HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 07 1991 PC MinutesNOVEMBER 7, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Thursday, November 7, 1991, Meeting Room 7,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman;
Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and
Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner;
and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
October 22, 1991 were approved as submitted.
ZMA-89-09 Rio Hill West - Proposal to rezone 9.198 acres
from R-6, Residential to R-15, Residential. Property,
described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 29B (part), 91, 92 (part),
93A1,and 109C, is located on the west side of Berkmar Drive
at its intersection with Woodbrook Drive in the
Charlottesville Maisterial District. This site is located
in a designated growth area and is recommended for High
Density Residential. Deferred from October 15, 1991
Commission Meeting.
Mr. Fritz distributed some revised pages and then presented
the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request
for the following reasons: (1) Lack of a development plan
which leaves many issues related to traffic volumes, access
points, utilities, and Ordinance provisions unresolved; (2)
Site is within the alignment of the Alternative 10 Bypass;
and (3) The rezoning is purely speculative and the site
currently has reasonable usage.
Mr. Keeler stressed that staff's primary concern is not with
the "speculative" nature of the request, but rather with the
fact that many of staff's concerns have not been addressed
by the applicant.
In response to Mr.Johnson's question, Mr. Fritz explained
the zoning history of the property, i.e. it was changed from
HC to R-6 because the Comprehensive Plan called for
"properties to the west of Berkmar" to be residential. Mr.
Keeler added that with the adoption of the most recent plan,
the property had been designated for high density.
It was determined the property in question is the "residue"
from the property which was purchased by the County for the
new elementary school (Agnor-Hurt).
In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Fritz pointed out
the alignment of the Alternative 10 Bypass.
Mr. Johnson noted that the development could potentially add
825 vehicle trips/day onto Rt. 29 (via Woodbrook Rd.).
11-7-91 2
Mr. Fritz noted that all adjacent properties are presently
zoned R-5.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton and Mr.
Bill Stevenson (owner). Mr. Melton's comments included the
following:
--The area is intended for high density residential on
the Land Use Map thus this request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
--The Walmart and Sam's development removed 9+ acres of
R-15 property.
--Traffic impact on Woodburn Road will be a high
priority item in planning for the site.
--The most feasible location for a main entrance to the
site will be at the intersection of Woodbrook Road and
Berkmar Drive.
--Traffic and access concerns can be addressed by the
site plan.
--It is premature to do a development plan until the
desired zoning has been achieved.
--The County still has control over how the property is
developed, even after the rezoning.
--There is no intention to develop the site
immediately; development will proceed when the economy and
apartment vacancy rate so justifies.
--The Alternative 10 alignment crosses school property
and a cemetery and the applicant therefore feels it is
highly unrealistic.
Mr. Stevenson, owner of the parcel extending to Woodburn
Road, addressed the Commission. He distributed to the
Commission a document which verified that the Board of
Supervisors had agreed to "help with easements and sight
distances for an entrance." He noted that tying of his
property with the property that extends to Berkmar would
"cut traffic flow in half onto Woodburn." He noted that the
Alternative 10 alignment had been prepared before the school
site had been selected.
Ms. Huckle asked why the applicant was proposing a rezoning
at this time if development is not planned. Mr. Stevenson
indicated that seeking approval now will cut down on "lead
time" when it does become economically feasible to develop
the property.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Keeler pointed out the location of R-15 areas in the 29
11-7-91
3
North area. He also noted that the Board of Supervisors has
never endorsed the Alternative 14 alignment and has not
given any instructions to staff in terms of land use
proposals.
Mr. Jenkins asked why the rezoning should not be approved
since the Comprehensive Plan now recommends this property
for high density development. Mr. Keeler noted that the
Plan has other recommendations such as controlling traffic
on Woodburn Road. He stated that there are several
inexpensive ways by which that issue could be addressed by
the applicant (e.g. an easement to Woodburn Road, or
combining the property all into one tract), but the
applicant has not addressed it at this point.
Ms. Huckle indicated she felt the the best time to rezone
the property would be when the market indicated there was a
demand for high density residential. She felt the request
was premature at this time since no site plan was presented
and there are many unanswered questions.
Mr. Keeler noted that staff was not asking for a detailed
plan which would showing buildings, etc., but rather a plan
that reflects the traffic study which the applicant
submitted.
Mr. Johnson suggested that at some point in the future it
may be more desirable to have the traffic exit onto Woodburn
(with improvements) rather than Rt. 29. He felt this area
is in a state of "flux" and would probably continue to be so
for some time.
