HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 10 1991 PC MinutesSeptember 10, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, September 10, 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;
Mr. Rich Tarbell, 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
August 27, 1991 were approved as amended.
ZTA-91-04 Schuyler Enterprises - Petition to amend Section
3.0 to change the definition of Public garage. Deferred
from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 6, 1991.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the fact that staff's
proposed language had no definition of "temporary." He
suggested the following be inserted: "...vehicles, only as
required in the performance herein." He felt the 48 hrs.
proposed by the applicant could be too restrictive in the
event parts had to be ordered, etc. Mr. Fritz pointed out
that the use would still be by special permit which enables
the Commission and Board, during review, to place limits on
each particular situation. He also explained that time
limits present problems for the Zoning Administrator in
terms of enforcement. The Zoning Administrator had felt the
term "temporary" gave her some flexibility in making
subjective determinations.
Before opening the public hearing, the Chairman explained
that discussion was to be limited to the Zoning Text
Amendment only and not the special permit which would
follow.
The applicant was represented by counsel,
He offered few additional comments except
applicant endorsed staff's recommendations
staff's suggested langage rather than the
originally submitted by the applicant.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Fred Landess.
to state that the
and preferred
language
18if
9-10-91
2
Mr. Kevin Cox expressed support for the proposal. He felt
it would be a less intensive use than a public garage
currently can be. He suggested that an additional provision
be added restricting this use to areas of minimal
agricultural value.
Ms. Helen Snook, representing the League of Women Voters,
addressed the Commission and raised a number of questions
about the proposal. Her comments are made a part of this
record as ATTACHMENT A.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowling made the following statement in regards to the
proposed amendment:
"There are ways to accomplish what the applicant desires,
but we don't believe that the mechanism that is being used
here is the proper way to accomplish that. We feel that
what we have here is essentially a square peg being
attempted to be hammered into a round hole. Insofar as the
zoning text amendment is concerned, we don't feel there is
any deficiency in the existing definition of 'public garage'
and we feel that the amendment that has been proposed is
detrimental to the Ordinance for the following reasons, both
of draftmanship and of substance: [He pointed out that
these concerns had been discussed with staff and with Mr.
Landess.] First, we feel that the definition was created
for the specific purpose of trying to bring the operations
of Schuyler Enterprises within the definition. As such, we
believe that this is spot zoning by text as contrasted to
the usual type of spot zoning by map. In other words, there
is no public need whatsoever for this amendment except for
the purpose of accommodating the applicant's activities.
Second, in fact, the change in definition does not in any
sense fit the activities of Schuyler Enterprises. There was
a court proceeding that occurred involving Schuyler
Enterprises on September 9, 1991 and at that time it was
brought out that the facility is to be a service and storage
area for 60 trailers and 26 tractors, engaged in interstate
trucking and tractor -trailer use. It is to be used
exclusively for Schuyler Enterprises for this purpose and to
service nobody else and in that sense it is not public at
all but is a private facility excluded by the very
definition of what is being proposed. To grant a special
use permit under this new definition for Schuyler
Enterprises for the activities they propose would be an
abuse of the English language and totally inconsistent with
the original purpose of allowing public garages in rural
areas which was to provide a support facility for residences
in rural areas. [At this point Mr. Landess interrupted and
pointed out that Mr. Bowling's comments were addressing the
/15
9-10-91 3
special permit which other speakers had not been allowed to
do. The Chairman did not respond and Mr. Bowling
continued.] The only real purpose that our office can see in
the approach being taken by the applicant in proposing this
definition and then seeking a special use permit under it,
is to put themselves in the position of saying the County
has granted permits for other public garages and to deny
such permits for them is discriminatory. We want to point
out that the previously granted permits for public garages
bear no resemblance whatsoever either in magnitude or in the
basic nature of the operation to the use proposed by
Schuyler Enterprises. There are ways to accomplish what the
applicant has proposed if that's what the Board and
Commission want to do. We just have some serious concerns
about doing it in this manner."
In response to a question raised by Ms. Huckle about how the
number of vehicles can be controlled, etc., Mr. Cilimberg
explained that traditionally that type of concern has been
addressed through restrictive conditions attached to an
approval. Mr. Keeler added that "regulatory language" is to
be avoided in definitions but rather should be placed in
supplementary regulations or addressed on a case -by -case
basis with a special use permit.
Mr. Johnson noted that the County Attorney's office is
satisfied with the existing definition and Mr. Cilimberg
seemed to support that position by stating that "any
ancillary restrictions would be taken care of on a
case -by -case basis as has been done in the past." Mr.
