Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-15387 September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meetin~g) Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that the Committee is exceeding the scope of its charge as laid out in the revenue sharing agreement. Mr. Fisher explained the goals that the Committee was attempting to achieve and the time schedule it was working under. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the Committee should be reporting back to the Board and Council on any ideas, prior to the starting of such projects. A very lengthy debate then ensued regarding the goals and objectives of the com- mittee, the frequency with which the Committee will report back to the Board and Council, preparation of minutes of those Committee meetings, and the areas which should and should not be studied by the Committee at this time. Motion was offered by Miss Nash that a study of the school systems should not be done at this time. There was no second to the motion. A new motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom that the Board's position with respect to the Study Committee is that the Board acknowledges receipt of the proposals for study, appreciates being kept current and that the Board does not wish to recommend or oppose any of these studies until a full report of options is received. Mr. Lindstrom clarified the motion by stating that it does not refer to the study by the Institute of Government or the law enforcement study. Mr. Henley suggested simply that a hold be placed on all studies with the exception of the law enforcement study. Mr. Lindstrom rephrased his motion stating that the Consolidation Committee be informed at the next meeting, that a hold should be put on all studies, with the exception of the study on law enforcement, and when there is a list prepared of all areas that might be studied, the Board can sift through same and tell the Consolidation Committee what should be studied. The amended motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated September 8, 1982, from Mr. Bruce E. Hathaway of Guilford Packaging & Fiber, Inc., addressed to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher said the letter (NOTE: on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Super- visors) concerns a flooding problem at 2112 Berkmar Drive, which houses Jefferson Supply Company. Mr. Hathaway's letter charges failure on the part of Albemarle County to provide its citizens and property owners adequate drainage facilities. Mr. Fisher requested that Mr. St. John review this letter and recommend wording for a reply. Agenda Item No. 27. At 5:58 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned. Chairman September 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 15, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr., Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:40 P.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. the Chairman, Mr. Gerald Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M., by Agenda Item No. 2. SP-82-48. Christopher Middleton and Albert E. Smith. To locate a veterinary office on 2.23 acres zoned Highway Commercial. Property on east side of Berkmar Drive, about 1000 feet south of Route 631 (Rio Road), adjacent to Gercke Con- struction Company. County Tax Map 61U, Section 2, Lots 6 and 7, Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker, Director of Planning, read the Planning Staff report as well as the recommendation of the Planning Commission, as follows: Request: Veterinary Office (24.2.2.4) Acreage: 2.23 acres Zoning: HC Highway Commercial Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61U, Section 2, Parcels 6 and 7, is located on the east side of Berkmar Drive about 1,000 feet south of Rio Road. Character of the Area: The recently approved "village offices" complex is now under construction on this property. A contractor's office is to the north. A volunteer fire company/rescue squad is across Berkmar Drive. Property to the south is undeveloped. The nearest dwelling is located in Berkeley subdivision about 1,000 feet to the west. September 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meetin~g) 388 ' Staff Comment: The applicants propose to operate a veterinary office within a 2,200 square foot floor area. No outside kennels or runs are proposed. Boarding would be limited to animals recovering from surgery or otherwise convalescing. The building is to be constructed of brick with a cedar shake roof and additional soundproofing measures. Staff opinion is that a veterinary office would be consistent with other uses in 'the area and with appropriate soundproofing measures should not disrupt the residential area to the west. gStaff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Building Official review to insure compliance with the noise limitations of section 5.1.11, supplementary regulations of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. No outside kennels or runs shall be permitted. requiring hospitalization may be boarded~ 0nly animals Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 7, 1982, voted to recommend approval of this special use permit with the two conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Fisher asked if the proposed use will be in an existing structure. Mr. Tucker said that Drs. Smith and Middleton wish to purchase two condominium offices in the "Village Offices" complex which is presently under construction. Mr. Fisher then asked if there are any potential drainage or flooding problems on this property, Mr. Tucker said the stormwater detention ordinance must be met and that a drainage pond is required on the property. (NOTE: Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 7:40 P.M.) Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant wished to speak. Mr. Andrew Boninti, Caleb Stowe Associates, representing the applicant was present along with Drs. Middleton and Smith. Neither the applicant nor anyone else from the public wished to speak regarding this application, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve SP-82-48 with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John asked if the Board felt the record was clear as to what portion of the property is actually being requested under this special use permit. Mr. Tucker said he has a copy of the site plan for the "Village Offices" complex indicating the actual building numbers which will be covered by the special use permit. Mr. Boninti said the exact area is equal to 2,200 square feet of space in buildings "5b and 5c" on the site plan noted by Mr. Tucker. Miss Nash said she wished to amend her motion to approve special use permit 82-48 with the following three conditions: \ 1.~Building Official review to insure compliance with the noise limitations of Section 5.1.11 of Supplementary Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. No outside kennels or runs shall be permitted. Only animals requiring hos- pitalization may be boarded. 3. Approval is specific to property designated "5b and 5c" as shown on condominium subdivision plat titled "Village Offices" located on lots 6 and 7, Berkmar Center, Deed Book 589, page 229 in the Charlottesville District, dated May 14, 1982, as drawn by William S. Roudabush, Inc. The amended motion was again seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-82-49. William H. White, III. To establiSh a~hog operation on 171.570 acres zoned Rural Areas. Property on west of Yancey Mills off Route 684, off private right-of-way. County Tax Map 55, Parcel 21, Samuel Miller District. ~(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker reported that the applicant formally requested withdrawal of this request before the Planning Commission at its meeting of September 7, 1982. Mr. Tucker said no action is required by the Board of Supervisors on this item. Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-82-10. P.H. Faulconer Estate, with proffer. To rezone 28.29 acres from R-1 to Commercial Office with proffer to limit further development rights on said parcels until Route 601 is improved, provided that the proposed rezoning is approved allowing for construction of a 30,000 square foot corporate headquarters. Property off Old Ivy Road adjacent to northbound ramp of Route 250 and Route 29 Bypass. County Tax Map 60, part of Parcel 24, Parcel 50 Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker noted receipt of a letter dated September 15, 1982, from Mr. Timothy Michel, representing the applicant, requesting deferral as follows: "The applicants respectfully request that the Board defer the proffered rezoning request for thirty days. The applicants ask this in order to have more time to study the water pressure problems that have recently come to light and to further explore site alterations for the proposed use." 389, Septi~,.mber 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker recommended this matter be deferred to November 3, 1982. Mr. Fisher asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak regarding this request. Mr. Mike Wilcox was present representing the applicant. Mr. Wilcox said he had nothing to add. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to defer ZMA-82-10 to November 3, 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-82-11. Elite Construction Company, Inc. and Harkins Associates, Inc. with proffer. To rezone about 33.549 acres from R-1 to R-10 with proffer not to exceed eight dwelling units per acre in establishing a continuing care retirement facility. Property off Old Ivy Road between Ivy Gardens/01d Ivy Apartments and Huntington Village. County Tax Map 60, Parcel 53, Jack Jouett Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on Septemb~l~andSeptember 8, 1982.) Agenda Item No. 6. SP-82-52. Elite Construction Company, Inc. and Harkins Associates, Inc. To establish a nursing home in conjunction with a 260 unit continuing care retirement facility, on 33.549~ acres currently zoned R-1 and requested to be rezoned R-10 under ZMA- 82-11. Property on north side of Route 601 (Old Ivy Road). County Tax Map 60, Parcel 53, Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1982 Mr. Tucker read the combined staff report for ZMA-82-11 and SP-82-52 as follows: Requested Zoning: R-10 Residential (Proffer) Acreage: 33.5q9 acres Existing Zoning: R-1 Residential Location: Property, described as County Tax Map 60, Parcel 53, is located on the north side of Route 601 (01d Ivy Road) between Huntington Village and Ivy Garden Apartments. Character of the Area: Property on the south side of Route 601 is zoned and partially developed commercially. Existing developments on the north side of Route 601 are Ivy Garden Apartments (474 units) and Huntington Village (130 units). To the west is a 28.29 acre tract currently zoned R-1 with a pending rezoning petition to establish a 30,000 square foot corporate headquarters office building (ZMA-82-10). Property to the north, owned by the University of Virginia, is in- tended to be developed with a 300-bed dormitory complex. ~omprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends high-density resi- dential development for this property and adjoining property. A neighborhood commercial center is also recommended on the north side of Route 601. Background: In 1979, simultaneous rezoning petitions were submitted on these properties for high-density residential and commercial rezonings. Concern over the condition of Old Ivy Road resulted in extensive transportation studies and attempts to gain