with SP-85-4 for a nursing home use. Property located north and adjacent to Four Seasons PUD and Berkeley Subdivision. Tax Map 45, Parcels 26C and 26. Charlottesville District. Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Proposal: Road. Additional grading on both sides of the entrance road off Rio Acreage: 9.37 acres of 11.6 acre tract. Zoning: R-6, Residential, with SP-85-4 for a nursing home use. Location: Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 26C and 26, is located north and adjacent to Four Seasons PUD and Berkeley Subdivision. The proposed access is on Rio Road west, approximately 0.1 mile west of Route 659 (SPCA Road). Character of the Area: This site is vacant and partially wooded. The property is currently served by a 60 foot pipestem which intersects Rio Road west and is adjacent to the Garden Spot retail nursery. The Four Seasons patio homes (4.16 dwelling units per acre) are adjacent to the southwest with a 50 foot wide strip of open space directly adjacent to this site. Berkeley subdivision (2.5 dwelling units per acre) is adjacent on the southeast. Staff Comment: The Heritage Hall XV Nursing Home Site Plan was approved by the Planning Commission on June 10, 1986. This plan proposes the location of a 39,373 square foot building for a 120 bed nursing home, served by 116 parking. spaces. The development is presently under construction. The applicant requests a site plan amendment to permit additional grading on both sides of the entrance road off Rio Road. The Erosion and Sedimentation Control chapter requires that no permit shall be issued for any activity June 17, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) which is necessitated by or in connection, with a site plan, until such plan shall have been approved as provided by law. The request for additional grading at this time is based on the fact that the necessary equipment is on-site to construct the current site plan. The long-term purpose of the grading is preparation for unspecified future development. In the interim, the area may be utilized for passive recreation for nursing home residents. The area proposed for additional grading is primarily adjacent to R-6, Residential zoning, which is built with single family detached houses. Several residential lots are presently partially visible. A comparison of the current plan (C) with the proposed plan (P) is as follows: LIMITS OF GRADING (C) Approximately 20 feet from the edge of the proposed public right-of-way for the entrance road. (P) To the property line in some areas. TEMPORARY DIVERSION DIKE (C) Approximately 50 feet from the western property line. (P) Approximately between two and 17 feet from the western property line. REMOVAL OF EXISTING TREES (C) A 50 foot buffer (to be left uncut and undisturbed shall be maintained on both the eastern and western property lines. Between the buffer and the limits of grading for the road, a minimum of 12 healthy trees, 14 inches in diameter at a height of three feet above ground surface, shall be left per acre. (P) No buffer (to be left uncut and undisturbed) on both eastern and western property lines. Many of the existing trees will be lost. New plantings of 64 white pines (west) and 59 white pines (east) are proposed. Within the level area on both sides of the road, groupings of oaks, redbuds and gums are shown. Staff recommends denial of this request based on the following grounds: There is no evident practical purpose (use or benefit) for this to serve the Heritage Hall development. This area is too distant (250 - 400 feet) from the nursing home so as to be practically unusable by most residents. In addition, sufficient area closer to the building could be utilized. With no proposed use of the area, aspects of site development can not be addressed at this time. The removal of an existing tree buffer and grading in close proximity to the property line, may have a more negative impact on adjacent residential properties. There does not appear to be any public purpose served by approval of the additional grading, nor does it further the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 5, 1987, unanimously recommended denial of Heritage Hall XV Site Plan Amendment for Additional Grading subject to the grounds stated by the staff. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Richard Frizzell, of Health Care Medical Facilities, addressed the Board. HCMF is the owner of the nursing home. This property was purchased and the applicant received a special permit for the nursing home use, and then found 'that addi- tional frontage land had to be purchased because of site problems. When grading began, the applicants did not have a grading permit for the front part. Mr. Bob McKee, the site engi- neer, then received permission to do the grading and grubbing along the frontage. At that point the applicants wanted to take the additional land, level it, plant the entire entrance way with redbuds and dogwoods, and seed the front area because it will eventually be used for passive recreation for the residents. There will be some use of the land at some point in time, so the land will have to be graded. The applicant just does not know at this time what the use will be. The equipment is already on the property and the applicant would like to do all of the work at one time. This additional grading would be an improvement to the appear- ance of the site. Mr. Frizzell presented an amended site plan drawing of the proposal. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this drawing could be submitted as a site plan. Mr. Horne replied yes, as a separate site development plan. Mr. Frizzell commented that the applicants were advised to submit the plan as an amendment. Mr. Mike Warren, resident of Four Seasons, next addressed the Board. After months of chain sawing, dust and bulldozers, the residents were hoping that the work would be coming to a conclusion. He requests that the appeal not be granted because in his opinion there is plenty of land available for recreation for the residents. He also thinks the lay of the land is important with regard to Four Seasons. The nursing home sits high above Four Sea- sons, so the residents in the middle portion of Four Seasons are looking up at a huge bank, and road and the nursing home. He does not think the proposal to locate the pines is an adequate replacement for the present trees. This proposal would have an adverse affect on the residents of Four Seasons and he requests that the appeal be denied. 