HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 07 89 PC MinutesFebruary 7, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 7, 1989, Auditorium, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Norma Diehl;
Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were:
Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior Planner; and
Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner
Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of January 24, 1989 were approved as
submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Campbell Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to locate a 1.328 square foot addition
to an existing medical office. This development has direct access at State
Route 601. Medical office use is proposed. Property, described as Tax Map
29. Parcel 29 is located on the north side of the intersection of State
Route 601 and State Route 665 in Free Union. Zoned Co, Commercial. White
Hail Magisterial District.
Addition to Jacob's RunAgricultural/Forestal District - No action required,
other than to receive the application from the Board of Supervisors.
Addition to Hardware Agiicultural/Forestal District - No action required, other
than to receive the application from the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that the Consent Agenda be adopted.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-88-99 Steven Sullivan - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(22) of
the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for the
conversion of the old White Hall School building to a country store with
gasoline and other fuel pumps. Property, described as Tax Map 41, Parcel 29
is located on the south side of St. Rt. 614, approximately 1/4 mile east of
its intersection with St. Rt. 810. White Hall Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting deferral to March 7, 1989.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that SP-88-99 for Steven Sullivan
be deferred to March 7, 1989,
The motion passed unanimously.
�-W
February 7, 1989 Page 2
SP-88-114 Village Animal Hospital - Request in accordance with Section 24.2.2(4)
of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for
the expansion of an existing veterinary office. Property, described as Tax Xap
61U, Section 3, Parcel 5A, is located in the Village Office Complex on the
east side of Berkmar Drive between Rt. 29\ and St. Rt. 631 (Rio Road).
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions,
Referring to condition 3 [Approval is specific to property designated '5a,
5b and 5c' as shown on condominium subdivision plat titled 'Village Offices'
located on lots 6 and 7, Berkmar Center, Deed Book 589, page 229 in the
Charlottesville District, dated May 14, 1982, as drawn by William S. Roudabush,
Inc.], Mr. Rittenhouse asked why lots 5b and 5c were. x'ed out on the
plat. Mr. .Keeler explained: "On the attached plat the two x's were to
indicate --this is from a previous report and at that time they were
requesting to occupy 5b and 5c. Now they are proposing to expand into 5a
so they would occupy that entire building."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was first represented by Mr. Andrew Bennenti. He stressed
that particular attention was being paid to noise control because it is
a sensitive issue. He stated the applicant would meet all the requirements
imposed by the County.
Drs. Middleton and Smith addressed the Commission. They explained the
growth of their practice necessitated the request for expansion. They
explained that`an additional kennel run would be added as well as
an addition 20-25 kennel. compartments. He explained that it is
envisioned that half of those will be used for hospitalized animals and
it is requested that permission be given for the other half to
be used for "a specialized boarding for animals that need special care."
(It was determined an outside run would not be necessary.).
Ms. Diehl asked the applicants if they were aware of condition 2 which
included the statement: "....Only animals requiring hospitalization may be
boarded." They responded affirmatively and noted this was the reason
they had brought up the envisioned use of specialized boarding. Dr.
:Middleton explained: "We'd like to be able to board animals that don't
require specific hospital care but usually (as with) older animals
people won't board them because they don't board well in regular kennels."
tlr. Bowerman asked: "Does staff have an opinion on condition 2 whether
only animals requiring hospitalization would be covered? It sounds.like
there's something slightly different."
N,1r. Keeler responded: "This was a condition on the original approval that
has been in place."
February 7, 1989
Page 3
Mr. Bowerman asked: "Do you feel, based on what the applicant has said,
whether that would cover what they are contemplating or not?"
Mr. Keeler replied: "Yes, sir, I think it does. The intent here is that
it not be a commercial kennel."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Keeler stated staff was unaware of
any complaints about the existing clinic.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-88-14 for Village Animal Hospital be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Building Official review to insure compliance with the noise limitations
of Section 5.1.11 of Supplementary Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance:
2. No outside kennels or runs shall be permitted. Only animals requiring
hospitalization may be boarded;
3. Approval is specific to property designated "5a, 5b,.and 5c" as shown on
condominium subdivision plat titled "Village Offices" located on lots
6 and 7, Berkmar Center, Deed Book 589, page 229 in the Charlottesville
District, dated May 14, 1982, as drawn by William S. Roudabush, Inc.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-88-102 Bobby & Barbara Graves - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2(22 & 37) of the -Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use
permit to allow for grocery and garage facility with fuel pumps. Property,
described as Tax Map 69, Parcel 51 is located on the north side of U.S.
