HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 17 1992 PC MinutesNOVEMBER 17, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, November 17, 1992, in the Auditorium of
the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Tom
Jenkins; Mr. Thomas Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter
Johnson;, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchman; and Ms. Babs
Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski,
Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
October 13, 1992 and October 20, 1992 were approved as
submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the November
4 and November 11 Board of Supervisors meetings.
SP-92-63 1781 Productions, Ltd. (applicant), Dr. William Orr
(owner) - The applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors
to issue a special use permit for an approximately 2,000
seat outdoor theater [10.2.2(44)] on 63.045 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas. The property known as Tax Map 79, Parcel 43F
is located on the west side of Milton Road (Rt. 729)
approximately 0.4 miles south of the North Milton Road and
Milton Road (Rt. 729/Rt. 732) intersection in the Scottville
Magisterial District. This site is not located within a
designated growth area (Rural Area 4).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was
recommending denial of the request.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question as to how the
limitation of 40 decibels (condition No. 4) had been
selected Mr. Fritz explained: "It is a provision found in
various sections of the Zoning Ordinance. This section is
not regulated by any specific provision in Section 5 of the
Supplemental Regulations. However, that section does
regulate other uses and those limitations do contain limits
of 40 decibels and the 40 decibels is found in a couple of
places in the Ordinance and that is what we used in this
case as being consistent with other uses." Mr. Johnson
noted that 1140 does not appear" in 4.14.1 which deals with
the "general limitation of sound." Mr. Johnson also
questioned the enforceability of 40 decibels and noted: "I
believe that a better definition is desirable in order to
make that definitive."
Ms. Huckle asked why the item was before the Commission
since Site Review Comments had indicated "No plan or plat
/ D5-
11-17-92 2
will be scheduled for Planning Commission review until all
necessary information on items marked with a "**" are
submitted." She noted that included in that was Health
Department approval of drainfields. Mr. Fritz explained
that the applicant had requested the item proceed and the
applicant "stated very clearly that he would abide by
whatever requirements the Health Department placed on him."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Charles McRaven, the applicant, addressed the
Commission. In response to Ms. Huckle's comment, he stated
that he was requesting approval "contingent upon the Health
Department's approval." Mr. McRaven spoke at length and his
comments included: an explanation of his backbround; a
description of outdoor historical dramas in general; an
explanation of the drama he is proposing (centered upon the
legandary ride of Jack Jouett); a brief history of the
Milton area; and an explanation of how and why this site was
chosen. He stressed that this type of historical drama
works if it takes place where the event actually occurred.
He referred to a consultant's report which had been prepared
by the Institute of Outdoor Drama --a report which concluded
that this project would be very successful. Regarding the
concerns about noise, he stated that neither the actors'
voices nor the instruments would be amplified. [This comment
was later challenged as it was believed that the actors
would have microphones]. He stated that if guns are used in
the drama they will either be unloaded, or loaded only with
"flash powder." Regarding the issue of traffic, he stated:
"When we approved the concept this spring, we knew there
would be traffic." Research indicates that approximately
350 cars are anticipated (per performance). He stated that
the road leading to the site passes only three dwellings.
He noted that the County has already determined this to be a
"tolerable" use in Albemarle County and he concluded: "I
don't think you're going to tell me 'We're going to approve
the general concept but we're not going to approve any place
you come up with." He stated he had considered all possible
sites and this is the best one. He felt the assets of the
project (e.g. opportunities for local young people,
preservation of land (only 10% of the property will be
used), a celebration of the area's culture and history,
increased revenue for the County) were worth the
inconvenience.
Mr. Bill Edgarton expressed his support for the proposal.
He expressed concern that the staff report did not fairly
reflect the considerable effort that the applicants have
made in their attempt to address issues of concern. He
stated that all issues identified by staff have been
responded to.
/0 (o
11-17-92
ifl
Approximately 15 persons expressed their support for the
proposal by a show of hands. (NOTE: It was later
determined by a member of the opposition that none of those
persons in favor of the proposal lived in the vicinity of
the property.)
Mr. Edgarton also read a letter of support from Mr.
David Tice (a professional forester and a wildlife
biologist).
Ms. Nancy Irons, an affiliate of the Lime Kiln Theater -
Lexington, spoke in favor of the proposal. She stressed
that though the same concerns were expressed in Lexington,
"none of them came to be true." She also noted that there
have been no complaints during the last 10 years of the
theater's operation.
The following persons spoke in opposition to the proposal:
Mr. James Edwards, Mr. Charles Hodab, Mr. Paul McWhinney,
Mr. Robert Ayling, Mr. Dan Jordan (representing the Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Foundation/Monticello), Ms. Judy Beyerly,
and Fred Westervelt. [Note: Approximately 80% to 85% of an
almost full auditorium expressed their opposition to the
proposal by a show of hands.] Their reasons for opposition
included the following:
--Skepticism that the project would have an $8,000,000
impact on the County (tourism dollars);
--Skepticism that the noise level could be kept at no
greater than 40 decibels, 40 decibels being comparable to a
quiet living room or a refrigerator);
--Some roads leading to the site (e.g. Rt. 732 and Rt.
729) are narrow and twisting;
--Devaluation of properties which are the primary
assets of many individuals;
--Skepticism regarding the lack of sound amplification;
--Excess parking lot noise and lights caused by cars
and buses;
--Skepticism that the venture will be successful and
fear of what would happen to the property in the event of
failure;
--Approval of this application (to allow a commercial
venture among residential and rural zoned land) negates the
protection of the zoning Ordinance and sets a precedent;
--Very close proximity of the site to several
residences;
--Skepticism that only 10 - 12 acres of the property
will be effected since the site plan indicates that
approximately 75% of the site will be effected by
construction, site work, roadways, runoff ponds, parking
lot, and 17 buildings;
107
11-17-92
4
---The plan is in opposition
Goal of "rural preservation;"
--Possible negative impact
to the Comprehensive Plan
on the area water table.
