HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 01 90 PC MinutesMAY 1, 1980
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, May 1, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins;
Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle.
Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior
Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. V. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development;
and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April
17, 1990 were approved as amended.
Ms. Scala presented a preview of the May 8 Consent Agenda
(Addition to Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District).
No action was required of the Commission.
ZMA-89-21 Mechum River Land Trust - Petition to rezone 56.77
acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-2, Residential (PROFFER) and
to amend ZMA-89-06 (Mechum River Land Trust). Property,
described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 29, consists of 173.77 acres
situated between Route 240 and the C & 0 Railroad. The
parcel surrounds the Crozet water treatment plant, extending
approximately 3,000 feet to the west and 1,500 feet to the
east of the water plant. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
denial for the following reasons: "l. The proposal is not
consistent with the boundary of the Crozet growth area as
defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal is for
an urban density zoning which is inappropriate for land
designated and zoned as Rural Areas. 3. The proposal
conflicts with the recently adopted provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance which do not allow additional development rights
for property zoned Rural Areas in the watershed." The staff
report concluded: "Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors not make a zoning
decision at this time, so as to allow for final engineering
design of the Lickinghole Creek Basin and/or allow for the
applicant to pursue a Comprehensive Plan Amendment."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "Your first recommendation is that
we not make a zoning decision. How do we do that?" Mr.
Tarbell responded: "You would recommend that the applicant
pursue a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the growth
area."
1.29
May 1, 1990 Page 2
Mr. Keeler clarified staff's position further: "While we're
fairly confident where the basin is to be located, the final
engineering has not been completed at this time ... and (a
relocation of the basin) would be the only circumstance that
would warrant a reconsideration of that boundary."
Mr. Keeler confirmed that even if the request is denied at
this time, the applicant still has the option of pursuing a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Craig. He made
the following statement: "We will construct runoff control
measures that will protect Mechum River equally as well or
better than the proposed Lickinghole Regional Basin."
The following members of the public expressed their
opposition to the proposal: Mr. Ralph Schultz; Mr. Paul
Burke; Mr. Roy Patterson, representing the Citizens for
Albemarle; and Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the
Piedmont Environmental Council (a copy of Ms. Buttrick's
statement is attached to this record as Attachment A).
There reasons for opposition included the following:
---Inadequacy of the roads to handle additional traffic;
--Proposal is purely for the economic benefit of the
developer;
--Proposal does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan;
---Staff should consider the issue of total growth in an
area and also the track record of the developer;
--The application is premature and should be proceded
by a request to change the growth area;
--There is no guarantee that any other drainage basin
would work.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle commented on on -site sedimentation basins. She
noted that one of this developer's other developments
(Rivanwood) had a large sedimentation basin which had
"washed out and dumped tons of dirt into the Reservoir."
She stated she could not support the request for all the
reasons listed in the staff report.
Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he too
assessment. He noted there were
The question of consistency with
designated growth area; and (2)
He stated the Commission's action
one of those issues,
agreed with staff's
two issues involved: (1)
the Comprehensive Plan
The drainage basin issue.
could be based on either
130
May 1, 1990 Page 3
Mr. Johnson stated he agreed. He added that he could see no
reason the application could not be denied; he saw no point
in deferral.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZHA-89-21 for Mechum River Land
Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial
based on the reasons stated in the staff report (and stated
previously in this record).
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
- Petition to issue a
special use permit to allow for a bank with drive-in window
(in accordance with Section 24.2.2(3) of the Zoning
Ordinance) to be located on 1.44 acres zoned HC, Highway
Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 32A, Parcel 02-1
is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Rt. 29N and Rt. 649 (Proffit Road). Rivanna Magisterial
District. Deferred from April 24, 1990 Planning Commission
Meeting.
AND
First Bank Virginig Rank - Central - Preliminary Site Plan
- Proposal to construct a 3,034 square foot bank on 1.44
acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as
Tax Map 32A, Parcel 02-1 is located in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection of Rt. 29N and Rt. 649 (Proffit
Road). Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from April 24,
1990 Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
It was determined the Commission's previous concern about
traffic circulation had been addressed by moving the median
back and forcing the entrance farther back from Rt. 649.
Mr. Johnson noted that the landscaping requirements should
include the area all the way to Rt. 29. Mr. Tarbell stated
staff would be aware of that concern as they reviewed the
landscaping plans.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ron Wylie. (Also
present was Mr. Ed Yates, President of the First Virginia
Bank.) He explained how traffic circulation concerns had
been addressed. Regarding Mr. Johnson's concern about
landscaping, he stated that the parcel will be maintained
and the applicant would work with staff to address the
Commission's concerns. He noted, however, that the
1131
May 1, 1990
Page 4
applicant was not proposing a full-blown landscaping plan
for that part of the parcel because it would have to be
removed when the remainder of the parcel is developed.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-89-15 for First Virginia Bank -
Centrai be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Landscaping in excess of the minimum Zoning Ordinance
requirements to include a double staggered row of azaleas or
boxwoods eighteen to thirty inches in height when planted
across the frontage of the site.
