Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-10-20435 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 20, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. ~en~e~ii~r., C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 7:37 P.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Introduce 4-H Cluber's for 82-83. Mr. Fisher recognized Mr. Jeff Kirwan, Extension Agent, and noted that Mr. Kirwan would introduce some outstanding 4-H Cluber's for 1982-83. Mr. Kirwan said every year outstanding members from the total 4-H program for Charlottesville and Albemarle County are selected. He also noted that there are 1500 members currently enrolled in the program from both localities. He then introduced Miss Charlotte Gardner the outstanding senior for 4-H last year and noted that she would introduce the three outstanding members. Miss Gardner then introduced Mr. Jim Simpson, outstanding junior 4-H member, Miss Cynthia Elledge, outstanding intermediate 4-H member, and Mr. Richard Wyant, outstanding senior 4-H member. The three members stood for recognition and noted the districts in which they live; Mr. Simpson being from the Scottsville District, Miss Elledge from the Rivanna District, and Mr. Wyant from the White Hall District. Mr. Fisher extended congratulations to the three 4-H Cluber's and noted that the Board is very proud of them. Agenda Item No. 3. zMA-82-11. Elite Construction Company, Inc. and Harkins Associates, Inc. Request to rezone about 33.549 acres-from R-1 to R-10 with proffer. Property located off of Old Ivy Road. (Deferred from September 15, 1982) Agenda Item No. 4.. SP-82-60 (formerly SP-82-52). Elite Construction Company, Inc. and Harkins Associates, Inc. Request for a special use permit (resubmittal so that notificati sign will be posted for 21 days in accordance with Section 31.2..4.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance) to establish a nursing home with a 260-unit continuing care retirement facility on 33.549~ acres currently zoned R-1. Located north side of Route 601. County Tax Map 60, Parcel 53. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 6 and October 13, 1982.) Mr. Fisher noted that these petitions will be considered together. The staff report for ZMA-82-11 is set out in the minutes of September 15, 1982. The petition for ZMA-82-11 and SP-82-60 (formerly SP-82-52) were deferred in order that the applicant could present a revised proffer specifically addressing the following concerns expressed by the Board at the September 15, 1982 meeting: 1. Layout of the planned retirement village; 2. How the proposed village will generate a traffic count with characteristics comparable to that of Lakewood Manor (in- Richmond, Va.); 3. Water flow, capacity and response time relative to fire protection; 4. Sketches or visual aids which will enhance the clarity of the proffer will be acceptable. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, noted the following letter dated October 19, 1982, from Fire Official, Mr. Ira Cortez to Mr. Leigh Middleditch, attorney for the applicant, regarding the revised proffer: "I have received your letter and amended proffer dated October 13, 1982. Each of our concerns outlined in our site review meeting have been corrected and are satisfactory relative to fire safety and water supply." Mr. Tucker said the applicant has resubmitted an application for SP-82-52 and he then presented the following staff report for SP-82-60 (formerly SP-82-52): (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 7:37 P.M.) "SP-82-60 Elite Construction Company, Incorporated and Harkins Associates, Inc. SP-82-60 (identical to previously submitted SP-82-52) is a resubmittal in order to comply with Section 31.2.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, requiring posting of notification signs for twenty-one days prior to scheduled public hearings. SP-82-60, in accordance with Section 17.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance is a request to establish a nursing home in conjunction with a 260-unit continuing care retirement facility. 436 October 20, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) For this current review, the staff report consists of the original staff report for SP-82-52 and written information/comments received after the Commission's review of the original petition. On September 7, 1982, the Planning Commission, by unanimous vote, recommended approval of SP-82-52 subject to the following conditions (condition 4 was added by the Planning Commission following comments by the Fire Official): 1. 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; 2. Approval of all appropriate State, local and Federal agencies prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy; Site plan approval; Fire Official approval of site plan prior to review of said site plan by the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Most correspondence received after the Commission's September 7, 1982, hearing dealt with issues of fire protection, public water, and public sewer. While the applicant has expressed confidence that these matters can be adequately addressed for this particular development, each of these issues is of area wide importance. It appears from preliminary, informal discussions that the several parties involved could realize economic and other benefits from a cooperative approach. The remainder of the staff report will briefly discuss these issues, primarily on an area wide basis. Staff comments are intended as informational in hopes of initiating discussion among the involved Parties. Fire Protection - Response Time Currently, the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department responds to fire calls in this area. Additionally, the County has contracted with the City for response of one truck from the Ridge Street station, and the City provides additional equipment on an as needed basis. As