It was determined that the residents preferred the by -right
development of the property over this proposed use.
The Chairman allowed the applicant a short rebuttal.
Ms. Linda McRaven addressed the Commission and stressed the
efforts that she and her husband have put forth to meet with
the community and address their concerns. She expressed
deep regret that the proposal has met with opposition.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Andersen asked Mr. McRaven to comment on the question of
amplification. Mr. McRaven responded: "We don't intend to
use amplification for any of the production; the play will
be "unamplified human voice." He noted, however, that the
law requires that there be a public address system.
Regarding a statement in Mr. Edgarton's letter regarding
body microphones, an unidentified member of the audience,
responded: "If Mr. McRaven says there are going to be no
body mikes, there will be no body mikes."
Mr. Nitchmann reminded the Commission that he had voted in
favor of the Zoning Text Amendment which had added this use
as a special permit (Note: The Commission had recommended
denial of that zoning amendment). He polled the Commission
to determine if they had received any positive comments on
this application. The Commission responded as follows:
Blue: "Yes, I received one from someone who lives in
the Rivanna District."
Andersen: She noted that there were positive notes in
the packet received from Mr. Edgarton.
Grimm: "I've received two positive comments."
Jenkins: None
Huckle: None
Johnson: "The only comments I've had, in that behalf,
were associated with Mr. Edgarton's distribution."
Mr. Nitchmann stated he felt the applicants were "dedicated
and honorable people." He had attended a meeting which the
applicants had organized with the residents of the
community. He stated he had been "embarrassed" by the rude
attitude of many of the persons who had attended the
meeting. He also explained that he had visited several of
the residences in the immediate proximity of the site and in
all those homes passing vehicular noise was noticeable.
(Mr. Nitchmann noted that he lived approximately 1.2 miles
from the property.) He expressed concern about the
a,
11-17-92 5
vehicular noise (cars and buses) which the proposed use
would generate (though he indicated he was not concerned
about the noise from the play itself). He felt it was the
applicants' intent to see that the project had a minimum
impact on the community. He noted that positive aspects of
the proposed use included new jobs for Scottsville residents
and added revenue to the County with no negative impact on
infrastructure. However, he also felt the theater would
have a significant negative impact on the lives of the
surrounding homeowners and he felt this outweighed the
benefits to the County. He concluded that he could not
support the request.
Me. Nitchmann moved that SP-92-63 for 1781 Productions, Ltd.
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Grimm stated he would not support the motion. He
explained that the Board of Supervisors "has shown its
desire to have a facility such as this represented in
Albemarle County and they feel as though it is a proper use
in the Rural Area." He noted that many sites had been
considered and this was determined to be the best. He noted
that the report from the Institute of Outdoor Drama found
this to be "one of the best sites that they have ever seen
for an outdoor drama theater." He also noted that the
Institute of Outdoor Drama has documented the economic
benefits to the community. He felt the site was well -suited
for the use and noted that approximately 90% would remain as
it presently exists. He noted that the operation would run
3-4 months of the year and would be closed the remaining
months. He disagreed that the "negatives outweigh the
positives."
Mr. Johnson congratulated the public for its participation
in this item and encouraged those present to continue their
interest in all public issues. He stated his main concern
was related to the issue of noise. He stressed that
"acoustics are an art rather than a science." He felt that
40 decibels needs to be further defined in order to be
effective. He noted that normal conversation runs between
40 and 80 db"s. He felt that any level of noise, "on a
peaceful Sunday evening on your back porch," would be
unacceptable. He referenced a Supreme Court case (Lucas)
which "ended up acknowledging and emphasizing the
inalienable right of the property owner to continue in the
environment which was in effect and under the conditions
which were in effect at the time he or she became that
property owner." He felt this should be an "underriding
control and guidance that we need in our local
/09
11-17-92 6
government." He concluded: "Because of the unknowns
involved in the noise situation and the interference that
would have on the quality of life in the immediate area, and
not being able to define immediate area, I am unable to
support this application."
Ms. Andersen stated that, regretfully, she would have to
support the motion for denial for the following reasons:
--"The staff and neighbors truly believe that the
granting of the permit will result in substantial detriment
to adjacent property and the property owners' quality of
life in spite of the applicants' every effort to ameliorate
the impact of the venture."
--"The ZTA does not address the scale of such a
venture."
--"The staff and nearby neighbors believe that the
influx of possibly 2,000 people on summer nights would
impact values and life."
--"Sounds of bus motors, speaker systems, headlights
and traffic, twice a night during summer months, are
features of the venture that are definite negatives to the
staff and the neighbors and which I would object to myself
if I were living in that area."
--"The scale will ultimately effect the question of
sewage and water and that remains to be seen."
Ms. Andersen enouraged the public to take note of the public
notices which appear in the newspaper "because there are
many times when various zoning text amendments are heard and
were there truly public input at that point, we would
probably have (to deal with issues such as this) on fewer
occasions, if we could get that input earlier on."
Ms. Huckle felt that the scale of the proposal was entirely
too large for a rural area. She stated: "To approve spot
zoning on such a scale will erode any confidence in our
zoning process by the public who have moved into a rural
area to enjoy a quiet peaceful lifestyle." Though she
aknowiedged that noise from the play might not be
objectionable, she felt that the noise and exhaust from the
vehicles would be. She also expressed concern about the
suitability of the soils for septic systems and the
availability of water on the site. She noted that the area
does not perc well and expessed concern about the
possibility of effluent from the drainfield contaminating
wells. She stated that any interruption in electric power
would result in the inactivation of the pumps which will be
needed to pump the effluent up the hill to the drainfields
and will also result in a loss of water. She expressed
concern about the possible failure of the venture. She
noted that existing local (live performance) theaters are
seldom sold out. She suggested that the applicants find a
more suitable site (such as the stadium) and present the
play for one season as a trial.
