HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 06 77 PC MinutesM
December 6, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
December 6, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were David W. Carr, Chairman; Peter Easter, Vice -
Chairman; Roy Barksdale; Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William R. Washington; Leslie H. Jones;
Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Other officials present were
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant
Director of Planning; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Mr. Carr asked if Mr. Easter would discuss approval of the minutes of
October 25, 1977, since Mr. Carr was absent for part of that meeting.
Mr. Easter approved the minutes as submitted, since there were no comments
from the Commission members.
The Albemarle County Boar.'d of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of
intent to amend the Albemarle County Code by the addition of Section
18-6.1 Review by Town of Gordonsville.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that this would afford the
Town of Gordonsville essentially the same opportunity of review as afforded adjoining
property owners.
review
Mr. Payne stated that this/takes place prior to Planning Commission review and
thus does not hold up the process. He explained to the Commission that approval of
this amendment would terminate the litigation now underway.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the amendment to the County Code by the addition
of Section 18-6.1 Review by Town of Gordonsville to read as follows:
(a) In the case of any subdivision any part of which lies within one mile
of the corporate limits of the Town of Gordonsville, the Commission shall take no
action thereof until the proposed plat of such subdivision shall have been submitted
to the subdivision agent for the Town for review as hereinafter provided.
(b) Within three business days of the receipt of any such proposed plat, the
planning department of the county shall transmit the same to the agent of the Town.
Thereafter, the agent of the Town shall have ten days in which to review such plat;
provided, however, that the agent of the Town may, in his discretion, refer such plat
to the Town Planning Commission for its review within twenty-one days of transmission
by the planning department of the county; and provided, further, that the subdivider
shall have the right, but shall in no event be required, to appear before the Town
Planning Commission during its review of such plat. Upon completion of the review as
herein provided, the agent of the Town may make such comments regarding such plat as
he may deem appropriate, within thirty-one days after transmission by the planning
department of the county.
,255
(c) Upon receipt of the results of the Town's review, or upon the expiration of the
time period aforesaid, the commission shall review such plat as otherwise provided
by law. Thw Town shall have the right to appear before the Commission and make
such comments as it may deem appropriate. In addition, the Town shall be W'
conclusively presumed to have standing to prosecute appeals pursuant to Section 18-4
of this article as to any plat subject to the provisions of this section.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with
Mr. Gloeckner dissenting.
ZMA-77-23. Fannie Frazier has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
rezone 2.142 acres from A-1 Agriculture to R-1 Residential. Property
is located in Jefferson Village Subdivision on the southwest side of Route
649, approximately 4,800 feet east of the intersection of Routes 649 and
29 North. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 26C, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that Route 649 has been realigned
in this area, leaving an "eyebrow" of the old road crossing Uhis property. There
is concern among several parties as to the disposition of the old road and property
between the old road and Route 649. Staff has investigated the situation and
is safisfied that the applicant has access over the old road to Route 649. Public
water is available to the property. The staff supported the rezoning request because
it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; it complies with adjacent zoning;
and proper utilities are available to the property.
When questioned by Mr. Barksdale about availability of sewer, Mr. Tucker
explained that there is no sewer available to the property and the applicant
wants to split it into two one -acre parcels for a house for her sister. Mr. Tucker 1141)
said that since she does not intend to develop it to the maximun, only one utility is
needed.
Mr. William Smith stated that he has employed counsel to determine who owns
the abandoned piece of property_ However, he said that he has no objection to the
rezoning of Mrs. Frazier's property. He did note that he does not feel the Commission
should act on the request until the ownership of the "eyebrow" is determined in order
that that individual can be properly notified by certified mail.
Mr. Payne noted that the "eyebrow" is not the subject of the discussion, and
that the staff investigated the tax records in the real estate department and was
not able to determine the ownership. Since notification is based on those tax
records, all the proper parties have been notified.
Mrs. Brenda Proffit asked if the applicant can build a driveway to the
proposed house if the land is rezoned.
Mr. Payne said that Mrs. Frazier can build a driveway since the old road has
not been abandoned.
Mr. Smith again questioned if the Commission can properly act on the application.
Mr. Carr replied that if the tax records show no ownership of the "eyebrow"
of property, no notification can be made, and thus no stay is put on the Planning
Commission's ability to act. -14)
Col. Washington said that he does not see what difference it makes, since
Mrs. Frazier has a right-of-way to her property, one way or the other.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Col. Washington moved approval of the rezoning request.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
ZTA-77-09. Robert P. Boyle has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to amend Section 2-1-24(28) by deleting the following language:
"located on or adjacent to motel premises."
AND
SP-77-76. Robert P. Boyle has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
restore Boyd Tavern to be used as a restaurant on 2 acres zoned A-1.