Mr. Johnson agreed with Ms. Huckle that the proposal was
Premature. He noted no substantial changes since the
property was originally zoned.
Mr. Rittenhouse quoted from the staff report: "No plan has
been submitted which shows how access to Woodburn would be
accomplished and it is impossible to insure that traffic
will not exceed the figures indicated by the traffic
study.... Without a plan limiting access from Woodburn Road
this request cannot be verified as consistent with the
statements of the Comprehensive Plan." He concluded that he
was in agreement with staff's assessment of the proposal.
Ms. Andersen moved that ZMA-89-09 for Rio Hill West be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on
the reasons stated in the staff report (and listed on page 1
of these minutes).
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
11-7-91
4
SP-91-58 Clifton - Petition to amend SP-87-49 in order to
permit a 14 room bed and breakfast and a 24-seat restaurant
[10.2.2(27)] on 10.1 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 79, Parcels 23B and 23C, is located on
the east side of Rt. 729 approximately 0.4 miles south of
Rt. 250 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is
not located within a designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Johnson felt that conditions No. 3 and No. 1 were in
conflict since luncheons are allowed under No. 1 but No. 3
restricts operating hours from 6 p.m. to 11 P.M. He
of No. 3.
suggested that the word "normal" be added at the beginning
(It was agreed Mr. Johnson's concern was
legitimate and later in the meeting condition No. 3 was
amended to reflect this concern.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steven Boehmfeldt. His
comments included the following:
--The current application will significantly reduce the
"requirements, restrictions and conditions,,the original permit. set forth with
--The applicant's efforts have been very rigorous and
thorough to protect the integrity and historical value of
Clifton.
--Clifton has both a State and a National Historical
Landmark designation.
--Clifton should not be compared to a large hotel.
Most departmental agencies (including inspection
departments) now recognize that this type of Proerty
be monitored somewhat differently than large restauranthandd
hotel properties.
--Removing vegetation from the property would be very
detrimental.
--All conditions of the 1989 permit have been
fulfilled, i.e. VDOT requirements, handicapped access,
parking requirements, Health Department requirements and
restaurant requirements.
Mr. Boehmfeldt asked that the Commission delete the
requirement for widening and paving of the travelway and
parking area (condition No. 6).
Mr. Keeler interjected that staff would be agreeable to
changing the recommendation from a 20 foot travelway to a 14
foot travelway (allowed by the Private Roads provisions).
He stated, however, that staff still recommends that paving
be required in accordance with parking standards because
staff has "not recommended waiver of (those standards) in
11-7-91
5
any case." He cautioned the Commission about the issue of
precedent because "nobody wants to pave." Mr. Keeler noted
that paving the travelway would result in less need for
ditching and thereby more trees could be saved.
This request for deletion of Condition No. 6 was discussed
in great detail. ["Staff approval of plan indicating a
minimum of 20 parking spaces, a minimum 20 foot access road
and improvements to the access ways and parking areas in
accord with Section 4.12.6.3.] The staff's recommendations
were based on traffic volumes which had been computed using
the ITE Manual's figures for a Business Hotel which was the
closest definition to the Clifton business. (The figures
presented in the staff report were 861 vt/week for the
current use with the proposed use resulting in a 17%
reduction in those figures (712 vt/week). The applicant
felt the figures were excessive. He estimated that actual
vehicle trips were closer to 300 vt/week. Both staff and
the applicant stated that two cars could NOT pass on the
existing travelway (which is 10-12 feet wide) and there was
no room for a car to pull over to the side because of
existing trees. (Mr. Johnson explained that he had visited
the site and he disagreed that two cars could not pass.) The
applicant explained that he was not aware of any problems
which have ever occurred as a result of the existing
travelway. He expressed concern that alteration could
jeopardize the historic designation of the site. Mr. Fritz
stated that a few small trees would have to be removed to
widen the travelway to 14 feet. Ms. Huckle stated that she
had attended a large wedding reception at the Inn and had
not been aware of any traffic problems. (She recalled that
a one-way road had been approved by the Board for a school,
even though it was too narrow to accommodate rescue
vehicles. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the Commission had
recommended denial of that request.) Ms. Huckle did not
think the County should "resort to overkill in this case."
Ms. Huckle expressed the fear that widening the road would
result in the deaths of many of the trees as a result of
their roots having been disturbed.
It was determined the entrance had been moved and upgraded
in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation
requirements and there is room for two vehicles at the
entrance (and 50 feet beyond).