2. The permitted uses for the adjacent undeveloped portion
of the property shall be limited to:
a. Financial institutions;
b. Furniture stores;
C. Administrative business, and professional offices;
d. Office and business machines sales and service;
e. Eating establishment (not including fast food
restaurants);
f. No special use permit uses.
3. Development shall be in general accordance with the plan
presented to the Planning Commission May 1, 1990.
AND including approval of the Preliminary Site Plan with
staff authorized administrative approval of the final site
plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Administrative approval of the final site plan to
include:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvements to include the construc-
tion of a third lane on Route 649 across the
frontage of the site, and issuance of a commercial
entrance permit;
d- Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water and sewer plan;
e. Staff approval of landscaping plan-
131.
May 1, 1990 Page 5
2. Administrative approval of the amended subdivision plat.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion,
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins indicated he was in favor of language being
added to the first condition which related to landscaping of
the area extending to Rt. 22.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that though he understood Mr.
Johnson's concerns, he also understood staff's position,
i.e. it is difficult to described appropriate landscaping
for property that is not yet developed with no knowledge of
what the development will eventually be.
Mr. Johnson indicated he was not recommending elaborate
landscaping.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he was satisfied with the applicant's
representation that the Commission's concerns would be
addressed.
The previously stated motion for approval passed
unanimously.
Reliant Truck Corporation major Site Plan Amendment -
Proposal to construct a 4,200 square foot addition to the
existing sales and service building on 4.22 acres.
Property, described as Tax Map 32A, Section 2, Parcel 1A, is
located on the north side of Rt. 649 approximately 500 feet
east of Rt. 29. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. Deferred from April 24, 1900 Planning
Commission Meeting.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Ms. Huckle expressed her feeling that the site was "not
terrible sightly either." She asked why there were not
conditions suggested relating to landscaping. Mr. Tarbell
responded that the applicant has proposed additional
landscaping along Rt. 29 and in addition, if this were a new
site plan, the landscaping which exists would meet the
minimum landscaping requirements.
Mr. Johnson asked what landscaping had been required with
the original site plan. Mr. Tarbell explained that "what is
} shown here is what was required." He added that a couple of
ZJS
May 1, 1990 Page 6
things have died, but the applicant has stated those will be
replaced and some additional things will be added.
Ms. Huckle stated she would prefer that a condition be added
addressing this concern. Mr. Tarbell responded that the
items have been shown on the site plan presented to the
Commission and "on the final plan, which will tie the
landscaping plan down, 1 will make sure that it's in
accordance with what he has presented to you." He again
stated what was shown met minimum standards.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale, who offered
no additional comment, and Mr. Jim Snead, President of
Reliant Truck. Mr. Snead addressed the issue of landscaping
and indicated he would do what was reasonable but he could
not shield the business from the highway because the nature
of the business requires that the front portion of the
property be a display area. He pointed out that the
business was operating under an approved site plan and only
a minor modification is being made. (Ms. Huckle indicated
she was envisioning grass seed.) Mr. Snead responded that
the grass along Rt. 29 and Rt. 649 is regularly maintained.
He explained that the existing plantings are only a year
old. He stated that the trees which have died will be
replaced.
Mr. Johnson asked: "Do you feel that the existing
landscaping complies with the original approved site plan?"
Mr. Snead replied: "With the exception of the trees that
have died, it does. ... We've enhanced the original plan,
but it's not our intention to build a wall in front of our
display area."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Reliant Truck Corporation Major
Site Plan Amendment be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The final 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 issuance of an erosion
control permit;
C. Department of Engineering approval of drainage
easement plats;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water and sewer plans.
`34/
May 1, 1990 Pagel
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
S. Administrative approval of a plat delineating right-of-
way dedication along Rt. 649.
4. Administrative approval of the final site plan -
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he supported Ms. buckle-s comments
relating to landscaping. He stated: "Any semblance of
landscaping... is only in the nature of some trees that were
planted. There is no obvious maintenance in any shape or
form to the groundcover or anything else. Rt. 29 is a
gateway to the City and I offer in contrast what we are
requiring the bank to do and what exists catty -corner across
Rt. 29 at Central Fidelity Sank. ... This is very
definitely, to say the least, and to be the most flattering
I can, a significant eyesore. Since we're being asked to
authorize additional building, I question seriously whether
the original landscaping as required by the site plan is in
existence now. I am unable to support it without some
modification relative to requiring a less unsightly
provision."
