HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 16 1991 PC MinutesJuly 16, 1991 Page 1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm;
Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning and Community Development, Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief
of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. George
St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of July
2, 1991 were approved as amended.
SP-91-28 Emil Kutilek - Petition to locate a private airport
(10.2.2(19)] on 46.25 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 40B, Parcel 69, is located on
the southeast side of Rt. 810 approximately 3/10 mile south
of the intersection of Rt. 789 and Rt. 810 in the White Hall
Magisterial District. This site is not located within a
designated growth area (Rural Area 1).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was
recommending denial of the request.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that though staff had calculated that
possible future dwellings could be located approximately 285
feet from the runway, the applicant had calculated that
distance to be 392 feet from the end of the runway. He
noted that was still less than the 500 feet minimum distance
referenced in Sec. 5.1.1 of the Ordinance. Mr. Fritz noted
that the owner of the nearest property had signed a petition
supporting the request.
The applicant, Mr. Kutilek, addressed the Commission. He
presented a drawing showing the locations of existing
dwellings and photographs showing the location of the low
voltage line. The following aspects of the proposal were
determined:
--The applicant lives on the property.
--The owners of the closest undeveloped lots have
indicated no plans to build on the lots because of their
location in the floodplain.
--The applicant will be purchasing, or building, the
aircraft. Any aircraft which is built will have to pass a
rigid inspection. The applicant is an airplane mechanic.
--There are no plans to use the airstrip at night.
--Landings will be made at the Charlottesville Airport
in the event of crosswind problems.
I�2
July 16, 1991
Page 2
--No additional construction or grading is planned; all
structures currently exist.
--The applicant is on the waiting list for hangar space
at the Charlottesville Airport, but the waiting list is 11
years old.
--The airstrip will NOT be listed on the Virginia
Aeronautical Chart.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Grimm indicated he was reluctant to approve the request
because of the precedent involved in reducing the distance
to residential dwelllings. Commissioner Andersen agreed.
Ms. Huckle was sympathetic to the applicant's request, but
noted that an airport is a "nuisance" to adjacent
residential property.
Mr. Rittenhouse's main concern was the fact that the runway
did not meet the minimum distance requirement as stated in
the Ordinance.
Staff affirmed that even taking into consideration the
discrepancy in the applicant's measurements and staff's
measurements, the distance to a residential lot is still
less than 500 feet as required by the Ordinance. Mr. Fritz
noted, however, that all EXISTING dwellings do meet the
minimum 500 feet distance. (NOTE: The lot closest to the
runway, though currently undeveloped, is zoned to allow a
residential dwelling at some future date.) Mr. Fritz quoted
from Sec. 5.1.1(c) of the Ordinance: "No runway or heliport
area shall be located nearer than 500 feet horizontally or
1,000 feet longitudinally to any residential structure on
any adjoining property....."
Commission discussion centered on this issue, and
particularly on the fact that the lot in question currently
is undeveloped.
Mr. Jenkins noted that all surrounding neighbors had signed
the petition of support. He also noted that no construction
was planned.
Mr. Wilkerson also pointed out that the owner of the closest
lot supports the request.
Mr. Rittenhouse did not feel that neighbor support was a
reason to waive the ordinance. He stated: "I don't want a
variance to the Ordinance to become something that becomes a
public opinion poll on whether the current adjacent property
owners agree or disagree. That's my concern." He felt
there should be a compelling reason to grant a waiver to the
Ordinance.
July 16, 1991 Page 3
Mr. Johnson felt the proposal was unique because it does not
involve a constructed runway or hangar. Mr. Johnson also
pointed out that the Ordinance states that it must be at
least 500 feet from a "" residential structure" and it is.
He noted that even if a structure is placed on the lot in
question at some future time, it could possibly be sited so
as to be 500 feet away. He stated: "Everybody around it
has indicated acceptance of it. I think we do have reason
to consider that it is appropriate and would not really be a
violation of the Ordinance."
Mr. Rittenhouse did not think the "semantics" of the
proposal made it unique.
Mr. Wilkerson wondered if a condition could be added which
would revoke the permit at such time as the nearest lot is
built on. Mr. Fritz explained that a condition could be
added requiring the applicant to acquire an easement on the
property such that the property owner would agree not to
construct within 500 feet of the airstrip or if the
acquisition of such an easement were not possible then the
permit could be re -reviewed at such time as the adjacent
property is developed.