Mr. Boehmfeldt noted that there had been no requirement to
widen the road with the previous approval for a 50 seat
restaurant which was a more intense use than is presently
proposed. (NOTE: Mr. Keeler explained that the original
conditions had included site plan approval and that had
never been achieved. The road width issue would have been
addressed at that time. The applicant explained that the
owner at that time was under the impression that site plan
approval had been achieved because issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy was tied to site plan approval and Certificates
a
11--7-91
of Occupancy were issued.] Mr. Fritz added that the
applicant had "thought he was complying" but technically he
did not have a site plan approval. Staff is now trying to
"get it all squared away with this application." Staff
stated the use has not been cited for zoning violations but
there are some issues which are not clear.
The applicant asked that the Commission be sensitive to the
historical nature and ambiance of the property. He stressed
that a tremendous amount of vegetation would be altered by a
widening of the travelway.
Regarding the issue of paving, Mr. Fritz referred to Sec.
4.12.6.3 which requires paving if traffic is in excess of
350 vehicle trips/week. He added that the County Engineer
does have some flexibility in terms of the type of surface
treatment. Ms. Huckle questioned the need for paving the
road. She felt paving could damage the trees. Mr. Johnson
noted that paving of a 14-foot travelway would require
preparation of a minimum 20 foot width. (Mr. Rittenhouse
noted that the road in question was not a State road.)
Mr. Keeler explained that the paving specifications are
derived from the Private Road provisions and are the result
of an effort to "put everybody on the same plane... because
nobody wants to pave." He explained that the traffic
generated by this use is equivalent to a 10-lot subdivision.
He stated that if the Commission feels the 350 vehicle trip
provision is too low, then it should amend the Ordinance,
but "it is in the Ordinance and if you start waiving it here
and there then it is no longer a requirement. It depends on
who is in front of you and what type of argument they are
presenting."
The discussion then centered on the accuracy of the vehicle
count. The applicant continued to argue that even at 100%
occupancy 200 vt/week would be more realistic.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt staff's point regarding the
implementation of the Ordinance was a valid one, i.e. that
you cannot "pick and choose" when to implement the
Ordinance. He summarized that the main issue was
discrepancy regarding the traffic volume because it is the
traffic count computed by staff which results in the
requirement for the upgrading of the road and paving of the
parking area. He stated that he would be more comfortable
9
11-7-91 7
with the issue if there were some basis for considering the
applicant's representation that the traffic count is
considerably below 350 vt/week. He felt it was important to
maintain the integrity of the Ordinance. He concluded he
would prefer to "reconcile the traffic generation and apply
that to the Ordinance to see where we stand."
Mr. Fritz confirmed that if the vehicle count were less than
350 vt/week, the section of the Ordinance requiring
upgrading of the road "would not kick in."
Ms. Huckle noted that she was always in favor of strict
adherence to the Ordinance. However, she felt this case was
"unique" given the national historic significance of the
structure and, therefore, she did not think precedence was
an issue.
Mr. Johnson noted that not only is the structure unique, the
use is not specifically covered in the Ordinance. He
pointed out that the use has been working this way for a
long time with no problems and making significant changes
will involve "true engineering and construction problems."
He suggested that the request be approved as proposed by
staff with the deletion of No. 6 and an amendment to No. 3.
Ms. Huckle pointed out that no one really knows what the
traffic count is.
For that reason Mr. Rittenhouse wondered if the item should
be deferred rather than approved based on a "perception" of
what the traffic volume is. He suggested that the applicant
could present documentation to substantiate his estimated
computations.
Mr. Johnson stated: "We have the best evidence there
is --it's been working this way for years with no problems."
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that future applicants could use
that same argument --"it's working --don't make me do it.''
Mr. Rittenhouse stressed that he was in favor of historic
preservation, but he was also in favor of Ordinances.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that staff had computed the traffic
count to be more than twice "where the Ordinance kicks in,"
yet the Commission is considering setting the issue aside.
The applicant noted that the Virginia Department of
Transportation had determined in 1989 that a 100-foot taper
lane was not necessary because of the traffic computation,
which was under 350.
11-7-91
8
Mr. Rittenhouse felt the applicant should be able to
substantiate some alternate method of computation other than
just "I think it's less." He felt it was incumbent upon any
applicant to substantiate information which is significantly
in conflict with information available to staff. He stated
he would be willing to consider such information and
suggested that the item be deferred until better traffic
generation data could be presented.
Mr. Fritz noted that the applicant has requested an
accelerated review schedule. It is scheduled for the Board
on November 13th.