552. June 17, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Frizzell again addressed the Board. He said the applicants are not removing the buffer located in the back near Four Seasons, nor is the view being obstructed. The area on which they wish to replace all of the trees is on the front side that faces Rio Road. Mr. Warren stated he still has the same concern. homeowners near Rio Road. The proposal would then affect the The public hearing was closed. Mr. Horne commented that there was little discussion at the Planning Commission meeting; therefore, he does not know what the exact concerns were. Mr. St. John asked if there has been discussion about lateral support for the Nuttycombe property. Is this creating another Albemarle Bank & Trust situation? Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer, said there should be no problem with lateral support. Basically the appli- cants are balancing out both sides of the road and taking it as close as possible to the property line and still maintaining a grading buffer. There are no shear drop offs, just graded very tightly. Mrs. Cooke asked the affect on existing drainage in the area because of moving so much earth around. There have been lots of drainage problems in the vicinity which are costing the County considerable expense to correct. Mr. Armm said he takes exception to a report by one of the project engineers which states no problem is foreseen with increased stormwater runoff. If the land is disturbed and graded, there will be additional runoff. If this were to be approved that would have to be addressed or additional problems will arise. It would be a fairly great expense to provide stormwater detention and protections just for this grading plan. Mrs. Cooke said she has a problem with this request. She understands that the applicants are trying to enhance the aesthetics of the project, but she is aware of the serious drainage problems and is not inclined to contribute further to the problems. She is not inclined to allow any more earth to be moved around than is absolutely necessary. This land lies in her district and she does not think it should be approved. Mr. Lindstrom said the damage as far as drainage has already been done. The Board has had a policy with regard to speculative grading projects which are to be discouraged. He is reluctant to overrule the Planning Commission and the staff. Mr. Fisher said the applicants knew what the land was like and the access road. He does not think land can be improved by bulldozing. He thinks that the Planning Commission and staff are correct and that the applicants should come back with a site plan when they have a proposal. Mrs. Cooke asked the action needed by the Board. Mr. Fisher said unless someone wants to overrule the Planning Commission, then no action is necessary. Mr. St. John commented that the question before the Board is whether the old plan is a better way to grade than the new plan. Mr. Armm said after approval of the original site plan, Mr. McKee called on behalf of the applicant and asked what could be done in the area that is now in question. The staff explained that grading the area would require a site plan to be approved first or an amendment to the site plan. The staff found in checking through the ordinance that the County had no control over the applicant clearing and grubbing the land so that is what the applicant did. An erosion control plan was required at that time. There being no further discussion, the Chairman ruled that the action of the Planning Commission stands. Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: June 12, 1985; March 5 (Night), December 3 (Afternoon) and December 10, 1986; March 4 and March 9, 1987. Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes of March 4 (Night), 1987 with the following minute book corrections: Page 2, paragraph 7, second sentence delete the wording "wanted to". Page 10, paragraph 4, last sentence should read as follows "Mr. Whelan said he would not recommend it (such an overlap)." Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of December 10, 1986, Pages 1 - 14 (ending at Item ~12) and found the minutes to be in good order. Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve the minutes of December 10, 1986 (pages 1 - 14) and March 4, 1987 with corrections. Mr. Way seconded the motion. 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. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Agnor said on the status of the trial concerning the Flea Market located on Route 250 East, today he received a letter from Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, outlining the history of the case. On June 12, the jury found the individual guilty and assessed him $200. The. attorney has indicated that he will appeal the decision. Mr. Payne .indicated in his letter that this is one of the heaviest penalties assessed against a zoning violator during his ten years as a Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Lindstrom said the question is whether the individual will be required to remove or cease and desist. Mr. St. John said that in a criminal proceeding the court does not have any jurisdiction to order a person to cease and desist. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to know why an attempt was not made to try to stop the individual altogether. Mr. St. John said he would prefer to inform the Board of why this route was taken in executive session. Mr. Lindstrom asked that this be put on the agenda for an executive session at another meeting. June 17, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) ( ~a,g~ 11) Mr. Way commented that the town of Scottsville will hold its annual Fourth of July parade and he will be glad to make the arrangements for any Board member interested in riding in the parade. Mr. Fisher said he reviewed the report on the Task Force on Children and Youth listed on the consent agenda, and he felt that the purposes put together by the City are not really a purpose, but how they plan to operate. He thinks that the whole charge to the Task Force needs to be reworked. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. meeting was adjourned at 9:38 P.M. With no further business to come before the Board, the ~hairman