HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 08 84 PC MinutesMay 8, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 8, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Could; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel;
Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Richard Cogan. Other officials present were:
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County
Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present.
ZMA-84-8 Hillcrest (Hurt Investment Company) - Request to rezone 176.07 acres
from R-1 Residential to PUD; proposal for commercial, institutional, open
space and lake uses, plus residential (including du-, tri-, and quadra-plexes,
apartment condominiums, single-family detached lots and zero lot line lots)
for a gross density of 4.08 dwelling units per acre. Tax Map 91, Parcel 2,
Scottsville District. Located east of Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended) and west
of Rt. 20S.
The applicant was requesting deferral.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZHA-84-8 be deferred to May 22, 1984. Mr. Wilkerson
seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-84-12 Caleb Stowe Associates - Requestto rezone 1.892 acres from PRD
Planned Residential Development/R-4 Residential to R-10 WITH PROFFER,
retaining existing use and adding Caleb Stowe Associates and use of manor
house with 1.892 acres as a single-family residence to proffer. Tax Map
60, Parcel 28A1, Samuel Miller District. Located in Ednam community, south
side of Route 250 west.
SP-84-25 Caleb Stowe Associates - Request filed in accordance with Section
17.2.2(11) to permit the uses described above in ZMA-84-12.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
Mr. Keeler explained that Mr. Stowe had obtained signatures of all Ednam
residences indicating their support for the proposal to locate offices in
the manor house. Mr. Keeler added that though the proposal does not fit
the planned development concept, staff had no objection because the
proposal was acceptable to the community.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Caleb Stowe addressed the Commission. He briefly explained his plans
for use of the house.
May 8, 1984
Page 2
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman noted that Mr. Stowe was presently using the house for his
real estate offices (as described by Mr.. Stowe). He asked how much expansion
of this use was envisioned. Mr. Stowe explained that currently 50% to 60%
of his business was directly related to the Ednam project. He added:
"There would be some expansion because of the very high cost of maintaining
this house and one of the justifications would be to utilize it more effectively
than we do now...."
It was determined the external appearance of the house would not be altered.
Ms. Diehl asked if the square footage available for community usage would be
the same, after this proposal, as was originally intended. Mr. Stowe
responded that it was not economically feasible to reserve a great deal
of space but that he would cooperate and make space available as needed.
There followed a discussion about how various parts of the house :Night be
used. Mr. Stowe stated the house.was quite adaptable to joint uses.
He also stressed that the house was too expensive for the homeowners'
association to maintain and this proposal is an attempt to find a way
to maintain it without putting undue burden on the homeowners.
Ms. Diehl staged she had no problem with the proposed use by the realtor.
However, she stated she was in favor of some of the space being reserved
for community use, .particularly as the community grows. She did not want
to see that 'space used up without it being replaced somewhere else.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the proffer restricted the office uses to the
second and third floors.
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Stowe if that was his interpretation of the proffer.
Mr. Stowe responded that because of the design of the house, e.g. open
stairways, etc., it would be difficult to use the upstairs without
transgressing the first floor.
Ms. Diehl asked if Mr. Stowe felt, given the design of the house, there was
enough space in the house .to provide for community use.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it was Mr. Stowe's intent .to provide other community
facilities in the event the house should be used as a single-family dwelling
(Item V of the applicant's proffer). Mr. Stowe responded that he would
request approval for office space elsewhere in the development. Regarding
the community facilities, he stated it was difficult to foresee future
needs. He stated the primary priority for space was for the maintenance
operation and not social functions.
Ms. Diehl stated she could support the request based on the applicant's
proffer, excluding part V.
Mr. Cogan stated he could support the proffer. He felt it was important that
the space be used and "pay its own way." Regarding part V of the proffer
which suggested the use of the house as a single-family dwelling, 'Nir. Cogan
stated he felt that was not likely to happen and therefore nothing would be
lost by eliminating part V from the proffer. He stated that if it ever
was a possibility it could be presented at a later date, and the question
1 A
May 8, 1984 Page 3
of community service could be readdressed at that time.
Ms. Diehl asked if the Commission could approve the ZMA "striking out a clause
of the stated proffer!' Mr. Payne replied, "No." He explained that the
Commission could state their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, i.e.
"the Commission would recommend approval of the office use, etc., but
cannot recommend rezoning subject to the proffer because of the existence
of Item V."