Rt. 250 near its intersection with St. Rt. 750. White Hall Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler began by reviewing a memorandum providing general information
on commercial/service uses in the Rural Areas. The memo also introduced
the staff report analysis for this request.
Mr. Keeler then gave the staff report which recommended denial of the
application based on the fact that "County policy does not support unrestricted
development of service uses in the Rural Areas."
Referring to Section 30.5.6.3.1 which authorizes the Commission to reduce
building setback, Ms. Diehl felt two statements in the staff report
were "incompatible," i.e. "All parking facilities shall be located on the
rear side of the structures or buildings" vs. "Parking would berelocated
behind the front building line." Mr. Keeler recalled that this had
been previously interpreted that "to the rear of the building meant
behind the front building." Ms. Diehl stated: "That's not what it says
in the Ordinance to me."
February 7, 1989
Page 4
In relation to the parking question, Mr. Korne recallea a previous application
(Northridge Office Building) where "the parking is not entirely behind the
structure but it's on the front line with the structure, and that, with the
combination of the berming and the landscaping, was how that parking was
approved." Mr. Horne added: "But I don't think that necessarily is a
precedent if the Commission feels, in a particular case, that does not
satisfy what you feel the intent of this district is. It does not
obligate you to use that interpretation of this Code section. I think
you can use it; you have used it in the past; but you don't have to use it."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Roger Willettes. He explained he
represented both the owners of the property (Graves) and the applicant
(Coffey). His comments included the following:
--It is Mr. Coffey's intent to operate the garage facility himself
though he will employ someone else to.operate the store.
--He felt there was no garage facility presently which adequately
serves the area, other than the Ridgeway Market currently
operated by Mr. Coffey.
--He pointed out that staff feels concerns about physical development,
traffic. safety and visual compatibility can be adequately addressed.
--Regarding the parking question, he stated: "Our intent would be to
park any vehicles that were not strictly customers --any parking
would be to the rear of the building --as far as.any vehicles that
would be there for service work or that sort of thing. So we have
no -trouble with .complying with that interpretation."
--He concluded: "This proposal is, we think, in keeping with
good zoning practice because it is not going to adversely impact
the area itself given what's already there."
It was determined Mr. Coffey currently operates a small auto repair business
in this same area.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following members of the Greenwood community addressed the Commission
and expressedtheir opposition to the proposal.: fir. Forbes Reback,
(representing Ron & Donna Ascherman); Mr. Roy Patterson; Mr. Robert Osborne;
Mr. John :Marston; Mr. Rick Breven; and Ms. Gertrude Peyton. Their
reasons for opposition included the following:
--Integrity of the scenic areas overlay district should be :maintained
and commercialization along Rt. 250W should be discouraged.
--Duplication of existing services.
--Will be a detriment to adjacent properties.
--Will change the character of the district.
--Could create a proliferation of commercial development in a rural
area.
Mr. Willettes again addressed the Commission. He
had no intention of doing anything that would have
the area. He called the Commission's attention to
93 signatures of area residents who were in favor
stressed that the applicant
a negative impact on
a petition containing
of the proposal.
-PO/
February 7, 1989
Page 5
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support a variance of the Scenic Highway
Ordinance. She felt that the community's needs were already met by
comparable existing businesses. She stated she could not support the
application.
There was a brief discussion between Mr. Keeler and Mr. Stark about
parking requirements. Mr. Keeler noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals
had disapproved a variance setback under the criteria the BZA uses for
review. He added: "We felt that the Commission could also give some
consideration to the amount of grading that would be required and the
presence in the reservoir watershed. I'm not sure that the BZA discussed
both of those topics."
Mr. Stark stated he was not persuaded that the request should be approved.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-88-102 for Bobby & Barbara Graves be denied.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-88-24 Elsie Chamberlain Larsen - Request in accordance with Section
33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 6.930 acres from R-1 Residential
to C-1, Commercial, with proffer. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel
3 is located on the west side of Alderman Road and south of Midmont Lane.
Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
AND
SP-88-111 Elsie Chamberlain Larsen - Request in accordance with Section 22.2.2 (6 & 7)
of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow
for an inn and residential uses in the C-1 zone. Property, described as
Tax Map 76, Parcel 3 is located on the west side of Alderman Road and
south of Midmont Lane. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave a very detailed staff report which addressed both appli-
cations. The report concluded:
"...staff recommends denial of ZMA-88-28 and SP-88-111. While the
applicant proposes preservation of the historic structure and
contributions towards improved access, staff is of the opinion that
the property is not suitable for the proposed zoning which will
overburden the land necessitating disturbance of critical slopes
and some amount of negative impact on the transportation network.
In addition, some aspects of the commercial use may have an adverse
impact on the adjoining residential neighborhood, at certain times."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to clarify the current status of the planning
for this property as related to the County, City and the University
joint agreement.
a�
February 7, 1989 Page 6
Mr. Horne explained the process by which the 3-way agreement is meant to
work. He explained: "To date the citizens' Advisory Committee has met and
has arrived at their recommendation to the Task Force and that recommendation
is as stated in the staff report, i.e. that it should be no more than
4 dwelling units per acre or housing for 40 to 60 university students with
preservation of the historic character and the environmental characteristics
of the site. That does not constitute, in any way, an official position
by the Planning and Advisory Council which is the 3-way body that must
ultimately decide what the recommendation is. In terms of a University
position, I am also not aware of Any .official University position as to
what they feel is an appropriate land use for the property. Their
representatives on the Task Force have indicated agreement with the Advisory
Committee recommendation. But, in my opinion, that should not be taken in
any way as an official position by the University yet."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by 'sir. Kurt Wassenaar who gave a very lengthy
presentation. He gave some background information on the proposal and explained
that the applicant was concerned about the possibility of the University
developing the property because the University is not bound by any regulations
or any review process. The applicant felt the best way to control development
of the property was through a private development approach. Further, comments
included the following:
--Some errors exist in the topographical analysis.
--It is the applicant's intent NOT to build in critical slope areas.
The applicant believes the site can be developed successfully without
building on critical slopes.
--The applicant is attempting to develop an alternative access because
it is believed that access easements exist to provide an alternative
route along the top eastern edge of the property.
--The proposed guest inn is limited to 30 rooms with facilities available
only to the guests at the inn with some provision for private functions.
A small, private country -type inn is envisioned.
--The residential proposal is intended for graduate students and faculty.
--It is the applicant's proposal to restore "only that part of .the house
which has historic value which dates back to the 1700's."
--The key issue is that "this land is going to 5e developed, either privately
or by UVA." He felt the applicant's proposal was a chance for the
property to be developed in.a sensible and responsible manner under
County control.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Wassenaar stated that if the
topographical analysis (the slope areas) was found to be accurate, it would
result in a reduction in the intensification of the proposal and the.
applicant was prepared for such a possibility.
Mr. Bowerman asked: "Am I correct in believing what's before us tonight is
not a question of the use of this property, or potential use of the property
by the University, that what's before us is a specific request for a rezoning
with the proffers and a special permit for the inn? Are these the actual
items that we are being asked to deal with tonight?"
Mr. Horne responded: "Yes, sir."
M
February 7, 1989
Page 7
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following residents of the community addressed the Commission and
expressed their strong opposition to the proposal: Mr. Hartwell Gary,
who made a lengthy statement and also read a letter of opposition from
Ms. Sue Ford, President of the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Association;
Mr. Peter Munger; Mr. David Westby, representing the University of Virginia
Real Estate Foundation; Mr. Satyendra Huja, Director of Planning and
Community Development for the City of Charlottesville; and Mr. George Snyder.
There reasons for opposition included the following:
--The primary reason dealt with traffic issues and the fact that
the development would create additional traffic hazards on already
greatly overburdened streets.
--Negative impact on existing family neighborhood; there would be
no way to enforce rental restrictions prohibiting rental to
undergraduates.
--Rezoning in the "face" of the University's efforts to coordinate
planning with the City and County would result in an undesirable
precedent.
