1984-02-15February 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
February 15, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, Joseph T. Henley, Jr., and C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:35 P.M.). ~ ......
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Peter T. Way.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher, at 7:35 P.M.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-83-13. Charles W. Hurt, M.D. (Fontana/No~thDPantops). Request to
rezone 401.6 acres from RA Rural Areas, R-1 Residential, R-15 Residential and Planned Resi-
dential Development to Planned Residential Development to create 192 lots for single-family
units. Located north of Route 250 East and adjacent to Ashcroft and Franklin Subdivision.
County Tax Map 62, Parcels 27, 28, 28C, 107, 108, 123, 124 and County Tax Map 78, Parcels 57
(part of). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 31 and February 7
1984.) '
Mr. Tucker noted that the applicant has requested indefinite deferral. Mr. Tucker stated
that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 7, 1984, voted unanimously to accept
the applicant's request for deferral and he suggested the Board may wish to drop this request
from its agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to drop this
petition from the Board's agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vo~e:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Mr. Fisher requested that the public hearing on the following three petitions be held
simultaneously.
Agenda Item No. 5, zMA-83-23. E. I. Design Associates. Request to rezone parcels as
follows from RA Rural Areas to R-4 Residential: County Tax Map 32, Parcel 20 (part of), Parcel
20A, and Parcel 20Al (part of), Parcel 20A2 (part of), Parcel 20A3, and Parcel 20A4; and to
rezone certain other parcelS from RA Rural Areas to HC Highway Commercial as follows: County
Tax Map 32, Parcel 20Al (part of) and Parcel 20A2 (part of) and to rezone from HC Highway
Commercial to RA Rural Areas County Tax Map 32A, Parcel 02-lB (part of). Located 2/10 mile
north of Route 29 North and Route 649 intersection and adjacent to 84 Lumber Company. Rivanna
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 31 and February 7, 1984.)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-83-92. E. I. Design Associates. Locate mobile home park on 20.59
acres currently zoned RA Rural Areas of County Tax Map 32, Parcel 20 and on 3.95 acres currentl
zoned HC Highway Commercial on County Tax Map 32A, Parcel 02-lB (part of) with location as
described in ZMA-83-23. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 31 and
February 7, 19~4.)
Agenda~:~tem No. 7. SP-83-93. E. I. Design Associates. Request to create mobile home
subdivision on 12.95 acres of County Tax Map 32, Parcel 20 (part of) and 2.44 acres of County
Tax Map 32, Parcel 20Al (part of) and on 2.5 acres of County Tax Map 32, Parcel 20A and on 2.12
acres of County Tax Map 32, Parcel 20A2 (part of) and on 3.38 acres on County Tax Map 32,
Parcel 20A4 and on 3.719 acres of County Tax Map 32, Parcel 20A3 with all currently zoned RA
Rural Areas and proposed under ZMA-83-23 to be R-4 Residential. Location as described in ZMA-
83-23. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 31 and February 7,
1984.) ~
Mr. T~cker then presented the following staff report:
"Patterson Park Mobile Home subdivision and Mobile Home Park.
Character of the Area - This property, located in the northeast quadrant of
the Route 29 North/Route 649 intersection, surrounds 84 Lumber Company and has
frontage on both Route 649 and Route 29 North. (Only a portion of the property
is subject of these petitions. About thirty acres of residue acreage would
remain at the northern end of the property.)
Springfield Subdivision and Northwoods Mobile Home Park are located to the east.
A large undeveloped tract is to the north. Across Route 29 North are various
commercial uses and Airport Acres subdivision.
February 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
While the majority of this property is wooded, about four acres adjacent
to Route 649 is open land. Highway cuts and white pine plantings within the
right-of-way screen much of the property from Route 29 North. Flat Branch runs
northward through this property. Soils in the area consist of Elioak loam and
Albemarle fine sandy loam, which are deep, well-drained soils. Soils in the
vicinity of Flat Branch are likely incompetent for septic system usage. The Soil
Conservation Service has stated that 'soil erosion can be a major problem if
proper precautions are not taken during construction.'
Applicant's Proposal - The applicant proposes to locate 200 mobile homes on
approximately 52.5 acres for a gross density of 3.8 units per acre. The mobile
home park (107 units) would be located east of Flat Branch, adjacent to Springfield
Subdivision and Northwoods Mobile Home Park. The mobile home subdivision would be
located between Route 29 North and Flat Branch and would consist of 93 lots.
About twenty-eight percent of the total site would be open space. Recreational
facilities and a community building would be located within an open space area
west of Flat Branch. About one-half acre of HC Highway Commercial would be located
at the northern access to Route 29 North.
The subdivision would be served by public roads which would intersect Route 29 at
two existing crossovers. (The Southern crossover would be closed at a future date
in accordance with the U.S. Route 29 North Corridor Study.) Private roads would
serve the mobile home park. One private road would access from Route 649 while
other access to the park would be provided through the mobile home subdivision.
Summary and Comment - Patterson Park would constitute the first mobile home
subdivision in Albemarle County, and the second request for a mobile home park in
about ten years. Policy statements in the Comprehensive Plan encourage development
of this type. Current mobile home activity indicates a continued, if not increasing,
need for such development. This is amplified by the possible, imminent
discontinuance of one larger park.
While the Zoning Ordinance contains special flexibility for mobile home parks,
Patterson Park could be viewed as inconsistent with the land use recommendations
of the Comprehensive Plan. The Albemarle County Service Authority and the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation have based planning efforts on
the County's Comprehensive Plan; therefore, conflicts exist between the proposal
and plans developed by those agencies.
