HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 09 89 PC MinutesNovember 9, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Thursday, November 9, 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. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr.
Jim Bosworth, Senior Planner; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; and Mr.
James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Diehl.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of October 24, 1989 were approved
as submitted.
SP-89-75 Astec - Request in accordance with Section 27.2.2(1) of the
Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for
the production and testing of liquid chromatography columns. Property,
described as Tax Map 77E2, Parcel 4, is located at the intersection of
Routes 1101 and 742 on the northwest corner. Scottsville Magisterial
District. Deferred from October 17, 1989 Meeting.
Mr. Bosworth introduced the item. 7n response to Mx. Rittenhouse's
question, Mr. Bosworth confirmed there was the possibility of the
existence of a zoning violation on the property, i.e. some of the
slopes on the property are in excess of what was shown on the approved
plan. He explained that it was the position of the Zoning Administrator
and the Department of Engineering that the Department of Engineering
"would consider the review of a revised as -built plan showing the areas
that were in excess of the approved slopes provided that the plan was
submitted by a registered engineer and provided for plantings or whatever
was necessary to control any further erosion of the property." He
further explained that the "applicant is the same, but the applicant is
different than the owner."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he had problems with entertaining a special permit
on property that has a zoning violation in place. He felt that issue
should be resolved before further action is taken.
It was determined the Engineering Department had not yet reviewed the
issue.
Mr. Stark indicated he agreed with Mr. Rittenhouse.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Floyd Artrip, owner of the property.
He explained that the area in question has come about in the last
six months to a year. He explained that excavation had resulted in
approximately 50% more dirt on the site than was anticipated. He stated
,21l
November 9, 1989
Page 2
the applicant's engineers have been in touch with the County Engineer
about this issue.
The Chairman asked fir. Bowling to comment on the Cormission's discretion
in this case. He asked: "Does the Commission have discretion here?"
Mr. Bowling responded: "I think they do."
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that SP-89-75 for Astec be indefinitely deferred to
allow time for possible zoning violation issue to be resolved.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
(dote: Ihis item was re -considered at the end of the meeting and was
deferred to December 5. See end of these minutes for discussion.)
ZMA-89-17 Midmont Limited Partnership - Request in accordance with
Section 15.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 6.4517 acres from R-1,
Residential to R-4, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 76,
Parcel 3, is located on the.southwest side of Midmont Lane near.the
School of Continuing Education. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Deferred from October 17, 1989 Commission Meeting.
Before presentation of the staff report, the Chairman allowed comment
from 'Hr. David Westby, representing the University of Virginia Real Estate
Foundation.
Mr. Westby addressed the Commission and explained that his organization
felt the applicant did not have standing to request a rezoning at
this time. He explained: "The applicant originally jointly held an
option to purchase Midmont with her brother Peyton Chamberlain (and this
was specified in the applicant's father's will). UVAREF has purchased
her brother's option and does not agree with the proposed zoning request
and we request that the Commission defer consideration of the request
until the actual ownership of the property is established."
tir. Kurt Wassenaar, representing the applicant, responded: "We have
looked at the standing issue. ... We had an earlier discussion about this
property at a point at which we had clear option to the property. The
time limit on that option was nearing a close and we went to court in
order to ... get a stay. It is the understanding of our attorney that
as of this point that stay is still in effect and therefore we have
legal standing to make a rezoning application. Under the terms of
Mrs. Larsen's will, under any outcome cE ay pending litigation, or any
involvement by anyof the parties, Mrs. Larsen, and therefore out group,
will have legal standing to proceed with zoning of this property.
Therefore, it's our opinion that this is a valid request. 'There's
no court order or any other interim legal matters which have intervened
since our option was in full effect."
Mr. Bowling commented: "I don't think it's the Planning Commission's
role to determine what appears to be a fairly complicated legal issue
bet`•reer. two parties. You have to take the applicants who come before
you on their word as to their ability to request a rezoning unless
you have some definitive document in front of you which proves ownership,
0
November 9, 1989
Page 3
that suggests that the applicant doesn't have the right to request
a rezoning."
Mr. Bowerman asked: "Whatever action we take on this, the parties
in question, or University Real Estate Foundation, has remedies?"
Mr. Bowling responded: "They do. Anything you do tonight is advisory
in any event."
Mr. Wassenaar indicated this matter had a scheduled court date of November
27. Therefore the issue should be resolved before the Board hearing.
Mr. Bosworth presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval.
