HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 21 87 PC MinutesJuly 21, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, July 21, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; and
Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne,
Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Cogan, Stark and Diehl.
The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of July 7, 1987
were approved as submitted.
Meadowfield Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 31.75 acres into 27
lots ranging from 0.93 to 1.61 acres in size, for an average 1.07 acre
lot size. Lots are to be served by new public roads with one entrance on
Route 649, Proffit Road. The property is presently improved with two (2)
dwellings, of which one (1) is to remain. Property is located on the south
side of Route 649, between the Maple Grove Christian Church and Jefferson
Village. Zoned R-1, Residential. Tax Map 32, Parcel 27A. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
In response to Mr. Gould's request, Ms. Patterson again explained the
road plans.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Bob McKee was present to represent the applicant. He stated there
were no objections to the suggested conditions of approval.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Steve Creswell was present to represent the County Engineer's office.
He offered no additional comment.
Mr. Gould pointed out the main issue was whether or not to grant
a waiver of Section 18-36c to allow Lot 20 to be served by a private road.
Commissioners Wilkerson and Michel stated they had no objections
to granting the waiver.
Mr. Michel commented that the plat was in order and moved that the
Meadowfield Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been
met:
44.1
July 21, 1987
Page 2
a. Health Department approval of 2 septic locations on each lot;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water plans;
c. Fire Officer approval, to include building separation;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. County Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations;
f. County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and cal-
culations;
g. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations, to include commercial entrance and turn
lane;
h. County Engineering approval of pond maintenance easement and access
easement to Lot 20 to include guardrail if deemed necessary;
i. County Attorney approval of pond maintenance agreement
and joint driveway (lots 20 and 21) maintenance agreement.
2. A waiver of Section 18-36c is granted to permit Lot 20 to be served by a
private road.
3. The final plat must be approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-87-49 T. Mitchell and Emily Willey - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2.24 and 10.2.2.26 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow existing
(Clifton) tourist lodge to expand to an inn with restaurant. Property,
described as Tax Map 79, Parcel 23B is located on the east side of Rt. 729,
south of Rt. 250E. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Keeler also called the Commission's
attention to three letters of support which had been received. Mr. Keeler
made additional comments, including some changes to the staff report,
as follows:
--The applicant also owns parcel 23C which gives frontage on Rt. 729
from the end of the school property to the river, thus obtaining
sight distance should not be a major concern.
--The applicant is proposing seven lodging rooms, not six as stated
in the staff report. Mr. Keeler noted that six rooms were advertised,
thus Mr. Payne should advise as to whether or not the Commission
can approve a number greater than was advertised.
--Though the staff report implied that the existing operation might
possibly be violating zoning regulations, Mr. Keeler stated that
the applicant has shown that the current operation was "condoned
by someone in the County."
--Though the building is not eligible for designation as a National
Historic Place, it has not yet been finally decided as to whether
or not the building has some historic value. Mr. Keeler advised
the applicant that it would be to his benefit to have a determination
made by the State before the Board hearing.
--Though the location of the building is not "particularly oriented
towards 'highway' business" the applicant has demonstrated that
he holds local contracts and has an established business.
A 4 9
July 21, 1987 Page 3
*W01 Mr. Gould asked Mr. Keeler to explain the difference between an
inn vs. a restaurant. Mr. Keeler explained three sections which
deal with this type of use: 10.2.2.24 - Motel; 10.2.2.26-Restaurants
located on or adjacent to motel premises; and 10.2.2.27 - Restaurants
located within an historic landmark. He stated he had been operating
under section 10.2.2.27 but apparently the applicant had applied under
section 10.2.2.24 as a motel.
Mr. Gould asked Mr. Payne to comment on the issue of the additional
room which had not been advertised. Mr. Payne responsed: "I think
it depends on how significant you view the number to be. I think
historically you've answered that question by saying 'You can't have
what's more intensive than what you advertised.' So the real question
is 'Is this really more intensive than what you advertised?' I don't
know that there is a whole lot of difference between those two numbers
under these circumstances and I think it would be a defensible position
if you were to say that the one extra room is not significant in this
case --the nature of the use is not changed. On the other hand, if you
strictly adhere to your historical precedent, you would say that it
would be limited to six."
Mr. Keeler added that the letters which had been mailed to adjacent
property owners had stated: "To allow existing Clifton Tourist Lodge
to expand to an inn with restaurant."