Mr. Grimm pointed out that Mr. Tarbell had stated staff
would work with the applicant to ensure that the site plan
exists as represented on the plan and he stated that he
trusted staff's handling of the matter.
The previously stated motion for approval passed (5:2) with
Commissioners Grimm, Andersen, Jenkins, Wilkerson and
Rittenhouse voting in favor of the motion and Commissioners
Huckle and Johnson voting against.
SP-90-26 Commonwealth Gas Piaeline QQrgoration - The
applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a
Special Use Permit for a gas transmission line [10.2.2(6)]
on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Total distance is 0.7
mile. The new line will be located adjacent to two existing
lines mainly on the west side of Rt. 20. Properties
described as Tax Map 35, Parcels 37A and 31, are located on
both sides of Route 20 approximately 1/3 mile north of the
May 1, 1990 Page 8
intersection of Route 20 and 641 in the Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Mr. Rittenhouse announced that the last item on the agenda,
SP-90-26 for Commonwealth Gas Pipeline Corporation had been
deferred and would not be heard until May 22.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-90-26
for Commonwealth Gas Pipeline Corporation be deferred to May
22, 1990. The motion passed unanimously.
Crossroads Village Center Site Plan Extension Request - The
applicant was requestion a one-year extension due to lengthy
delays in obtaining approval from the State Water Control
Board for a discharge permit. The delays were caused by
heavy rains.
Mr. Fritz presented a brief staff report. Staff recommended
a six-month extension and stated "Staff will most likely
recommend that any additional extension require compliance
with current regulations...."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Werner Hampsh. He
explained that he had made every effort to comply with all
requirements, but had "just run out of time." He stated the
project was moving ahead and there had been no changes in
the plan. He asked for a one year extension.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Reeler explained that staff's recommendationn for a 6-
month extension was based on a letter which indicated that
the project had been delayed 6-months due to bad weather.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he could support a 6-month extension.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Crossroads Village Site Plan be
approved for six months beginning May 1, 1990.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-90-32 Holy Trinity Churab - The applicant is petitioning
the Board of Supervisors to issue a Special Use Permit to
permit a 352 square foot addition to the existing church
[10.2.2(35)] on 1.5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property
/1516
May 1, 1990
Page 9
described as Tax Map 34, Parcel 86 is located on the south
side of Route 640 approximately 1/2 mile east of Route 784
in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Geneva Brock. She
asked for clarification of the Highway Department's comments
regarding sight distance. Mr. Fritz explained that VDOT has
indicated that all that will be required in order to obtain
sight distance is the trimming of some vegetation which
could be done by most anyone. He added that all the area in
question is either on the applicant's property or in the
right-of-way.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-90-32 for Holy Trinity Church be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Expansion limited to 352 square feet;
2. Health Department approval of septic field;
3. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance permit.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson read the following prepared statement: "Having
visited the site, I offer the following observations: (1)
At this location Route 840 is relatively wide, straight and
flat. Considerable sight distance extends to the east of
the church. To the west, the sight distance is limited
slightly by scrub growth; (2) Conversation with a local
resident indicated that there had been no noticable problems
in the past with church traffic entering or leaving the
premises; and (3) Observing the site, I believe that
complying with a requirement for a "commercial entrance",
although now modified verbally, could be accomplished only
with considerable financial hardship to the congregation_"
He continued: "Consesquently, I would like the record to
show, if the Commission agrees, that improvement of sight
distance by a congregation trimming or pruning would be
acceptable, and hopefully to the Department of
Transportation, Grading would be ridiculous with respect to
the financial status of the church."
/.3 i
May 1. 1990 Wage 10
Mr. Keeler advised the applicant to contact staff before the
Board hearing to arrange a time to meet with staff and the
Highway Department at the site in order to determine exactly
what must be done to obtain sight distance.
Mr. Keeler explained that even though the church already
exists, it must be treated as though it does not because it
is a non -conforming use and "in the 15 years I have been
here Planning Staff has never recommended a waiver of
commercial entrance requirements and I don't anticipate that
we ever will. I think you ought to keep in mind that these
are the minimum safety requirements that have been
established by the Highway Department. You can consider
whatever you want to --financing or whatever --but these are
the minimum safety requirements, and probably the only
safety requirements which the Highway Department will
identify as safety requirements." He explained further that
the requirements are "simply based on the ability of a
vehicle travelling at a certain speed to stop when you pull
out in the road." He wanted it clearly understood_ that
staff cannot consider financial concerns in terms of
commercial entrances.
Mr. Johnson responded: "I want to rebut that statement to a
degree. Since I have been on this Commission I think I have
yet to see any request of this nature which doesn't come in
with a recommendation by the Department of Transportation
for a commercial entrance. We have recommended against it.
