HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 06 89 PC MinutesJuly 6, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, July 6, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom
Jenkins; Mr. Peter Stark; and Mr. Harry Wilkerson. Other officials
present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Rich
Tarbell, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator; and
Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners
Diehl and Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of June 20, 1989 were approved
as submitted.
SP-89-4.9 Phil & Mary Sheridan - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2(28) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use
permit to allow a 14 lot resort community subdivision in the
rural areas. Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcels 33A, 338, is
located on the west side of St. Rt. 810, access on the west side of Rt.
673. White Hall Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-89-49 for Phil & Mary
Sheridan be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-89-50 Willoughby East Joint Venture - 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 a pond in the floodplain of Moores Creek. Property.
described as Tax Map 76M(1), Parcel 2B is located on the east side of
Fifth Street Extended (Rt. 631) in the Willoughby Corporate Park.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-89-50 for Willoughby
East Joint Venture be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-89-42 Marion R. Buswell - Request in accordance with Section 5.2
(12.2.2(12)) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use
permit to allow for a home occupation, Class B, on property zoned VR,
Village Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 84G,
is located on the west side of Rt. 678, approximately 3/10 mile north of
the intersection of Rt. 250W and Rt. 678 (Owensville Road). Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report.
�D
July 6, 1989 Page 2
In addition to the staff report, Mr. Tarbell summarized a memorandum
from Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, related to Home Occupations,
Mr. Bowerman asked tics. Patterson: "Are you saying that what should be for
sale is the expertise of the individual offering the design service and
nothing else --other things manufactured.by someone else and advertised
separately by those manufacturers cannot be sold?"
Ms. Patterson responded: "Not exactly. It's one of those ambiguities.
Clearly if it is handcrafted it is permitted. The question has arisen
'At what point is it determined sales under that section.of the
Ordinance?' .., As long as all the components of a sale are not there in
a sort of retail nature (display or showroom and the money and product
change hands there), then if it's just accessory to the service of the
consulting for the decoration of.the home, then even non -handcrafted
items would be permitted as long as all these conditions are present.
That would be something that would be ordered through a catalog not made
by the applicant but as part of her consulting.... What's real important
is to distinguish between what is necessary as part of the service or
home occupation and what becomes a general retail store that truly
is more appropriate as commercial zoning. These three conditions, in
my opinion, for this type of use, are necessary for it not to be a
commercial use that would not be a home occupation."
It was determined the applicant was not aware of the Zoning Administrator's
definition prior to the public hearing.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Buswell addressed the Commission. She explained the nature of her
business and stated it was her intention to "divide the business and
bring home only the consulting part of it." She stated she was requesting
approval for the use of her guest cottage because there was not room
available in her home. She stated her business was totally by appointment
only, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. She explained a
reason for wanting to divide the business was because of the interruptions
which occur as a result of carrying on the consulting business out of the
retail store. She explained that deliveries are made to either the retail
store or a warehouse at Allied Van Lines. She stressed that she never
had more than two or three appointements a day and offered past business
calendars as proof. She stressed that she did not keep an inventory
of goods, but only samples, e.g. fabrics, wallpaper, etc.
Ms. Buswell was also represented by her attorney, Mr. tray Clark. He made
a lengthy statement, much of which was repetitious of Ms. Buswell's
statements. He stressed that the applicant wishes to preserve the rural
character of her home and will not be selling a retail product. He
pointed out that if the applicant was proposing to operate from her dwelling
she would be able to do so by -right and the special permit is required
only because she wishes to use a detached structure. He read into the
record eight letters of support for the application.
,Yl
July 6, 1989 Page 3
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their
support for the application: Ms. Bessie Lundine and Mr. William McGhee.
They stressed that most of the applicant's business is conducted at
clients' homes and that there would be very little additional traffic.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Buswell if she understood the Zoning Administrator's
interpretation of "home occupation." Ms. Buswell indicated she thought
she understood but asked for further clarification of the statement
"No display of sales items." Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Patterson if
sample items were excluded. Ms. Patterson responded that, in her
opinion, this meant no display of the "entire item," e.g. pieces of
furniture or whole rolls of wallpaper. Mr. St. John added that what
was being referred to was an "on —site inventory," i.e. something that
would not be selected from a catalog.