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-84-12 for Caleb Stowe Associates be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for denial with the understanding that there is
no objection to the suggested office usage, but that use of the home as a
single-family residence is not supportable without further provision for
community facilities being incorporated in the Plan.
This motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Skove stated that though he had no real problem with the proposal, he
was opposed to "jiggling around" a planned development once it has been
approved. He felt this proposal did not represent any type of real change.
Mr. Gould pointed out that the current residents of the development (i.e.
14 of 15) had no objections to the proposal.
Ms. Diehl pointed out that there are currently only 15 residents out of
an eventual total of 140.
Mr. Michel pointed out that part of the homeowners' fees are currently
going towards the maintenance of this "white elephant."
Ms. Diehl pointed out that this development was approved .as a planned
residential community with appropriate community facilities and this
current proposal has the possibility of negating those facilities.
Ms. Diehl asked if the Ordinance requires recreation facilities for
a Planned. Residential Development. Mr. Keeler explained that recreation
facilities are required when a density of 4 units/acre is exceeded and
this development is just under 4 units/acre.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt it was better to have the building used and
he did not believe it would ever be used as a single-family residence.
Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-84-12 for Caleb Stowe Associates be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Bowerman asked if this building should be sold at some future date,
and Mr. Stowe returned with a proposal for relocation of the offices,
would it be possible to readdress the issue of recreational facilities.
Mr. Payne responded that, practically, this could not be done.
ls:a
May 8, 1984 Page 4
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for
approval.
The motion passed.(6:1) with Ms. Diehl casting the dissenting vote.
The Chairman called for a motion on SP-84-25 for Caleb Stowe Associates.
Mr. Payne explained. that the purpose of the special permit was to permit
offices in the R-10 zone.
Mr. Keeler explained that no conditions were attached to the special permit.
He further explained: "Under prior zoning it was R-3 with a special permit
attached. 1t was proffered zoning. At that time they limited it to
clubhouse use and office use for the residents which deleted the use of the
house as a single-family dwelling. This time, under the new Ordinance, the
designation that he needed to seek was R-10 with a special use permit for the
office use. So it was two vehicles to get the.same ,proposal before you."
Mr. Skove moved that SP-84-25 for Caleb Stowe Associates be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the :notion.
Ms. Diehl offered a substitute motion and moved that SP-84-25 be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
condition:
(1) if community facility space in the building is filled in the future,
at that point other community space within the planned development
will be provided.
There was some discussion, led by Mr. Payne, as to how to best state this
condition. Mr. Payne felt Ms. Diehl's wording was "unenforceably vague"
and offered the following alternative: "1n the event that the space in
the main structure becomes unavailable for community use as a result of the
office and/or residential occupancy, substantially similar community
facilities will be provided elsewhere within the Edna.n PRD." Mr. Payne
felt this was "on the verge of unenforceability" also. Ms. Diehl
stated that it was her intent to insure that the community facilities
would be available within the planned development if all of the present
space within the house is used for one of the uses already approved. She
noted that it was not her intent that said facilities be "substantially
similar" to the current structure, but rather that the space provided
be similar.
Mr. Cogan stated he understood Xs. Diehl's concern, but he felt the Commission
did not have the vehicle to address that concern.
Ms. Diehl's substitute motion died for lack of a second.
The Chairman then called for a vote on Mr.. Skove's previously -stated motion
for approval of SP--84-25.
The motion passed (6:1) with tics. Diehl casting the dissenting vote.
15��,
May 8, 1984 Page 5
ZTA-84-02 John L. and Elizabeth Wildermuth - Request to amend Section 19.0
Planned Residential Development of Zoning Ordinance to allow under Section
19.3.1 a country inn described as small hotel with no more than 30 rooms
and small restaurant.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report stated: "Inns are currently
permitted either by right or special use permit in the Rural Areas, C-1
and HC districts.... Therefore, staff opinion is that adequate provisions
have been made for this use. ... Staff opinion is that inclusion of 'inn'
as a use in the Planned Residential Development regulations would be
foreign to the current concept of the zoning district. Staff can determine
no public purpose to be served. "
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Wildermuth addressed the Commission. He explained the history and
theparticulars of the application. He felt the inn would be an asset
to the county because it would create 16 new jobs and increased tax revenues.
(There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.)
Mr. Bowerman stated he was hesitant to approve a zoning text amendment
that will allow an inn such as this as a permitted use not only in this
location but everyplace else.