//0
11-17-92 7
Mr. Blue felt the positive aspects of the proposal were
important, though it is difficult to find a suitable site.
He felt that 90% of the opponents of the proposal would be
effected very little by the project; but he also felt that a
few families (half -dozen) would be severely effected. He
concluded: "In my opinion, the public good from this
project, which I think is substantial, would be offset by
the harm to the half -dozen or so families I previously
mentioned. I think the zoning law is something like a
contract between the County and private citizens and I think
we owe them the protection of their lifestyle... because it
definitely would effect their lifestyle." He concluded he
would support the motion for denial.
The previously stated motion for denial passed, 6:1, with
Commissioner Grimm casting the dissenting vote.
SP-91-57 First Gold Leaf Land Trust - First Gold Leaf Land
Trust petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special
use permit to establish outdoor display and storage of autos
[30.6.3.2(b)] on 7.08 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial and
EC, Entrance Corridor. Property, described as Tax Map 45,
Parcels 111, 111A, and 111B, is located on the east side of
Seminole Trail (Rt. 29) approximately 0.2 miles south of the
intersection of Rt. 29 and Carrsbrook Drive in the
Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located
in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 2).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report noted:
"This use is subject to special use permit only because of
its location within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
The review of the special use permit is limited to matters
of aesthetic consideration and whether the use can be
aesthetically accommodated in the proposed location. ...
The ARB recommended denial of the special use permit and
made no specific recommendation regarding site design." The
staff report concluded: "Based on the comments of the ARB,
staff is unable to support this request."
In response to Ms. Huckle's
that though the building is
proposed, the grading on the
question, Mr. Fritz explained
smaller than was originally
site is greater.
Mr. Blue asked: "Is it legal for the ARB to indicate that
the issues of aesthetics cannot be overcome and yet it is
still a permitted use in this zone? It seems to me there is
an incompatability there. If this project has issues of
aesthetics that cannot be overcome through site design, it
seems to me it should not be allowed in this zone."
r//
11-17-92 8
Mr. Bowling responded: "I don't think (the ARB) is saying
that all uses are so deleterious that they can't be allowed.
... As I read those minutes they were saying that the
outdoor storage display element of this proposal is what
they found unacceptable --that display which would be visible
from an entrance corridor street. I think that that is a
legitimate analysis." He continued: "The only reason this
is before you is because the County Ordinance, Section
30.6.3.2, provides that when outdoor storage, or display
and/or sales serving are associated with permitted uses, any
portion of which would be visible from an entrance corridor
street is proposed, then you have to get a special use
permit in an HC zone. That is a legislative function that
you engage in when you make a determination whether or not
that's appropriate. The function to consider is what sort
of effect the outdoor display has on the HC zone for this
particular display, for this particular site. It is also
important to note that this section has been amended as of
September 9, 1992 so that your review is really limited to
that factor only."
Mr. Blue responded: "That's exactly why I'm questioning
it. "
Mr. Cilimberg noted that when this site had been reviewed
previously by the ARB (last year) there had been less
parking involved and at that time the ARB had recommended
approval. [NOTE: Later in the meeting Mr. Cilimberg
corrected this statement. He explained that the ARB had not
made a recommendation at that time but had rather commented
on items such as landscaping, building design, delineation
of display areas, which they felt could be addressed at the
time of site plan review. They did express a concern over
the area devoted to display.] He stated that it is a
discretionary call on the part of the Board of Supervisors,
i.e. "whether or not they feel it is an appropriate use, as
it is proposed, in the Entrance Corridor District, for the
plan that is under review. That really begs the question of
whether or not the Commission and the Board of Supervisors
feel that the extent of the use, the scale of outdoor
display, is acceptable in that location."
Mr. Blue expressed continued confusion. He stated: "Staff
is recommending denial because of the ARB's statement that
the issues cannot be overcome with the site design. I don't
understand how that can be possible and it still be HC and
allow storage areas. It seems to me they might have to
recommend planting redwood trees and waiting 30 years for
them to grow, but, it seems to me if it is allowed in the
zone there ought to be a way to design it so that it does
overcome the issues of aesthetics that they are rightly
complaining about. I still haven't had explained to me why
that can't be done. ... If they've just thrown up their
hands and said 'We can't work with this site plan,' then say
/tA
11-17-92 9
SO. If that's the case I'll go along with it, but saying
that, generally speaking, the storage of automobiles on this
site, the issues of aesthetics cannot be overcome, that does
not make sense to me."
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Tim Lindstrom,
Chairman of the Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Lindstrom explained that this zone had been amended
"specifically to say that there are some kinds of uses that
used to be permitted by -right, that they felt could be
amenable to the Entrance Corridor Overlay and that was
generally anything that had outdoor display as a prominent
part of the use. What they ended up saying was that while
all the other uses in the HC zone that were allowed by right
would continue to be allowed by right, with respect to those
that required substantial outdoor storage, those would not
longer be allowed by right --the applicant would have to get
a special permit, which is a very site specific decision.
The ARB is very willing to deal with this application if you
and the Board decide this is an appropriate use for the
site. But we were asked for our recommendation as to
whether the permit ought to be issued and our recommendation
was that this was not an appropriate site for display for
reasons particular to this site." He explained that the
reasons dealt with the topography of the site, existing
covenants to the north of the property. He stated that the
plan presented would require that the site be "graded down
to the level of Rt. 29 which is a substantial amount of
grading" and the ARB was concerned "that we would end up
with an area that was carved out of the existing topography
but would be unrelated to the topography which surrounded
it." He concluded: "That was the reason we thought a
special permit for something requiring substantial display
was inappropriate in this location because we didn't see how
the topography could be left as it and accomplish the
purpose of displaying these automobiles to the public. That
is why we made the recommendation we made."