Mr. Gould also asked Mr. Payne to comment on the question of whether
or not the existing operation was in compliance with the Ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated he had had a very brief conversation with the
Zoning Administrator, Mr. Burgess, in relation to this issue and
though he was not certain of Mr. Burgess' position, Mr. Burgess did
not seem to think it was "a matter of great moment." Mr. Payne
stressed that he was not familiar enough with the situation to give
a definitive opinion as to its legality, i.e. the additional use
of cocktail parties and wedding receptions. He added, however, that
Mr. Burgess had mentioned one thing which suggested that it is
not technically in compliance, that being that such uses are considered
accessory if the owner is living in the residence, but if the owner
is no longer living in the residence, then it is not lawful.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Mitchell Willey addressed the Commission. He presented photographs
of Clifton. He briefly explained the proposal and gave a short history
of the inn. He stated it was his desire to create an intimate, small
inn in an elegant country setting. He stated that the community has
been very supportive. Additional comments included the following:
--No real changes in the use of the property are proposed;
--No structural changes are required for this type of dining facility;
--There will be no disturbance to the land or to neighboring property;
--There will be no disturbance to the rural designation;
--The facility has neighborhood support;
--The application should not be considered precedent setting because
one purpose of a special permit is to allow for exceptions for
exceptional cases.
0?6 6
July 21, 1987
Page 4
Regarding the issue of cocktail parties and wedding receptions, he stated
"We were advised by the County that that was permissable as long as
the serving is done by a licensed caterer."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Pete Craddock, speaking both for himself and as President of
the Stone -Robinson PTO, expressed his support for the proposal.
He stressed this was the type of neighbor the community desired
rather than some type of commercial development.
Mr. Tom Dwight, operator of the Silver Thatch Inn, addressed the
Commission. Mr. Dwight was concerned because he felt the proposal was
seeking exemptions from regulations that other restaurants in the area must
abide by. He felt that the existing operation did not comply with the
"intent of the law." He was concerned about sight distance requirements.
He stated that the facility does not have a commercial entrance and
this will cause problems not only with delivery vehicles, but also with
emergency vehicles. He questioned the adequacy of parking provisions.
He felt the facility should meet the same requirements for a commercial
kitchen as similar establishments in the area. He questioned the
adequacy of the soils to support a drainfield for this type of operation.
He questioned whether proper ABC permit procedures had been followed
for some of the past events held at the facility. Mr. Dwight felt the
zoning was not proper for this type of facility and approval of this
application would be setting a precedent.
In response to some of Mr. Dwight's concerns, Mr. Gould explained
that the ABC requirements were not an issue before the Commission.
He also explained that sight distance and parking requirements would be
adressed at the time of site plan review and if ordinance requirements
could not be met, the proposal would not be approved.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Gould stated his main concern was the impact on the surrounding area
and he was of the opinion that the proposal would not negatively impact
the area.
Mr. Wilkerson noted that he was familar with this area and found it to
be impressive. He moved that SP-87-40 for T. Mitchell and Emily Willey
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Approval is limited to six (6) rooms for overnight travellers and a
fifty (50) seat restaurant. Except for lodging guests and occasional
luncheous, wedding receptions, cocktail parties and the like,
restaurant usage is limited to not more than fifty (50) diners per
evening.
2. Site plan approval. Prior to review of the site plan by the Planning
Commission, the applicant shall obtain Health Department and Virginia
Department of Transportation approvals.
"%41
July 21, 1987 Page 5
3. Building and Fire Official approvals.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Payne to comment on the precedent issue. Mr. Payne
was uncertain as to what Mr. Michel was asking. Mr. Michel gave as
an example: "Could Colston come back, based upon this being a precedent,
and (request) a major dining facility?" Mr. Payne responded: "They
certainly could ask for it. Whether it would be appropriate to grant
it would be an issue that you would have to take up at that time. It's
so axiomatic to say the character of the area is what you consider that
I'm almost embarrassed to say it .... I think it's really a question of
how you evaluate it on a case -by -case basis." Mr. Payne noted that,
prior to 1840, many of these buildings went back -and -forth from private
use to public use. He stated: "I don't know that you can say that
the mere fact of changing from one use to the other is in itself
particularly precedent setting. It is precedent setting in the sense
that once you have done it once, it can be cited, however accurately or
inaccurately, again."
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously stated motion.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on August 5, 1987.
SP-87-51 Woodbriar Associates - Request in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1
of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow
for the installation of a 5" diameter sewer line under the North Fork of
the Rivanna River. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 19 is located
on the west side of Rt. 29N, adjacent to the bridge over the north fork of
the Rivanna River. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report pointed out staff's
concern about the time element for constructing the project since the County
Engineer had stated that construction must be performed during the months
of July and August.
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's request, Mr. Keeler read a letter from
Mr. Armm, County Engineer, to Mr. Wood (the applicant) dated July 15, 1987.
The letter stated that though Mr. Wood had provided many required details, there
were still many unresolved issues related to method of construction.