At issue is whether or not the public purpose (if any) to be served by the
establishment of Patterson Park would overcome the inconsistencies of the proposal
with other plans and policies.
Issues Related to Patterson Park Mobile Home Subdivision/Mobile Home Park
Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Plan - The proposed gross density of Patterson Park
subdivision/park is 3.8 dwellings per acre. This denisty would fall within the
range of low-density residential of the Comprehensive Plan, which is 1 - 4 'dwelling
units per acre. While this property is not within the designated Hollymead
Community of the Comprehensive Plan, it should be noted that mobile home parks are
permitted only within the RA Rural Areas district.
While flexibility is provided in the Zoning Ordinance, and special consideration
is indicated by the Comprehensive Plan, past actions would be supportive of
Comprehensive Plan amendment. In 1981 rezoning of this property from RA Rural Areas
to HC Highway Commercial was requested. In our report, Staff recommended that
'given potential impact'of the zoning, amendment of the Comprehensive Plan would
be appropriate.'
Provision of Sewer'- Currently, this property is not within a jurisdictional area
of the Albemarle County Service Authority for either public water or sewer. While
public water is physically readily available, provision of public sewer raises
problems.
As proposed, access to public sewer would require a new pumping station and force
main to tr&nspbrt over the Route 649 ridgeline. From that point, flow would be by
gravity a distance of approximately 5,500 feet to the 18 inch Powell Creek
interceptor at the Hollymead Lake.
The Albemarle County Service Authority Master Plan for Water and Sewer System
outlines several possible future projects. In regard to sewer service for the
northern portion of Hollymead, the Albemarle County Service Authority's master
plan was developed based on the County's Comprehensive Plan and does not include
service to the Patterson Park property. -
Currently the Albemarle County-Service Authority is conducting a more detailed
analysis of the Patterson Park proposal. However, some general observations can be
made at this time:
February 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)~
The Patterson Park proposal appears untimely in regard to decisions for
provision of sewer in the general area.
Sewer service to this property is not consistent'with the Comprehensive
Plan or the Albemarle County Service Authority's Master Plan for Water and
Sewer Systems. f~
Extension of public sewer to the area could resUlt in other pressures to
provide sewer to properties east of Route 29 outside the designatedgrowth
area.
Provision of a private central sewer system is not viewed as desirable.
Generally, after some years, pressures arise for the Albemarle County
Service Authority to acquire and operate such facilities.
Albemarle County Service Authority has stated~that 'if approval of this
rezoning is likely, a thorough review of a regional sewer facility must
be undertaken.'
The proposed density and request for public utilities is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. In order to avoid precedent for future requests for development
outside of designated growth areas, if approved, staff would recommend that the
Commission and Board find some special public purpose to be served by this proposed
development.
Also of concern is the future disposition of the approximately 30 acre residue of
this property, particularly if public utilities are extended to the property.
Preliminary Development Plan
A preliminary development plan was submitted with the rezoning and special use
permit petitions and referred to the Site Review Committee. While the Committee
provided comment, no revisions of the plan were requested prior to public hearings.
In view of the issues outlined in this report and the existing character of the
area, Staff offers the following comments which would radically alter the plans
for Patterson Park. (These comments should be considered as preliminary, for
purposes of discussion only and not indicative of any final Staff recommendation.):
l)
To protect existing residential development to the east, a one-hundred
foot open space buffer should be provided;
For visual compatibility to Route 29 North, a fifty-foot open space
buffer should be provided;
3)
Mobile homes in the area east of 84 Lumber Company and adjacent to
Route 649 would be in an open, visible area, not particularly suited
to residential use or visually compatible to Route 649. This area
should remain under commercial zoning;
The commercial zoning proposed along Route 29 North would be obtrusive
in the mobile home subdivision and should be deleted;
5)
Consideration should be given to locating the mobile home subdivision
to the east of Flat Branch and the mobile home park to the west of Flat
Branch. Staff opinion is that the mobile home subdivision would be more
desirable adjacent to existing residential development;
6)
If approved for public water and not public/central sewer, a minimum lot
size of 40,000 square feet would be permitted. If the entire tract were
developed, about 70 - 75 units could be located on the property. Smaller
mobile home parks tend to be less susceptible to frequent renter turnover.
Summary
Staff has attempted to provide a balanced report which identifies the need for a
development of this type and County policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan
on the one hand; on the other, Staff has attempted to identify inconsistencies
of the proposal with the Land Use Plan and other plans based on it. Staff comments
regarding the preliminary development plan would reduce but not eliminate these
inconsistencies."
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, on February 7, 1984, voted 6 to 1 to
recommend denial of the above three petitions due to the proposed density and because the
request for public utilities is not consistent with recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom wanted to clarify that the staff is not recommending that the Comprehensive Plan
be amended, only that if the Board approves these requests it may wish to amend the Compre-
hensive Plan first. Mr. Tucker replied in the affirmative.