stated on previous occasions, a preliminary background study for the location of a fire station in the Route 250 West area is underway. Such a station would provide better coverage for this area and the University, and indirectly benefit the City by reducing and/or assisting its coverage area. In addition to improved coverage, a fire station in this area could be a consideration in Insurance Services Office (ISO) review in terms of recommended fire insurance rates. Public Water - Fire Protection and Domestic Needs The Albemarle County Service Authority currently has a comprehensive evaluation study underway which will more clearly identify needs in this area regarding improvements for purposes of increased fire and domestic water flows. At this preliminary stage, it appears that a new water storage facility west of the City could enhance the existing system in this area as far west as Ivy. Additionally, the University has indicated that consideration has been given to the location of a storage facility in the North Grounds area. From information available at this time, it appears that fire flows and perhaps domestic flow to the proposed retirement village will be inadequate. Dependent on design and elevation of the structures, fire flows may be inadequate for a proposed corporate office complex which is the subject of ZMA-82-10, for the P. H. Faulconer Estate. One storage facility properly sized and located could satisfy all of these needs at substantially less economic and other costs than individual solutions. Additionally, individual solutions may not enhance the overall system. Adequacy of fire flow is another ISO consideration in defining fire insurance rates. Public Sewer Initially, it was thought that the retirement village could be served by an existing gravity sewer line at Old Ivy Road. However, sewer lines in the City which would eventually receive flows from the Old Ivy Road area apparently are at or near design capacity. Therefore, it may be necessary to pump most or all flow from this development to the Morey Creek Interceptor. A sewage pump station to serve the Madison Park offices (under construction) would be located on a branch of Morey Creek. If properly designed and sized initially, this pump station could serve the Madison Park offices, the proposed retirement village, the proposed corporate offices, and about thirty acres of low-density residential land west of the by-pass. Incremental upgrading of the pump station as development occurs would probably be more costly for the individual developer than participation in a maximum design pump station. October 20, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Again, it appears that each of these issues is solvable on an individual basis for the proposed retirement village. The purpose of the staff's comments is to outline the potential savings and other benefits available to the applicant and other property owners through a cooperative approach. Also, in some cases, existing development would benefit from an area wide approach. Of course, timing of development, upfront costs, and other factors are matters to be considered by these property owners. Staff has offered these comments in view of the current construction of the Madison Park offices, the proposed retirement village and corporate offices and the intended development of a 300 student dormitory complex and possible improvements related to utilities by the University." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 12, 1982, recommended approval of SP-82-60 with the following conditions (same conditions as for SP-82-52): 1. 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; 2. Approval of all appropriate State, local and Federal agencies prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy; 3. Site plan approval; 4. Fire Official approval of site plan prior to review of said site plan by the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker then read the following letter into the record; a copy of said letter received by the Board this date: "October 6, 1982 Mr. Thomas E. Albro Smith, Taggart, Gibson, Sutton & Albro P. 0. Box 1585 105-109 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia .22902 Dear Mr. Albro: In reference to your September 16, i982, correspondence concerning a life-care facility in Albemarle County, your understanding of the current moratorium on nursing home beds is correct. The nursing home moratorium became effective March 21, 1981, and expires June 30, 1983, unless the General Assembly elects to extend it for an additional period of time. In response to your question of exception for life-care facility infirmary beds, there is none as the Department defines these as nursing home beds. Therefore, certificate of public need authorization is required prior to the construction of the beds. Additionally, certificate of public need authorization 'is required prior to licensure. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the Moratorium legislation, the Nursing Home Licensure Rules and Regulations, and the Rules and Regulations of Certificate of Public Need. I trust that these documents will answer any further questions relative to certificate of public need requirements for nursing home facilities. Should you require further assistance, however, please advise. Sincerely, (SIGNED BY) Marilyn H. West, Director Division of Resources Development State of Virginia" The public hearing was then reopened and continued from September 15, 1982. Speaking first was Mr. Leigh Middleditch, attorney for the applicant. He read the following amended proffer for ZMA-82-11: ~L0ct°ber 20, 1982 (Regular Nm'ght Meetmn' g) "This continuing care facility will offer multi-levels of living arrangements and health services for older persons. Eligibility would be limited to persons in good physical and mental health generally 65 years of age. ' The facility will offer apartment units