Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 16 90 PC MinutesOCTOBER 16, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 16, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, VA. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of October 2, 1990 were approved as submitted. Mr. Rittenhouse advised the Commission that the School Board has requested that a member of the Commission serve on the Long Range Planning Oversite Committee for the Department of Education. He asked the Commissioners to consider this request with the representative to be designated at the October 23rd meeting. ZMA-90-11 and SP-90-68 Caleb Stowe „.(applicant), Ednam House Limited Partnership owner - The applicant is seeking to amend ZMA-84-12 to allow uses permitted under Section 17.2.2(11) on 1.89 acres zoned R-10, Residential with proffers. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A1 is located on the south side of Worthington Drive in Ednam. Property is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial Dsitrict. The property is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was recommending denial of both the ZMA and the SP. The staff report summarized: "Staff is unable to identify any change in circumstance which warrants amendment of the previous proffers. Approval of this request may result in additional traffic, the possible need for additional parking, and additional employees which could change the character of the district. Setbacks from residential lots are not in keeping with the setbacks required in the CO, Commercial Office district and screening would be difficult due J/ October 16, 1990 Page 2 to the size of the existing structures. Available parking is limited and limited areas exist for the provision of additional parking area which would meet setback requirements and allow for screening." However, in the event the Commission chose to approve the application, staff offered conditions of approval for the Special Permit and also recommended acceptance of the applicant's proffers for the rezoning. Mr. Fritz called the Commission's attention to a document he had just received from the Ednam Homeowner's Association. Said document was a resolution supporting the request subject to an agreement between private parties. Mr. Fritz stated that though he had discussed some of these issues with Mr. McCallum (representing the Homeowner's Association), he had not had a chance to review the document. He added that it appeared that the conditions stated in the document were similar to those discussed with Mr. McCallum. Mr. Fritz pointed out that a lot of the conditions "recommend approval subject to approval of certain uses by the Ednam Community Association and staff does not support conditions which the County would put in place for a rezoning or a special use permit which would have language such as 'uses are approved on a case -by -case basis' by a community association...." He stated it was staff's recommendation that the conditions set forth in this document not be made a part of approval because they are a private agreement and involve certain approvals by the Ednam Homeowner's Association. Mr. Fritz confirmed that this document did not change staff's recommendation. Mr. Johnson stated he could make no effort to evaluate the document (several pages in length), even if presented in a verbal presentation by the applicant, and could not consider them in any deliberations. He wondered if the applicant might want a deferral. Mr. Wilkerson also stated he would have to discount the document because he had not had time to review it. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Caleb Stowe briefly stated that it was his desire that the request go forward. At October 16, 1990 Page 3 Mr. George McCallum, representing the Homeowner's Association, addressed the Commission. He gave a history of the Manor House and a lengthy explanation of the document referred to by Mr. Fritz. He explained staff's objections had been: (1) Even with these conditions it is inappropriate to have business office use within the Manor House because of the introduction of "third -party activities" into this planned community; and (2) Many of these conditions are things which the County should not have as conditions because they are private matters between the association and the owner of the Manor House. The conditions stated in the document are summarized as follows: (1) Proffesional offices are limited to the existing Manor House; (2) There are to be no additions to the Manor House without the written approval of the Board of Directors of the community association; (3) There are to be no additions without amendment to the proffered zoning and no medical and dental offices are to be permitted; (4) Approval of specific uses on a case -by -case basis; (5) Leases, subleases and tenants are to be approved by the association; (6) No lease for more than 5 years; (7) Parking limited to off-street parking; (8) Grounds and House to be maintained by the Manor House in keeping with the surrounding properties; (9) Trash to be deposited in designated containers and picked up by designated collectors; (10) No heavy or noisy vehicles; (11) No night-time noise; (12) Establishes an annual community assessment on the House which is equal to 2 1/2 times that of a residential unit; (3) Assessments are to be paid and kept current. He stated the Board of Directors feels these conditions would preserve the character of Ednam. He noted that the conditions are already binding restrictive covenants but the community association feels that adding them to this approval would reinforce them. Mr. Ed Brownfield, a resident of Ednam, addressed the Commission. He stated that the conditions presented by Mr. McCallum had led to the withdrawal of his objection to this proposal. He expressed his support for the request. He stated the Manor House is an historic landmark, but is also a "white elephant." He stated it's use as a single family residence was not realistic so the neighborhood was very concerned that it be used wisely. Ms. Kay Barbour, President of the Homeowner's Association, addressed the Commission. She stressed that the community 10 October 16, 1990 Page 4 has been living with a similar use in the Manor House for six years so this is not a new situation. She stated there has never been a problem with either the House or the parking lot. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson felt that approval of these private, unique convenants would obligate the County to enforce matters which are beyond the normal obligations of the local government. Mr. Bowling stated that some of the covenants could have been offered as proffers, but that was not done. Others, he stated are purely private matters. He stated that staff has NOT recommended approval subject to these covenants. He concluded that some of the items would "not be proper for the Commission to approve," e.g. it is not the County's duty to enforce dues collection, approve leases, or approve tenants. Ms. Huckle asked staff to comment further on their reason for opposition. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as residential, but it has been used in very restricted office use. However, the zoning request is for a broader scale of office use in a residential area which is inconsistent with staff's review of rezoning requests. He stated that also taken into consideration is the impact the change will have on adjacent properties. Ms. Huckle asked if the future uses could be limited based on existing parking space. Mr. Fritz pointed out that provision for additional parking would require an amendment to the site plan which would have to be approved by the Commission. He confirmed that the uses could be limited to existing parking under the special use permit. Mr. Fritz explained further that in the last rezoning on the property professional offices had not been included as a use so in order to make a special permit application the previous proffer had to be amended to include professional offices by special use permit. He explained the purpose of this rezoning request is to allow the professional offices. It was noted that the special permit application is meaningless unless the rezoning request is approved. IN/ October 16, 1990 Page 5 Mr. Fritz asked Mr. Bowling if a condition could be placed on the special permit requiring recordation of the restrictive covenants prior to commencement of office use on the property and would such a condition require County enforcement of these restrictions. Mr. Bowling explained that certain of the conditions could be imposed as conditions of the special permit. Mr. Rittenhouse summarized staff's position as follows: "Staff is telling us that this approval could result in additional traffic, possible need for additional parking and additional employees which could change the character of the district. Also setbacks from residential lots are not in keeping with the setbacks required in the CO district. Screening would be difficult; available parking is limited and limited areas exist for the provision of additional parking area which would meet setback requirements and allow for screening." However, he further summarized: "Yet what we're hearing is support for the applicant's request from the homeowner's association with their own set of agreements to try to ameliorate this situation." Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was uncomfortable with this "kind of vehicle to consider zoning map amendments --to try to condition based on what the homeowners feel would be acceptable to them." He stated: "What I prefer to deal with is what is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance for a particular application." Ms. Huckle stated she was sympathetic to the homeowners' position but she was reluctant to take an action which might be precedent setting. Mr. Bowling did not think approval would be setting a precedent because of the uniqueness of this situation, i.e. it is an existing historical landmark within a PRD. Ms. Huckle asked if the uses could be limited to the existing parking. Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he was not in favor of this "methodology." He explained that in a proffered rezoning, the proffer becomes a condition of the rezoning and the rezoning is not subject to agreements between other parties. He concluded he could not support the request as presented. J.I�' October 16, 1990 Page 6 Mr. Wilkerson noted that the neighboring property owners have indicated they are in favor of the proposal. He concluded he could support the request subject to the conditions of approval as presented in the staff report. He clarified that he was not including a statement about the homeowner's document because neither he nor staff had had a chance to review it. Staff confirmed that this rezoning would change one of the proffers of the original rezoning, i.e. proffer No. 2 would be amended so as to state what type of office use can be conducted. Ms. Huckle stated she could support the special permit with two additional conditions: (1) That the covenants be signed; and (2) Uses would be limited to the existing parking. Ms. Andersen stated she was uncomfortable with tying private agreements to the approval. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-90-11 for Caleb Stowe (applicant) Ednam House Limited Partnership (owner) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers as follows: I. The clubhouse use of the existing manor house shall be limited in membership to the members of the Ednam Homeowners Association, and in use to its membership and their guests. II. Uses permitted under Section 17.2.2(11) shall be allowed by special use permit only. III. The service use of the existing manor house shall be limited to services for the residents of the Ednam Development and their guests. IV. The use of the existing manor house and the 1.892 acres of R-10 District shall be limited to the above uses in I, II, and III, excluding all other permitted uses or special permit uses in the R-10 District other than off-street parking, and any addition or new construction without amendment in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Albemarle. J6 October 16, 1990 Page 7 V. As an alternative use to the uses permitted in I, II, III, and IV, the existing manor house and the 1.892 acres may be utilized as a single-family residence. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: It was determined the proffers were identical to the original with the exception of No. 2 (as explained previously). Mr. Johnson stated he could not support the change because: (1) It opens this building up to special use "ad infinitum"; and (2) The crowded condition of the site. He also wondered if all the homeowners had supported the Board of Directors' position. In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's request, Mr. Fritz explained how the original permit had worked. There being no further discussion, the previously stated motion for approval passed (6:1) with Mr. Johnson casting the dissenting vote. SP-90-68 Caleb Stowe (applicant) Ednam House Limited Partnership (owner) - Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the previous discussion had included consideration of this item. To address Ms. Huckle's concerns about parking, Mr. Fritz suggested the addition of condition No. 3: "Parking shall be limited to that area indicated on Attachment C." In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question about allowed uses, Mr. Cilimberg explained that the proffer would restrict the uses to only professional offices. There was discussion about parking locations and also about screening. Ms. Barbour, representing the Homeowner's Association, stressed that the homeowner's have no complaints about either the existing parking situation or screening. She felt adding conditions might be creating a problem that doesn't exist. 17 October 16, 1990 Page 8 Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-68 be recommended to the Board for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with ZMA-90-11. 2. Office use shall be limited to existing manor house. 3. Parking shall be limited to that shown on Attachment. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ZMA-90-15 Oven Door Church a licant - Greenbrier SqUare Limited Partnership (owner) - The applicant is requesting a revision to ZMA-85-18 and ZMA-90-01 in order to add churches to the allowed uses. Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 1, Block A, Parcel 5, is located on the north side of Greenbrier Drive approximately 600 feet west of Route 29 in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the original intent of the 1984 rezoning. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends that uses permitted under Section 33.2.1 be allowed." The applicant was represented by Mr. Bud Treakle, Attorney. He explained that the existing violation was unintentional and was not the fault of the church. He stated that the parking issue had also been addressed. The pastor of thg church, Mr. Curtis Gibson, answered questions about membership and confirmed that parking was adequate. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-90-15 for Open Door Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as described in staff's report dated October 16, 1990. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. J¢ October 16, 1990 Page 9 ZMA-90-14 Princeton Homes Corporation - The applicant is proposing to rezone one acre from HI -Heavy Industry to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 74 is located on the west side of Route 29 in the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 29 and Northside Drive in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial for reasons stated in the staff report dated October 16, 1990. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob Smith. He explained that he was the applicant's realtor and it was the applicant's intent to sell the property. Mr. Smith had advised the applicant that the "highest and best use probably could be obtained if the property were rezoned to a commercial use," thus the reason for the application. He expressed a lack of understanding of staff's position. He explained that it was his feeling that the Comprehensive Plan was to act as a guide, but recently "we are zeroing in on the Comprehensive Plan as though there are property lines drawn." He did not think that was the intent of the Plan. He felt there was a need for commercial property in this area given the amount of industrially zoned property nearby. He felt having commercial type uses to support the industrial uses would reduce traffic into town because it would supply services in the immediate vicinity. He disagreed with the Highway Department's vehicle trip figures. He presented some photographs of the highway design in this area. He felt the existing turn lanes, etc. were more than adequate. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, he was uncertain of what uses might go on the site. A representative of Princeton Homes was also present at the meeting and offered to answer questions. (His name was inaudible.) There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. ED October 16, 1990 Page 10 Mr. Rittenhouse stated he agreed with staffs position in regard to non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and traffic impact. He stated he could not support the request. Mr. Wilkerson agreed and moved that Homes Corporation be recommended to for denial based on those reasons in October 16,1990. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Discussion: ZMA-90-14 for Princeton the Board of Supervisors staff's report dated Mr. Johnson supported the applicant's questioning of the VDOT figures. However, he noted that no mention had been made in the VDOT report about the absence of an acceleration lane exiting the site to the south. He recommended that if this request should be approved, that requirement should be added. Ms. Huckle stated she could have viewed the proposal more favorably if the uses were known. The motion for denial passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson interjected that he was appalled that this one acre of property is currently zoned for heavy industry --a zoning with a public nuisance potential on an entrance corridor. He felt the zoning should be reconsidered from this standpoint. ambiguities in those sections. Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report and explained the proposed amendment. The main purpose of the amendment was to "make the process more clear cut for both the applicant and the Zoning Administrator, (though) it would not necessarily solve all the concerns of the multiple lawful lots of record." The Chairman invited public comment. 0 I October 16, 1990 Page 11 Ms. Sherri Buttrick, representing Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Commission. She objected to section (a) (1) of the amendment. She recalled the original intent of the RA zoning and the reasoning behind development rights. She felt it had been the Board's intent to try to get back to that original intent--i.e. to go back to using the Tax Map as the determination for development rights and section (a) (1) prevents that from happening and is not what the Board intended. She suggested that this be given further thought. Mr. Richard Carter, attorney for Mr. Bass, expressed his agreement with Ms. Buttrick. He felt this amendment should not be recommended. He understood the County Attorney's office wanting to make something that was "air tight" but he felt this amendment did not achieve that goal. Wise, Mr. Dave �Oi agreed with Ms. Buttrick and Mr. Carter. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. The Commission discussed the possibility of deleting (a)(1) and also of possibly addressing this issue through a policy statement (as referred to in the Zoning Administrator's memo dated September 6, 1990) rather than an amendment. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Board has already determined that a policy statement was not the way to address this issue. Mr. Bowling noted that though he had not been involved in the drafting of the amendment (Mr. St. George had performed that task), he did not see a problem with deleting (a)(1). Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff agreed with all the comments made by the public. He suggested that staff would like to have the opportunity to look at the question further . Mr. Rittenhouse stated he could support the amendment either with the deletion of (a)(1) or he could support a deferral. He, too, noted that he agreed with the public comments. Mr. Johnson moved that ZTA-90-13 be deferred to October 30. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. W October 16, 1990 Page 12 ZMA-90-23 Buck Mountain Planned Unit Development Comprehensive Rezoning - Proposal to rezone 435.558 zcres from PUD, Planned Unit Development to RA, Rural Areas, and 237.976 acres from PUD to PRD, Planned Residential Development. The proposed PRD zoning includes 11 platted and recorded residential lots and the surrounding platted and recorded open space. The proposed RA zoning includes the large acreage parcels that were included as lots or open space on the preliminary plan but were either not platted nor recorded or have since been vacated. The entire property, described as Tax Map 17, Parcels 26A through 26G, 49 through 74 and 98 through 115, is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Routes 601 and 671 approximately 3 miles north of Free Union in the White Hall Magisterial District. This property is not located within a designated growth area. Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Lee Zorn expressed concern as to how this change would effect the existing Buck Mountain covenants. (Mr. Bowling was unable to answer this question because he was not familiar with the covenants in question.) Mr. Donald Clark explained some of the history of the development. He was also an owner of the property. He explained that "where it says 'open space' it was dedicated with those lots which are now designated in yellow, that's going to be open space forever." He stated this was his understanding and knew of no way that could be changed. Mr. Allen Betkin (?) also expressed concern as to how this would change the covenants and particularly the existing lot owners' right to use the open space. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "Open space was dedicated along with the development of the lots to provide for adequate open space for those lots that were being developed." He stated that he could not answer the question as to "whether these particular owners will enjoy rights to that open space." It was determined neither staff nor the County Attorney knew the answer to that question at this time. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. There was a brief discussion about the the private homeowners' covenants. Mr. this zoning action would not effect the covenants. open space issue and Bowling stated that restrictive 44-2 October 16, 1990 Page 13 Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-90-23 for Buck Mountain Planned Unit Development Comprehensive Rezoning be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. DS WavneV Cilimbera—. '1.3