Mr. Kutilek had no particular comment about this suggestion.
He did, however, suggest that the concern could be addressed
by simply reducing the length of the runway. He explained
that he only needed 500 feet of runway. He offered to
change the length of the runway to 800 feet which would make
a minimum distance to the nearest lot line of 600 feet. He
explained that his request for 1,000 feet had just been a
"general" number he had picked though he had told staff he
only needed 500 feet. He also questioned the correctness of
placing conditions on something which "might happen."
Mr. Keeler confirmed that there would be no problem if the
applicant could re -configure the runway in such a way that
it would comply with the Ordinance.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that before he could support the
application there would have to be a condition stating:
"Landing strip shall not be located closer than 500 feet to
an adjacent lot line." The applicant offered no objection
to such a condition.
Mr. Johnson suggested the following wording: "Runway shall
not be located nearer than 500 feet to any residential
structure on any adjoining property."
There was further discussion about the interpretation of the
Ordinance in terms of existing structures vs. possible
future structures and whether or not the distance was
Z'V i—
July 16, 1991 Page 4
measured from a structure or the lot line. Mr. Rittenhouse
pointed out that staff is saying that "the use of that lot,
which is already approved, cannot be foreclosed by the
presence of the airstrip which would be there first." Mr.
St. John commented: "I think the Ordinance means that you
take into account at this point. ... I think what the
Ordinance intends for you to do is to take into account that
you have a lot here which is already created and put to
record and is entitled to a building permit tomorrow (if the
owner desires). It think that now is the time to take that
into account."
Mr. St. John also stated that he felt condition No. 1,
limiting the permit to the applicant only, was a "highly
suspect condition in all special use permits." He stated
that issue would be discussed at a later time. He felt
felt condition No. 1 should be clarified. It was staff's
intent that the permit be issued only to the applicant and
not be attached to the land. The applicant expressed no
opposition to this restriction. It was decided the
condition would have the following added at the end: "...and
airfield is for usaae by the applicant only."
Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. St. John if a condition requiring that
the runway be 500 feet from the lot line, as suggested by
Mr. Rittenhouse was acceptable. He noted that making the
assumption that a future structure could be on the lot line
would eliminate the question of the future siting of a
structure on the site. Mr. St. John responded: "That's the
way the Ordinance intends that you apply it."
There was a brief discussion about condition No. 3 and
possibly limiting the intensity of the usage. It was
determined this condition would be changed to read:
"Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to three per week
during daylight hours only, except in emergencies." It was
clarified that this included 3 takeoffs and 3 landings.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-91-28 for Emil Kutilek be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Special use permit is issued to the applicant only and
airfield is for usage by the applicant only.
2. Limited to two base aircraft.
3. Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to three (3) per
week during daylight hours only, except in emergencies.
4. All maintenance, repair and mechanical work, except that
of an emergency nature, shall be performed in an enclosed
building.
J -2(
July 16, 1991 Page 5
5. All areas used by aircraft under its own power shall be
provided with a reasonable dust free surface.
6. Approval/registration by/with the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation.
7. Airstrip shall be located no closer than 500 feet to the
nearest residential lot line.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-91-29 CBC Partners - Petition to locate a miniature golf
course [24.2.2(1)] on 1.4 acres zoned HC, Highway
Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel
112C1, is located on the west side of Rt. 29 adjacent to
Kegler's Bowling in the Charlottesville Magisterial
district. This site is located in a designated -growth area
(Neighborhood I) and is in the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Fritz and Mr.
Keeler described the pedestrian crosswalks. Mr. Rittenhouse
expressed concern about the safety of youngsters crossing
the parking area to get to the restrooms at Kegler's. Ms.
Huckle asked if some sort of lighting could be placed on the
walkways to alert motorists. Mr. Cilimberg stated that would
fall under the administrative approval of the site plan.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve VonStork and Mr.
Joe McCarthy. Mr. VonStork stated the applicant would
welcome recommendations from the Commission or staff as to a
profile for the walkways, including signage and any other
concerns. Mr. McCarthy described the golf course.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was in favor of Commission review
of the final site plan because of the safety concerns
related to pedestrian crossing of the parking lot. The
Commission agreed with Mr. Rittenhouse.