Ms. Buswell asked for a clarification of parking and entrance requirements.
She felt they were somewhat ambiguous.
The public hearing continued.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their
opposition to the proposal:
--Mr. Julius Barrymore: Mr. Barrymore read deed restrictions which
applied to the applicant's property. Said restrictions disallowed any
commercial enterprise on the said property. Though Mr. Bowerman explained
that it was not a Commission function to enforce deed restrictions, rather
that was a matter for the courts, Mr. Barrymore felt strongly that the
Commission should consider these restrictions when making their decision.
Mr. St. John confirmed the Chairman's statement and added that "The
police power of the County does not authorize the County to enforce
private restrictions." He explained further that should the Commission
choose to approve the application, then any private citizen would
have the right to go to court to seek enforcement of the deed restrictions
and the Commission's action would have no weight, one way or the other,
in that decision.
--Mr. Timothy Collie: He was opposed because he felt catalog sales
on the premises were a clear violation of the Class B home occupation
which allows the sale of items which have been handcrafted on the premises.
He also felt traffic would increase and he disagreed that all deliveries
would be made at the client's home. Mr. Collie also expressed concern
about the adequacy of the parking area and whether or not it would be
paved. (Mr. Tarbell explained that parking adequacy would be a determination
for the Zoning Administrator to make before final approval of the plan.)
--Mr. Edward Barker
--Mr. Frank Edwards
--Mr. Randy Hock
--Mr. Richard Thompson
--Mr. Cornelius Horgan
--Ms. Billy Easton
Additional reasons for opposition included: Will change the character
of the residential neighborhood and concerns about increased traffic
and resulting danger to neighborhood children.
d/I
July 6, 1989
Page 4
Mr. Hock also called the Commission's attention to a petition of
opposition containing the signatures of 76 persons.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
M.r. Rittenhouse asked the applicant to comment on.the frequency of
deliveries. Ms. Buswell responded that most deliveries are made to
a warehouse at Allied Van Lines with approximately two fabric deliveries
per week being made at the business.
Ms. Buswell stressed that the existing retail part of her business will
remain in.town and only the consulting business will be conducted
at home. She confirmed that materials that are delivered are samples,
not merchandise for sale.
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question about a sign, Ms. Buswell
explained that a sign would be placed on the cottage itself in order
to direct clients, but there would be no sign on the highway and
business would be conducted by appointment only. .
Mr. Jenkins asked if it was correct that the applicant could do what
she is proposing by -right if she were actually planning to use her
home. Ms. Patterson explained that this is considered a Class B
home occupation because it would not take place in the main residence.
She continued.that if the proposal were for the business to be
conducted in the primary residence, with only family members as
employees, it would be a Class A occupation and could be approved
administratively without notice to adjacent property owners.
Mr. Bowerman stated that though he was sympathetic to the applicant, he
felt the arguments from the opposition were persuasive. He stated he
felt it was clear that this was an "on -going commercial activity" and
he did not feel that was what was contemplated with a Class B home
occupation. He also felt the proposed use could possible change the
character of the neighborhood. He.concluded he could not support the
application.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would take the opposite position because he
could not differentiate this from a cottage industry which he felt
could be an on-going.commercial endeavor. He felt this would likely be
a less intensive use than an on -going cottage industry. He stated
he was inclined to support the application and added that he felt
the access from ,the subdivision, road was not warranted. He felt maintaining
the access "as is" would have less impact on the neighborhood because it
would keep the business activity separate.
Mr. Stark indicated he was somewhat "on the fence" though he was leaning
to opposing the request because of the neighborhood opposition and.the
question of safety.