access to the University road network. Ultimately, there appeared to be no practical method available to the applicants to improve Old Ivy Road and no alternative access was realized. The Board of Supervisors in view of the con- dition of Old Ivy Road denied the rezoning requests. Applicant's Proffer (follows staff report): The applicant has proffered to develop this property as a 260 unit continuing care retirement facility including a central services building and infirmary. The central services building would house administrative, recreational and health services (SP-82-52 addresses the central services building and infirmary). Staff Comment: Residential density requested under this petition is substantially less than the high density residential (11-34 du/ac) recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. In the past, Staff has expressed concern about the development of areas at substantially lower densities than recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. However, no such request or development proposal has been denied as being too low in density. Additionally, Staff offers the following comments for consideration: 1. This area has been recommended for high-density residential development in the Comprehensive Plan since 1971. This is an ex- cellent area for student housing in terms of location and compati- bility to existing development. Recently, the University has revealed plans for dormitories in this area and on Stadium Road to house 1,000 students. Should University enrollment remain stable and the University continue to increase housing for its students, the need for additional privately-developed student housing would decline. 2. No plans exist for improvement of Old Ivy Road. At the present time, it is not recommended for improvement in the Comprehensive Plan or CATS study. Because of legal constraints, neither the County nor a developer can guarantee improvement of the road as a part of the development process. 390 3. During development of the current zoning map, R-1 Residential was applied to the property as the lowest density zoning appropriate in the area. Property values and existing development appear to be deterrents to development under R-1 zoning. Through the proffer approach the applicant has attempted to limit traffic generation from the property to a level comparable to devel- opment under existing R-1 zoning. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented that "development of this type with 264 residential units would not exceed peak hour traffic generation above what would be expected under the current zoning. Total traffic, of course, would increase." Therefore, if total traffic increase is a concern, adequate limitation of development has not been provided in the proffer. SP-82-52 NURSING HOME (SECTION 17.2.2.9) Approval of this special use permit would authorize the central services building and infirmary. While a detailed list of uses has not been established at this time, uses permitted would be limited to those uses normally anticipated in a large-scale continuing care facility. (Staff has recommended uses which were permitted under the RPN in the prior zoning ordinance.) A review of the proposed continuing care retirement facility under the supplementary regulations of the Zoning Ordinance finds that the topography of the site lends itself to clustering of main buildings on the hill top near the existing house, which would permit a buffer around the perimeter of the property. (No plans have been submitted at this time.) This type of design would provide a degree of separa- tion and privacy from adjoining uses. Vehicular and pedestrian access to shopping and cultural uses is inconvenient in Staff opinion. While some convenience uses may be provided on-site, Staff opinion is that access to other areas is a problem. Fire protection would be provided by the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department. A joint City/County study is underway to investigate locating a fire station near Route 250 West, to improve coverage and response time in this area. On-site fire protection measures would be addressed during sit~e plan review and licensure proc!eedings by the State. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve ZMA-82-11 and SP-82- 52, Staff recommenlds the following conditions of approval for SP-82- 52. Support usesshall be limited to such uses as: housekeeping and laundry services; nursing and hospital facilities reasonably necessary to .serve the residents; retail stores and shops, professional .offices and food services, all of which are designed and intended to serve the residents of the development; and common areas where residents may engage in recreational, edu- cational and cultural activities; Approval of all appropriate State, local and Federal agencies prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy; 3. Site plan approval. Note: A third property was petitioned for rezoning in 1979. Under ZMA-79- 26 John M. Nokes, 5.3 acres was requested to be rezoned CO. The two zoning petitions currently pending (ZMA-82-10 and ZMA-82-11), the Nokes property (Tax Map 60, Parcel 51), and the McGavock property (Tax Map 60, Parcel 45,5.01 acres) constitute all privately-owned properties zoned R-1 and served by Old Ivy Road. Attachment to Application of Elite Construction Company, Inc. and Harkins Associates, Inc. Re: Tax Map 60, Parcel 53 (Hulvey) Background: The applicant proposes to build a continuing care retirement facility containing 260 dwelling units (thus approximately eight dwelling units per acre). The facility contemplates one to four story residential buildings located in a campus plan. There will be various types of inde- pendent living units ranging from efficiencies to two bedroom