Mr. Steve Creswell, representing the County Engineer's Office, offered
little additional comment except to state that approval of the special
use permit should be conditioned upon the County Engineer's approval
of construction methods.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Wendall Wood addressed the Commission. He stated that all the information
requested by Mr. Armm in his letter of July 15, 1987 has since been
submitted and agreed to by the County Engineer's Office. He stated there
r
n�t
July 21, 1987 Page 6
are currently no unresolved issues. It was determined that the method
used for crossing the stream would be left up to the contractor and
the County Engineer. He stated that all permits have been received
from the Army Corps of Engineers. He stated that the State Marine
Resources has approved the project. He stated State Health
Department officials have indicated they will approve the river crossing
this week.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to whether or not a 6" line was
large enough, Mr. Wood pointed out that this was a "force main" and
both the Service Authority and Health Department have approved the
size.
Mr. Gould asked Mr. Creswell if he agreed with Mr. Wood that this
was a two -week job, once started. Mr. Creswell responded that the
project could be done in two weeks and that the main concern was to
get it done as quickly as possible before the heavy rain season.
He explained that a date of August 31 had been chosen arbitrarily
based upon past experiences with seasonal variations of rain.
Mr. Gould asked Mr. Creswell if the applicant had not received
all the necessary approvals until the last week in August, would
the County Engineer's Office be willing to let the project proceed.
Mr. Creswell responded that it would depend upon weather conditions.
It was determined there was no public comment on this application.
Mr. Gould asked who would have the "final trigger" on this if the
approvals were very slow in coming in.
Mr. Creswell suggested that the conditions could be changed to allow
an extension of time based upon County Engineer recommendations.
Mr. Horne thoughtthis might be appropriate and suggested the
following language: "A 30-day extension based on approval of the County
Engineer if work is commenced and significant progress on construction
has been made." He explained this would mean "no matter what happened,
he can't go beyond September 30, and it would have to be specifically
approved as an extension by the County Engineer who could review
conditions as they relate to the contract and as they relate to the
climate at that point."
Mr. Bowerman thought this was reasonable.
Mr. Payne pointed out two issues: (1) How long does it take once you
get started; and (2) Whether you get started. He suggested both these
issues could be addressed by amending both conditions (1) and (2) as
follows:
(1) Add at the end of condition No. 1: ...no later than August
31, 1987, provided the completion date may be extended not more
than 30 days by the County Engineer in light of then current
status of the project and the weather.
A6jr-1
July 21, 1987
Page 7
(2) Add at the end of condition No. 2: ...have been met, and the
County Engineer shall have certified that, in his opinion, the
project can be expected to be completed prior to termination date
stated in condition No. 1.
It was determined this was agreeable to the applicant.
It was the consensus of the Commission that if approvals had not been
received by August 31, then the project could possibly be delayed until
next year. Mr. Bowerman stated he was satisfied that the County staff
could make these judgments.
Mr. Bowerman moved that SP-87-51 for Woodbriar Associates be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Construction together with all restoration and stabilization measures
to be completed no later than August 31, 1987, provided the completion
date may be extended not more than 30 days by the County Engineer in
light of then current status of the project and of the weather.
2. The Zoning Administrator shall issue a development permit for this project
as required by Section 30.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. No such
permit shall be issued until all conditions of this special use permit
have been met, and the County Engineer shall have certified that, in
his opinion, the project can be expected to be completed prior to
termination date stated in condition No. 1.
3. Approval of appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and pre-
sentation of evidence of such approvals to the Zoning Administrator;
4. County Engineer approval in accordance with the requirements of 30.3 Flood
Hazard Overlay District with particular attention to approval of access
and river crossing plans;
5. Only those areas necessary for the conduct of this project shall be
disturbed. Activity shall be conducted in such a manner so that equip-
ment shall not travel over, be parked on, or otherwise encroach on tree
root systems outside of approved project limits;
6. All disturbed and denuded areas shall be stabilized as required by the
County Engineer. County Engineer approval of restorative and
stabilization measures prior to issuance of development permit.
Such approval shall among other things specify that all excess con-
struction material and debris shall be removed from the flood plain
and disposed of properly;
7. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
8. Posting of warning signs upstream from the site to advise canoeists
and other users of construction activity and temporary obstructions;
9. Cash bonding as a mechanism by which the Zoning Administrator may cause
immediate compliance with this special use permit and all other county
e2417
July 21, 1987
Page 8
regulations. The County Engineer shall make periodic inspections
of the site to insure compliance with conditions imposed herein.
The County Engineer may require such corrective measures as deemedI
necessary to insure compliance with these conditions.
10. Presentation to Zoning Administrator of proof that all easements
necessary for construction and maintenance to entire length of sewer
line have been obtained.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
ohn Horne, Se etary
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms
19
n
ot4g