Cilimberg commented that staff was recommending the
definition "as being more clarifying of public garages in
general, not taking this particular application apart from
any other."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was attempting to focus on the
intent of a public garage in the rural areas, which he
perceived to be "an offering of limited service to the rural
areas." He felt it was inconsistent to have a public garage
that would be used by only a single user, whether an
individual or a club. He felt the phrase "whether or not
for compensation" as proposed by staff was inconsistent with
the definition. He felt this could result in the
establishment of a "public garage" to which the public
would have no access. He also expressed concerns about the
"temporary" aspect of the definition. He felt this put the
Zoning Administrator "under a burden to equitably administer
the temporary nature of a garage." He agreed with staff
that a 48 hr. limit (as proposed by the applicant) was not a
reasonable amount of time. Mr. Rittenhouse stressed that
A0
9-10-91 4
his position on this proposal was formed prior to his review
of the special permit and was "unique to his evaluation of
public garage." He indicated he could not support the
modifications to the definition of public garage as
proposed.
Mr. Grimm agreed with Mr. Bowling and Mr. Rittenhouse. He
felt conditions should be specific to each application.
Mr. Johnson felt the "simplest and most direct definition
was that that is already included in the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that there have been problems in the
past in the enforcement of public garage without inviting a
use that implies an individual use.
Mr. Johnson moved that ZTA-91-04 for Schuyler Enterprises be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial "on the
basis that it is neither necessary nor desirable."
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-91-21 Schuyler Enterprises - Petition to locate a public
garage (this request is being processed concurrently with
ZTA-91-04) on 25 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 126, part of Parcel 31A (31F) is
located on the south side of the intersection of Rt. 800 and
Rt. 602 in the Scottsville Magisterial district. This site
is not located within a designated growth area. Deferred
from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 6, 1991.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He explained that the
report had been written based on the assumption that the
zoning text amendment "has been approved and the general
policy issue of permitting storage in conjunction with a
public garage has been addressed." The report concluded:
"It is the opinion of staff that this request is
inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan
regarding the Rural Area and that this use would be more
appropriate in a designated growth area." The staff report
identified several negative factors related to the request
and therefore recommended denial.
The applicant was represented by Mr. James Clark, owner of
the business, and Mr. Fred Landess, counsel. Mr. Clark
described the events which had led to this point including
the role of various County offices and staff. He emphasized
that no attempt had been made to deceive the County. He
felt the most important aspect of this business would be the
/ 97
9-10-91 5
fact that it would increase the safety on Rt. 800 because it
would shorten the route the trucks would have to take to the
other facility in Schuyler. (It was determined there were
no plans to close the original Schuyler facility though
tractor trailers would no longer be serviced there.) He
also stressed that the business would be financially
beneficial to the community.
Approximately 60 persons (predominantly residents of the
area) expressed their support for Mr. Clark's statements by
standing when requested to do so by Mr. Clark.
Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Clark to explain activity he had
witnessed at the site on various days after work was
officially stopped by the Zoning Administrator. He referred
specifically to a statement made by the applicant that no
work had been performed since June 14, 1991. Mr. Clark
explained that materials had been moved from that facility
to the other facility (August 3). Regarding the presence of
trucks and workers, Mr. Clark was uncertain but felt that
possibly trucks had been parked there on a Friday night.
(Mr. Johnson explained that it was noon, August 5, and the
workers appeared to be having lunch.)
Mr. Landess addressed the Commission. He felt the use met
the definition of a public garage. He stated it clearly was
not a private garage, the definition of which is "accessory
to a building occupied by the owner." He stated the reason
for the ZTA was to address the issue of storage. He pointed
out that the use meets the stated intent of this type use in
the Comp Plan, i.e. "that development should be in areas of
marginal utility for agricultural and forestal use." He
pointed out that the use would decrease traffic on secondary
roads. He stressed that most of the residents of the area
support the request. He called attention to the number of
persons present and the number of persons who had signed
petitions of support. He noted that the area is not
suitable for agriculture and also that not all parts of the
County lend themselves to the preservation of scenic and
recreational areas. He stated the business offers
employment opportunities for local residents and helps to
make the area a community. He expressed concern about
newcomers who come to Albemarle County and then try to
change the rules so that the "people who were here and
trying to earn a living here no longer can." He felt there
should be a balance and "this particular project fits that
mold."
It was determined that disallowance of the request would
effect the jobs of approximately 10 to 12 persons (who are
residents of the area) and would also effect all drivers
WR
9-10-91 6
because repairs would take longer if they had to be made at
"Public places." Mr. Clark confirmed there would be a big
financial impact on his business.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed
their support for the proposal: Mr. Kevin Cox; Mr. Courtney
Powell; Mr. George Fortune; Mr. Bill Lehr; Mr. Tom Ringrose;
Mr. Gary Stasco; Mr. Bill Walker; Mr. Ray Gentry (adjoining
property owner); Mr. Steve Clark; and Mrs. Gilford Gianinni.