of varying sizes for residential accommodations designed with the older person in mind. Each resident will be entitled to a variety of programs and services offered on site by virture of residency... ~In the event of serious illness or physical or mental deterioration, the resident may be moved to a Domiciliary Care Unit (Physical Assistant Unit) or to the appropriate level of nursing care. Services provided the residents of this facility will include meals served daily in the facility dining room, housekeeping, linen service, transportation, social and creative services, health services and activities. The development concept envisions a variety of building types from one story cluster type housing unitSto three and four story apartment buildings containing a maximum of 260 residential apartments. The~size of the units will vary from approximately 500 square feet for the studio units to 1,100 square feet for the two bedroom units. Ail units will include full baths and kitchens. The multi-story residential buildings w'ill be connected by corridors to the central activity building where dining activity, administrative, and other services are provided for the use of the residents. Adjacent to the central services building will be a health care unit that will provide both nursing and physical assistance beds. Campus style building propos.ed for this complex will be designed to complement the architectural styles of the-area to project a rich residential atmosphere to negate any possible institutional image or appearance. As shown on Attachment Al, it is envisioned that the central services building containing all resident services, commercial areas, etc., be located near the crest of the hill. Health care facilities, multi-story apartment buildings, and cluster housing will surround this central services building. The site will be developed to provide substantial landscaped buffers around the periphery of the site to protect and visually separate the neighboring residents from the residents of this facility. Site development will include an extensive landscaping, network of walking paths and trails, gardens, outdoor activity areas near the central activity building, and a main entrance drive off from Old Ivy Road that will enter the site near the center of the Old Ivy Road property line. The frontage on Old Ivy Road would be fully developed and improved with a deceleration turning lane providing easy access into the site and visual site distances improvement. A shuttle bus will be provided for resident access to cultural and social events, and required retail and personal services. On the average, when fully occupied, peak hour traffic generated by this facility will not be more than 10 percent greater than the projections for the 260 units as shown in Exhibit 6 of. the BKI Traffic Survey dated July 21, 1982, revised September 1, 1982. Adequate water flow for fire protection and emergency response time to the site must and will be provided to the satisfaction of the Albemarle County Fire Official. If an on-site water storage tank is required to satisfy the flow requi.rements of the Albemarle County. fire official, this tank will be provided as an underground reservoir. To assist in the provision of adequate fire time response to the facility, if deemed necessary by the Fire Official, the Owners will enter into an agreement with the City of Charlottesville to provide service from the Ridge Street Station until such time as comparable fire services are available from the County of Albemarle. If it is necessary for the sanitary sewer from this facility to be extended as a forced sewer main to the Morey Creek interceptor, the development of this line will be coordinated with the plans of other developers in the area, so that this line will provide maximum service capabilities for the undeveloped areas adjacent to this site." Mr. Middleditch said the requirement of the notification sign being posted twenty-one days has been adhered to as referred to in SP-82-60. Mr. Middleditch said a conceptual site plan which addresses the concern about the layout of the planned retirement village has been submitted (Copy of the plan is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Middleditch said the conceptual site plan (drawing Al) shows a relocation of the proposed road from its current western boundary to a more central location. This plan also shows that the traffic is self-contained within the complex and indicates that there is a considerable buffer zone planned with respect to the adjoining properties. The associated site analysis (drawing A2) merely indicates existing topography and the nature of the wooded and open areas and where the central high point views might be. In any event, Mr. Middleditch said A2 is intended to represent a conceptual site plan. The major concern expressed by the 439 Board concerned traffic and whether the facility known as Lakewood Manor in Richmond, which the applicant mentioned at the September 15, 1982 meeting, was comparable to this proposal. Mr. Middleditch said he was ready to offer, through Mr. J. Paul Royer, Jr., consulting engineer with Bellom Keller, Inc., evidence of comparability which is also indicated in the re¥ised proffer. The third area of concern concerned water flow, water capacity and response time relative to fire protection. Mr. Middleditch said the proffer also indicates satisfaction by the Fire Official and he felt the letter noted earlier bY Mr. Tucker from Mr. Cortez satisfies that concern. Mr. Middleditch said the last concern was for sketches or visual aids to enhance the clarity of the'proffer. Mr. Middleditch said exhibits A1 and A2 of the revised proffer meet that concern. Mr. Lindstrom said on the attachments A1 and A2, it appears that the road has been relocated and the driveway is on the western edge of the property. He asked if the driveway continued to be in existence