February 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
At that time the public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert McLeod, ~epresenting E. I. Design
Associates, reviewed some of the reasons why the proposed location is considered appropriate
for development of this type. Mr. McLeod stated that there is a need stated in the Compre-
hensive Plan for locating mobile homes in parks rather than having them scattered throughout
the County. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan for the Hollymead Community suggests expandin~l
the existing mobile home park which is considered an appropriate location for Such a park. Mr~l
McLeod pointed out that a mobile home park by nature, must be located on relatively inexpensiv~
land saying that land zoned R-i, R-2 or higher has too high a value to be sold off as mobile
home lots. E. I. Design Associates looked at land that was zoned RA and was located on the
edge of a growth area where it is possible to connect to sewer and water lines. Mr. McLeod
said that another factor considered was the easy access to this property from Route 29 North
and Route 649. He continued that the topography which slopes down toward Flat Branch provides
a natural screen.; the buffering requirements which are part of the Zoning Ordinance would tend
to decrease the visibility from Route 29 North even more. Mr. McLeod then called attention to
another determining factor in choosing this particular site; the possibility of containing all
the drainage generated by this development in one detention basin on the lower end of the site
Mr. McLeod said that the stream which runs through the area provides potential for a
area. He commented that the sewage situation is the greatest problem. The Powell Creek
Interceptor is approximately one mile away at Hollymead and the developer feels it is rea
to connect to that interceptor. Mr. McLeod pointed out that the minimum lot size for this
proposed park is much larger than originally planned, and the requirements for open space and
buffers have been incorporated into the plans. Mr. McLeod referred to the suggestion to make
buffers larger. He said the zoning ordinance requres a 50 foot setback from the property line
to the first unit. He noted the revised plan which has more open space than the one ori~
submitted to the county for approval. Mr. McLeod said the market sets a ceiling on how much a
mobile home park can cost.
Mr. Fisher wanted to clarify which set of plans Mr. McLeod was referring to. Mr. McLeod
stated that the Board is reviewing the original plan. Basically, said Mr. McLeod the second
plan is an illustration of the first with some minor revisions.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Mac McCauley an adjacent property owner
said that past history indicates the potential for flood problems on the part of the property
shown in open space. He then referred to the traffic problem along Route 649 saying that it
often takes a considerable amount of time to turn from Route 649 south onto Route 29 North.
Permitting a mobile home park will only increase an already existing problem. Mr. McCauley
also feels that a mobile home park would not be consistent with the rest of the development in
the area stating his concern that property values will decrease if this mobile home park is
allowed. In conclusion, Mr. McCauley feels that vandalism and ~crime is more prevalent among
residents of mobile home parks, adding that he did not feel there was a need for one since the
mobile home park to the north appears to have vacancies. Mr. McCauley said he did not feel
anyone on the Board would vote to have a trailer park put next to his property. He also felt
the additional cost of water and sewer would fall to the taxpayers. Mr. McCauley said he is
bitterly opposed and hopes the Board members will consider this proposal carefully.
Mr. E. L. Floyd, a property owner on Route 785 commented on the traffic problem along the
Route 29 Corridor. He stated that he bought his property specifically because the County
Comprehensive Plan recommended this particular area to remain rural. He commented that there
is a stigma attached to mobile home parks. Mr. Floyd made reference to the appearance of
trailers saying that while these homes have the potential to be maintained in good condition,
this is very often not the case at all. He stated his concern about the condition of Route 649
itself which he feels is already in sore need of repair, a condition which will only be ~.
exacerbated by the addition of these mobile homes.
Mr. Frank Gerheart, a retired U.S. Public Health Officer living adjacent to Mr. MacCauley,
stated that based on his personal experience as an inspector, he finds that trailer courts
sometimes create public health problems. Mr. Gerheart said the sewage situation must be
resolved and suggested that if the Board decides to permit septic systems, proper tests be made
and adequate space be provided. He concluded by referring to the traffic situation along the
29 North Corridor stating how difficult it often can be to turn onto Route 29 from his drive-
way.
Mrs. Lucille Leake said she owns property adjacent to Northwoods Trailer Court which in
turn adjoins the property being proposed for development. She said that Northwoods Trailer
Court has experienced problems with septic systems and at one point the Health Department
threatened to close this trailer court. Mrs. Leake stated her feeling that run-off from the
proposed development will adversely affect Northwoods Trailer Court. She commented that she
shares the same feelings expressed by the citizens who preceded her. In conclusion, Mrs. Le~ke
said she is concerned with the crime in the area. She added that even with the installation of
a six-foot chain-link fence between her property and Northwoods Trailer Court, people still
crawl over and trash is thrown over the fence. She asked the Board to deny the request by E.
I. Design Associates.
Mrs. Mary Jo Lovelace, an adjacent property owner, said she had written a letter to the
Planning Commission prior to its February 7, 1984 meeting expressing her objection to all of
these petitions. She too is concerned about the traffic congestion in the area and the ~
~dditional problems she feels will be created by this development. Mrs. Lovelace stated that
the proposed density for this development would demand public sewer and she suggests this may
well set a precedent for sewer extension to properties outside the designated growth area. In
addition, she feels the size of this proposed mobile home park will attract a type of individua
who has little if any concern for his own property or that of the larger community. Mrs.
Lovelace feels the proposal before the Board will also decrease the property value of adjacent
properties. Mrs. Lovelace then referred to her letter addressed to the Board of Supervisors
and dated February 15, 1984 as follows:
60O
February 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
"After considering the many concerns of the county raised in the staff report,
in addition to our personal concerns as adjoining property owners, we feel
that the following conditions, in addition to those proposed by the county
planning staff, are necessary to make the development minimally acceptable:
The density of the development should be reduced. The present proposed
density can only be supported by the provision of public sewer, and the
extension of public sewer to this property would set a precedent for
further high density development on the residue of this property and
other nearby properties.
The mobile home subdivision rather than the mobile home park should be
nearest to the adjacent residential properties. The mobile home
subdivision is more compatible with adjacent residential development in
the area than is the mobile home park, and residents of the development
who own their property would have more of a vested interest in the
development than those who rent their property.
There should be a 100 foot buffer between the development and adjacent
residential properties, as recommended by the planning staff. On the
edge of the buffer closest to the residential properties, there should
be plantings to screen the development from adjacent residential
properties.
