1987-06-175 .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