//9
July 6, 1989 Page 5
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt what was contemplated with a cottage
industry is something that grows and moves out of its original establish-
ment and not the reverse as seems to be the case here, where a
commercial establishement is moving back to a residence. He felt
that was in conflict with the intent of the ordinance.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that this would not be an issue if the
applicant was proposing to operate from her primary residence.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he was in agreement with Mr. Bowerman and added
that with a Class A occupation more would be done to insure that
there is less traffic flow coming through the home than if the
business is in another structure. He also noted that he could
not support this proposal if it were in his own neighborhood and
therefore he would not support it in someone else's.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-89-42 for Marion R. Buswell be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed (4:1) with Mr. Rittenhouse
casting the dissenting vote.
SP-89-46 James & Muriel Foley - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(7)
and 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a special
use permit to allow for a day care facility to be located on 2.133 acres
zoned RA, Rural Area. Property described as Tag Map 20, Parcel 205 is
located on the -south side of Wisteria Drive in the North Pines Subdivision
off of St. Rt. 606. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Foley addressed the Commission. She explained that it was her intent
to care for seven children, which falls under the 6-to-9 category in
the Ordinance. She pointed out that because she picks up a number of
the children, the traffic impact will be even less. It was determined
that currently all the children are from outside the neighborhood but
from time to time neighborhood children have been included and
will be in the future. She also stressed that rarely will all children
be present at the same time.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-89-46 for James & Muriel Foley be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condi-
tions:
1. Enrollment is limited to nine children.
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
IVIf
July 6, 1989 Page 6
3. Virginia Department of Health review and approval of septic system
for additional demand.
4. Staff approval of revised road maintenance agreement.
Air. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-89-47 David & Joseph Wood (_James Garth) - Request in accordance
with Section 22.2.2(8) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a
special use permit to.allow for auto rentals and sales on .828 acres
zoned C-1, Commercial. Property described as Tax Map 6.1X-12-1H, is
located on the west side of Rt. 29 at its intersection with
Dominion Drive (St. Rt. 851).. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff did not support the request
for the following reasons:
1. An auto dealership/rental use adjacent to Berkeley would be contrary to
the Comprehensive Plan effort to encourage compatible commercial
development in areas adjacent to Berkeley, Woodbrook & Carrsbrook which
are proposed for Community Service Areas.
2. An auto dealership/rental could change the character of the
entrance to the residential areas served by Dominion Drive.
3. Though not in a HUD -designated flood zone, this property has been
subject to flooding in the past and in the Flood hazard Zone, "storage
of machinery and vehicles except as accessory to a permitted use"
is prohibited.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. James Garth addressed the Commission. He stated he had chosen this
property because of its accessability. He felt his proposed use would
be an improvement to the property. He explained his proposed use as
an "exotic used car facility and limousine service."
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following residents of the Berkeley neighborhood expressed their
opposition to the proposal: Mr. George Stovall; fir. Dick Swistock
(representing the Church of Incarnation whose parish house is located
in Berkeley); and Xs. Louise Fernandez. Their reasons for opposing
the proposal were: Increased traffic; increased noise; lighting
pollution.
Air. Keeler called the Commission's attention to a:letter of opposition
from, Ms. Joan Graves, a resident of Berkeley.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Commissioners Bowerman and Rittenhouse indicated they agreed with staff's
evaluation of the request.
115
July b, 1989
Page 7
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that SP-89-47 for David & Joseph Wood (James Garth)
be recommended .to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Albemarle Driving Center - JWK Properties, Inc. Preliminary Plan - Proposal
to construct a carriage museum of 55,152 square feet and a.carriage
competition course on 725 acres. Development is to be served by 140
parking spaces, and a primary entrance with one emergency exit. A
sewage treatment plart and central well will be constructed. Property,
described as Tax Map 113, Parcels 20, 21, 33A, and 37D, is located
on the east side of Rt. 20 South at Carter's Bridge. zoned RA, Rural
Areas with SP-87-81 and SP-87-98. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Staff noted that all revisions requested by staff had been made by the
applicant with the exception of one, i.e. the deletion of one of the
two intersections of Road B and Road C near the main visitor parking.