We did it the other day in the Spring Hill subdivision.
That was deleted. If this is automatic, it should be so
recognized. If it's an opinion based on need, that should
be so recognized. On this particular road, a standard sight
distance of 350 feet is pretty ridiculous. It's a gravel
road with nobody going along there at more than 20 mph, so
the situation can vary --the requirements for sight
distance --and I think that should be reflected by the
Department of Transportation's comments and not just a carte
blanc requirement everytime we see something_"
Mr. Keeler offered to write the Commission a memo outlining
the procedure for reducing sight distance.
Ms. Huckle asked for an explanation of what criteria had to
.be met for a commercial entrance. Mr. Keeler explained that
there are only two categories of entrance permits: (1) An
entrance that will serve a single-family dwelling or not
more than two dwellings or an agricultural field entrance;
and (2) A commercial entrance that will serve three or more
dwellings or any other type of use. He explained there are
491
May 1, 1990 Page 11
two aspects involved with an entrance, i.e. physical design
(which may be susceptible to modificaiton) and sight
distance.
The previously stated motion for approval passed
unanimously.
SP-90-22 JaMes- R_.-& Nadine Hazel Shifflett - Petition to
issue a special use permit for two single wide mobile homes
on 25.1 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(10)]. The
applicant is also seeking relief from a condition
restricting the lot to one dwelling. Property, described as
Tax Map 101, Parcel 7F, is located on the west side of Rt.
831 south of and adjacent to the North Fork of the Hardware
River +1/2 mile north of Rt. 708 in the Samuel. Miller
Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report.
There was a brief discussion about development rights. Mr.
Rittenhouse asked if approval of this request would "be
creating a development right." Mr. Fritz responded: "No.
The development right --the ability to divide with these two
mobile homes --would still be in place. It simply won't be
divided, but it has the ability to be divided."
Mr. Bowling added: "In lieu of doing that, this will
require road improvements. They could divide the property
and keep the private road." Mr. Fritz added: "under a
family division."
The applicant, Mr. James Shifflett, addressed the
Commission. He explained that the mobile homes would be for
the use of his daughters. He objected strongly to upgrading
the road. He stressed that he could not afford the
improvements recommended and felt the County did not have
the right to "force a hardship on people." He indicated a
lack of understanding of the system.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Andersen asked Mr. Shifflett if he understood that there
were other possible ways to achieve his goal which would not
require that the road be upgraded. Mr. Shifflet indicated
he was not aware of other options.
/a9
May 1, 1990
Page 12
(Note: Due to recording equipment failure, the last part of
this item and the staff report for the next item were not
recorded. Therefore this section of the record is taken
entirely from Recorder's notes.)
Mr. Reeler asked Mr. Shifflett if he intended to give his
daughters land. Mr. Shifflett responded that this would be
accomplished through his will and that he could not make
such a gift at this time because he had eight other
children.
Ms. Huckle expressed sympathy for the applicant's
predicament and noted that it is extremely expensive to
upgrade a gravel road.
It was determined the permit was for permanent dwellings.
Mr. Keeler explained that the Private Roads Ordinance allows
waivers of only a very few things and it does not allow a
waiver of construction requirements.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-22 for James and Nadine
Shifflett be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable
requirements for district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of
the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage
facilities to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator
and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department
of Health, if applicable under current regulations;
5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or
screenings to be provided to the satisfaction of the zoning
administator. Required screenings shall be maintained in
good condition and replaced if they should die;
6. Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a
commercial entrance permit.
7. County Engineer approval of road improvements in
accordance with Table 1 of Section 18-36 of the Subdivision
Ordinance;
/Vo
May 1, 1990 Page 13
8. Staff approval of revised road maintenance agreement to
provide for equitable distribution of maintenance cost;
9. Mobile homes shall be for the use of the applicant's
family only.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Shifflett indicated there was no reason for him to
proceed because he would not be able to meet the road
requirements. Mr. Bowling advised him that he should make
his case before the Board because the Board had the
discretion to waive requirements which the Commission does
not have.
7�TA-90-04 T.E. Wood - To amend 27.0 LI, Light Industrial
zone to allow "Motor Vehicle Towing and Storage."
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report stated
the public purpose which would be served by the amendment
was "to provide a needed use for temporary storage of
vehicles."
(Note: The recording equipment continued from this point.)
Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern about disabled vehicles
being stored on gravel lots where leakage of fluids could
cause contamination. Mr. Keeler stated that concern could
be addressed at the time a special permit is reviewed and
staff would recommend at that time County Engineer approval
of a containment plan.
Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about a time limit for
storage of disabled vehicles. He envisioned that storage,
by default, could become semi --permanent or permanent storage
and thereby become a junk/salvage yard.