Property is located on State Route 616, approximately � mile south
of the intersection of Routes 616 and 250 East. County Tax Map
94, Parcel 25, part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report for both requests and noted that
this is customary procedure when the special use permit hinges upon the amendment
to the ordinance. He presented a petition of 56 signatures of landowners in the
area objecting to the request on the basis of the conditions of Route 616.
Mr. Boyle, the applicant, stated that he himself owns property within
one-half mile of the site. He said that his desire is to restore the tavern
because of its historical significance. He noted the unusual structure of the
building, and stated that it is located only 15 feet from the highway right-of-way.
He said that his plans are to restore the building himself, with the assistance
of a few individuals . Mr. Boyle said that he envisions the property as an
old tavern, with approximately 7-8 tables for dining, much as it was originally
used. In his opinion, such a place would be an asset to the eastern part of the
county. In addition to his own labor, he stated his intent to spend approximately
$30,000-$35,000 in the restoration. He stated that having a use for it after
the restoration is the only way that he himself can justify his expenditure, that
he cannot restore it just for the sake of restoring it. Mr. Boyle also stated
that he does not intend to earn his living from the restaurant business, and that
he only wants the use to cover the cost of the mortgage, the employment of those
who would work there. He stated that he is willing to have severe restrictions
placed on the property and would like to further limit the amendment to the ordinance
to address only historical places. He further noted that only six houses can see
the property and he could not imagine that it would be a distraction to the area,
rather an asset. He again noted for the record that he is not attempting to
augment or change his profession.
Mrs. Barbara Powell stated that she is the one who circulated the petition
and that what she fears is the possible future change of ownership.
Mr. Herbert Powell said that he feels a restaurant would bring traffic and
congestion to what is currently a rural neighborhood.
Mrs. Barbara Belew said that she lives on Route 749 and noted that the
access to the property could be dangerous.
Mr. Lanny Moore, owner of the property across the street from the structure,
said that the water situation in the area does not permit good fire
z:57
protection for what is proposed to be used as a restaurant.
Mrs. Bev Graves stated that she is in the process of negotiating a
purchase for the adjoining acreage, and she does not look favorably on this
proposal because of the resulting atmosphere.
Mrs. Joyce Shifflett said that she is concerned about what would happen
in the future.
Mr. Boyle stated that he understands the concerns of the residents of the
area, however he noted that the Highway Department would have to approve of
any access/egress to the property; an adequate water supply would certainly
be necessary for adequate fire protection. He asked for approval with restrictions
to limit it solely to what he had described at the meeting.
Mrs. Belew asked the plans for the top two floors. Mr. Boyle replied
that there might be a minor expansion if the operation proved to be quite successful.
Mr. Powell said that he felt that any self-imposed restrictions would not
hold up or be permanent in the future.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing. He pointed out that the essential
question is ZTA-77-09.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he is opposed in general to amending the ordinance
under this wording, however he would be willing to listen to a proposal which
limited such a facility to the restoration of an historic building.
Mr. Barksdale said that he would suggest amending the ordinance to address
only the historic buildings.
Mr. Easter said that he has not made up his mind about this matter, and asked
the staff if there were any other way to handle the matter.
Col. Washington agreed with Mr. Barksdale, stating that perhaps the wording
could say something about using such facilities for restaurants only when they
have been used for such in the past.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that in the previou!�Lpp1ication, made by Mrs. Agee,
that the building had been used for a restaurant, however it was considered
non -conforming due to the number of years that it had been out of operation. That
was the reason Mrs. Agee had applied for the zoning text amendment and the special
use permit. Furthermore, she reminded the Commission that Mrs. Agee had spent
a great deal of money in refurbishing that particular building.
Mr. Carr said that he does not want to amend the ordinance, however he said
that he has to be interested in the preservation of Boyd Tavern.
Since the restoration would certainly be an asset to the community, Mr. Easter
asked if the applicant has considered any other use for the building.
Mr. Boyle said that he wants a quiet place, but when he approached parties
trying to interest them in using it for any antique shop, he could find no one
willing.
255)
Mr. Payne explained to Mr. Jones that it is not possible to limit the special
permit to Mr. Boyle only, since the sizeable investment could thus not be passed to
Mr. Boyle's heirs.
Mrs. Graves felt that there would be problems defining an historic place
and citied all the problems with the language at the time of preparation of the
last zoning ordinance.
Mr. Payne pointed to the fact that Enabling Legislation does speak to the
preservation of historical landmarks.
Mr. Easter said that he would like to visit the site again and asked if this
would at all inconvenience the applicant's timeschedule.