Mr. Blue asked: "Would it not have been possible to do the
grading and specify the requirement for a berm, to put
something back. In other words, I guess you were making the
assumption that the applicant, unless he could display the
automobiles where they could be seen from 29, he wouldn't
want it."
Mr. Lindstrom responded: "When the use is for display, and
all of us know how automobile dealerships display their
wares, it would seem to us that we would be in a much more
difficult position to try to deal with that use than
virtually any other use that didn't require display. That's
not to say that our position was 'We can't do anything with
%!.3
11-17-92
10
this site if this is approved,' but the recommendation was
that we felt that we would have a much more difficult time
integrating this use into the surrounding topography if it
was approved."
Mr. Blue stated he was concerned as to "whether or not it
would be legal to turn it down on the basis of what the ARB
said and I guess it is."
Mr. Bowling: "I don't think you should turn it down based
on what the ARB says, they're not making a command to you,
they're only making a recommendation."
Mr. Blue: "Staff is recommending to turn it down because of
that. I think that's the only reason, essentially."
Mr. Cilimberg: "The recommendation is that we recognize the
ARB's recommendation in lieu of ours. We are not the
aesthetic body asked to review these. The ARB is and based
on their recommendations, we were recommending denial. It's
just that --a recommendation. You can consider the ARB's in
lieu of ours if you want, but that's really how it stands.
I believe a decision by the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors, if you agree with the ARB, would be
based on agreement that it is inappropriate in this location
as they have cited. You would not be making that decision
based solely on the ARB, it would be based on your agreement
with their finding."
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Lindstrom
explained that the ARB "was considering the use in the
limited context that the special permit is before us --can
this use be located on that spot in a way that is consistent
with the aesthetic ordinance, the Entrance Corridor
Ordinance. So we very much considered aesthetics in terms
of topography and what would have to be done to make this
outdoor display use workable on that site. What you need to
know is there was a long debate and I was unaware that the
ARB ever took any formal position. The debate was over
whether we could have this kind of use without substantially
regrading the site down to the road level. I think our
feeling was, if we could do that, then from the limited
perspective that we have of Rt. 29, the Farber Mall is a
good example of a use that has very aesthetically worked its
way into 29. Our concern was that when we were authorizing
an automobile dealership for the treatment of that by the
ARB would necessarily lead us in the direction of hiding the
automobiles that would be displayed and we would then run
into a legal difficulty where the use that the Board had
allowed, specifically the outdoor display of automobiles,
was in conflict with what we thought we needed to do to make
11-17-92 11
this an aesthetic use. That's why we made the
recommendation."
Mr. Johnson indicated he was unable to determine that any
kind of grading was shown on any of the materials he had.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the ARB's recommendation was based
on the plans which they had been presented which called for
the site to be regraded to the level of 29. He was unaware
of what had been presented to the Commission.
In response to Mr. Johnson's request, staff pointed out the
grading lines on the plan and also pointed out that it was
noted in the legend.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Huckle expressed the understanding that the applicant
would be building a new sewage pump station. She asked:
"If this is not approved, will there be a new sewer pump
station and who will build it?" Mr. Fritz stated he was
unaware of any plans by the Service Authority to reconstruct
the pump station. He added that it "would be incumbent on
any developer within this drainage basin, which includes
land on the other side of Rt. 29, to upgrade the capacity of
that system prior to any development occurring."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He
noted that if this proposal had been presented two years
ago, or possibly even more recent than that, it would have
been a by -right plan. It is because of the creation of the
ARB and the Entrance Corridor that a special use permit is
required for outdoor display and thus the reason the
proposal is before the Commission. He stated the applicant
has done everything that has been asked by both the Planning
staff and the ARB staff. He questioned where else a car
dealership can locate if not on an entrance corridor. He
pointed out that there are numerous car dealers on Rt. 29
already. He stated the applicant had no opposition to any
of the suggested conditions of approval. In response to Mr.
Blue's question regarding the possibility of the use of a
berm or a buffer to perhaps meet the criteria of
"aesthetically pleasing," Mr. Muncaster explained that a lot
of things could be done to "effectively hide the site," but
he did not know how far the developer would be willing to
go. Mr. Blue noted that there might be a real problem with
incompatability in meeting both the requirement for
visibility as desired by the applicant, and screening from
29 as desired by the ARB.
Regarding the pump station, it was Mr. Blue's understanding
that it was the Service Authority's plan to upgrade the pump
station but not to install a gravity line. Mr. Muncaster
/ls-
11-17-92 12
stated the Service Authority has looked at proposals to
upgrade the pump station and has also evaluated a gravity
line, but the expense of a gravity line (without the
laterals to serve Carrsbrook) makes it cost prohibitive (10
times more expensive). He confirmed that plans being
discussed would take care of everything upstream. Mr.
Muncaster noted that even a gravity line would not solve
Carrsbrook's problems.
Mr. Blue concluded from the discussion that someday "we're
going to have to look forward to the problem someday of
having to do something for Carrsbrook and it just seemed to
me that maybe this was the time to be considering that."
In response to Mr. Johnson's question about grading, Mr.
Muncaster explained there "is a 5% fall across the site."
Mr. Fritz explained that the elevation of Rt. 29 is 460 and
he pointed out on the plan that area of the site which is
also at 460 elevation. He noted that the rear of the site
is at 450.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question as to who would be
responsible for upgrading the sewage pump station, Mr.
Muncaster explained: "The developer has been in contact
with the Service Authority and they have been talking with
another developer across 29 and they have worked out who is
going to pay for what, and I can't answer that, but it has
been worked out." Mr. Muncaster stated he was not involved
in the design of a sewage pump station at the present time
though a location has been determined.
It was determined that the pump station would serve a small
part of Woodbrook, this site, and property on the other side
of Rt. 29, including Kegler's and currently undeveloped
properties.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Bill Brent,
representing the Albemarle County Service Authority. He
explained the three components of providing service to this
area: (1) A new pump; (2) Upgrading of the force main
(the existing one may be too small); and (3) Possibility of
enlarging the receiving line into which the force main has
pumped. He confirmed that this project and the installation
of a larger pump only addresses one component of this issue.