Other Commissioners expressed the same concern given the
fact that this type of use is very difficult to monitor.
Mr. Keeler stated this concern could also be addressed on an
individual basis.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that this amendment would also allow
storage of rental vehicles (e.g. Hertz trucks, U-Haul
trucks, etc.), which have caused some problems in the past -
Mr. Wilkerson asked if the the size of the area used for
storage could be restricted. Mr. Reeler responded
affirmatively and explained that any conditions could be
/Y/
May 1. 1990
Page 14
applied to a special permit "to overcome the criteria for
issuance."
Mr. Wilkerson asked whether personnel would be on the
premises at all times. He was concerned about stripping of
stored vehicles. He asked if fencing could be required
around the area for storage of towed vehicles with rental
vehicles being omitted. Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he was in favor of some sort of locked
compound area. Mr. Keeler again stated this could be
addressed on an individual basis.
Mr. Johnson read the following prepared statement: "I am
unalterably opposed to any amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance which will allow 'towing and storage of vehicles
awaiting repair or disposal' to be located any closer to an
urban area than is currently allowed. This Commission had
opportunity to view a sample of this type of operation two
weeks ago with request SP-90-23 by Barnett. The Commission
recommended denial of this request. It is obvious that such
operations as this can quickly degenerate into a public
nuisance. Control is obviously impossible, and correction
is difficult. Such use is more appropriately allocated to
Heavy Industry zones where 'nuisance producing' operations
are possible. There is no identifiable logic to support a
need for such an operation near an urban area, in a 'Light
Industrial' zone, where the words 'do not detract from
surrounding districts' are used in the statement of intent."
He continued: "We're not talking about precluding the
existence of this thing within the County, we're talking
about moving it in closer where it's Light Industry rather
than Heavy Industry. We saw the pictures of what this thing
looks like when it degenerates two weeks ago."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Floyd Artrip expressed his opposition to the amendment_
He felt this use was not compatible with the County's goal
to attract clean, high-tech industry. He presented
photographs of a towing service.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he agreed with Mr. Johnson's comments.
He stated he did not feel the use belonged in the LI zone
and therefore he would not support the amendment.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the staff report points out that
body shops are already permitted in the LI zone and staff
/Val
May 1, 1990 Page 15
feels this is a less intense use than a body shop because
body shop already allows the towing and storage of vehicles.
He also pointed out that 5.1.32(b) would require that no
vehicles would located so as to visible from a public road
or any residential property. He noted, however, that
regulation of this type of use is difficult and a storage
only use would probably invite more long-term aspects than
would a body shop.
Ms. Huckle agreed. She stated that a car which is towed to
a body shop is usually dealt with quickly.
Mr. Wilkerson agreed that while the fact that body shops are
allowed in the LI zone is a good point, "two wrongs don't
make a right."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA-90-04 for T.S. Wood be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Grimm asked what were the alternatives for dealing with
these types of vehicles.
It was determined that presently disabled vehicles are towed
by body shops directly to the shop.
Mr. Keeler explained the reason the request had come about.
He explained that Mr. Johnson does not have a body shop and
does not have any interest in operating a body shop, but he
has a contract to tow vehicles while owners decide what to
do with the vehicles. He explained that the Police
Department often uses this type of service when they impound
vehicles. He continued that Mr. Johnson's business has two
of the three aspects of a body shop, i.e. he tows and stores
vehicles, but he does not perform repairs.
There was a discussion about including this use in the HI
zone. Mr. Keeler stated that if the Commission has decided,
"across the board," that this use is inappropriate in the LI
zone, then the Commission might want to consider if body
shops are also inappropriate in the LI zone. He stated: "I
don't know how we can justify towing, storage and repair and
not justify towing and storage." Mr. Rittenhouse agreed this
was his concern also.
Ms. Huckle felt there was a difference in
which takes place at a body shop and what
at a storage yard. She asked what happens
the type storage
could take place
if a "totalled"
/ `f,Y
May 1, 1990 Page 16
vehicle is towed to a storage yard and then it sits there
for an indefinite period because it is of no use to anybody.
Mr. Wilkerson suggested that staff consider relocating body
shops out of the LI area.
There was a discussion of where currently zoned HI property
is located. Mr. Keeler explained that HI is "very difficult
to put on the map." He explained that "presumably you put
HI where it's surrounded by LI." He confirmed that there is
very little HI zoned property. Mr. Cilimberg added that
requests for a rezoning to AI for this type of use could be
dealt with on a case -by -case basis as is any other rezoning
request. Mr. Cilimberg also stressed that the Commission
has the opportunity to, whether in LI or HI, review special
permits on a case -by -case basis.