units. There will be a central services building containing administration, social, recreation and health services. There will be an infirmary serving resi- dents only. Approximately one hundred~employees, in three shifts, may be anticipated. Proffer: Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-491.2, applicant applies for residential, R-10, zoning to accommodate a continuing care retirement facility, not to exceed eight dwelling units per acre. 391 September 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 7, 1982, voted to recommend approval of ZMA-82-11 subject to the proffer contained in the attach- ment to the application. Mr. Tucker also noted that the Planning Commission at its September 7, 1982, meeting recommended approval of SP-82-52 with the following four conditions Support uses shall be limited to such uses as: housekeeping and laundry services; nursing and hospital facilities reasonably necessary to serve the residents; retail stores and shops, professional offices and food services, all of which are designed and intended to serve the residents of the development; and common areas where residents may engage in recreational, educational and cultural activities; Approval of all appropriate State, local and Federal agencies prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy; 3. Site plan approval; Fire Official approval of site plan prior to review of said site plan by the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker next noted receipt of two letters regarding fire protection for this proposed use. Mr. Tucker read the first letter from Mr. Ira B. Cortez, Fire Prevention Officer, dated September 10, 1982, (which follows) and a letter dated September 15, 1982, from Mr. Cole Hendrix, City Manager, addressed to Mr. Leigh B. Middleditch, Jr., regarding the City's response time to emergency calls in the area of this proposed rezoning (NOTE: Copy of Mr. Hendrix's letter is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors "To: Ron Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning From: Ira B. Cortez, Fire Prevention Officer Re: SP-82-52 Elite Construction Company, Harkins Associates, Inc. Old Ivy Road - Nursing Home. 1. This memorandum will confirm our September 9, 1982, meeting. 2. Pursuant to Article 5.1.13 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the fire official must determine that adequate fire protection is available for a nursing home. Included in my review of the subject nursing home/ retirement village, two problems exist: Am Fire flow Emergency access 3. The Albemarle County Service Authority has informed me that the availability of adequate fire flow will require a major up grading of the system including the possibility of a large storage tank. The estimated fire flow at the present time is 875 GPM ~ 20 PSI. An estimate of the required fire flow could be as high as 2500 GPM ~ 20 PSI, depending upon the sizes of the structures, separation and height. 4. If indeed a storage tank is required and the fire flow is 2500 GPM the tank size would be 300,000 gallons. 5. In reference to item 2b, fire department access, this property lies within the area of the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, located on Berkmar Drive. The response time taken from previous alarms in this area have been from six minutes to twelve minutes. I've spoken to Chief Carter (Seminole Trail VFD) and he agreed that a nursing home in this area would not be synonymous with a quick response in an emergency, especially during traffic rush hours. 6. I have also conferred with Chief Julian Taliaferro, Charlottesville Fire Department. The county engine from the Ridge Street station would also respond and that response time would be four to five minutes. 7. In order to have an acceptable response time, I recommend that the developer enter into an agreement with the City of Charlottesville to allow the City Fire Department to respond to an emergency with a full complement of equipment. 8. Another alternative would be relative to the study that I proposed eariler, concerning the placement of a new fire station which would be located in the 250 West/29 South area. This station would help lower insurance rates for the Ivy, Bellair and Farmington areas by as much as 50%. 9. I highly recommend that the Board of Supervisors require the developer to resolve life safety problems prior to the approval of the site." Lastly, Mr. Tucker read the following memorandum dated September 14, 1982, from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, to Mr. W. L. Rossie, Chief Engineer: September 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 3 9:2 "In speaking with Bill Eley, Charlottesville City Engineer, this morning, he mentioned that the City would be concerned about any additional sewer flow entering the City from the Route 250 West area, in particular the nursing home being discussed above Huntington Village. He felt the City lines which would eventually receive those flows are at or near design capacity. This is something we should consider. It may be that flow from this development should go across the 250-29 By-pass and be'pumped to the Morey Creek Interceptor." Mr. Tucker noted receipt of two petitions, one from the Huntington Village Homeowners ASsociation stating their opposition to this proposed development; the second from the League of Women Voters expressing support for the project. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John his opinion as to whether approval of a project with a density lower than the density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan would "undercut" the plan. Mr. St. John said the applicant has requested the density, and although it is less than stated in the Comprehensive Plan for this locality, the Comprehensive Plan only suggests that maximum densities be allowed, not required. Mr. St. John felt approval of this request would not "undercut" the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and requested the applicant or his representative to speak first. Mr. Leigh Middleditch, representing the applicant, was present. Mr. Middleditch said the major problem faced by this project is the condition of 01d Ivy Road. He said this is the main reason that other applications for this site have been denied by the Boards of Supervisors. Mr. Middleditch said to better illustrate the potential total traffic impact of this proposed development, a traffic study was conducted at Lakewood Manor, a retirement village of slightly larger size, located near Richmond. Mr. Middleditch said peak hour figures were almost unaffected by the Lakewood Manor village, and overall traffic impact was less'than if the property had been developed as single-family residential. Next to speak was Mr. Ron Crawford of the architecture firm of Sherertz, Franklin, Crawford and Shaffner. Mr. Crawford said this village will be designed for approximately 250-260 individual living units, nursing home facility, central activity center and health club. Mr. Crawford said the site most likely will be developed in cluster units with open area, buffer, landscaping and walk paths. He said a shuttle bus would be provided for residents, which would help reduce the traffic impact on the surrounding roads. Mr. Crawford next spoke about fire protection. He said the project wilt be designed to be "ultra-safe". Mr. Crawford said in recognition of the inadequate fire flows as stated by the fire official, the developer is willing to install a 300,000 gallon storage tank to insure safety. Mr. Crawford said he will work with Mr. Cortez t© solve the water flow problems. Mr. J. Paul Royer, Jr., of Bellomo Keller, Inc., a traffic consultant engineer, spoke next. Mr. Royer said a traffic survey conducted on September 2 and September 3, 1982, indicated a level of service "A" at both access intersections. Mr. Royer said service level "A" is the best of a scale A through F, as used by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Royer presented traffic flow figures for the "LakeWood Manor" retirement village for the purpose of substantiating potential traffic flow figures for the proposed development. Mr. Royer said that although this retirement village will generate more overall traffic flow than a single-family residential development, the peak hour traffic generated from the retirement village is far less. Mr. Royer clarified that statement by saying that peak hour traffic for the retirement village would occur ~o~ 10:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., rather than 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. as with a standard resi- dential development. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Royer to explain the difference in figures presented in exhibit 6 of his traffic survey report. Mr. Royer said the comparison figures presented in exhibit 6 were for a very large retirement village which indicated 4.0 vehicle trips per day per unit. Mr. Royer said the plans to construct a smaller development, use a loop road, shuttle buses and provide most services on the premises; explained the estimated lower count of 2.4 vehicle trips per day per dwelling unit. Mr. Middleditch summed up the presentation by the applicant by stating that this project will reduce density and traffic, that it will be a high quality project which will create approximately one hundred jobs as well as serving a need in the community. Next to speak was Mr. Tom Albro, Attorney, representing the Huntington Village Homeowners Association. Mr. Albro disputed the traffic figures presented by Mr. Royer stating that 01d .Ivy Road is very narrow, there is poor sight distance, the road under the railroad overpass is only a one-lane capacity and is susceptible to flooding. Mr. Albro felt this proposed retirement village is being unfairly compared to Lakeside Manor because the surrounding areas are not comparable. Mr. Albro questioned the difference in figures for traffic estimates shown for Lakeside Manor compared to those used by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation as prepared by the firm of Simpson & Curtin. Mr. Albro questioned if the retirement villages used in these studies were actually comparable; that being, do they both have nursing care facilities on site, recreation centers, same number of employees, etc. Mr. Albro voiced his concern for adequate fire protection, ~nd pedestrian safety. Mr. Albro requested the Board to deny this application for rezoning. Next to speak was Mr. Thomas J. Robinson, President of the Huntington Village Home- owners Association, who presented a two hundred signature petition to the Board, voicing the opposition of the residents of Huntington Village to the proposed retirement vi'llage. 393 September 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. John Ruvalds, spoke next on behalf of the residents of the Huntington Village Townhouse Association. He said the townhouse residents unanimously voted to oppose this development. Mr. Ruvalds added that during the winter, Old Ivy Road ices over and becomes almost totally impossible to travel. Next to speak was Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Roosevelt said traffic figures have been presented from both sides, and there is nothing he could add except that it is up to the Board to decide which is more important, the level of service on 01d Ivy Road, or a retirement village. Mr. Fisher asked about the traffic figures used as comparison figures by the applicant, prepared by Simpson and Curtin. Mr. Roosevelt said those figures were prepared by the firm of Simpson and Curtin for use in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, which is used by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Roosevelt said the ITE manual ~es~n~tlist the source of the sample traffic counts, nor does it detail the facilities on the premises of those sample retirement villages. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt if the road under the railroad overpass could be widened and the approximate cost of such a project. Mr. Roosevelt said the rights-of-way could be purchased, but stated that reconstruction of a railroad overpass would be ex- tremely expensive. Miss Nash asked if it would be possible to make the entire length of Old Ivy Road one-way running from east to west. Mr. Roosevelt said it would not be feasible without changing the entire intersection at the railroad underpass so that traffic coming from the west would be able to make a left turn into Old Ivy Road (such a turn is almost impossible). Mr. Henley asked about realigning the road under the railroad underpass. Mr. Roosevelt said such a realignment would require part of the road to go onto University of Virginia property, which the University firmly states it will not allow. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the Highway Department does accept the traffic study figures done by Mr. Royer on the Lakewood Manor Retirement Village as being comparable to what is being proposed on Old Ivy Road. Mr. Ira Cortez, County Fire Prevention Officer, was next to speak. Mr. Cortez said, as an institutional structure, this facility would be required to have the maximum in fire prevention and early warning systems. He indicated that although the City's fire trucks have a response time of four minutes, there are only three firefighters on the truck. Mr. Cortez said elderly and/or disabled elderly require immediate assistance and three fire- fighters could not possibly serve that need. Mr. Cortez recommended that the developer enter into an agreement with the City of Charlottesville for more than one fire truck to respond in the event of fire. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the 300,000 gallon storage tank could be required as a site plan condition. Mr. Cortez said yes, it could be made part of site plan approval. Mr. Fisher asked if the number of stories in the building are limited by the zoning. Mr. Tucker said the proffer~noted a maximum of four stories. Mr. Cortez said the height of the buildings would affect the fire flow and the amount of water required for suppression. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if the "background" statement could legally be considered part of the "proffer" as presented by the applicant. Mr. St. John said since these two items "background" and "proffer" are separated on the page (i.e., two different paragraphs with these titles), the only thing actually being proffered by the applicant is "Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-491.2, applicant applies for residential, R-10, zoning to accommodate a continuing care retirement facility, not to exceed eight dwelling units per acre." Mr. Fisher asked if any type of preliminary plan for the design of this proposed village is required prior to approval. Mr. Tucker said no such plan is required, the only zone requiring such a plan is the P.U.D., and that a retirement village is allowed by special use permit in the R-10 zone. Mr. Fisher then expressed concern that without a preliminary plan, the applicant could place commercial establishments along the frontage of the property, which would attract additional traffic to the area. Mr. Tucker said this would have to be dealt with during site plan review. Mr. Fisher continued with the public hearing, and next to speak was Dr. John Ashley, who said this type of proposed facility is the optimum way to deal with the elderly. Dr. Ashley said he had no comments regarding the location, only that this type of facility be encouraged. Mr. Charles N. Hulvey presented a petition in favor of the facility, which he sub- mitted to the Board for the record. Mr. James W. Cole felt the site was ideal for a retirement village and strongly supported its approval at this time. Mr. W, A. pace with the Greater Charlottesville Area Development Corporation [GCADC) said the corporation supports this request, noting that this community is in great need of such a home. Mr. Pace presented the following resolution to the Board, adopted by the GCADC on September 10, 1982: "By unanimous vote, the Board of Directors of the Greater Charlottesville Area Development Corporation supports the development of the Retirement Village on Old Ivy Road to be constructed by the firms of Elite Constru- ction Co., Inc. of Richmond, Harkins Associates of Silver Spring, Md., English Construction Co. of Alta Vista, and Sherertz, Franklin, Crawford, Shaffner of Roanoke." Mr. Tom Albro spoke again stating that the concept presented is good, but it is located on the wrong road. Mr. Albro also stated that the concerns expressed by Mr. Cortez should be further investigated before any approval is given. Mr. Leigh Middleditch said the "background" information, questioned by Mr. Lindstrom earlier, is actually part of the proffer. September 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) At 9:50 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed and immediately requested a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:04 P.M. Mr. Lindstrom said his major concern is with the traffic on this already dangerous road. Mr. Lindstrom said. he voted to deny previous applications because of the condition of Old Ivy Road, but he'feels the County must either repair the road sometime in the near future, or allow development. Mr. Lindstrom said he is afraid that if this request is turned down, the Board will be faced with a proposal much more intense which will create more serious problems. He added that his concern with the application is not the concept, but with the vagueness of the proffer. Mr. Lindstrom felt the proffer should be more specific or contain a general site plan to insure the type of deYelopment suggested to the Board in this application. Mr. Fisher noted that several other retirement villages have been approved by the Board and only one has been developed. Mr. Fisher expressed concern that this proposal is only an attempt to gain a new zoning status and develop the land differently. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see something either in the proffer or the conditions of the special permit to insure that shuttle buses are provided to keep the traffic count as presented. Miss Nash said it would be wrong to deny this application strictly on the basis of traffic. Miss Nash said the people who have complained the most about the traffic problem chose to live on the road and add to the already existing problem. She added that a retirement village atmosphere encourages less driving by those residing there and she felt the bulk of the traffic generated by such a facility would be from employees and visitors. Miss Nash said she felt more details should be required, but added that the permit should not be denied. Mrs. Cooke said the traffic problem is being overstated and agreed with Miss Nash and Mr. Lindstrom that more information is required before approval. Mr. Henley said he has never seen a road improved until it is listed as being in a nontolerable condition. Mr. Henley said the only way this road will ever get improved is by allowing additional development. Mr. Fisher commented that the time between develop- ment and road improvements could be many years. Mr. Lindstrom said without a more specific proffer, he could not vote to approve this application. Mr. St. John advised the Board that the applicant could be requested to clarify the proffer with more specific detail of the proposed use. Board members then discussed several matters which they felt should be more Specifically addressed by the applicant in the proffer. Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Roosevelt to find ou~ the Highway Department's definition of a retirement village and what such a village includes, so that traffic figures can be accurately compared with those from L&kewood Manor. Mr. Fisher felt more specific information regarding fire suppression should be addressed. Mr. Lindstrom said the specific characteristics which give Lakewood Manor it's specific traffic count should be demonstrated in the design of this proposed retirement village, and that it should be part of the proffer. Mr. Henley felt the location of retail stores should also be shown. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to defer both ZMA-82-11 and S?-82-52 to October 20, 1982, at which time the applicant should present a revised proffer specifically addressing concerns about the layout of the planned retirement village in the form of a preliminary site plan, how the proposed village will generate a traffic count with characteristics comparable to that of Lakewood Manor, and water flow capacity for fire protection and response times of fire companies. Mr. Middleditch asked if he would be allowed to consult with the staff regarding these requests. Mrs. Cooke said the applicant should be encouraged to consult with the staff in order that all the concerns expressed by the Board are addressed. Mrs. Cooke then seconded Mr. Lindstrom's motion. Mr. Agnor asked if the Board was requesting that a site plan be drawn or only an amended verbal proffer. Mr. Tucker noted that since a site plan is not required, he had encouraged the applicant not to submit a site plan with this application. Mr. Tucker added that most of the detailed information requested by the Board can be verbalized in the proffer. Mr. Lindstrom questioned whether or not locations of structures such as commercial stores, could be accurately ~erbalized in a proffer. Mr. Tucker expressed concern that if the applicant submits a "site plan" as part of the proffer, that if any changes occur during the development stage, the applicant will have to come back before the Board. Mr. Tucker also said that he would never recommend that commercial stores be located on Old Ivy Road as part of this application and that matters similar to this can be controlled in the final site plan stage. Mr. Lindstrom said he wished to amend his motion to eliminate the request for a site plan, but that any sketches or visual aids which will enhance the clarity of the proffer will be acceptable. Mrs. Cooke accepted the amendment to the motion which reads as follows: "Defer ZMA-82-11 and S?-82-52 to the October 20, 1982, meeting of the Board of Supervisors, at which time the applicant will present a revised proffer specifically addressing concerns expressed by the Board of Supervisors regarding: 1) 2) Layout of the planned retirement village, How the proposed village will generate a traffic count with charac- teristics comparable to that of Lakewood Manor, Water flow, capacity and response time relative to fire protection, Sketches or visual aids which will enhance the clarity of the proffer will be acceptable. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss NaSh. NAYS: None. 395 September 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 8. Adjourn. At 10:40 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn to September 16, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room #7. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Chairman