Regarding a gravity line, he explained that there is
currently no funding in the CIP for a gravity line to serve
Carrsbrook and, presently, there "are no means to force
somebody to the table to negotiate and help participate in
the building of a gravity line." Mr. Brent concluded: "If
nothing comes out of this other than getting that pumping
//a
11-17-92
12
station out of the backyards of the property owners in
Woodbrook, it would be a blessing."
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed
opposition to the proposal: Mr. Frank Rice, President of
the Carrsbrook Homeowner's Association; Ms. Eleanor Santic,
Citizens for Albemarle (See Attachment A); Mr. Jim Mooney, a
resident of Woodbrook; and Mr. John Swafford. Approximately
35 persons showed their opposition by a show of hands.
Their reasons for opposition included the following:
--A plan which calls for massive alteration in the
existing terrain. (Mr. Rice called the Commission's
attention to letters which had been written which noted
several problems which would be caused by development of the
site. He did not specifically identify these problems.)
---Plan calls for construction on waters and wetlands
regulated uner Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Piping of
the "intermittent" stream will have a negative impact on the
natural environment presently sustained by the natural flow
of water. (Mr. Rice stated that even in the dryest of
weather this stream is flowing.)
--Impervious coverage will radically alter the drainage
of the area.
--The VDOT easement will destroy all the vegetation in
the easement.
--Site is surrounded on three sides by residential
area.
__The new pump station will require grading within 20
feet of residential properties.
--Problems with Woodbrook sewage system.
--Noise and light pollution, the potential for which
has increased seven -fold from the original plan (66 parking
spaces has increased to 475).
--Erosion and siltation problems in the headwaters of
the Rivanna river.
--The proposed new pump is "a short term solution for a
sewage problem that is going to be around for a long time."
When a gravity line finally becomes a necessity, all this
development will have to be torn up, at great expense.
--Vegetation will be stripped from 90% of the site.
--3.61 acres of the site will be paved (the size of
three football fields).
--Five special waivers are required for approval of
this request.
--Plan is in opposition to the Zoning Ordinance mandate
to "serve the welfare and safety of the citizens of
Albemarle County," and to "maintain and improve property
values."
--HC designation next to a deed -restricted residential
area is inappropriate.
// %
11-17-92 14
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle noted that the Board of Supervisors had not
approved the original plan which had been smaller and less
destructive that what is currently proposed. She concluded:
"If they didn't like it then, I don't see how they could
like it now." She also noted that 42 other types of
businesses could be located on this site without creating
"this damage," so the applicant is not being denied the use
of the property. She expressed concerns about siltation and
increased runoff. She concluded that she supported staff's
recommendations.
Mr. Johnson felt the issue was much larger than just the
ARB's review. He stated: "We have a situation where,
understandably, a certain use is identified by right and
this applies across the board all over the County wherever
this particular zoning is and it cannot, by any stretch of
the imagination, each individual parcel be evaluated and
included in the Comprehensive Plan or the zoning. It's an
exception, and perhaps Counsel can provide a means or a
comment on it, but I think we do need a means whereby there
is a unique situation such as this where the use is
certainly not appropriate for the site to where it can be
turned down on the basis of being not appropriate even
though it is by -right. But in this particular case, I'm not
sure that I can honestly say that putting a car dealership
in this geographial location should not be allowed the way
the Zoning Ordinance is written. But I think I can say,
based on the site plans presented here, it is so devastating
to the site --and I don't need to fall back on the ARB...it
would make no difference to me what they said --it won't
work. It is catastrophic to this area by any point of view.
But maybe using the ARB is the only way we can turn it down.
But this is something that is going to come up more and more
throughout the County, where there is something listed,
generally, by -right, but the individual environment
situation will not support it and shouldn't and we should
figure out some way to have this appropriately reviewed, and
reject it. But I will not vote for this primarily based on
this particular site plan that is included in this
packet --the massive removal of earth and what that might do
I don't think any of us here know."
Mr. Blue noted that this had been his concern at the
beginning of the discussion, i.e. "whether or not we can
legally turn it down on the basis the Architectural Review
Board said it wasn't appropriate and I am told that we can."
He noted that Carrsbrook and Woodbrook are unique because
they border on Rt. 29 and there is no zoning buffer between
the residential lots and the HC zone. He felt the
//I
11-17--92
15
site plan did not address this problem. He noted the
existence of other car dealerships along Rt. 29 and stated
he would feel more comfortable denying the request for
technical reasons rather than just saying that it is
aesthetically not appropriate. He asked Mr. Bowling to
comment on a possible reason for denial.
Mr. Bowling responded that Mr. Johnson had already touched
on a reason, i.e. "that the scale of the proposed
development is inappropriate for the site in this particular
case given the effect it would have upon the Entrance
Corridor." He added that the Code of Virginia allows the
establishment of an Entrance Corridor and "to make the kind
of decisions that are called for here." He also noted that
this is not a by -right use because it requires a special
permit.
Mr. Nitchmann mentioned a number of by -right uses which
could be placed on the site, e.g. a motel, a fast-food
restaurant, stereo sales, and which would be active much
later at night than would this use. He felt, personally,
these would be more objectionable than a car dealership.
However, he expressed concern about the sewage problem and
about the pollution from parking lot runoff. He wondered if
a deferral might be in order so that the sewage issue can be
addressed.