Ms. Andersen indicated she was having difficulty envisioning
where this type of use could be located, based on the
comments that had been made.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "We are either going to have body
shops in the County or we -re not. 1f we take the position
that, 'yes, there are going to be body shops,' then they
have to be appropriate for some zoning designation." He
pointed out that the LI zone is the next -to -highest
intensity industrial zoning in the Ordinance, and if we want
to permit these uses but keep them away from the less
intense zones, then that leaves either HI or LI, where they
are presently located.
Ms. Huckle pointed out that a body shop does not have to be
unsightly. (She used Cosner's as an example.)
Mr. Bowling agreed and pointed out that the Commission has
control over these uses through the special permit process
and also has the discretion not to grant a permit in every
case.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the question of body shops
in the LI zone was not the issue before the Commission
because the use already exists and was consciously added to
that zone just two years ago;
He stated that presently, it was his understanding that
disabled vehicles could only be taken to body shops and the
issue before the Commission was whether or not to create
another location, one specifically for temporary storage vs.
a body shop.
/y#
May 1, 1990 Page 17
Mr. Wilkerson stated his concern was that the storage would
not be temporary.
Mr. Rittenhouse agreed this was a concern and he added that
he also had concern about the consistency of the application
of the Ordinance, "understanding that if we deny this ZTA
and the special permit request which follows the only
alternative for the applicant is to make application for a
special permit to operate a body shop that won't be a body
shop."
Mr. Grimm stated he could not support the motion for denial
because there is obviously a need for this type use.
Ms. Huckle asked if the ZTA had to be approved in order to
approve the special permit (which was to follow). Mr.
Bowling responded affirmatively.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that though he shared Mr. Wilkerson's
concerns, he was also concerned about "having to play games
with the Ordinance through an application because as I am
envisioning the application for a body shop, we'll be faced
with the task of recommending for denial a special permit
for a body shop because it doesn't propose to repair fenders
and at the same time recommend approval for body shops that
do propose to repair fenders."
Mr. Johnson felt that the definition of body shop should be
clarified.
It was again pointed out that the Commission has
considerable control over these uses through conditions
placed on the special permits.
Mr. Keeler again pointed out that the language states that
the use cannot be visible from any road or residential
property.
Mr. Johnson stated that provision was impossible to enforce.
Mr. Fritz read the following definition of body shop from
the Ordinance: "A facility other than a private garage
designed or used for the repair, replacement and/or
restoration of the body and/or chassis part of motor
vehicles, including collision repairs in which mechanical
repairs are performed only as incidental and necessary to
such body work." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that a
supplemental regulation deals with a time period for
storage. Mr. Fritz read: "No vehicle awaiting repair shall
be located on any portion of such property so as to be
visible from any public road or any residential property and
��s
May 1, 1990
Page 18
shall be limited to locations designated on the approved
site plan." [The same as the proposed section 5.1.32(b)]
He confirmed there was no reference to a time period.
Ms. Huckle stated she felt rental cars should not be
included in this use.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt rental cars were less likely
to remain on the property than other vehicles.
Mr. Keeler explained that staff was looking for a place for
rental vechicles other than "every gas station in town." He
explained what was envisioned by rental vehicles, i.e. not
disabled rental cars, but rather operable rental trucks
which are often used by the transient student population.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated if he was "willing to support the
towing of disabled vehicles, then he was able to support
non -disabled vehicles being driven there." He stated he
would not support the motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously stated
motion for denial of ZTA-90-04.
The motion for denial passed (4:3) with Commissioners
Jenkins, Huckle, Wilkerson and Johnson voting for the motion
and Commissioners Rittenhouse, Andersen and Grimm voting
against.
The staff advised the Commission that the next item, SP-90-
34 for Andrew Johnson should be reviewed under the
assumption that the Board disagrees with the Commission's
action on ZTA-90-04 and includes this use by special permit
in the LI zone.
SE-90-34 Andrew Johnson (applicant), T.E. Wood (owner)_ - The
applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a
Special Permit to permit towing and storage 27.2.2(12),
proposed by ZTA-90-04, on 2.2 acres zoned LI, Light
Industrial. Property, described as Tax Map 77, Parcels 8C
and 8D is located on the west side or Rt. 742 just south of
the Corporate Limits of Charlottesville in the Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions, including an additional
condition: "No body or mechanical work, painting,
maintenance, servicing, disassembling, salvage or crushing
of vehicles shall be permitted."
/-V(,p
May 1, 1990 Page 19
Mr. Wilkerson asked that condition No. 1 have the following
words added: "...screened by a minimum 7-foot opaque fence
and 0-8 fgQt white pines...."
It was determined the fence would tie into the existing rock
cliff on one side of the property.