The main issue of discussion was the preservation of the historic
building. Mr. Bosworth explained that he had been in contact with the
Department of Historic Resources (Mr, Jeff O'Dell) and had learned
that the house is not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. However, he stated Mr. O'Dell felt it did contribute
to the ambiance of the local community and had some unique characteristics
and therefore he was not pleased with the possibility that the structure
might be destroyed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission agreed with Mr. O'Dell that the
historic portion of the structure should be preserved, how could that
be addressed? Mr. Bosworth felt a structural survey of the house would
have to be performed to determine if that was a feasible alternative.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that if the Commission felt this was important,
the time to address it is now and suggested the possibility of deferring
action on the request to allow time for such a survey to take place.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Wassenaar again addressed the Commission. He gave some background
information on the property and the proposal. Regarding the issue of the
historic significance of the property he stated: "It is our intention to
make every reasonable effort that we can to attempt to preserve the house.
It is in pretty bad structural condition and, speaking as an architect, we
are not sure if it can, within any reasonable financial means be preserved.
It is our intention to do so if it can be done. ... We did not feel it
was appropriate, at this time, to include that as a proffer. I would be
willing to consider that, or at least to consider our promise to do so,
as part of your consideration if you feel that's appropriate." He explained
that the applicant feels only the 17O0's portion of the house is worth
consideration for preservation. He felt the applicant's proffers addressed
the County's concerns and the concerns of the neighborhood association.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Hart Gary, representing the neighborhood association, addressed the
Commission. He questioned why the applicant's proffer had referred only
"219
November 9, 1989 Page 4
to Section 15.2.1.4 and not also to 15.2.1.3. He felt the applicant had
left a loophole in the proffer. He also questioned the applicant's
proffer related to traffic improvements. He felt it was a "minor
contribution to a major problem." He agreed with the Commission's
concern about the preservation of the house.
Mr. David Westby again addressed the Commission, this tine commenting
as a resident of the neighborhood (not as a representative of UVAREF).
He expressed concern about hot: many "unrelated" persons would be
allowed to reside in the units. He suggested that there be some
way to monitor this, and asked if the County had a method of controlling
occupancy. He noted problems with parking, etc which would be
encountered if several unrelated individuals were allowed to occupy
a unit.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
The Chairman allowed Mr. Wassenaar to comment again briefly
Mr. Wassenaar explained that staff had specifically asked that the proffer
not include Section 13.2.1.3, but the applicant was agreeable to "resolving
that in any suitable fray." He also noted he was under the impression
that in R-4 zoning it was a matter of law that no more than two unrelated
persons occupy a unit.
There followed a lengthy discussion about the possible preservation
of the 1700's section of the house. Mr. Wassenaar again indicated the
applicant would very much like to preserve that section of the house,
if "feasible." In response to Mr. Stark's request for a definition
of feasible, Mr. Wassenaar responded: "I will say that we are not prepared
to sink unlimited dollars into preserving a house of questionable value,
although we would like to save the property.... I suppose our other
recourse ... is that if we were forced ... into preserving the property,
we would simply build around it and leave it." Mr. Jenkins questioned
what would be done with the structure if it were saved. TM.r. Wassenaar
explained that if the structure is preserved, it is the applicant's
intent to "keep the architectural character of what we put back...
with an ambiance that matches the flavor of the neighborhood and of
what's there."
Mr. Keeler suggested it would be helpful'to have written comments from
the State Historian before making a decision on this issue.
Regarding Mr. Gary's concern about the omission of Section 15.2.1.3, fir.
Keeler indicated there would be no problem with including that section
since the applicant had indicated a willingness to do so.
Regarding the number of occupants per unit, Mr. Keeler explained that
this was addressed in the Ordinance under the definition of "family."
Mr. Bowerman stated that based on the description of the house by the
applicant, i.e. that much of the original structure has been charged,
he had mixed feelings about requiring its preservation. He stated he
was not "committed" to preserving it unless the State historian stated
categorically that it should be preserved.
00
November 9, 1989 Page 5
Mr. Bowerman also stated that if the Commission feels the preservation
of the structure is an important aspect of the application, then action
should be deferred until more information was available. He also
noted that the State historian has mixed feelings about the structure,
but it is not eligible for the national register. Mr. Bowerman
concluded: "I'm not inclined to put that much credibility on it as
long as the other aspects of the site --the vegetation, which I think
clearly everyone agrees is significant --do remain in their natural
state...."