Mr. Boyle said that his contract on the property is such that he would
like to get to the Board of Supervisors prior to January 15, 1978.
Mr. Carr said that he is not promoting the amendment, however he is willing
to defer the items in order to see some language that might be appropriate.
Mr. Easter said that he would like the applicant to give some serious thought
to uses other than a restaurant.
Mrs. Graves suggested that the applicant look into all the licensing, etc. that
is necessary for a restaurant.
Mr. Barksdale moved that any action on ZTA-77-09 be deferred until December
13, 1977. Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Jones said that in his opinion the amendment should be on in
view of the fact that a previous request for the same thing was denied.
The motion to defer carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Jones dissenting.
Col. Washington then moved that any action and further discussion on SP-77-76
be deferred until December 13, 1977. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Mr. Barksdale asekd that the staff investigate the possible restrictions that
could be placed on the special permit if approved.
SP-77-79. Ronald D. Carter has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
locate a fire station on approximately 1 acre zoned B-1, located north-
west side of Berkmar Drive just past Robertson Electric. County Tax Map
61 M-U, Parcel 12-1, part thereof, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, and read a letter from Caleb Stowe,
an adjoining property owner, stating that he has no objections to the request.
Mr. Dick Lynch stated that a building is planned that will be harmonious with
the community.
257
there will be
Col. Washington questioned if/ parking facilities for the proposed bingo
games.
Mr. Lynch said that there will be a parking lot for the various civic
and social activities.
Mr. Jones asked if site plan approval would be required.
Mr. Keeler replied that it would be, however, the staff does not support the idea
of any stringent landscape plan at that time.
Mrs. Graves questioned if any variances will be sought. Mr. Lynch stated
that with the architect's current drawings there is no need for any variances.
There were no further comments from the applicant or from the Commission.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the special permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Site plan approval, to include screening at the rear of the site;
2. Use of sirens only when necessary.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
At this point, Mr. Carr advised the Commission that he is in receipt of
a letter from Mr. Thomas Michie, attorney for the Lively's, and had intended to
represent them at the time of the Robert Sweeney special permit public hearing.
In his letter, Mr. Michie requests that the Commission consider Mr. Sweeney's
application at an earlier date, due to a committment on January 9, 1978, that
makes it impossible for him to be present.
Mr. Tucker explained to the Commission that in the court order, Mr. Sweeney
was given 90 days in which to apply for the special permit, and he had filed it
the day after the court order. Technically, he would not have had to apply until
about this time, making the projected date of public hearings in January or February,
1978. Mr. Tucker noted that it had been the staff who had requested the first
deferral in order that Mr. Sweeney could employ someone to do a site plan, in order
that the Commission and Board could better understand Mr. Sweeney's plans for the
property. There is also the fact that the second deferral was at Mr. Sweeney's
request due to the illness of his surveyor. Mr. Tucker said that the staff does
have time to readvertise the matter for an earlier date, however pointed out that
the agenda schedules between now and January 10, 1978 are unusually heavy, and asked
that the Commission take this matter into consideration, since this one item could
take as long as two hours to resolve.
9
Mr. Jones felt that the matter should be considered earlier or deferred
again, in view of the fact that the Commission had honored a like request from the
applicant. He suggested that the delays might have been intentional on Mr. Sweeney's part.
Mr. Keeler stated that the staff has no reason to believe that Mr. Sweeney
proceeded in bad faith.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that its rules do not provide for a reconsideration
of the special permit at this time, however it would be permissible to defer the matter
Z4 0
when it is scheduled on January 10.
Mrs. Graves agreed with Mr. Jones, stating that she feels that the Commission
should honor the request of the neighborhood.
There was no consensus of the Commission to comply with Mr. Michie's request
due to the heavy agenda schedules from December through early January. Upon the
motion of Mr. Jones to readvertise the matter to be heard on January 3, and second
by Mrs. Graves, with a vote fo 4-2-1, the chairman instructed the staff to correspond
with Mr. Michie and express its regret at his prior committment and state that the
matter will be heard as scheduled. ( Mr. Jones and Mrs. Graves dissented in
the vote, and Mr. Easter abstained. )
JIM PRICE SITE PLAN:
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, noting the three questions raised by
the applicant's attorney regarding the 50-foot easement on both sides of the
property for access to adjacent B-1 tracts required by condition #2 of site plan approval.
He stated that Section 17-5-8 of the Site Plan Ordinance deals with whether access
easements can be required, and noted that there is a precedent in the past for
requiring them to adjoining B-1 tracts. As for specifying the location of the
access easements, he noted that when the applicant had shown the easements, the staff
had requested they be moved back some on the site plan in order to avoid conflict
with the landscaping and curbing. He also noted that very seldom does the county
receive subdivision plats at the time of development of B-1 property. He explained
to the Commission how the question of the access easements came up in a discussion
with Mr. McCue, in which Mr. McCue wondered if this access easement could be used
as the sole access to his property, which is adjoining. Mr. Tucker noted that the
purpose of the access easements is for convenience and safety between B-1 tracts.