Regarding a comment made by a member of the public regarding
the odor of raw sewage on the site, Mr. Brent explained:
"The question was raised by the Board of Supervisors when
they considered this matter last; a report was made to the
Board of Supervisors, I assume to their satisfaction. We do
not have an issue of raw sewage; we do not have a pumping
station where a sewage system is not operating within the
limits set by the State Health Department and the State
Water Control Board. It's been inspected as recently as
within the last several months and no violations have been
found. There may be inadequacies in the capabilities of
this system to serve future development of this area, but
the system that's there now is functioning according to the
laws and State health regulations that exist. . The
Service Authority, the public, wound up with this facility,
I believe, when the developer of this subdivision got in
financial difficulty, this previously belonged to the
property owners, and the public stepped in and took it over
and has maintained it ever since. ... At some point in the
future there will be another facility, either a sewer line
or another pumping station, to serve future growth in this
area. But you need to recognize that what's there now,
although due to the fact that it is in their backyards it is
objectionable, there is no public health concern and that is
documented and certified by the regulatory agencies."
119
11-17-92 15
Mr. Brent confirmed that if this request is approved either
a new pumping station or a gravity sewer line will have to
be installed, i.e. "the pumping station, as it exists,
cannot serve any additional development --it has reached its
capacity." He explained further: "Under present
conditions, the Service Authority Board of Directors has
determined that it's waiting on the developer to fund the
pumping station. What we're facing is the expenditure of
private funds to provide the solution vs. the expenditure of
public funds to provide the solution. At this point, the
Service Authority sees a developer offering to put up
private money to provide the solution."
Mr. Nitchmann concluded: "So it boils down to 'Do the
individuals sitting in this room prefer to see a car
dealership located on that property or a hotel or a fast
food chain restaurant, because that is allowed there by
right?" (It was noted that a site plan would have to be
approved for any use. Mr. Blue later pointed out that a
site plan would also be reviewed by the ARB for
appropriateness. He asked if the public was aware of the
possibilities. Mr. Bowling noted that the ARB's review
would address only appropriateness of design, not
appropriateness of the use.)
Various unidentified persons in the audience expressed their
vehement favor for other types of uses. (These persons were
not recognized by the Chair and were speaking out of order.)
Mr. Blue stated: "Whatever happens on this particular site
is going to come before the Architectural Review Board and
before us in some form or another."
Ms. Huckle expressed her agreement with the Architectural
Review Board's recommendation. She described the proposal
as "massive, in the wrong place, and bigger now than when
the Board sent it back before."
Mr. j ohnson asked if approval of this special permit also
included approval of the preliminary site plan. (Mr. Blue
referred to it as a "de facto" approval.) Mr. Johnson
stated: "I don't see how I can say you shouldn't allow a
car agency on this site because it is authorized by -right,
but I can say we aren't going to do it with this preliminary
site plan attached to it." Mr. Cilimberg explained that a
preliminary site plan was not before the Commission for
review, but a site plan is submitted as part of the special
permit review.
Mr. Jenkins asked if approval of the special permit "gives
legitimacy to this site plan." Mr. Bowling explained that
the site plan would still have to go through the site plan
approval process, including review by the ARB.
Ago
11-17-92 17
Mr. Grimm again reminded the Commission that the item under
consideration was a special permit request to allow outdoor
storage.
Ms. Huckle moved that SP-91-57 for First Gold Leaf Land
Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-92-56 Schuyler Enterprises (applicant). Teresa Harris and
Brenda Roberts (owner) - The applicant petitions the Board
of Supervisors to amend a condition of SP-92-21 [10.2.2(37)]
in order to increase the number of vehicles which may be
stored on -site (currently no more than four tractor trailers
can be parked in the outside area at any one time) and to
clarify a condition limiting the hours of operation.
Property, described as Tax Map 126, Parcel 31F is located on
the south side of Schuyler Road (Route 800) and Howardsville
Turnpike (Route 602) in the Scottsville Magisterial
District. This site is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is not
located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff opinion is that approval of this request would be
inconsistent with past actions of the County in regards to
storage of vehicles. Approval of this request would be
inconsistent with past actions of the County in regards to
storage of vehicles. Aopproval of this request may make
denial of similar requests for storage difficult to deny.
... Staff recommends denial of SP-92-56."
Mr. Johnson asked staff: "What information do you have that
indicates the applicant's concern with operating hours?"
Mr. Fritz explained that it had been addressed in the
original application and the subject has also been discussed
many times and simply needed to be clarified. He stated
further that the applicant, staff and the Zoning
Administrator understand the intent of the condition, but
the added language makes the condition clearer. Mr. Johnson
suggested that in the future this type of information should
be included in the Commission's packet.
NOTE: The two conditions which were to be effected by this
request were:
2. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. Monday through Saturday; o eration shall be defined as
maintenance work. (That part of the sentence which is
underlined is proposed for clarification.)
and
1ai
11-17-92
1s
7. No more than four tractor trailers can be parked in the
outside area at any one time. (The applicant was asking
that this condiction be removed entirely.)
The applicant, Mr. James Clark, addressed the Commission.
He explained that the request for the increase in vehicles
is occasioned by the fact that the business has grown and
cannot operate with only four trucks on the site. He
explained that currently the trucks are parked at various
different places throughout the County which causes
increased wear and tear on County roads. Regarding the
operational hours, he stated that 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. are
normal working hours for maintenance work, but those hours
do not apply to vehicles being parked on the site, i.e.
those vehicles may be parked or picked up at times other
than during regular operating hours. (In response to Mr.
Blue's inquiry later, he explained that the vehicles that
will be parked on the site will be awaiting repair.) He
felt it would be "better for everyone if condition No. 7
were removed because it would be less traffic on County
roads, thereby making them safer. He stressed that the area
is kept clean and there have been no complaints from
neighbors.
Mr. Blue asked if the applicant was interested in a
compromise, i.e. instead of going from a restriction of 4
vehicles to unlimited vehicles, to perhaps a restriction of
6 or 8. Mr. Clark did not answer the question directly but
rather explained that vehicles are often dropped off on
holidays and weekends and they must be moved to other sites.
He estimated that 14 was the most he could recall having
been on the site.