Several of these persons vouched for the integrity of the
applicant in particular. Their reasons for support included
the following:
--Property is not suitable for any agricultural
activities, including timbering and this is a very isolated
section of the County;
--The building will remain, regardless of the outcome
of the request;
--Improved safety of Rt. 800;
--Absence of this business will effect other
businesses;
--Damage to the economics of a community;
--Provide future jobs for community's young people;
--Regulations must sometimes be changed to meet human
needs and a "human factor" must be given consideration in
this type of decision;
--The business will offer the service of recycling oil
for the community.
Mr. Jack Marshall, representing Citizens for Albemarle,
expressed opposition to the proposal. His comments are
attached as Attachment B.
Ms. Helen Snook, representing the League of Women Voters,
expressed opposition to the request. She stated that it was
not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be
setting a harmful precedent. She stated that if the map or
the Comp Plan is wrong, then it should be changed.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr..Johnson stated that though he had originally been
opposed to the request, after hearing the comments he felt
he could support it. He felt that the proposed use did not
fit the definition of a public garage and was indeed
private. He quoted the following definition of a public
garage from the Ordinance: "A building or portion thereof
other than a private garage designed or used for servicing
or repairing motor driven vehicles." He concluded: "That
is exactly what the applicant is going to do." He felt if
there was an error it was in including the word "public"
!89
9-10-91 7
in the definition. He pointed out that public garage is
already allowed in the Ordinance by special permit and thus
was anticipated in the RA area. He did not feel there was a
conflict. He felt the conditions of approval offered by
staff were reasonably complete, but'suggested the addition
of a seventh: "Use shall comply with basic regulations
contained in Sec. 4.0 as applicable." He felt the location
would not be detrimental to the County because "if
expansions occurred around it it would be almost ideal for
heavy industry." He concluded: "I don't like to see jobs
suffer because we haven't decided whether this is the
chicken or the egg." He suggested that consideration be
given, at a later time, to eliminating the word "public"
from the definition.
Mr. Rittenhouse identified the following two issues: (1)
The aspect of community involvement and the value of the
enterprise to the Schuyler community; and (2) Consistence
with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. He
agreed that the use did not meet the definition of a public
garage and to grant a special permit on the basis that this
is a public garage would create an "inconsistency that would
be difficult to live with" in the future. He felt the
Comprehensive Plan must dictate the decisions of the
Commission. He could not recall an instance where a special
permit has been approved which did not comply with the Comp
Plan. He noted: "If we thought that the Comprehensive Plan
was wrong, our deliberations on a rezoning or a special
permit were always preceded by deliberations on what the
Comprehensive Plan says." He felt to digress from that cycle
is to "build in a element of inconsistency that makes it
extremely difficult to protect all our citizens in all
situations." He felt that was the proper "vehicle" for
this consideration. He felt the Comprehensive Plan
considerations should take place before consideration of a
change in use. He concluded that he could not support the
application as presented. He indicated he did not question
the information presented by the public as to the value of
the enterprise to the Community and felt the citizen support
was admirable. He stressed, however, that the Commission
must maintain consistency "throughout the County" and could
not "step around the Comprehensive Plan process."
Mr. Bowling confirmed that his earlier remarks about another
way to address this situation was as described by Mr.
Rittenhouse, i.e. through a consideration of a Comprehensive
Plan amendment.
Commissioners Andersen, Huckle, Grimm and Wilkerson
expressed their agreement with the Chairman's statements.
Ms. Andersen noted that in earlier times the issue of
190
9-10-91 8
transportation of agricultural crops out of the rural areas
had been an important consideration. She noted that rural
areas and transportation "go together and we should find a
way to take a look at that."
Mr. Jenkins felt there should be some discussion as to a
plan which will ultimately "do what you're suggesting."
Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the foremat was the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Mr. Rittenhouse and
staff described the process and Mr. Cilimberg estimated the
process would take a minimum of 90 days. Mr. Cilimberg
stressed that this type of review would involve a look at
the whole area and not just this particular parcel. It was
noted that the Board had yet to act on the request and the
applicant's decision as to how to proceed would be
determined by the Board's action.
Mr. Clark expressed concern about the time issue. He noted
that he had already been in the process a year.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-91-21 for Schuyler Enterprises
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he would not support the motion "because
it appears that the reason for denial is that it is not
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. If this is so then
special permit No. 37 under the RA area is also in
non-conformance with the Comprehensive Plan since it allows
under the title public garage --but under the definition and
description --it allows exactly this to be authorized as a
special permit in the RA area."
Mr. Rittenhouse commented: "If we adopted the format that a
public garage is anything but a private garage, then there
are a multitude of uses that have something to do with
vehicles --salvage yards, junk yards --that we would let
ourselves in for considering positively if we take that
approach. I don't agree that a public garage is anything
but a garage that offers a service to the public."