Mr. Bain, representing Jim Price, stated that with these easements there is
a problem of control of the traffic from one property to the next.
Mr. Tucker reminded Mr. Bain that the Commission has not required the actual
construction of the easement, only that it be shown on paper.
Mr. Barkdale asked if the County can force Mr. Price to open the easements.
Mr. Gloeckner said that it can be forced with the development of the adjoining parcel.
Mr. Carr felt that the County should use some judgement in this matter.
He said in his mind the question is if it is logical to allow traffic through what
amounts to the merchandise area, since the vehicles displayed on the lot are the
items for sale. However, he also noted his concern over the number of curb cuts.
on Route 29.
Mr. Eways said that he does not feel that access easements are a good idea
through the various properties, since the county ends up with two additional lanes
of traffic running parallel to Route 29 with no control.
Mr. Bain pointed to the fact that this particular property has length of 500
feet. He felt that this made a difference in the requirement.
Mr. Barksdale moved that Condition #2 be removed from the approval of Jim
Price Site Plan.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission to state its reasons in the motion for
making the distinction.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he justifies it by the fact that the parking lot
is really the merchandise display area.
Mr. Jones said that he feels there would be a security problem due to the
easements.
Mrs. Graves said that she does not want to close the door on the easements
and asked that they remain on the property as non-specific easements.
Mr. Easter stated that another reason for removing the easements from the
site plan is the length of frontage.
The vote on the motion to remove the condition carried by a vote of 6-1,
with Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Mr. Carr stated that in his mind this action does not close the door in
the future to the access easements, and said that perhaps the County needs to strengthen
its position on this matter. In certain cases, the easements are essential.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission of the December 7, 1977, meeting of
the Board of Supervisors to discuss the Reservoir Protective District and the
Run-off Control Ordinance. He stated that the matter would be taken up around
8:30 p.m. and the Board would like to have as many Commission members present as
possible.
Mr. Carr asked for a volunteer to attend Thomas Jefferson Planning District's
meeting on December 16, 1977, at 1:30 p.m. to discuss federal funding. Mrs. Graves
volunteered to be the Commission's representative.
Wilco Site Plan - request for reconsideration.
Mr. Tucker read to the Commission Mr. Williams reasons for requesting reconsid-
eration. He stated that Mr. Williams wants reconsideration on the size of the paved
area, noting that there is ample room for perpendicular parking to the curb. He also
stated that Mr. Williams does not feel the increase of paved area will be an asset to
the landscaping. Mr. Tucker noted that if the parking is extended the well, which
has already been built, will be complicated.
Mr. Easter said that it was the adamant opinion of the Planning Commission that
the plan had been changed from what was approved with no regard to the ordinances
and conditions of approval of the site plan. He noted that he and other members
of the Commission were well aware of the expense involved.
Mr. Gloeckner said that if the conditions are modified that this will start
a precedent for not conforming to the approved site plans.
`ee Z.
Mr. Jones said that he feels the applicant was aware of the ordinance all
along, and noted the site review meeting at which time the applicant presented as
his first proposal exactly what he proceeded to construct.
Mr. Carr said that if the dimensions are adequate, and according to Mrs.
Scala they are, with proper landscaping, the site will be attractive.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he voted for approval of the site plan based on
what Mr. Evans presented would take place. He objected to any reconsideration for the
purpose of modifying the conditions of approval.
Mr. Bob Smith, representing Mr. Williams, stated that Mr. Williams does not
get into the same predicament every where he goes; however, site plans are not as
sacred other places as they apparently are in Albemarle County. He stated that
what has been constructed is workable here.
Mr. Gloeckner said that the problem is the precedent; he noted that his feelings
have nothing to do with Mr. Williams, it is just the principle of the matter. He
moved that the Commissio not reconsider the site plan.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves said that she has not looked at the site and feels that the Commission
should view it prior to adopting a motion not to reconsider.
Mrs. David suggested a compromise of widening the pavement only on one side.
Mr. Easter said that if this is permitted to slip by, then it is going to be
very difficult to require others to do what is shown on the site plans.
Mr. Barksdale moved that any motion addressing possible reconsideration be
deferred one week in order that interested members of the Commission could visit the
site.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-3, with
Messrs. Gloeckner, Easter, and Jones dissenting.
Since there was no further business, e meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
V 0 44r .
Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr. - ec'r ry
09