Mr. Fritz also suggested the following additional condition:
"County Engineer approval of containment and disposal plan
for fluids from vehicles."
It was determined the site sits below the Willoughby
Subdivision. It was also determined the area proposed for
fencing was located outside the floodplain and there was
also room for landscaping outside the floodplain.
Mr. Wilkerson asked if storage of vehicles on bare ground
would be allowed. Mr. Fritz felt this would be addressed
through the containment and disposal plan. Mr. Wilkerson
expressed concern about the proximity to the watershed. Mr.
Fritz noted that the Commission could require that the
vehicles be stored on a concrete or paved pad.
Separate from this paricular request, Mr. Wilkerson
requested that staff supply more information on containment
measures for body shop/towing uses.
The applicant, Mr. Andrew Johnson, addressed the Commission.
He stated that because of the small size of the lot, he
could not afford for automobiles to remain for long periods
and also Virginia law requires that cars be removed if there
has been no contact with the owner within 20 days. He
explained that the topography of the lot would act as a
natural limitation on growth. He did not think leaking
fluids would be a problem. He explained that the County
Policy Department requires that their impounded automobiles
be stored within a 6-foot fence with two rows of barbed wire
on the top. He stated the fence not only acts as protection
for the automobiles, but also it serves as screening from
surrounding properties. He stated he has been in the
business for 20 years and has always had a residential
adjoining property and has never had a complaint of any
kind. He stated he had no interest in operating a repair
business. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, he stated
he had storage capacity for 25-30 vehicles. He stated there
was no need for lighting the property and lighting would be
a nuisance to the neighbors.
The Chairman invited public comment.
lik7
May 1, 1990 Page 20
Mr. Randy Wade, developer and owner of the Willoughby
Subdivision, expressed his opposition to the proposal. He
felt it would have a negative impact on his development. He
pointed out that the houses would be above this use and
screening would therefore be almost impossible. He also
expressed concern about noise.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, the location of the
proposed business in relation to Mr. Wade's property was
described. Ms. Huckle interpreted that a fence around Mr.
Wade's property would be necessary to screen the use from
view. Mr. Wade agreed that was a possibility, but pointed
out that because his property slopes, a 12 - 20 foot high
fence would probably be necessary to be effective.
Mr. Floyd Artrip expressed his opposition to the proposal.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission_
Mr. Wilkerson asked staff to comment on the issue of
screening in a situation like this where there is a
considerable difference in elevation between uses. Mr.
Keeler responded that was an issue for the Commission, to
consider. Mr. Wilkerson noted that though the proposed ZTA
had required that this type use be screened from view, here
is a case where total screening would be very difficult, if
not impossible. Mr. Keeler responded: "It that's your
determination, then it's not consistent with [5.1.32(b)]•"
Mr. Cilimberg added that staff had not made a site analysis,
but the intention of the fencing and the white pines was to
provide "that screening."
Mr. Rittenhouse brought up the issue of what happens when
the business exists before any residential development takes
place and is not seen by any residential development until
some time in the future. Mr. Keeler responded: "I think in
this case you would treat it as an approved development.
Because it's a planned development he's got the right to
build those units. Conceivably you could have something
that could be visible from residential property that's
10,000 feet away. It may technically be visible ... but as a
practical consideration it wouldn't be."
There was a discussion about a line -of -sight analysis being
made from the approved building sights. Mr. Bowling stated
if this was a concern, then the item should be deferred to
allow this information to be presented.
May 1, 1990 Page 21
Mr. Rittenhouse explained he was trying to understand the
relationship between a development which does not yet exist,
but has been approved and the text in the ordinance which,
if approved, states that the use shall not be visible.
Mr. Johnson again stated he felt that provision of the
ordinance is an "impossibility, under most conditions." He
felt "the achievement of screening via the use of planting
trees was rather ambiguous and completely ineffective."
Mr. Grimm disagreed and stated: "Two rows of white pine
trees provide a screen that you cannot see through if you
plant them properly, I've see this and I know it to be
true."
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the term "visible" in this
context, means "reasonably visible."
Ms. Andersen asked what prevented Mr. Wade from also
providing a screen of trees along his property or let
individual property owners provide additional screening on
their properties.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he was concerned about the use being
adjacent to residential property given the fact that towing
often necessarily must take place during the night (towing
of cars involved in accidents).
Mr. Johnson stated he felt the applicant should be
complimented on his proposed method of operation. However,
he asked what would happen if he ceased to be the operator
of the business,.
The possibility of restricting the special permit to this
applicant only was discussed. Mr. Bowling stated he could
not recall whether or not this had ever been done on a
commercial permit and he questioned whether or not it could
be done. He stated he would need to research this question
before giving a definitive answer.