Mr. Rittenhouse questioned what further information could be presented
which would aid the Commission in making its decision. Mr. Bowerman
responded: "I don't think we're going to hear any more."
Mr. Wassenaar stated: "I think we could proffer to submit the question
of the restoration of the house to the State Architectural Historian
and proffer to abide by his recommendations for the preservation of the
1700's part of the house." He stated he would prefer this approach rather
than a deferral.
The Chairman asked that Mr. Wassenaar write his statement and submit it
to staff. Mr. Wassenaar complied.
Mr. Jenkins brought up the issue of traffic improvements. Mr. Bowling
confirmed that the applicant could not be held responsible for more
than what is necessitated by their development. (Mr. Keeler noted that
a cash proffer could not be accepted until the City has that traffic
signal in their CIP. Mr. Cilimberg added that the County has no
control over the City's scheduling for such a project. Mr. Bowerman
concluded that at such time as the City determines that a traffic
light is needed, then the applicant's proffer obligates him to partic-
ipate, on a pro rats basis, in that.)
Mr. Bosworth read the following additional proffer submitted by
Mr. Wassenaar:
"The applicant proffers that the 1700's section of the house will
be submitted to the State Architectural Historian and will work
with him to determine a suitable plan for preservation of the
house section. The applicant proffers to follow these guidelines
and preservation plan, if any."
Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-89-17 for Midmont Limited Partnership be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
applicant's proffers as stated in letters to Mr. Bosworth dated October 30,
1989 and November 2, 1989 and an additional proffer submitted in writing
to Mr. Bosworth at the Planning Commission Meeting of November 9, 1989
(as stated above).
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
November 9, 1989 Page 6
SP-89-85 Burger Busters, Inc_. - Request in accordance with Sections
22.2.2(4) and 22.2.2(10) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance.of a
special use permit to allow for a fast food restaurant with a drive -
through window. property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 104 and 1048,
is located on the east side of Rt. 29N between Albemarle Square and
Woodbrook tillage. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Bosworth presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. John ureen. in response to Mr.
Bowerman's question about traffic generation, Mr. Green explained the
difference in traffic between a restaurant with a drive -through and
one without. Surprisingly, the figure was less for a restaurant
with a drive -through, but ?r. Green did not know why.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel roved that SP-89-85 for Burger Busters, Inc. be recoaunended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a site plan which is in general accord
with the attached conceptual design which shall include:
a. A defined traffic circulation plan showing points of ingress,
egress and directional traffic float; and,
b. Landscaping to include one (1) additional interior tree (a
total of 11) and additional screening along Rt. 29N to include
either a double rota of screening shrubs planted ter_ (10') feet
on center or a double row of street shrubs planted five (5')
feet on center. The variety should be evergreens such as azaleas
or boxwood, not low spreading varieties such as yews. If
street shrubs are used, they should be 18"-30" in height when
planted.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-89-86 Garland McDaniel - Request in accordance with Section for the
issuance of a special use permit to locate a single wide mobile home on
13.36 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax 'Hap 126,
Parcel 22.7, is located on the west side of Rt. 721, approximately
three -tenths of a mile north of the intersection of Rt. 6 and Rt. 721.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Bosworth presented the staff report.
4AA
November 9, 1989 Page 7
The applicant, Ms. Marcia McDaniel addressed the Commission. She
indicated that it was her intent to construct a conventional dwelling
at some future time, but she was unable to predict when this would
occur.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-89-86 for Garland McDaniel be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for
the district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile
home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of occupancy
permit;
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the local
official of the Virginia Department of Health;
5. Maintenance of existing vegetation. Landscaping and/or screening to
be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Required
screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced should it
die;
6. Mobile home is not to be rented;
7. Special use permit is issued for the use of the Garland and Marcia
McDaniel family, and is non -transferable.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-89-84 Oliver A. Kuttner - Request in accordance with Section 27.2.2.11
of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a special use permit to convert an
existing wood shop to autobody restoration fabrication and classic auto-
mobile brokerage (wholesale). Property, described as Tax Map 90,
Parcels 35R, 355, is located on the east side of Avon Street Extended
(Rt. 742). Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that though there is industrially zoned property in
this area, there is also a significant amount of residential development
and, therefore, he felt th-_ issue of landscaping should be addressed in
the conditions of approval. Mr. Tarbell agreed and stated he had
spoken with the applicant about the fact that landscaping will be a sig-
nificant part of site plan approval.