Mr. Skove agreed with staff. He stated he -could not agree to its being a
by -right use.
Ms. Diehl pointed out that conditions can be attached to a special permit
and that is not possible with a rezoning.
Mr. Keeler gave a history of the application, including conditions of approval
attached to the original special permit.
Ms. Diehl stated she couldn't see any kind of substantive tie-in for this
use.
Mr. Skove moved that ZTA-84-02 for John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-84-19 Free Union Country School - Request filed in accordance with Section
10.2.2(5) to locate a private school on 2 out of 75 acres, zoned Rural
Areas, Tax Map 29, part of Parcel 15C, White Hall District. Located west
side of Rt. 601, ±1/4 mile north of its intersection with Rt. 665, across
from Shelter Builders.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. McRaven. He offered no additional
comment.
ls?r
May 8, 1984
Page 6
The Chairman invited.public comment.
Mr. Doug Little addressed the Commission and expressed his opposition to the
proposal. His concerns included: (1) Inconsistency with Comprehensive
Plan; (2) Increased traffic; and.(3) May make it difficult to control
future development in Free Union.
Mr. Richard Friedman expressed his agreement with Mr. Little's comments.
He was particularly concerned about the problems that would be created by
increased traffic.
Mr. Dave Waldron addressed the Commission and expressed his support for the
proposal.
Ms. Bertha Derb and 'Mr. Douglas Hargrave also expressed their support for
the proposal.
Mr. McRaven oed the following closing comments: (1) He felt increased
Fur
traffic would/be a problem. (2) The applicant will provide a turn lane
if necessary. (3) The project will disrupt the community as little as
possible. (4) No school buses will serve the school. (5) It is hoped
the school will become a focal point for community activities.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to condition No. 5 LStaff would recommend that the applicant,
both for the protection of the children and the applicant, voluntarily
comply with the Virginia Department of Welfare's Minimum Standards for
Licensed Child Care Centers.], Mr. Cogan asked if the County could
not require this. Mr. Keeler replied that the County did not have the
manpower to enforce such a condition. Mr. Cogan asked that the word
"recommend" be changed to "require" and also that the word "voluntarily"
be dropped.
Ms. Diehl asked fir. Roosevelt to comment on the Highway Department's
position. Mr. Roosevelt stated that this proposal would not be "the
straw that broke the camel's back." He explained that the problems
on this road are caused by all the developments that keep springing up.
Regarding the curve, Mr. Roosevelt stated that if the special permit
is approved the maximum that can be required for sight distance is
250 feet, but he questioned whether that would be adequate considering
the speeds and traffic through Free Union.
Mr. Michel stated his only concern was the presence of the curve. Mr.
Cogan pointed out that if the plan can't meet the requirements for a
commercial entrance it will have to be moved elsewhere. 1rr. Michel
noted that it was his understanding from Mr. Roosevelt's comments that the
requirements are based on criteria that aren't adequate because the 25 mph
posted speed limit is not the speed at which cars actually travel..
Mr. Bowerman stated it appeared the main concern was the behavior of traffic
on Rt. 601.
May a 1984
Page 7
Mr. Bowerman noted that there had been no real opposition to the school
itself.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt if there was any practical way for the
Highway Department to "get a longer sight distance." Mr. Roosevelt stated
it would be possible for a Highway Department engineer to determine the
maximum safe speed and then come up with a sight distance that would make
the entrance safe. He felt it would be possible to have the study done
within two weeks.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the item be deferred to allow time for the
Highway Department to provide more information on the sight distance
issue.
Mr. Cogan moved that SP-84-19 for Free Union Country School be deferred
to May 29, 1984.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 9:15 to 9:25.
SP-84-20 Jerome Corporation - Request filed
22.2.2(7) to locate a motel on 1.124 acres
Commercial, Tax Map 61, part of Parcel 119,
Magisterial District. Located west side of
mile south of Dominion Drive.
AND
in accordance with Section
out of 7,800, zoned C-1
Lots 4 and 5, Charlottesville
southbound lane of Rt. 29N, ±1/8
Jerome Corporation Motel Site Plan - Located on west side of southbound lane
of Rt. 29N, ±1/8 mile south of Dominion Drive. Proposal to locate a forty-
eight (48) unit motel and 1,450 square foot restaurant with pool on 1.124
acres zoned C-1 Commercial, Tax Map 61, Parcel 119, Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the special
permit subject to conditions, and the site plan, subject to conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Lisa Sessoms. She offered no significant
additional comment. She was accompanied by Mr. Moore.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. McClure was present to represent Pat Brown, the owner of the property.