Mr. Johnson noted that he felt the description of the
pedestrian walkways was such that they were neither speed
"bumps" nor speed "humps" and therefore any possible
conflict with the ordiance was remote.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-91-29 for CBC Partners be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
July 16, 1991
Page 6
1. Hours of operation shall be between 9 a.m. and 12 a.m.
weekdays and 9 a.m. and 1 a.m. weekends;
2. Development shall be in general accord with plan stamped
received June 10, 1991 and initialled WDF.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZTA-91-04 Schuyler Enterprises - Petition to amend Section
3.0 to include a definition for contractor's office and
equipment storage yard to amend Section 5.1.33 to provide
supplemental regulations for contractor's office and
equipment storge yard and to add Section 10.2.2(44) which
would provide for contractor's office and equipment storage
yard by special use permit in the Rural Areas.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"It is the opinion of staff that the negative aspects of
this request outweigh the positive aspects; therefore staff
is unable to support the addition of Contractor's Office and
Equipment Storage Yard by special use permit in the Rural
Areas. However, staff does recommend the inclusion of a
definition and supplemental reqgulations for contractor's
office and equipment storage yard." Mr. Cilimberg clarified
that if the Commission agreed with staff's recommendation,
then the definition and supplementary regulations would be
added, but the addition of Contractor's Office and Equipment
Storage Yard by special use permit in the Rural Areas would
NOT be added.
Mr. Rittenhouse had questions about 5.1.33(b)--["No
materials or equipment shall be stored on any portion of
such property so as to be visible from any public road or
any residential property, and shall be limited to locations
designated on the approved site plan."] He asked: "Is that
too restrictive in an LI or HI district ---to require that
there be no materials or equipment visible from any public
road in either of those two districts?"
Mr. St. John stated that he, too, had the same concern. He
stated that he also had a problem with the proposed
definition. He stated: "It seems to me that these
supplementary regulations were created in order to make this
use compatible in the Rural Area if you were to approve
putting it in the Rural Area. But you don't need to make
these things invisible from the public road in a heavy
industry district. ... There is no requirement in the heavy
industry district that any of these heavy uses, such as this
use, be invisible from the public road." He pointed out
/d I'
July 16, 19 91
Page i
that the amendment, as proposed, would make the
supplementary regulations applicable to all districts. He
continued: "I have a feeling that the supplementary
regulation was put before you with the idea that it's needed
if you put this use in a rural district. It's only needed if
you approve the use as being in an RA district."
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out: "There is provision, under all
supplementary regulations, that the Commission and Board can
waive certain aspects of the regs in any particular case.
You may or may not need this provision in any particular
case whether it be LI, HI or HC. You are going to have to
judge that on a case -by -case basis just as you do all other
special permits. You could leave out those parts which deal
with storage by a public road and deal with it on a
case -by -case basis if you feel that's appropriate." He
noted also that staff has attempted, even in HI and LI
zones, to make sure that storage of materials is not visible
from a public road.
Mr. St. John asked: "Why wouldn't you make it applicable to
all the uses though?"
Mr. Rittenhouse also had concerns about the proposed
definition of Contractor's Office and Equipment Storage
Yard. He stated: "It seems to me that a lot of things
would fall into that category." Mr. St. John interjected:
"That's the problem I have. ... Anything you do for money is
a service and this doesn't limit itself to what you think of
as contractor's service. The Virginia Code has a definition
of contractors... essentially people that are in the
construction business. ... The application of this use in
the Zoning Ordinance has always been to that kind of
contractor. ... This changes the whole idea of who a
contractor can be and what the yard can be because it can
relate to any kind of service. ... This is not to clarify
what we've already done. In my opinion this would be a
radical change in our understanding of what a contractor's
yard could be."
Mr. Rittenhouse felt the definition was too broad.
Mr. Johnson suggested that consideration of the changes to
the definitions and the supplementary regulations be
deferred and that the Commission only act upon the request
for amendment to Section 10.2.2(44), to add Contractor's
Office and Equipment Storage Yard as a use by special permit
in the Rural Areas.
Referring to Mr. Johnson's suggestion, Mr. Keeler pointed
out that if the use were to be approved now and then the
definition turns out later not to fit the use, then the
1�
July 16, 1991
Page 8
applicant has not been helped. Mr. Cilimberg added: "The
definition is somewhat inherent to the consideration of the
SP to determine whether or not the application is
appropriately before you."