Within the proposed 100 foot buffer, toward the edge of the development
and not nearest the planted privacy screening, the developer should be
required to install a strong fence. This will keep residents of the
park from trespassing on adjacent residential property. Also, any trash
that is thrown over the fence (a problem with which we are very familiar,
being adjacent to Northwoods Mobile Park) would be on the developers'
property, screened from adjacent property, and the developers' clear
responsibility to clean up.
However, having taken into consideration the concerns of the planning staff,
those of the neighbors, and ourselves, we feel that this proposed rezoning
and special use permit, is not desirable because of its requirement for
provision of public sewer in an area not designated to be served by the
Comprehensive Plan. Also, the increased traffic, noise, and school population
generated by the development are concerns of the neighbors and taxpayers.
We thank you for your attention to the concerns of this neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. Eugene A. Lovelace"
Mrs. Imogene Gibson, a property owner living directly across the road from the proposed
development, stated her concerns regarding traffic congestion. Mrs. Gibson said that some time
ago her car had been hit in the rear as she was making a turn off Route 29 and the accident
resulted in injuries to herself which were serious enough to warrant surgery and therapy. ..Mrs.
Gibson asked the Board to cQnsider the increased traffic which will be created by this proposa~l
Mr. David Hinds, a property owner living on Route 785 referred to the many accidents which
have occurred at the intersection of Routes 649/785 and 469/29. Mr. Hinds said he thinks the
roads in this general area are the last to be plowed during snows and he commented that as
taxpayers, the people living in this area would like some help from the County in addressing
this problem. He continued that adding another development will increase traffic which, during
inclement weather, will create a more serious condition than presently exists. He said this is
a nice community and there are no problems at this time. He is opposed to a mobile home park
in the area.
Miss Sandra Sprouse, a senior at Albemarle High School, said she lives on Route 649 and
travels Proffitt Road back and forth to school every day. Miss Sprouse stated the traffic is
always heavy. She feels the area proposed for development of this mobile home park is not the
most ideal site as the surrounding area has always been very nice and she feels this would be a
poor choice for trailer park right at the corner of Route 649. Miss Sprouse referred to an
incident several years ago When her home was broken into adding that the guilty party lived in
Northwoods Trailer Park. She then commented that she would like to have the community remain =
the same. She added that she feels sure no member of the Board would want to have a trailer
park adjacent to his property.
Mr. Tom Batchelor stated that his only interest in these petitions concerns the mobile
homes which he sells. Mr. Batchelor said that while there are unsightly mobile home parks in
Albemarle County, there are also some nice ones and he named several. Mr. Batchelor referred
to applications he has received from individuals wishing to purchase mobile homes stating that
these individuals are employed in Albemarle County and contribute to its economy. He then. took
issue'with the statements concerning availability of space in existing mobile home parks
stating that this is definitely not so. Mr. Batchelor said there are no vacancies in Albemarle
County mobile home parks an'd he would offer a $200.00 reward to anyone who can find an availabl~
space. He referred to the staff report which suggested that .the turn.over rate for mobile home
parks is very high. Mr. Batchelor said that 90 percent of the mobile homes which are placed~
remain set and suggested the turnover rate is higher in middle and upper class housing develop-
ments. He expressed his strong feelings that a mobile home park or subdivision is greatly
needed in the County as many individuals are without any space on which to set their trailers.
601
February 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
He charged the Board with not approving any mobile home parks in Albemarle County since 1970,
a position which can be interpreted as the County's unwillingness to provide housing for
working class people. Mr. Batchelor stated that mobile homes can be purchased for an average
of $225 to $235 per month in contrast with $475 per month rent in some apartments or condo-
miniums. He pointed out that there will always be objections to mobile home parks because the
,sites most conducive to this type of development are located in areas which are in conflict
withrthe County's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, said Mr. Batchelor, it is not economically
feasible to create a mobile home subdivision with less than 100 or more lots. Mr. Batchelor
concluded by asking the Board to please recognize the need for mobile home parks in Albemarle
County and to approve the above mentioned requests.
Mrs. Connie Dodd, a citizen living on Route 649, stated her vehement opposition to the
proposed mobile home park commenting not only on the poor condition of the road in this area,
but also suggesting that the aesthetics of the area are not conducive to a trailer park. Mrs.
Dodd stated that the people living in the Hollymead area and the surrounding vicinity are prou~
oftheir community and suggested they would never have bought homes in that area had they
trailers would be placed adjacent to their properties. Mrs. Dodd said that while trailers,
when purchased, are quite beautiful, they don't remain that way, but instead become trashy
looking. Mrs. Dodd suggested that decent people do not wish to remain in trailers and
that individuals attracted to this type of living arrangement are not of the character she
wishes to call her neighbors. Mrs. Dodd stated that the neighborhood would be adversely
affected by the presence of a mobile home park and added that if this trailer park is approved
she ~intends to place her property on the market for sale.
Mr. Carl Bennett, a property owner living on Route 785, said he once lived in Northwoods
Trailer Park commenting that during his stay there sewage ran on top of the ground and under
his trailer. Mr. Bennett said his home is located just behind the trailer park within audible
range of the park and quarrels can often be heard until after midnight. He concluded by
stating his opposition to this proposed development.
An unidentified property owner living at the corner of Routes 649 and 785 commented on
traffic congestion and stated that she also is opposed to this mobile home park.