according to the new proffer Mr. Ron Crawford from the architectural firm of Sheretz, Franklin, Crawford and Shaffner, was present and said A2 (site analysis) shows the existing situation and A1 (conceptual site plan) shows the proposed new additions. The driveway will be relocated and abandoned in its present location; said area will serve as a wooded buffer area between the condominums and this facility. He also noted that the driveway will be relocated somewhat to the east in order to improve' the sight line distances along 01d Ivy Road and that will be improving all the frontage on Old Ivy Road to provide a deceleration lane as well as improving the entrance for this proposed use. Mr. Fisher said at the September 15, 1982 meeting, he had requested from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, additional data relating to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Handbook trip data for retirement communities. Mr. Roosevelt said he has discussed this proposal NithM~'~¢ke~'.]an~s~pplied him'with co~$es Of-'m~g~eS for five retirement communities which the Institute of Traffic Engineers analyzed in arriving at a trip ratio for retirement communities. Mr. Roosevelt said he also indicatedmto Mr. Tucker that the Simpson and Curtin generation analysis presented at the September 15 meeting should not be used for comparison because of dissimilar uses proposed by Elite Construction and those uses ia ~ the Simpson and Curtin analysis. Mr.. Roosevelt said when he examined the Simpson and Curtin study he discovered that Simpson and Curtin, who were the consultants working for the City of Richmond, actually did no studies of their own on retirement villages but rather looked at other studies done in other parts of the country. Therefore, Simpson and Curtin had no actual studies and no information as to the various retirement villages included in this summary. TherefOre, Mr. Roosevelt said he did not feel the Simpson and Curtin figure should be used. Mr. Roosevelt said of the five studies, only one or two were comparable to the proposed development. The other studies were for larger sized subdivisions and vehicles were used for traveling because the lots were very large. Next to speak was Mr. Thomas Robinson, officer of the Huntington Village Homeowners Association. He said in the case of the Lakewood Manor Village in Richmond, he had obtained several photographs and the road in front of the Lakewood Manor complex cannot be fairly compared to Old Ivy Road (Photographs on file in the Clerk's Office). The road, Lauderdale Road at Lakewood Manor, is virtually a highway without underpasses, curves, or access and egress problems such as is the case on Old Ivy Road. The Lakewood Manor complex~is located in a rural area and Old Ivy Road is in ~ commercial area. Mr. Robinson said on behalf of the Association he would urge that approval of the rezoning, and the special use permit, be contingent upon the obtaining of a certificate of need. He then asked that attention be directed at the letter to Mr. Albro from the Department of Health. (Wording of the letter is set out above.) Mr. Robinson said the Association reaffirms its position taken at the September 15 meeting; it is not against the home for the aged but is opposed to the application because the Association believes that the proposed complex will aggravate an already bad road situation. The Association will continue to oppose the request until the underpasses and Old Ivy Road are widened. Mr. John Ruvalds, resident of Huntington Village, spoke next. He said he had expressed concern about Old Ivy Road at the last hearing, especially for the type of people that would be living there. He said there are two new concerns. One is that the Department of Health has a moratorium on the building of new nursing homes.. Therefore, at the present time it is impossible to proceed with such plans. Another item is that the persons who signed the petition in favor of this project feel that the present facilities in Charlottesvi are inadequate, but it appears that the Branchlands project is proceeding on schedula and is almost identical to this proposal. From the market studies done in the Charlottesville area, he felt that Branchlands will be more than adequate for people from this area. With no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke asked when the Branchlands project was approved. Mr. Tucker said the project was approved about one and one-half years ago. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the Department of Health certificate of necessity and the freeze on new construction. Mr. Crawford said he is aware of the moratorium on additional nursing~home beds. Every new facility in the State is in the same situation. The applicant will be competing for the beds when the moratorium is lifted. He noted that the applicant intends to identify the need and seek a certificate of need. Approval of a certain number of beds is not absolutely essential in moving ahead With this project. The applicant's ability to rent the facilities could be controlled by the market. If the market is such that the applicant would not be able to provide the full level of care that the applicant would like to provide such could be contracted out to existing facilities off site. There is to be a facility on'the site licensed as a home for adults that will be for the physical assistance and personal care of residents after they are no longer able to live independentl 440 October 20, 1982 (Regular NiEht Meeting) This level of care is below full nursing care but does provide for assisted living and physical assistance in daily living to help people llve independently as long as they-can. Mr. Crawford said the applicant will have to pursue a certificate .of needat the appropriate time. Mr. Lindstrom asked, if the applicant does not obtain a certificate of need if the applicant will have to seek.