Mr. St. John stated: "That's the problem of this whole
thing. You have a definition which was developed
specifically in order to include a particular activity that
the common usage of this language would not include. ... The
definition of contractor has been changed here to cover an
activity that is not within a contracting business in the
Code or by common understanding. That's exactly what has
happened here, in my opinion....I believe we ought to
straighten this out now...."
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that staff would need to meet with
the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney before
making any changes to the proposed amendment. He emphasized
that there was no intent on the part of staff to
"tailor-make" the amendment to fit the applicant's request.
Rather, it was developed "in consultation with the Zoning
Administrator to try to cover a lot of fronts."
The applicant (Mr. Clark) expressed no opposition to a
deferral. He also explained the proposed usage as follows:
"We're using it to repair our trucks. We're not selling
anything in or out of there." He confirmed that the trucks
were involved in interstate trucking.
It was determined that if deferred, the item could still be
rescheduled before the Commission in time for it to still be
heard by the Board by August 21st.
Mr. St. John confirmed that it was not necessary to open the
item to public comment at this time since it was to be
deferred.
Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that ZTA-91-04
for Schuyler Enterprises be deferred to August 6, 1991. The
motion passed unanimously.
SP-91-21 Schuyler Enterprises - Petition to locate a
contractor's office and equipment storage yard [use is
proposed by ZTA-91-041.
Because of the deferral of ZTA-91-44, it was determined that
action on this item should also be deferred.
Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-91-21
be deferred to August 6, 1991. The motion passed
unanimously.
July 16, 1991
Page 9
MISCELLANEOUS
June 18th Minutes - Mr. Johnson read a statment which
referred to the minutes of the June 18th meeting, as related
to the Albemarle High School renovations. A copy of that
statement is attached to these minutes as Atachment A. He
felt there were "statements made at the previous meeting
which are being referenced here which are contradictory to
what I just read."
Mr. Rittenhouse commented: "Walter, I think your statement
is appropriate for this meeting, but not for the minutes of
a previous meeting, because the minutes of that meeting say
what transpired at that particular point in time and that is
a record of what we said whether or not we all agree with
it. fr
Church of Our Savior Thrift Shop Parking (Rio Road) - Mr.
Keeler explained that the church is proposing to use an
existing building on adjoining property as a thrift shop for
the distribution (either free or at minimal cost) of used
children's clothing and books. He explained that recent
improvements to Rio Road would make it very expensive for
the church to construct parking to serve this building.
Therefore, the church is asking for permission to use
existing church parking to serve the building. He
explained that the church will be constructing walkways to
the building from the church parking lot. The proposal
falls under Section 4.12.4 (Cooperative Parking) of the
Ordinance. He stated that only seven parking spaces were
needed to support the use and asked for the Commission's
approval of the request so that staff could approve the site
plan administratively.
Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the
cooperative parking for the Church of Our Savior Thrift Shop
be allowed and that staff be granted administrative approval
of the site plan. The motion passed unanimously.
Institute for Planning Commissioners/Certified Planning
Commissioners Program - Mr. Cilimberg reported that he ha
registration forms for these programs (to be held in
Virginia Beach in October) in the event that any
Commissioners were interested. Deadline for registration
September 15th.
Sequence of ARB Review - Mr. Johnson raised a question
about sequence procedure for "special use projects and the
function of the ARB." (He referred to a request heard July
9th for radio antennae on top of an existing building.) Mr.
Cilimberg explained that the ARB is "part of the approval
process for outdoor storage --they were specifically written
I.13/
July 16, 1991 Page 10
in for that section. They are advisory in other uses." Mr.
Cilimberg added that staff is providing the ARB with a
descriptive list of all projects to be reviewed by the
Commission to see if they wish to comment on the projects
before Commission review.
Mr. Johnson also brought up the question of whether or not
changes in existing buildings located on an Entrance
Corridor should be subject to ARB review. Mr. Cilimberg
stated this would be "getting into an area of architectural
review that is not part of the EC Overlay District as it is
currently constructed." He felt this type of review would
require a major change to the Ordinances.
It was decided the ARB would be asked to comment on this
idea. Mr. Cilimberg noted that such a change would probably
require additional staff members.
Mr. St. John noted that the Code does allow this type of
review.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:20 p.m. A
m