He offered no additional comment.
Mr. William West, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission
He was concerned about the proposed location of the road which was
shown "right up against the adjoining property." He asked that some
protection be provided to ensure that his trees will not be lost or
if they are removed, that they are replaced with suitable screening.
(It was determined the majority of the trees in question were on
Mr. West's property.)
/g 7
May 8, 1984
Page 8
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to comment on Mr. West's reference to a
condition of the original.subdivision plat.
Mr. Keeler quoted the following condition l(g) fromthe original approval:
"Grading permit;with Soil Erosion Committee being mindful of protecting
the existing trees as much aspossible especially in treeline abutting
Berkeley Subdivision and the proposed access easement. This may call for
tree wells for protection.'.' Mr. Keeler explained the particulars of the
grading plan (approved November 1983). He was unsure about the possible
threatto the trees but noted that the grading bond included an amount
for restoration of the trees.
It was determined the site plan did not show any additional plantings between
the road and the property line.
Mr. Michel asked why the road was a private one. Mr. Keeler explained
that had been the approval four years previously. He recalled that
the setbacks required for a public road would have substantially reduced
the developable acreage.
Mr. Bowerman noted there was no public objection to the actual siting of the
hotel.
Mr. Keeler recommended that Mr. West meEt with the County Engineer's
office who would be inspecting the grading.
Dt.Skove stated he agreed with staff that this was a.appropriate use for
the property.,
Mr. Cogan moved that SP-84-20 for Jerome Corporation be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Construction of private road and all commercial entrance improvements as
required under approval of SUB-80-027 Mary Patricia M. Brown.
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.16 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
fir. Keeler then presented the staff report for the Jerome Corporation Motel
Site Plan. Staff reco=ended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Lisa Sessoms. She 'offered no additional
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission-
/Y18
May 8, 1984 Page 9
Regarding -the issue of landscaping between this property and mr. West's
property (Note: Mr. West had presented his comments during the hearing
for the preceding special permit.), Mr. Skove stated he was uncertain as to
how to address Mr. West's concerns. Mr. Bowerman was under the impression
Mr. West's property was to the north of this site and landscaping adjacent
to his property would have to be addressed when "those" site plans are
presented. However, Mr. West pointed out that a condition of approval
for this proposal is the installation of the road and it does show screening
to the west of the road. Mr. Keeler indicated he understood Mr. West's
point and explained: "It does show trees on this property, but on the
subdivision plat those trees would be within the right-of-way and would
not be with any of the individual lots." Mr. Keeler advised: "You may
just want to note this concern for the Board of Supervisors and I think
between now and that time that Mr. McClure, representing Ms. Brown,
Mr. Elrod, Mr. West and I can get together on this. matter...to try to
resolve this question before it gets to the Board."
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt additional plantings would be appropriate,
if there is room for such plantings.
There being no further discussion, Ms. Diehl moved -that the Jerome Corporation
Motel Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Fire Officer approval of dumpster and staff approval of service
alley;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Entrances to motel from private road to be approved by the County
Engineer and Planning staff;
d. County Engineer approval of grading, drainage and stormwater detention
plans and computations.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Fire Officer approval of hydrant iocations and fire flow;
b. Staff .approval of landscape plan to include Albemarle County
Service Authority approval for plant materials to be .located within
easements;
c. Compliance with conditions of approval of SP-84-20.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Ms. Diehl asked that the Board be made aware of the Commission's concern
abmi screening on the remainder of the parcel along the internal road.
SP-84-23 William W. Bailey - Request filed in accordance with Section
17.2.2(11) to locate professional office on }1.09 acres zoned R-10 Residential,
Tax Map 61, Parcel 128, Charlottesville District. Located north side of
Rio Road (Rt. 631), *2,000 feet east of Rt. 29N.
May 8, 1984 Page 10
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Because of the following concerns staff
felt the proposal did not satisfy the criteria for issuance of a special
use permit: (1) The building would not be set back fifty feet (50')
from residential properties; and (2) "In this case, the office use
would be surrounded by residential zoning and development. While office
use is not viewed as incompatible to residential use, approval of this
petition could set precedent for similar requests on adjoining properties."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. William Baxley addressed the Commission. He felt this was the best use
of the land. Because of the ultimate improvements to Rio Road, he felt
the property would not remain designated as residential much longer.