~an amendment to the proffer. Mr. Crawford said the applicant cannot build the nursing home portion of the project until such time as a certificate of need is granted. He noted that it is possible to build a nursing home without a certificate of need and operate such as a home for adults with licensing from the Social Services Department. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that a certificate of need has not been obtained. He felt the Board may come under pressure to make amendments to the petition. Mr. Fisher felt the terms of the proffer can not be fulfilled if the health care unit is not built because the rest of the project could not be built. Mr. Middleditch said the applicant intends to proceed with the facility even if a license for a full care nursing facility is not obtained. Mr. Fisher said the following statement in the proffer is very specific "Adjacent to the central services building will be a health care unit that. will provide both nursing and physical assistance beds". Mr. Middleditch said he was willing to change the word "will" to "may" if that would resolve the concern. Mr. Fisher then asked about the statement in the proffer referring to peak hour traffic being generated by this facility not being more than ten percent greater than the projections shown. He was curious as to what would happen if someone decided there was a serious traffic problem. Mr. Middleditch assumed that the applicant would have a series of alternatives such as restricting traffic or providing another shuttle bus. He did not feel that the applicant would not meet the requirements stated in the proffer. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned how the Zoning Administrator would handle such a problem. Mr. St. John said it would be treated like any other zoning violation. He felt the owners would be called upon to devise means for reducing the traffic volumes. Mr. St. John said there are methods for enforcement and the operators of the facility would have the power to restrict the number of vehicle trips in and out. Mr. Fisher asked how ownership will be handled. Mr. Crawford ~said the residents will pay a life use fee and will have the right to occupy the unit as long as they live. Therefore, the residents will be tenants and not owners. Miss Nash asked if the peak hour traffic figure included the shuttle bus. Mr. Crawford said yes, and that the bus would be counted as a vehicle coming into and leaving the site_. Miss Nash asked if the bus was included in the ten percent generation Mr Crawford said yes. ' Mrs. Cooke asked what precedent approval of this petition would set for any other proposed projects on 01d Ivy Road. Mr. Tucker said all of the vacan~ land on Old Ivy Road is zoned R-1 and the same type of traffic analysis would be reviewed and the same sort of peak hour or overall traffic projects would be evaluated as each petition required. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels as he did on September 15, 1982; since this petition is proffered, the traffic will not be as great as other types of development on this land could produce. This proposal is probably the best use of the land in this area. The property is designated high-density, urban development on the Comprehensive Plan and sooner or later it will be very difficult to not allow development at that level. The projected traffic is at least in the approximate range of the lowest density, urban type zoning. Mr'. Lindstrom said there are no funds in the Secondary Road budget or in the County's Capital Improvement Budget to correct the problem with the underpass at the railroad. He does not feel that holding off development on Old Ivy Road until the problem is corrected will do any good. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not feel that anything different could be done on the property without another amendment of the zoning map by the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he is willing to-support the petition with the proffer as presented this evening. Mrs. Cooke said it has been pointed out to her on a number of occasions that this type of facility is needed in order to have accommodations so that people can remain in the area. Therefore, she supports the petition. Mr. Fisher said he realizes there is a need for residential retirement facilities but other applications have been approved, yet few built. Mr. Fisher said Old Ivy Road needs improvement, but the public cost for doing that is enoromous. He also noted that because of the Supreme Court decision in the Hylton Case, the County cannot require the development to pay for any improvements so the public at large is responsibile for all of the improvements Mr. Fisher said due to the fact that the Comprehensive Plan shows this area for high density residential use and the proposal is consistent with that recommendation, he would support the proposal. However, if this rezoning is approved and the requested facilities ~annot be built as anticipated, he does not want to see the land developed to R-10 density without the limitations of the retirement village. Miss Nash said she thought the other facilities that have been approved, but not built, are for nursing homes and not retirement homes. She made the observation at the September 15 hearing that perhaps Old Ivy Road-could be made a one-way street, she feels that by the year 2000 something will have to be done about the road. Therefore, she is not so worried about the traffic and will support the rezoning and the special use permit, October 20, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 441.:. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZMA-82-11 with the proffer as presented by the applicant and clarifying the language in the proffer by changing the word "will" to "may" in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph which will read as follows: "Adjacent to the central services building will be a health care unit that may provide both nursing and physical assistance beds." Mr. Fisher asked if the intent was for the Conceptual Site Plan A1 and Site Analysis A2 to be a part of the proffer. Mr. Middleditch said yes. Mrs. Cooke then seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher (with a great deal of hope), Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve SP-82-60 with the four conditions recommended by the ?lanning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: No~e. Not Docketed. Mr. Tucker said the applicant has requested that the Board take action to allow withdrawal of SP-82-52 for Elite Construction Company, Inc and Harkins Associates, Inc. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to allow withdrawal of SP-82-52 as requested by the applicant. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-82-56. Fun-N-Games. Request to locate a family amusement center in Store Space A~-~ of the Charlottesville Fashion Square Mall on property zoned PD-SC a~d 1701 square feet of store area. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 131. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 6 and October 13, 1982.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Family amusement center (25.2.2(1)) Acreage: Located in 60+ acre shopping mall Zoning: PD-SC Planned Development - Shopping Center Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 131, is a portion of the Charlottesville Fashion Square Mall. Staff Comment: The proposed amusement center would occupy two shop areas (1,701 square feet) in the Fashion Square Mall. Preliminary review by the Fire Official indicated that due' primarily to the configuration of the space, 50 or more machines could be housed while maintaining adequate fire corridors. The amusement center would have an adult attendant. Smoking, eating, and drinking would be prohibited. In addition to supervision by the applicant, Fashion Square has its own security force. Hours of operation would be subject to Fashion Square operating hours. Staff opinion is that this use would not be objectionable in this location and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Amusement center use restricted to Space A-4; 2. Fire Official approval including circulation provisions-and occupancy load limitation; 3. An adult attendant shall be on'duty at all times during operation." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 5, 1982, unanimously recommended approval of S?-82-56 with the three conditions recommended by the staff.. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Thomas J. Poplar, Director of Retail Services for Fun-N-Games Associates, was present. He said if this permit is approved this will be the sixty-third retail establishment of this type that his company has opened. Mr. ?oplar said the three conditions will be adhered to and his company does have the expertise to control situations that are connected to this type of facility. Mr. Poplar urged approval of the special use permit. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked when the opening of the~fa¢ility is anticipated. Mr. Poplar said bY December t, 1982. Motion was offered by Mr..~Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve SP-82-56 with the three conditions recommended by the. Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke,.Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. - 442 October ~0, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Ztem No. 6. SP-82-57. Robert D. Blachly and ~urt A. Henschen. Request to locate a country store, gifts/crafts/antiques, 'and a public garage on 5.55 acres zone~d RA. Located at the L. C. Parrish Store on the north side of Route 810. County Tax Map 8, Parcel 31 and part of Parcel 32. White Hall D±strict. (Advertised in the Daily Prog-ress on October 6 and October 13, 1982.) Mr. Tucker presented the following st-aff report~: "Request: Country store (10.2.2.22); gift,, craft and antique shop (10.2 2 36); public garage (10.2.2.37). · ' Acreage: 5.55 acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 8, Parcel 32 (part) and Parcel 31, is located on the north side of Route 810 at Nortonsville, approximately 1,500 feet northwest of it.s intersection with Routes 663 and 664. Character of the Area: ~This property is developed with seven buildings including a store, garage, mill house and single-family dwelling. While the property is currently idle, the Parrish family has operated the country store and othe~ commercial activities since 1917. (According to the applicant, commercial use of the property may have begun in the mid-nineteenth century.) Other properties in the area are developed with single-family dwellings. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area as an agricultural/conservation area. The closest designated growth area is the Earlysville village about seven and a half miles away. The Greene County Comprehensive Plan recommends this as an agricultural area; no designated growth areas are in the vicinity of this property. Staff Comment: In August 1982, the Planning Commission reviewed a C-1 rezoning request for this property (ZMA-82-9 Francis P. Gibson - L. C. Parrish Estate). In that report, staff stated that: 'Staff is concerned about the intensity of development of this property in terms of highway safety, lack of public utilities, and the character of the area. While staff opinion is that the County should permit reasonable use of the property, intensification of usage is not appropriate.' Under ZMA-82-9, the applicant was requesting as many as seven uses. Under this petition, the applicant proposes three uses that have existed on the property in the past. Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Ail uses shall be limited to the existing floor area of the buildings in which such uses are to be located. The gift/craft/antique shop shall be located in the dwelling which is physically connected to the store. The country store shall be located in the store building and the garage shall be located in the garage building; 2. The public garage use, in addition to other conditions contained herein, shall be subject to the following: a. The public garage shall be limited to the repairing and equipping of vehicles. No body work or spray painting of vehicles shall be permitted. No sale or rental of vehicles shall be permitted; b. Ali work shall be conducted within the garage building; c. No outside storage of parts including Junk parts or junk cars. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers; d. Not more than four (4) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on the property outdoors at any time; ~ e. Hours of operation shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. and no operation of the garage on Sunday. 3. Reinstallation of gas pumps shall require-Fire Official approval and may require site plan approval; Fire and Building Official approval and Health Department approval for all uses; No auctions and no outdoor display of merchandise; Should sale of gasoline not occur, the Fire Official may require the removal, filling or other safety measure for the underground storage tanks." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 5, 1982, unanimously recommended approval of SP-82-57 with the conditions listed above but changing #2a, 2d, 2e and 5 to read as follows: ' 2a. The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and equipping of vehicles. Body work and/or spray painting of vehicles shall be permitted only as a nonconforming use and shall be unaffected by the issuance of this permit. No sale or rental of vehicles shall be permitted. O~tober 20, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 44,3 2d. Not more than six (6) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on the property outdoors at any time. 2e.Hours of operation shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and no operation of the garage on Sunday. 5. No auctions and no permanent outdoor display of merchandise. Mr. Fisher asked if the uses proposed are ones previously operated on the property. Mr~ Tucker said yes, but the nonconforming section of the Zoning ordinance requires that if a use is discontinued or abandoned for more than two years, that use cannot be reestablish without this special permit procedure and the uses proposed have not been conducted for over two years. Miss Nash questioned condition 2a regarding the body work and/or spray painting being permitted only as a nonconforming use. Mr. Tucker said spray painting is being done today. The Commission did not want to legalize or address that particular use, but only permit it to continue as a nonconforming use. Therefore, if the garage is ever abandoned, that use could not be reestablished without going through this process if the activity is discontinued for more than two years. Mr. Fisher asked if any of the property in question is in Greene County. Mr. Tucker said the rear portion of the property is in Greene County. However, according to a plat, presented, all of the proposed uses are located on the portion of the property in Albemarle County. The public hearing was opened. Mr. George McCallum, III, attorney for the applicant, was present. He introduced Mr. Robert Blachly and Mrs. Francis Gibson, daughter of the Parrish's, who has run the store and the other commercial enterprises since 1917. .Mr. McCallum presented the commercial history of the property and noted that these activities were conducted back in the 1800's. Mr. McCallum said the'existing nonconforming uses will expire next month for the country store and antique shop. Mrs. Gibson, as the administrator of her father's estate, has continued to rent the public garage and that use has been maintained. Until January, 1982, a used car lot existed on the property but that use is not being requested in this permit. Under the nonconforming status, the owners could begin a commercial operation, but the property needs substantial repair and the purpose of this permit is to give the owners time to restore the property. In conclusion, Mr. McCallum requested approval of SP-82-57 as recommended by the Planning Commission. With no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Miss Nash questioned the condition regarding the six vehicles awaiting repair at any time and she was curious as to how one person working in the garage could handle six vehicles'in one day. Mr. Fisher said the permit does not limit the number of employees. Miss Nash asked the size of the garage. Mr. McCallum said there are three bays. He had requested that the number of vehicles on site be increased because in this location people would be bringing their vehicles in before work and not picking them up until in the evening. The applicant also requested that the closing hour be changed from 5:00 P.M.~to 6:00 P.M, because persons working and the distance to travel after work to pick up their vehicle. Mr. Henley/then offered motion to approve SP-82-57 with the conditions recommended by the motion and same carried by the followin the Plannm g Commission Mr Lindstrom seconded recorded vote' AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and MiSs Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. (Note: Also advertised for this meeting, but withdrawn before the Planning Commission were the following petitions: SP-82-54. Blue Ridge Fellowship Church. ZMA-82-12. Payne Paving Company, Inc. Scottsville. STA-82-2. Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to permit registered landscape architects to certify completion of private roads.) To locate church on Route 29 North. To rezone land from YR to HC in Agenda Item No. 8. At 9:00 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn to October 21, 1982, at 4:00 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. A