Mr. Blue asked: "You're not proposing that you're changing
the use from strictly a repair use, you're not proposing
that you be able to park your trucks there so that drivers
do not have to take them home at night." Mr. Clark
responded: "No, not at all." He estimated the maximum time
the trucks would be on the site as 48 hours.
Mr. Blue noted that there was no mention in the request as
to a specific number that could be allowed. He was of the
understanding that the applicant owned 80 trucks. (Mr.
Clark corrected that he owns 1140 tractors.") (Mr. Grimm
made reference to a request for 1118 additional for a total
of 22.11)
Mr. Nitchmann interpreted that there might be a need to
store a truck for a day or two from time to time. He also
stated that he had seen the applicant's trucks parked at
various places around the County (e.g. Stone Robinson
School). In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Clark
confirmed that he had the space to park all of his vehicles
on the site.
11-17-92 19
Mr. Blue felt there was a conflict in the use as described
earlier by Mr. Clark (parking the vehicles while they were
awaiting maintenance), and that which was described by Mr.
Nitchmann (storing the vehicles). Mr. Clark stated that no
repair work is performed on weekends.
Mr. Nitchmann felt it was difficult for this type of
business to shut down on weekends. He viewed this as a "two
fold requirement, one to get the trailers in there, to have
them be permitted to sit there in order to have any
maintenance done on them, but also if they have to sit there
for two days or three days while they are waiting for a
load, instead of having that sit in somebody's front yard,
or he has to pull that trailer down an intolerable road to
get it there or to find someplace else to park that
vehicle."
Mr. Blue agreed that that sounded like a good idea, but then
the use becomes a truck terminal rather than a truck repair
shop. Mr. Clark disagreed. He explained that a truck
terminal is one where freight is loaded and unloaded.
Mr. Clark confirmed that his number of vehicles has tripled
over the past year. He also acknowledged that the majority
of the repair work is done within the garage.
Regarding the limitation on operating hours, Mr. Johnson
stated: "It appears to me that any limitation of hours of
operating is potentially working a hardship on you." Mr.
Clark agreed but stated, "But if we can't do any better,
we'll just have to put up with that." Mr. Johnson
responded: "I think we have to figure out a reason why we
should put up with it. If it's valid, what reason does it
serve?" Mr. Clark stated he could not see any reason
because the use is completely surrounded by timber and there
are no residences within a mile. Mr. Johnson concluded that
whether there were 4 or 44 trucks on the lot, there would
be no visual difference.
Because of the expansion of the business, Ms. Huckle
suggested that the business would be better located in an
industrial zone.
Mr. Jenkins commented: "It seems to me that that gets away
from all of this whereas and therefores as far as trying to
tell this man how to run his business. Everything we go at
has a certain amount of compromise in it ... and I think it's
high time we went ahead and called this for what it is and
not try to tell him when he can come and go."
Mr. Grimm noted that this is a sensitive situation because
the property is still zoned RA and this is a requested use
which is not compatible with the RA zone. He agreed with
11-17-92
20
the County Attorney, "that if this thing goes through it
would be considered a truck terminal."
Mr. Clark noted that the use had been approved by the Board
of Supervisors.
Mr. Grimm explained: "It was approved as a public garage
with a maximum of four vehicles to be parked there and we
are now being requested to increase that by 18 to a total of
22 and the County Attorney is saying 'Now it's turning into
a truck terminal." Mr. Grimm felt the best approach would
be to change the zoning to Light Industrial.
Mr. Clark indicated that has been suggested previously, but
to his knowledge nothing has been done about it, and in the
meantime, "we are having to suffer the expense of waiting."
Mr. Johnson "took exception" to Mr. Grimm's comments. He
explained that he had reviewed the Board's minutes and it
was determined that this was not a violation of the
Comprehensive Plan and that it was compatible with the
definition of a public garage as given in the Zoning
Ordinance. (Mr. Grimm interjected: "That's true, with 4
vehicles allowed.) Mr. Johnson felt the current discussion
had "nothing to do with those aspects," but rather were
related to operating times and number of trucks. Mr. Grimm
pointed out: "We're talking about having a total of 22
vehicles stored on this property which is far more than has
ever been approved for a public garage in an RA zone and I
was very leery of approving that under the circumstances."
Mr. Johnson asked where it is written that there is a
limitation on vehicles for a public garage. Mr. Grimm
responded that historically "the most that has ever been
approved is 4 or 5" (as stated in the staff report). This
is a much different circumstance.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Tom Olivier, representing Citizens for Albemarle, read a
statement of opposition to the proposal. (See Attachment
B.)
Mr. Kevin Cox spoke in support of the request. He stressed
that the use is already in existence, provides badly needed
jobs for 60 persons, and the land is not good for much of
anything else. He felt the request for additional storage
was a question of public health and safety, i.e. "it is
better to have those vehicles stored for maintenance, or
stored for storage sake for a few days, than to have them
scattered all over three different counties." He suggested
that the request be approved and then followed up with a
rezoning of the property to LI.
11-17-92 21
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Blue stated he agreed with some of the applicant's
reasoning, except that the use is something that is
definitely something that is not allowed in the rural areas.
Regarding the suggestion that the property be rezoned, he
felt that would viewed as spot zoning and would have a lot
of opposition. He concluded that the simple thing to do is
to recognize that the use exists and the Board has
determined that it is legal. He suggested that an increase
in vehicles be allowed, but not the unlimited restriction
requested by the applicant. He agreed this would be
difficult for the Zoning Administor to monitor, but felt
that the neighboring residents would notify the County if
the number of vehicles on the site exceeded the permit
allowance. He agreed that there was a safety issue involved
and he did not think a denial would be of any benefit to the
County. He concluded that he was in favor of passing the
item on to the Board with a recommendation for an increase
in the number of stored vehicles.