Mr. Dwayne Smith, living at the entrance to the Northwoods Mobile Home Park, said he once
lived in a trailer right near this same site. Mr. Smith commented that there are various t
of individuals living in mobile home parks; some remain and take excellent care of their
prop.erty while others are of a more transient nature and move frequently. It is to this
type that Mr. Smith objects recalling several incidents where individuals, in the process of
moving their trailers in and out of the trailer park, actually tore down his fence. He
mentioned one individual, who while intoxicated, drove his car into Mr. Smith's trailer,
knocking it off its foundation. He asked that the Board deny the petitions, referring to the
poor road conditions and the sewage problems experienced in the Northwoods Mobile Home Park.
With no one else present to speak for or against these issue, the public hearing was
closed at 8:52 P.M. and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Fisher asked both Mr. Dan
Roosevelt of the Highway Department and Mr. Bill Brent of the Albemarle County Service
if they had any comments to make in addition to the statements contained in the staff report.
Both Mr. Brent and Mr. Roosevelt said no.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for an explanation of the following statement in the staff report
under the caption, "Mobile Home Activity in Albemarle County":
"In the past ten years, 345 applications for individual mobile homes have
been filed with the County for an average of 34.5 petitions per year. In
1982 and 1983, 90 applications were filed for an average of 45 petitions.
Actual building permits for individual mobile homes and mobile homes in
parks represented about one quarter of the total residential building
activity in 1981 and 1982, or about 125 permits per year. (This activity
dropped to 95 permits in 1983.)"
Mr. Tucker explained that the staff is distinguishing between special use permit applications
for location of a mobile home on an individual lot as opposed to those permits for location of
a mobile home in a mobile home park. These figures are combined to reach the total number of
mobile home permits. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Tucker knew how many vacancies existed in
mobile home parks and Mr. Tucker answered that there were very few vacancies. Mrs. Cooke aske~
if ~he County has a waiting list for mobile home permit approvals. Mr. Tucker answered that
there is no waiting list for special use permits to locate a mobile home on an individual lot
because an individual must already either own a piece of property or be under contract to
purchase this property before an application for a special use permit for a mobile home can be
made. Mr. Lindstrom asked which mobile home park is the largest in Albemarle County. Mr.
TuCker said that Southwood is the largest, estimated at 300 to 400 units, though he has no
how many available spaces there are in any of the County's mobile home parks.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that the staff report indicated the number of mobile homes existing
Albemarle County has decreased over the years. He wondered if this were due to unavailability
of space or simply less demand for mobile homes. Mr. Tucker replied that many mobile home
permits are approved for short periods of time; the applicants are using the mobile home as a
temporary dwelling until a conventional home is built. The reduction in mobile homes is
attributed to this fact although Mr. Tucker added that he does not feel the number of units in
mobile home parks has changed much over the years. Mr. Tucker added that many mobile home
units in County Mobile Home parks are owned by the operator and leased to individuals much
an apartment. The units themselves generally remain in place; it is the individuals who move.
Mrs. Cooke said that this would then imply mobile home park dwellers are a transient group. Mr.
Tucker said yes, though he has no data concerning how long these individuals actually remain
one place.
February 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the petitions before the Board were approved and the property
developed to the density permitted within the community itself, would there be a decrease in
density. Mr. Tucker said yes adding that there is still a significant area in the Hollymead
growth area where the density could be increased; this would offset the decrease in density~
proposed by the developers of Hollymead. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were other areas in~ the
County more conducive to this proposal than the property in question, noting that this partic~
site requires a great deal of work, i.e., sewage, water, etc., before any.approval could be
given. Mr. Tucker referred-to the comments previously made by the opposing property owners in
the area saying that similar comments would be made by property owners in any area given the
same proposal for a mobile home park. Mr. Tucker said the best approach to mobile homes is-to
encourage individuals to find individual lots on which to place their units, or to encourage
expansion of existing mobile home parks. In fact, said Mr. Tucker, one such proposal for
expansion of an existing mobile home park is expected to be submitted within the next few
months. While Mr. Tucker is not aware of the exact number of units, he feels this will be a
substantial increase for that particular park, though not necessarily for the needs of Ail
County. Mr. Tucker said that staff could certainly do further study on the mobile home issue
and suggest alternative locations, but he feels that regardless of the location, adjacent
property owners will object. Mr. Tucker said alternate locations would most likely be adjacent
to or very near existing mobile home parks where sewer and water are available. He added that
in order to make this type of development feasible,.the net density should be fairly high; --
gross density is not feasible on this particular parcel of land. Mr. Tucker explained that the
reason provisions concerning mobile home subdivisions were placed in the zoning Ordinance was
to provide interim housing for individuals who would eventually build a conventional dwelling;
eventually, the subdivision would become a conventionally developed subdivision of basically
40,000 square foot lots.
Mr. Bowie said that he has driven through the Proffitt Road area and viewed the site for
the proposed mobile home park. While he finds the site topographically suitable for the
proposal, he has some concern regarding setting a precedent for expansion of public sewage
disposal. In addition, Mr. Bowie said, the proposal indicates two parking spaces per unit.
With 200 units this potentially means 200 to 400 more vehicles and he feels this is simply
going to exacerbate traffic problems in an already heavily congested area. Considering this
and the overwhelming opposition to the proposal, Mr. Bowie feels he cannot support the request.
Mrs. Cooke Said that while she sympathizes with individuals who require this type of
housing and would like to address the needs of all County citizens, she is concerned over the
appearance of most mobile home parks in the County. Mrs. Cooke said she has seen mobile home
parks in other areas of the country that are beautiful, but in view of the track record of
mobile homes in Albemarle County, she cannot support this proposal unless and until it can be
demonstrated that better control of mobile homes in this area can be maintained. Mr. Henley
said one of the mobile home parks in Crozet is very tightly controlled and very attractive.