Mr. Rittenhouse concluded that the major concern was one of
visibility. He stated he would be interested in knowing
whether reasonable visual screening was achievable. He
indicated he would like to have this information before
making a decision on the request.
Mr. Grimm moved that SP-90-34 for Andrew Johnson (T.E.Wood)
be deferred to May 22, 1990.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with
Commissioner Johnson Casting the dissenting vote.
/415?
May 1, 1990 Page 22
SP--90-30 for Robert A. & Elizabeth K. Wilson - The applicant
is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a Special
Permit to permit a recreational building at the Little
Keswick School [10.2.2(5)]. Property is 2.7 acres and is
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described s Tax Map 80,
Parcel 11OAl is located on the east side of Route 731
approximately 200 feet south of Route 22 in the Rivanna
Magisterial District,
AND
SP-90-31 Robert A. & Elizabeth K. „Wilson - The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a Special Use
Permit to permit expansion of the Little Keswick School
[10.2.2(5)] by utilizing the existing community building for
Fast Rivanna Fire Company. Property consists of 1.0 acre
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 80,
Parcel 110A is located on the east side of Route 731
approximately 200 feet south of Route 22 in the Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval of both requests subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Paige Williams. He
corrected a staff report statement and stated that the
enrollment was currently 27, not 29. He explained that the
Fire Department would continue to use the building once or
twice a month for meetings. He explained the applicant has
not determined the exact use of the building, but
possibilities include offices, meeting rooms, or classrooms.
He noted that condition No. 5 [Parcels to be combined prior
to the issuance of a building permit for the recreational
building or the commencement of activity in the existing
Fire Company building.] would be superfluous if the school
cannot purchase the Fire Company building. Mr. Keeler
responded to this and stated: "But the recreational
building is to be on a separate tract too. So we'd want
that combined. Mr. Williams asked: "Combined with the
Wilson's other properties?" Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes."
Mr. Keeler read the list of agencies which are involved with
licensing of the school and a representative of the
applicant explained the nature of the school. She stated the
school has existed since 1963 and has been owned by the
applicants since it's beginning. She stated all the
students are funded by the Department of Social Services and
the Department of Education. She stressed that the school
receives no funding from the Department of Corrections so
there are very few students with conduct disorders. She
ASS
May 1, 1990
Page 23
explained the students reside at the school and are
primarily from Virginia.
There being no public comment the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson read the following prepared statement: "Having
visited the site I offer the following observations: (1)
SP-90-31 lies along the outside of a convex curve on Rt.
731. To the northeast, the sight distance is unimpeded in
any way due to the geometries of the road and a clear paved
entry to the rescue station. To the southwest, the
geometries of the road provide an extended sight distance.
Considering that the location of this site is adjacent to
the existing school, I am unable to identify any reason to
anticipate any 'increase in traffic.' From the request I
note that enrollment is limited to 29 by current state
license. I will support the request with the elimination of
(1) 'Condition 1, (re: commercial entrance). This
provision is not needed due to the existing satisfactory
entrance, and (b) 'Condition 4,' (no increase in
enrollment), this being superfluous since no increase is
requested and it is limited by license."
Mr. Wilkerson asked if the applicant had any objections to
Condition 1. Mr. Williams responded that the Wilson's are
out of the country and he has not had an opportunity to
confer with them. He added that the applicants were
interested in the application being approved.
Mr. Rittenhouse quoted the following from the Virginia
Department of Transportation comments: "This section of
Route 731 is currently non -tolerable. This request would
probably result in an increase in traffic. The access to
this property is currently uncontrolled with some of the
frontage being hard -surfaced and the rest being gravel. The
Department recommends that the access to this site be
controlled and channelized, with a single commercial
entrance at a locaiton where there is the minimum 350 feet
of sight distance." He stated: "It would seem that State's
comments are based more on channelization and control of the
entrance and better definition of the entrance from a safety
standpoint. I would support that recommendation."
Mr. Keeler recalled some of the history of the facility and
stated that when a previous request had been approved, staff
had advised the applicant that staff would not recommend
approval of any further requests until the entrance was
improved-
/5/
May 1, 1990
Page 24
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-30 for Robert and Elizabeth
Wilson be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Staff approval of sketch plan for a new building;
2. Virginia Department of Health approval;
3. No increase in enrollment;
4. Parcels to be combined prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the recreational building or the
commencement of activity in the existing Fire Company
building.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-31 for Robert & Elizabeth
Wilson be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a
commercial entrance permit;
2. Staff approval of sketch plan for a new building;
3. Virginia Department of Health approval;
4. No increase in enrollment;
5. Parcels to be combined prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the recreational building or the
commencement of activity in the existing Fire Company
building.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:55 p.m.
DS
Way Cilimbe Secretary
rya