Ms. Huckle recalled that there had been a lot of
neighborhood objection at the time of the original hearing
for this permit. She felt that the restrictions on hours
and number of trucks had been to "give some relief to the
neighbors." She concluded: "If this demand for longer
hours and more trucks is agreed to, no conditions imposed by
the Board of Supervisors will be safe. In short, we will
have a government by aggressive men and not of laws."
Ms. Andersen stated that she agreed with Mr. Olivier, i.e.
"that there is a pattern of irregular use immerging here."
She felt it very important that that not be allowed to
happen. She also felt it was clear that the Board of
Supervisors intended to have a very narrow interpretation of
the definition of public garage and "we should abide by that
definition, without moving towards something that would
characterize a truck terminal." She concluded that she
would support staff's recommendation for denial. She
encouraged the applicant to pursue a rezoning of the
property.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if an increase to 8 to 10 tractors would
"do the applicant any good" perhaps by offering relief until
a rezoning could be accomplished. Mr. Clark responded
affirmatively.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed his agreement with Mr. Blue's
comments. He noted that the land is not suited for much of
anything else given the fact that it is surrounded by a
quarry. He, too, agreed that there was a safety issue
involved. He was in favor of approving the request with
/X
11-17--92 22
Condition 7 remaining, but with an increase in the number of
vehicles.
Mr. Johnson noted that this was one of the few growth
industries in the County, and it is employing more and more
people, thus the reason for the request. He did not think
the Commission would want to do anything that would reduce
employment opportunities in the County. He could find no
reason to deny the request. He noted that there are no
pollution concerns about this business. He also noted that
the number of trucks which can be parked on the site will be
limited by the available space. He pointed out that the
planting of trees along the frontage of the property
(condition No. 7) will further screen the property. He felt
a restriction on operating hours and number of trailers
would be "hand -in -hand jeopardizing the future and
productivity and the employment being provided by this
company."
Mr. Grimm felt that approval of the request would be
changing the conditions of the permit "after the fact." He
felt that was not an appropriate way for the Commission to
conduct business. He stated he would not support the
request either as presented by the applicant, or with a
limit as suggested by Mr. Nitchmann. He expressed concern
about "opening the door" for other like operations to make
similar requests.
Mr. Blue indicated that
position, but he felt hi
s
Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-92-56 for Schuyler Enterprises
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Saturday; operation shall be defined as
maintenance work. (NOTE: This condition was amended
further later in the meeting and the words except in the
case of emer enc were added at the end.) *
2. No outside storge of parts including junk parts. Refuse
awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers.
3. No freight shall be handled or stored on -site.
4. All work shall be conducted within the garage.
*Ms. Andersen questioned the definition of "emergency."
1a4
11-17-92 23
5. Repair work and storage shall be limited to equipment
owned or operated by Schuyler Enterprises.
6. No more than ten tractor trailers can be parked in the
outside area at any one time.
7. 4-5 foot white pines shall be planted 15 feet on center
across the frontage of the developed portion of this site no
later than May 31, 1993.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Nitchmann confirmed that he was satisfied with condition
No. 1, and that it was his intent that no maintenance work
could be performed after hours or on Sunday.
The above stated motion for approval failed to pass (3:4)
with Commissioners Andersen, Grimm, Huckle and Johnson
casting the dissenting votes.
Mr. Johnson asked that the record show that his lack of
support for the motion was because he objected to any
limitation on both hours of operation and number of trucks.
Mr. Grimm pointed out that the Commission needed to forward
a recommendation to the Board. He called for an alternative
motion. There was a lack of understanding on the part of
some Commissioners as to why another motion was needed. It
was ultimately explained that a failed motion for approval
is not automatically considered a motion for denial.
Mr. Nitchmann made an alternative motion that SP-92-56 for
Schuyler Enterprises be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval as previously stated, EXCEPT that
condition No. 1 be amended to read:
1. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Saturday; operation shall be defined as
maintenance work, except in the case of emergency.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
The motion for approval passed (4:3) with Commissioners
Andersen, Huckle, and Grimm casting the dissenting votes.
SP-92-61 Charlottesville Cellular Partnership (applicant),
Henry Chiles and Virginia Chiles Kaith (owner) - The
applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a
special use permit for a communication tower f10.2.2(6)1 on
209.90 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property, known as
Tax Map 97, Parcel 16 is the location of Castle Rock
11-17-92 24
Montain. This request is to replace the existing tower.
This site is lcoated in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District and is not located within a designated growth area
(Rural Area 3).
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval.
It was determined that the word "installation" in Condition
No. 3 would be changed to "installations."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Carter. He stated
that the applicant is in agreement with the staff report and
explained that the project is a replacement of an existing
tower with a better tower (same height but stronger and able
to accommodate more users).
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that SP-92-61 for
Charlottesville Cellular Partnership be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet.
2. The existing tower shall be removed.
3. Staff approval of additional antennae installations. No
administrative approval shall constitute or imply support
for or approval of, the location of additional tower
antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network
of system as any antennae administratively approved under
this section.
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required
by a federal agency.
6. Administrative approval of sketch plan in general accord
with plan dated August 20, 1992 by Balzer and Associates in
Atttachment B of this report and administrative approval of
an erosion control plan, if applicable.
The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Johnson suggested the formation of three committees:
11-17-92 25
(1) "Relative to viewing the Zoning Ordinance with
respect to decreasing its cost to the developers and
builders;
(2) Reviewing the building code; and
(3) Reviewing the education plan to cover all of the
aspects, particularly that Bill has identified, that are not
covered by our present education."
Mr. Nitchmann asked that a message be sent to the Board of
Supervisors that the Commission "feels it is most important
that we move ahead immediately with the forming of an
Eonomic Development Committee to run parallel with the
Fiscal Impact Committee." He felt both should be working at
the same time. It was decided that Mr. Nitchmann would
develop a charter for such a committee and submit it to the
Commission for discussion prior to passing the suggestion on
to the Board.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
12:00 a.m. (midnight).
DB
/07q