Mrs. Cooke agreed that there are exceptions, but she has not seen enough of them to be comfort-
able. Mr. Henley then said the particular problem he is having with the proposal submitted by
E. I. Design Associates concerns the sewage situation which he feels will potentially create
more problems in that area. Mr. Henley said he cannot relate to the traffic problems which
have been mentioned tonight when he lives on a road that is so narrow, the Highway Department~'
will not even put a white line on it.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to deny ZMA-83-23, sP-83-92,
and Sp-83-93. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought someone would tell him something that would help
him make up his mind. He said when he came to the meeting tonight, he did not feel he would be
able to support these petitions until after further staff study. Mr. Lindstrom said he is very
cognizant of the need to provide housing for individuals who simply cannot afford more conven-
tional types of dwellings in a communitY where buying a home is a very expensive proposition.
He referred to applications submitted by developers who propose low or moderate cost housing
and noted that even these cost between $45,000 and $50,000. Given the present interest rates,
this is far too expensive for many people. However, Mr. Lindstrom said he has some serious
reservations about permitting a 200 unit mobile home subdivision in any one location in the
County as he feels this will create problems which a smaller park or subdivision would not
create. Mr. Lindstrom said he also recognizes the serious traffic problems in the area, but
given the "yes" or "no" situation, he also cannot support the application as proposed ......
Mr. Fisher reflected on an application several years ago for a 500 unit expansion of
Southwood Mobile Home Park and the furor that created. He said that since that time he has
given a great deal of thought to the mobile home park issue. Mr. Fisher feels that all thingS~
considered, the smaller mobile home Parks appear to be managed and controlled better than the ~
large mobile home parks. He is not convinced that a mobile home park needs to contain hundreds
of units in order to be economically feasible and he feels there is a correlation between the..
size of the park and the amount of Problems created. In regard to the problems concerning
locating new mobile homes in Albemarle County, Mr. Fisher would like to see an inventory~taken~
of what spaces are available, how much space is being used and whatever pertinent information
can be obtained. Mr. Fisher said that a decision was made a number of years ago regarding
where sewer service could be provided at the least expense and the ridgeline on Route 649 was
felt to be the extent of the sewer service area. He feels these decisions were wise at the
time they were reached and still~apply today. Mr. Fisher said he is going to support the
present Comprehensive Plan and not the petitions ~efore the Board today.'
Mr. Henley suggested that conditions be applied to mobile home parks which would be
oermanent and would help preserve the quality of these parks before any other~mobile home park
is approved again. At present there is no guarantee that any mobile home park is going to
remain under tight control with regards to'roads, screening, sewer, water, etc.
At that time, roll was called on the foregoing motion to deny the three applications and~
same carried by the following recorded vote: .
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
February 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
At 9:23 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:33 P.M. with Mr. Lindstrom
absent.
Agenda Item No. 8. Request for property known, as "Patterson Park" to be included in the
water and sewer service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority; in conjunction with
petitions for E. I. Design ASsociates.
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Bowie, that the request for property
known as Patterson Park to be included in the water and sewer service areas of the Albemarle
County Service Authority, be denied. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES- Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-83-22. James or Virginia Hahn. Request to rezone 1.6 acres from
RA to Rural Areas to C-1 Commercial. Located on west side of Route 649, adjacent to Deerwood
Commercial area. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 48, Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
~Progress on January 31 and February 7, 1984.)
Mr. Tucker said that due to some confusion regarding notification, it is recommended that
this request be deferred to the March 7, 1984 meeting. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, to defer the above request to the March 7, 1984 meeting. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindst'rom and Mr. Wa~.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: McDonald's Site Plan (Deferred from February 8, 1984).
Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that at the January 11, 1984 me,ting, it had recogniZed a
self-appointed group to review the question of access to the corne~ property on Riverbend
and Route 250 East. Mr. Tucker and one member of his staff attended the first meeting held by
this committee but did not receive the actual report until several days before the February 8,
1984 meeting. At that meeting, Mr. Tucker requested a deferral to February 15, 1984 in order
to allow staff and the Highway Department time to review the proposal and come to some agree-
ment on same. Mr. Tucker. gave the following history of the proposa.1.
Last summer (1983) McDonald's submitted a site plan requestin~
to the property, as well as a median cut on RiverbBend Drive. AcCE
denied because of an earlier condition requiring that any access tc
interior street of Riverbend Drive. Later the Highway Department a
median cut be provided on Riverbend Drive. The Site plan was defe~
Planning Commission until the question of access to the property cc
the reason the site plan was appealed to the Board in January. Mr
changes have occurred since the site plan was originally reviewed
and he would recommend that this matter be referred back to the P1
reconsideration of access to properties in this area. Mr. Tucker
Board request the Highway Department to review the recent traffic
applicants, and make recommendations to the County regarding that
access to the property. Since the site plan has been deferred ind
Commission, and since many things have changed with regard to the
TuCker feels that the Planning CommisSion is the more appropriate body to address this matter.
The Planning Commission needs to review the site plan as well as the proposal of access to
Route 250 East.
i access from Route 250 East
ss to Route 250 East was
. this parcel be from the
.lso recommended that no
'red indefinitely by the
,uld be resolved. This is
Tucker said that several
y the Planning Commission
,nning Commission for ~_
'urther recommended that th~
.nalysis plan prepared by
articular median cut and
finitely by the Planning
uestion of median cuts, Mr.