Mr. Jenkins stated he would not support the motion because
he wanted the motion to show support for the activity. He
stated that though he was bothered by certain aspects of the
the issue he felt the citizen support was very persuasive.
He noted that he agreed that the vehicle for correcting the
situation was as discussed, but he would vote against the
motion "to give it that much support."
�9�
9-10-91
The motion for denial passed (5:2) with Commissioners
Johnson and Jenkins casting the dissenting votes.
The meeting recessed from 9:25 to 9:35.
ACAC Major Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to construct a
6,000 square foot addition to the existing recreation
facility. Property, described as Tax Map 61X2, parcel 4B,
is located on the east side of Four Seasons Drive. Zoned
PUD, Planned Unit Development in the Charlottesville
Magisterial district. This site is located within a
designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
It was determined there are approximately 6,500 square feet
remaining (from the original 25,500) for future expansion.
There was a brief discussion of the sediment basin. Mr.
Keeler realled that the rezoning had been in the nature of a
site plan and many issues had been addressed at that time.
He explained a lot of work had been done on the basin in
conjunction with the County. It was noted that the basin is
currently being evaluated in the CIP and alternatives are
being considered also.
There was a brief discussion of parking. Ms. Huckle asked
if the new parking spaces would solve existing parking
problems. Mr. Tarbell indicated it should help alleviate
some of the problems.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve von Stork. He
noted that more parking spaces are provided than required.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the ACAC
Major Site Plan Amendment be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
!9�
9-10-91
10
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
additional fixture units on the existing meter;
d. Fire Official and Albemarle County Service
Authority approval of new fire hydrant(s) location.
2. Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire official final approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-91-058 Stop -In Food Store Preliminary Site Plan -
Proposal to demolish the existing building and construct a
2,400 square foot convenience store with six fuel islands
and 21 parking spaces on a 0.79 acre site. Property;
described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 17A1, is located on the
south side of Route 250 East, just east of the Rivanna
River. Zoned C-1, Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor
overlay District in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This
site is located within a designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions. Mr. Tarbell noted that the
Architectural Review Board had not yet issued a Certificate
of Appropriateness because of concerns about the canopy but
that was not an issue before the Commission.
It was noted that the applicant had made all changes
requested by the Site Review Committee. Staff felt the
proposal was an improvement over existing conditions.
There was a brief discussion about the on -site detention
facility which the applicant is providing voluntarily.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Thomas Turner. He
briefly described the history of the property.
There being no public comment the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen that the
Stop -In Food Store Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
193
9-10-19
11
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of
stormwater detention plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering approval of erosion
control plans;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of right-of-way improvement plans;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
revised water service line and meter box location to
the northeast corner of the site;
f. Staff approval of final landscape plan;
g. Architectural Review Board issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire official final approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-91-064 - Broadus Memorial Church Preliminary Site Plan -
Proposal to construct a 8,500 square foot church facility on
10.61 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 62, Parcel 25C,
is located on the east side of Route 20 North, approximately
600 feet south of the Franklin Subdivision. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor overlay District in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a
designated growth area. (Reference - SP-89-063 and
SP-89-066 approved in October, 1989).
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions. The report cited the only
issue identified in the request as being a request for
modification of regulations of critical slopes. The report
concluded: "Staff opinion is the concern for the loss of an
aesthetic resource has been adequately addresed and,
therefore, staff also supports the modification request."
The issue of critical slopes was discussed very briefly.
The applicant was represented its architect, Mr. Bruce
Wardell. He explained that the building had been sited so
as to encroach on critical slopes as little as possible.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
/9t4
9-10-91
12
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the
Broadus Memorial Church Preliminary Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering approval of
stormwater detention plans and calculations;
d. Department of Engineering approval of
retaining wall design, if applicable;
e. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of right-of-way improvements to include a commercial
entrance and a 200' x 2001, 12' wide, right turn and
taper lane;
g. Staff approval of a final landscape plan to
include screening of the parking areas in acordance
with Section 32.7.9.8(a) of the Zoning Ordinance;
h. Grading easement shall be obtained from the
property owner to the south;
i. Architectural Review Board issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
Meals Tax Resolution - Mr. Cilimberg reported that the
County Executive, after discussion with the Board, had
requested that the wording of the Commission's resolution be
amended to read as follows: "...the proceeds from such Meals
Tax shall be used exclusively for service of debt incurred
for public school construction or for new construction of
public schools."
(for;nprly! 11... the proceeds of such meals tax shall be
utilized to fund the County's Capital Improvements Program."
/95'
9-10-91
13
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that the revised
resolution be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:15 p.m.
DB
� 9f