.Va5
November 9, 1989
Page 8
The applicant was represented by.Mr. William Tucker. He offered little
comment except to say that the applicant had no objections to the
suggested conditions of approval. He briefly explained the nature
of the business.
There being no public co=ent, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel noted that he had visited the business and found it to be
an "exceptional operation."
Mr. Michel moved that SP-89-04 for Oliver A. Kuttner be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. All vehicles and parts of vehicles shall be stored
indoors;
2. All pollutants associated with the operation, including but not
limited to, paint thinners, antifreeze, oils and gasoline, are to
be safely* removed from the site by a waste disposal firm regulated
by the Virginia Department of Waste Management;
3. Compliance with Section 5.1.24 of the Zoning Ordinance which limits
the subordinate use of retail sales to fifteen (15) percent of the
floor area of the rain use (body shop);
4. Virginia Department of iransportation approval of a commercial
entrance and full frontage improvements along Route 742;
5. Site plan approval which shall include a certified engineer's
report to be submitted in accordance with Section 4.14, Performance
Standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and significant landscaping as
depicted on plan initialled RET, November 9, 1989.
Nir. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZTA-89-16 JWK - Request to amend Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
as it relates to height requirements in regard to certain architectural
features.
Mr. Fred Payne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission
and asked that the item be deferred to November 28, 1989.
It was determined there was no public comment.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that ZTA-89-16 for JWK be
deferred to November 28, 1989. The motion passed unanimously.
9-1
November 9, 1989
Page 9
Crozet Veterinary Clinic PreliminarX Site Plan - The applicant is seeking
relief from a condition of approval. The applicant is requesting that
access to Rt. 240 be allowed. Property, described as Tax Map 50, Parcel
67 (part), is located on the north side of Rt. 240 adjacent to the east
of ConAgra and Starke's Market. Zoned RA, Rural Areas with SP-88-60 in
the White Hail Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff
can see no change in circumstance and recommends denial of the applicant's
request."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Dr. Schulman addressed the Commission. He commented at length as to
the justification for his request. His reasons included the following:
"(1) No further subdivision will occur; (2) Increase of traffic on
Route 240 'underlies the need for a clearly defined access point to
minimize slow moving traffic friction due to the confusion of a
Parkview Drive access over 500 feet from the hospital site;' and (3)
Inaccurate accessment of visits by people unfamiliar with the clinic."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Kurt Cruger, representing Acme Visible Records, addressed the Commission.
He stated Acme was strongly opposed to direct access to Rt. 240. He noted
that the access proposed by the applicant was directly across from the
factory entrance and would create confusion.
Dr. Schulman noted his disagreement with Mr. Cruger's perception of the
proposed location of his access.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Stark stated he could see no changes in circumstance which would
Justify granting the applicant's request.
Mr. Stark moved that the Crozet Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Site Plan
Request for Relief be denied.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Jenkins stated that though he felt there was some validity to the
applicant's argument, the Commission has taken the position of limiting
access to Rt. 240 and must stand by that position.
The previously stated motion for denial passed unanimously.
Crozet Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Site Plan Extension - Mr. Fritz
explained that the site plan was about to expire. He stated staff had
no objection to granting a six-month extension.
x- Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, than a six-month extension
be granted to the Crozet Veterinary Clinic Preliminary Site plan. The
motion passed unanimously.
��6'
�iovember 9, 1989 Page 10
Astec - The Chairman allowed further comment on this item by Mr. Artrip,
the applicant. He asked that deferral be to a date specific rather than
indefinite. He explained that, as far as he knee*, no official zoning
violation had ever been registered. He stated that though there is
apparently a problem on the site, the engineers are working to resolve
the problem.
Mr.Rittenhouse moved that SP-89-75 for Astec be reconsidered.. Mr. Michel
seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that SP-89-75 for Astec.be deferred to December
5, 1989, to allow time for issue of possible zoning violation to be
resolved. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Meadows - fir. Tarbell informed the Commission that the Meadows was
changing the type of dcaelling unit as dictated by HUD. It was noted there
would be no change in the number of units. The Commission expressed
no opposition to this change. No action was required.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Ili
w
'-26