Mr. Fisher said that since the Board is not dealing with a full site plan and since a si'
plan has never been approved or disapproved by the Planning Commission, he is inclined to
accept Mr. Tucker's recommendation, but would grant the applicants the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Herb Beskin, attorney representing Jefferson Savings and Loan, said he and his
understand the logic of Mr. Tucker's recommendation. However, the impression he got at the
last'Planning Commission meeting, is that the Planning Commission did no~ feel it has the
authority to grant a cut on Route 250 East. Should the Planning Commission become disposed to
do so, Mr. Beskin would like for the Board to clarify that the Planning Commission does in
have this authority. Mr. Beskin requested that if the Board is asking the Highway Department
to review the recent traffic analysis plan, it also ask the Highway Department to sit down wi'
members of the self-formed committee to attempt to resolve the issue of the median cut on
Riverbend Drive.
Mr. Tucker explained that at the time the rezoning of Riverbend Shopping Center was
approved, the Board required that Riverbend Drive be built according to State standards and
accepted into the State Highway system. To date, the Highway Department has maintained the
position that any median cut on Riverbend Drive would disallow its acceptance into the state
system. Mr. Tucker said that if Riverbend Drive is not accepted into the state system of
~ighWays, this will be in direct conflict with the rezoning and would require a change in the
conditions for that particuar rezoning. Mr. Tucker said that if, after the Highway Department'
review of the traffic analysis plan, it decides to allow the median cut and still accept the
road~into the state system, this will not present any problem.
February 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said he would like to retur~ to a discussion of procedures;' He-was under the
impression that the site plan had already been denied by the Planning Comission when the appeal
was put on the Board's agenda. Since this is obviously not the situation, he would Prefer~that
the Planning Commission act prior to the Board getting into this appeal procedure. Mr. St.
John asked if when the subdivision plat was approved~by the Planning Commission, was it not a
condition of approval that there would be no access allowed to Route .250 East from this prope~t~
Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. St. John said that in view of this, the Planning Commission has t~e
authority to reconsider the conditions they placed on the approval. Mr. Tucker said the
Planning Commission had reviewed the condition one time, and did not feel it appropriate to
make a change. However, Mr. Tucker pointed out that this is not the issue being addresse~'~'y i
Mr. Beskin. Mr. Beskin is referring to a median cut on RiVerbend Drive which is a different'~
issue. The Planning Commission, as well as staff, is relying on the Highway Department for a
recommendation on the median cut because the road must be built to state standards. Mr. TuCker
said he does not think the County will support allowing a median cut on Riverbend Drive if the
Highway Department will not accept the'road into the state system. Mr. St. John said the
Planning Commission is not powerless to address this issue. They might not want to,
have the power to deal with the question.
At that time, motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, to send this matter back to the Planning
Commission to be property reviewed by them in the manner in which this usually is done, for
final action by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker suggested adding to the motion a request'~
that the Highway Department review the latest traffic analysis plan submitted by the appl±Cant
Mrs. Cooke said she will include this in her motion. ~'
Mr. Fisher then recognized Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, who stated that
the problem at the present time is that three separate entities are involved. One, said Mr.
Roosevelt, is the Highway Department itself, whose primary interest in this issue is the
movement of traffic. The Highway Department places a very low priority on the use of prop~rtie~
adjacent to the highway. The second entity is the developer whose main interest is to maximize
the value of his property; the developer sets a low priority on the flow of traffic. 'LastlY 'is
the County's role in this matter. Mr. Roosevelt said the County has attempted to balance these
conflicting issues at least three times in the recent past. Mr. 'Roosevelt suggested that ~
before the Board reconsiders its former position some consideration be given to ~etermining if
conditions have changed since those decisions were made. Mr. Roosevelt said that concerning
the office complex and the shopping center, no changes have occurred. With regard to the
McDonald's site, Mr. Roosevelt said the answer is maybe. The office complex and shopping
center were approved with no access to Route 250 East and no median cut on Riverbend Drive.
Mr. Roosevelt feels that the Highway Department, the County and the developers felt access t~o
the properties and traffic flow were balanced; no appeal was made by either the office complex
or the shopping center with regard to access. Mr. Roosevelt said there is a question of -'
whether knowledge of the disallowance of median cuts on Riverbend Drive was known to the
Jefferson Savings and Loan people when access was denied to Route 250. Mr. Roosevelt then ~
mentioned the question of whether the current access options available to the McDonald's si're
are adequate for property zoned highway commercial. Mr. Roosevelt said that should the Board
feel zoning of the property warrants additional access, and if the Board desires Riverbend
Drive to be added to the State maintained system, that any break in the median will require
approval by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Roosevelt asked the
Board to consider that any break in the median will reduce the operational efficiency of
Riverbend Drive regardless of how minor this reduction will be. He added his personal feeling
that such a break will create major problems during heavy traffic flow periods. Mr. Roosevelt
stated, however, that Highway Department policy dictates that any request for a break in the
median which is accompanied by a study to support the request, will be carefully reviewed. ~Mr.
Roosevelt informed the Board that access from the property to Route 250 East can be approved by
the County by placing such turning movemen~ controls on the access as it sees fit; the High~aY'
Department's position would be to approve proper designs for these movements. However, should
the County wish to allow all movements, the Highway Department will design an entrance accord~
ingly. Mr. Roosevelt said he believes that proper access to the site for Highway Commercial
zoning can be made from Route 250 East. While any change in access to the McDonald's site ~ill
have a negative effect on the transportation system, Mr. Roosevelt believes that limited --
additional access from Route 250 will have the least detrimental effect of providing adequate
access. Mr. Roosevelt noted that the Board does not have before it a site plan appeal orca
subdivision plat appeal, but rather an issue carried forward from site plan review. He then
recommended that this matter be referred back to the Planning Commission with instructions that
some limited access be considered to Route 250 East, but that the Board spend no additional
time considering the median cut on Riverbend Drive.