Mr. Keeler noted that if the applicant can present traffic
count information which is verifiable, then the need for
paving would automatically be deleted (if the count was
below 350).
There was some attempt to try to figure out if the
applicant's computations were accurate. Estimates were based
on the occupancy of the rooms. Mr. Keeler pointed out that
there is also daily traffic from the restaurant to be
factored in which could be at full capacity even if all the
rooms are vacant. In response to Mr. Keeler's question, the
applicant stated that the restaurant was not limited to
overnight guests only.
Mr. Johnson stated: "I would like to sugggest, based on two
factors---(1) no historical problems; and (2) information
presented by the applicant --we do not consider that this
section of the Ordinance kicks in. We consider it below the
350 figure."
Ms. Huckle asked if approval could be granted
"conditionally" based on the receipt of the applicant's
documentation.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would not be comfortable with such
an approach because all evidence should be reviewed before
action is taken.
Mr. Jenkins asked if it was realistic to think that the
applicant could provide valid data before the Board hearing
on the 13th.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the accelerated review had
been at the applicant's request and was not the normal
schedule.
The applicant stated that he could present information
supporting the statement that the inn has not exceeded 35%
occupancy during the last 6 years with the exception of
October (the busiest month) which has not exceeded 60%.
11-7-91
�7
Mr. Jenkins asked if the item could be passed on to the
Board with approval based on the applicant's belief that the
vehicle trips are less than 350 vt/week.
Mr. Rittenhouse reminded the Commission that the process is
supposed to be that the Commission and staff digest all the
information and then pass the request on to the Board with
an action based on that information. What is being
suggested is that a recommendation be passed on without all
the information having been seen. He noted that "gaps" are
built into the schedule to allow this kind of "back and
forth." He pointed out that the Commission sometimes makes
negative recommendations and then the applicant does more
work and presents additional information at the Board
hearing which results in a favorable action by the Board.
However, this accelerated schedule requested by the
applicant does not allow time for that to take place.
Ms. Huckle again suggested that approval could be
conditioned on the applicant's presenting documtation to
support his contention of less than 350 vt/week to staff
before the Board hearing.
Mr. Rittenhouse: "We would be going to great lengths to
satisfy an applicant for a one -week turn around period."
Mr. Jenkins noted that the request could be denied based on
a lack of information.
Mr. Rittenhouse emphasized that he was supportive of the
idea. He stated: "I would like to see the parking lot and
driveway not paved --I would feel better if it were 14 feet
and not 12---but I would also like to see some basis for
allowing it not to be paved other than the fact that I would
like it not to be paved." He again brought up the issue of
precedent and noted that there had to be a clear rationale
for differentiating this application from others other than
the fact that "we like the way it looks."
Ms. Huckle wondered why paving is so desirable because it
was her belief that paving, once it starts to breakdown, is
much worse than a gravel road, plus it does not allow
recharge to groundwater.
Mr. Johnson recalled that the Commission had recommended a
gravel parking area for the Fire House recently approved at
the Glenmore development.
Mr. Keeler suggested a different approach which would result
in the Commission's concerns being addressed, i.e. that
Condition 6 be changed to read "Planning Commission approval
N
11-7-91 10
of site plan." He explained: "And we'll bring it back to
you as a site plan waiver so they don't have to get an
engineered site plan just to address this issue. That would
give the applicant time to get his figures together and
this can go to the Board next week." He explained further
that conditions 6, 4, and 2 basically replace a site plan
requirement.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-91-s8 for Clifton be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Approval is limited to 14 rooms for overnight travellers
and a 24-seat restaurant. Except for lodging guests and
occasional luncheons, wedding receptions, cocktail parties
and the like, restaurant usage is limited to not more than
twenty-four (24) diners per evening, and such 24 diners
shall be seated during those hours set forth in condition
No. 3.
2. Building and Fire official approval.
3. Hours of operation for the restaurant shall be from 6
p.m. to 11 p.m. except for occasional activities outlined in
Condition No. 1.
(It was determined breakfast was understood as a part
of a Bed & Breakfast establishment and need not be
specifically mentioned.)
4. Health Department approval.
5. Completion of entrance improvements to obtain necessary
sight distance.
6. Planning Commission approval of site plan.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Johnson stated: "My vote in favor of passing it on was
done in order to get action on it, but I am still opposed to
any Condition 6, either as originally written or as
modified. It is superfluous and contrary to the general
historical aspects of this property. There should be no
changes to what is out there now. ... I looked at it myself;
I don't need to see a site plan."
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
8:40 p.m.
V. Wayne ilimberg, c etary
DB