The report explained: "It is staff's position that the use of one as
opposed to two intersections, reduces conflict points and confusion to
travellers."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Charles Stick. (Several other
representatives of the applicant were also present but did not address
the Commission.) Mr. Stick stated that one of the two intersections
would be deleted, as requested by staff, and "we will comply with the
concerns of the Engineering Department."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Albemarle Driving Center - JWK Properties,
Inc. Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Revision of intersections of internal circulation in accordance
with Planning & Engineering recommendations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage
plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans
and calculations;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit;
f. Department of Engineering approval of dam designs and calculations;
g. Compliance with all Federal, State, and local permit requirements
pertaining to the disturbance, relocation, or alteration of any
perennial stream;
h. Central well and sewerage system approvals;
#41
July 6, 1989 Page 3
i. Fire Officer approval;
j. Planning staff approval of landscape plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Final Fire,Officer approval.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Somerset Farms Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal to create 24 lots
from 2 existing parcels totalling 403.2.acres. An internal public road
is proposed to serve these lots. Properties, described as Tax Map 91,.
Parcels 18 and 19A, are located on the east side of Rt. 20S,
approximately 2000 feet north of the intersection.of.Rt. 742 and Rt. 20.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler informed the. Commission that the applicant had .agreed to
a deferral in order for the proposal to go back through site review.
Mr. Rick Carter, counsel for the applicant, confirmed that the applicant
was willing to go back through site review on the matter of the top lots.
Mr. Stark moved that the Somerset Farms Preliminary Subdivision Plat
be indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Discussion:
There was a brief discussion on what was expected of the applicant.
Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant would need to submit 14 fresh
sets of plans with all information included on the plan. sir. Carter
expressed some confusion about what was being asked. He stated the
applicant did not want to 're -invent the wheel" for what has already
been reviewed. Mr. Bowerman explained that the net set of plans would
"have to show everything, but if you don't change anything at the
bottom that's already been through review, there should be no changes
to that, but the whole thing has to go through site review." Mr.
Keeler also pointed out that he recalled that a couple of lots
at the bottom still had not had soil studies submitted.
Marshall's Gara a Site Plan Amendment - Mr. Tarbell explained that staff
was requesting administrative approval of the applicant's request to
perform a minimum amount of grading in critical slope areas. He confirmed
that the grading involved was not substantial.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that staff be granted
administrative approval of the Marshall's Garage Site Plan Amendment.
The motion passed unanimously.
July 6, 1989
Page 9
Briarwood Subdivision Phasing Plan - Mr. Keeler presented a brief
staff report. The report explained that "the applicant is proposing a
subphasing of the 80 lots proposal approved in 1988. The first phase
would consist of 28 lots & the applicant proposes to meet all conditions
of the 1988 approval with the exception of bonding for construction of
Briarwood Drive throughout its full length." Mr. Keeler explained that
the requirement for bonding would be re -introduced with the 29th lot.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that staff was trying to revive the development
and felt there was nothing to be gained by trying to re -impose the
bond at this time. Mr. Keeler also explained that this had been
brought to the Commission's attention because it was an explicit con-
dition of the zoning and it is simply being deferred for these 28 lots.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to what had happened to the
bond, Mr. Keeler explained that it had been inadvertently released.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Wood if it was his intention to re -install the
bond as soon as the 28 lots were complete. Mr. Wood replied: "We are
either going to re -Instate the bond or ask for a total re -hearing of
the tghole PUD to delete the bonding requirement." (Mr. Wood then
corrected himself and stated he had not meant to "delete" the bond but
rather to defer it.) He continued: "We will be building in the area
of these current roads up to lot number 336 before we start back on
the extension of Briarwood Drive." He confirmed that the point at
which a change in the PUD would be sought would be when the 336 threshold is
reached.
No action was required of the Commission.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30.
DS
M