~ Mrs. Cooke then said she wished to amend her motion to say, refer this matter back to the
Planning Commission with no recommendation. She said this is no~ a matter for the Board to
review at this time, but is the responsibility of the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John
suggested that Mr. Roosevelt go before the Planning Commission and simply restate what he had
just said to the Board. If he understands Mr. Roosevelt correctly, the Highway Department is
not going to accept Riverbend Drive into the state system if a median cut is allowed. Mr. St.
John understands that Mr. Roosevelt is suggesting it is a waste of time to review the traffic
analysis plan and it would be far more prudent to consider some access from Route 250 East for
this property. Mr. Fisher said he does not feel competent to tell the Planning Commission
anything. He feels this should be sent back to the Planning Commission with no recommendation
and ask them to review.
Mr. Agnor pointed out that Mrs, Cooke's motion included requesting the Highway Department
to do a transportation analysis study. Mr. St. John, in interpreting Mr. Roosevelt's sugge~ti0n
is recommending that this matter simply go back to the Planning Commission without a recommenda-
tion. Mr. Tucker said the study has already been done. All that is required is that the
Highway Department review the engineer's study. While this will delay the matter, the Board
does not have to take any action on a recommendation for Highway Department review, though Mr.-~
Tucker feels this review will not be done unless the Board makes a formal request to the
Highway Department to do so. Mrs. Cooke asked if the Planning Commission could not make the
same request. Mr. Tucker said yes, but he hoped the review could be completed before the
request gets on the Planning Commission agenda again.
605
February 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
r Mrs. Cooke restated that her motion is to refer this matter back to the Planning Commissio
with no recommendation. This was seconded by Mr. Bowie who added that he would very much like
to see this matter resolved soon. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
N~yS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: County Executive Report for month of January, 1984.
Mr. Bowie explained that at the January meeting, he had suggested that he work with staff
in an attempt to condense the complex and very long monthly financial statement of the County
Executive. At the February 8 meeting, he presented three alternatives; a one page report, a
five page report, and a further expansion to fifteen pages. It was decided to submit the four
page report to the Board members for their review and comments. Mr. Bowie said he b, elieves
this report gives the Board the overview needed on a monthly basis. Mr. Bowie then recommended
that the four-page format be adopted until such time as a more ideal report can be created.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the four-page format for
the County Executive's monthly report.
Mr. Agnor mentioned that included with this four-page summary will be a cover letter from
the County Executive noting any unusual problems which may have occurred during the month;
called an exception report. Mr. Bowie said he had neglected to mention this, but should there
be nothing amiss, the memorandum would simply state this. He then amended his motion to
include this memorandum. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
Mr. Fisher asked if the School Board receives a similar revenue and expenditure report on
a monthly basis. Mr. Agnor said he did not know. Mr. Fisher then suggested that a determina-
tion be made concerning the kinds of reports and forms received by the School Board and
acceptable to said Board. Mr. Fisher added that perhaps the School Board would like to review
the summary themselves.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: November 9, 1983.
Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of November 9, 1983 and noted one typographical error.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the minutes of
November 9, 1983. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Agnor commented on the need to make appointments to the Equalization Board and the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 314 Committee.
Mrs. Cooke referred to a letter from Mrs. Ruby D. Furr, Arbor Crest Apartments, as follows
"It is of great concern that there is no public transit service close by.
Arbor Crest Apartments is located on Hydraulic Road Just past Georgetown
Road stoplight and our apartments are built especially for persons 62 years
of age and over and the handicapped. It would be beneficial to residents
to have public bus service. Our first building is ready for occupancy.
When all the buildLngs are finished in a couple of months, we will have
sixty-six apartments. We would appreciate it if you would express ouP
interests in obtaining public transit service at your next Board of
Supervisors meeting."
Mr. Agnor said that the Charlottesville Transit Service has recommended including this
area in the present 29 North Bus route. This extension of bus service will come before the
Board at the March 14, 1984 meeting. Mrs. Cooke said she would inform Mrs. Furr that her
concerns will be addressed at that meeting.
Mr. Fisher mentioned the litter problems along the highways saying that much of this
situation appears to be the result of uncovered~ks carrying trash to the landfill sites. He
said he is becoming very concerned as there appears to be enormous amounts of litter of various
kind along highways, ramps and many other areas. He asked if the State Highway Department
budget has been cut to such an extent that keeping the highways clean is no longer possible.
Mr. Agnor said that while the budget has certainly been reduced, he does not think monies for
this particular problem have been eliminated. It was suggested that the Highway Department be
contacted to determine when a highway cleanup will take place.
February 15, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mrs. Cooke suggested that a letter be sent to the City of Charlottesville concerning the
fact that it is time to consider inviting the officials of Prato and Poggio a Caiano, Italy, to
Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Mrs. Cooke said that when she attended a gathering i-n
New York recently for the dedication of Mazzei's writings, she'was asked when an invitation
might be forthcoming. She feels this needs to be addressed very soon, as propriety demands a
response. Mrs. Cooke said there was also some discussion at the dedication ceremony regarding
the student exchange program but she did not feel she could discuss this as she had not receive
any instructions from either the Board or City Council. The Italians are waiting for a respons~
Mr~ Fisher suggested sending a letter to Mayor Buck asking him if the City of Charlottesville
has made any plans to invite the Italians to the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Mr. Fisher
further suggested that an appropriate time for a visit would be around Dogwood Festival time in
April.
Agenda Item No. 14. At 10:14 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr.
Bowie, to adjourn to March 7, 1984 at 3:00 P.M., at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
CHAIRMAN