He did not feel the proposal would set a precedent and pointed out that
the front of the Wade property had already been changed to commercial
zoning. He did not believe the addition to the building would be noticable
from the street. He stated the facade of the building would remain very
much the same. He stated he was .unaware of"any opposition from surrounding
properties.
Ms. Lisa Sessoms, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
She briefly described screening plans. She stressed that the proposal
would be much less objectionable than what would result from R-10 development.
She addressed the character of the area and called the Commission's attention
to other commercial uses in the immediate area. She stated the applicant
was agreeable to provA!% screening as recommended by staff and.the limitation
on total square footage was no problem.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Charlotte Ramsey, a realtor representing a neighboring property owner, and
Mr. Wade, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission and expressed
their support for the proposal.
There being no further public comment,the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl stated: "I don't like to see commercial zoning creep out, but, on
the.other hand, I don't see that those several lots are ever going to develop
into any viable R-10 property."
Commissioners Skove and Bowerman indicated they had no objections to the
proposal.
Mr. Skove moved that SP-84-23 for William W. Bailey be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Stockade fencing or similar means of buffering from adjoining residential
areas.
2. Building expansion limited to maximum total floor area of.4,500 square
feet.
IIr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
140
May 8, 1984 Page 11
Request from George Cason for a Wayside Stand
Mr -Bowerman explained that staff was asking the Commission for comments on
Mr. Cason's request for a temporary wayside stand. He pointed out that it was
the Director of Planning's sole responsibility to approve or disapprove the
request. He also stated that though this was not a public hearing on this
item, comments from the public would be accepted.
Mr. Keeler gave a brief report on the issue. He explained that Mr. Cason
was requesting administrative approval for a wayside stand to sell agricul-
tural and horticultural produce. After discussion the matter with Mr.
Tucker, Mr. Cason had sent a letter to the Zoning Administrator asking
for an interpretation as to'what could be sold at this stand.
The stand was to be located on Rt. 29 North and the approval was requested
for a period of 60 days.
Mr. Keeler read the response from the Zoning Administrator (Mr. Tompkins)
which included a definition of "wayside stand" (Section 3 of the Zoning
Ordinance) and his interpretation of the Ordinance. Mr. Tompkins interpreted
that the products offered for sale at such a stand "must be produced on the
owners farm" and cannot be shipped from other locations.
The Chairman allowed comment from Mr. William West, an adjacent property owner
in Berkeley. He stated that since an original administrative approval for
a wayside stand, the operation had grown to become a wayside store with
continuous problems related to sanitation, litter, garbage --with refrigerator
trucks/storage vans, abandoned cars, etc. on the site. He stated that the
operation constituted a nuisance to him and was entirely against the intent
of a wayside stand.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, representing the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation commented on the request. He explained that originally
(one and a half or two years ago) approval of existing access had been
given under administrative approval. Since that time he stated that
difficulty had arisen due to possible site plan approval and it was
realized that it could be the only, or last, opportunity the Highway
Department would have for input on the entrance. He explained, however,
that as a temporary, short-term use, and in consideration of the fact
that there had been no accidents since the operation of the stand began,
the current access was, in his opinion, acceptable.
Commission concerns included the following:
--Sanitation facilities should absolutely be provided for.
--Trash and litter currently on the site must be removed.
--Site must be maintained without trash and litter and returned to
its original state after use.
--The Director of Planning should review the history of violations
on this site, its current appearance as left by applicant and
should look into evidence that the produce to be sold is
generated from a family farm.
161
May 8, 1984
Page 12
--The Zoning Administrator, based on his letter explaining requirement
that product be osmer-grown, .was asked to explain hots this could be
enforced.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the plan showed that the storage building was
30' x 50'. He explained that the supplementary regulations governing
wayside stands state that "structures for wayside stands, including
vehicles, shall not exceed 600 square feet in aggregate floor area."
He stated this was a matter for the Zoning Administrator to address.
Mr. Keeler stressed that "By virtue of showing you this plan we are
not approving 1,500 square feet inside and an additional sales area
outside."
There was a brief discussion about an upcoming joint meeting with the
Board of Supervisors.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
John Horne, Se retary
Recorded by: Stuart Richards
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, 1-89
/�O A