--The University and the City are opposed to the proposal.
--Development would result in the destruction of an historic site.
In addition, Mr. Gary called the Commission's attention to a petition of oppo-
sition containing 182 signatures.
Mr. Henry Shelton, Vice President of the Lewis Mountain Road Association,
indicated he was in favor of the proposal. He pointed out that this was
a "growth zone" and he felt the proposal was preferable to other
possibilities. He felt the applicant had attempted to come up with a
development that was consistent with the neighborhood.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman noted that he was a number of the 3-party Technical Committee
and was aware of the concerns of all three jurisdictions. He pointed out,
however, that the only issue before the Commission was a rezoning and special
permit and it had to be viewed on the basis of "what's before us and not what
might be before us at sometime in the future." He noted that the staff's
position was clear.
Mr. Stark noted that this property was in his jurisdiction and he had
made himself familiar with the area and the traffic problems. He stated:
"It just doesn't seem to me, and I am not persuaded by the arguments that
it should be done, that it's responsible to convert this from an R1 to a
commercial area for many, many reasons, certainly not the least of which
have been presented tonight by those who object to it."
Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-88-24 and SP-88-111 for Elsie Chamberlain Larsen
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr- Jenkins seconded the motion.
-24'%
February 7, 1989
Page 8
Discussion:
Mr. Horne asked the Chairman if he could direct a question to Mr. Westby.
The Chairman responded affirmatively. Mr. Horne asked Mr. Westby: "You
stated the University's official position was that they were opposed to
this rezoning? Is that authorized by either the Vice President or the
President or some official body where we could get that in writing?
Mr. Westby responded: "Ray Hunt." ti1r. Horne asked: "Ray Hunt instructed
you to come as a representative of the University of Virginia to state
their official position was in opposition to the rezoning?" Mr. Westby
responded: "Their official position is in opposition to the rezoning."
Xr. Horne asked: "So if I need to get that in writing I could get that
from Ray?" ti1r. Westby responded affirmatively.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he could not divorce himself from the 3-party planning
process, i.e. that the County, City and University have made a committment
to jointly plan for the development of certain neighborhoods. He stated
he had to consider the City and University's position, and that, in
conjunction with the traffic issues, rude him support the motion for
denial. He concluded: "Let me state further that my vote is not based
on what the City wants and what the University wants; it's not a majority
vote in my mind that determines my decision. But I do consider it in
our committment also."
The previously -stated motion for denial passed unanimously.
Montdomaine Winery - Request for Extension of Temporary Trailer - Request for
extension for office trailer to be temporarily used for an office and public
wine -tasting area. The present approval expires on February 18, 1989, The
extension is requested until August 20, 1990, a period of five (5) years from
the original date of approval. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report explained that though the
applicant had received approval of a special use permit for the permanent
use, the site plan approval has not been pursued for the following reasons:
"(1) Awaiting the proper timing and development in terms of financial
planning; and (2) Planning a new entrance location directly from Rt. 20,
in coordination with the entrance planned for Kluge's Carriage Museum and
Competition." The staff report explained the staff's position as follows
"Although almost three and one-half years have elapsed since the original
approval with no approved permanent site development plan, staff wishes to
be supportative of the bona fide agricultural industry. As the Commission
well aware, this support has been considered a major goal for the rural
areas. However, staff emphasizes that with this approval it be understood
the applicant that no further extension_ will be granted. It is incumbent
upon the applicant to proceed in good faith and due course to receive plan
approval for the permanent structure." Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
It was determined the applicant was requesting an 18-month extension.
is
by
February 7, 1989
Page 9
Mr. Michel felt this was an 'odd" request because a second extension is
normally less than 18 months.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Layne Witherell who explained that
the approval of the Kluge Carriage Museum had resulted in the necessity
for a new entrance.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Request for an Extension of the Temporary Trailer
for Montdomaine Winery be approved.
Mr. Stark -seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Michel stated he would not support the motion because he was
uncomfortable with the "five-year situation."
Ms. Diehl stated that though she agreed with Mr. Michel, she felt there
were extenuating circumstances in this case. Mr. Rittenhouse also agreed.
The motion for approval passed 5:1 with Mr. Michel casting the dissenting
vote.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
DS