Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 08 90 PC MinutesMAY 8, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 8, 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. Richard Tarbell, Planner; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. The Chairman called the .meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. CONSENT AGENDA Addition to Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of three parcels totalling 897.718 acres located off Rt. 814 near Sugar Hollow Reservoir, three miles west of White Hall. The proposed time period is the same as for the original district, or 10 years from September 6, 1289. The existing Sugar Hollow District contains 2,581.97 acres_ Planning Commission must accept application. Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. R.L. Beyer Office/WiLrehoitse Preliminary Site Plan (SDP-90- 027) - Proposal to construct a 27,750 square foot building for office and warehouse use on 2.4 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 49C, 49D, and 49E, Lot 3, is located on the west side of Hunter's Way approximately 600 feet north of its intersection with Route 250 East. Zoned LI, Light Industry in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Lipinski called the Commission's attention to a letter of objection which had been received from Mr. Hartman. Mr Hartman expressed concern about the adequacy of the screening. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the need for a sight easement (as stated in VDOT comments) should be addressed through a condition. It was decided condition 1(e) would be amended to read: "VDOT approval of right-of-way improvements and sight distance easement.- May 8, 1990 Page 2 The applicant was represented by Mr. Richard Beyer. He explained that the anticipated use of the building would be "partial warehouse and office space." He stated he was uncertain as to the allowable uses, but it was his intention to adhere to the uses that are allowed by --right in the LI zone. Mr. Beyer stated he intended to locate his office in the building including some room for storage of his materials. He explained further that some uses might include a workshop and others might just be strictly storage. Ms. Huckle asked if the storage or use of any hazardous materials was anticipated. Mr. Beyer replied: "No, I wouldn't anticipate any and I understand that if that sort of thing comes up, it will have to be addressed at that point." Mr. Stan Tatum, engineer for the project, addressed the issue of screening. He stated that the applicant had been unaware of any concerns, but would attempt to alleviate any concerns by providing additional plantings if necessary, The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Lynn Hartman addressed the Commission. He stated he had no objection to the use but requested "a buffer zone of vegetation/trees parallel to the land on our side." He also expressed concern about drainage. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle expressed a desire for "some sort of extra screening" from adjacent properties, given the fact that the adjacent property is in agricultural and residential use. Mr. Rittenhouse stated the Commission would have a chance to review the landscape plans at the time of final review. Mr. Johnson stated he questioned the article under which this was being requested, i.e. 27.2.2.(17). He wondered if this section should be quoted because of the issue of hazardous materials. He stated he hoped the applicant was aware of the specific limitations. He questioned whether "warehouse" was the right category for the proposed building. He interpreted it aq an "office building and multiple business rentals." Staff indicated there was no definition for warehouse in the Ordinance. Ms. Huckle agreed that the use seemed to be more than a warehouse. i _4�`4.0 n May 8, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Wilkerson recalled that this situation has occurred many times in the past, i.e, the applicant does not know who the tenants of the structure will be at this point. He stated it was not uncommon. Mr. St. John noted that the site plan covered three parcels. but the building will be totally contained on only one of the parcels. He asked if a second or third site plan could be submitted for the other two lots. (Staff responded affirmatively.) He St. John noted that "this site plan does not purport to finalize what's going to happen on these other two lots where the building is not located." (Staff responded affirmatively.) Mr. St. John asked why the site plan included the other two lots. Mr. Keeler explained that the access road is located on the other two lots and a significant amount of grading will take place on the other lots. Mr. Grimm moved that R.L. Beyer Office/Warehouse Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of private road and drainage plans and calculations; C. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Department of Engineering approval of drainage easement plats; e. VDOT approval of right-of-way improvements and sight distance easement. 2. Health Department approval of septic field; 3. Staff approval of grading easements; 4. Storage of any hazardous materials on site shall be in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations; 5. Staff approval of landscape plan. (NOTE: This condition was later amended to read: Administrative approval of final site plan; Planning Commission approval of landscape plan.) Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion_ Discussion: Ms. Huckle noted that according to the conditions, the Commission would not approve the landscape plan. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that staff was not requesting approval of the final site plan. Mr. Tarbell suggested that the Commission consider granting staff approval of the final May 8, 1990 Page 4 site plan. Ms. Huckle stated she would like to review the landscape plans_ Mr. Keeler recommended that condition 5 be changed to read: "Administrative approval of final site plan; Planning Commission approval of landscape plan." Mr. Keeler stated staff would bring the landscape plan to the Commission before the issuance of a building permit. This was agreeable to the Commission and to Mr. Grimm and Mr. Wilkerson, who had moved for approval. Mr. Johnson questioned the wording for condition No. 4 [Storage of any hazardous materials on site shall be in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations -]- He felt this implied that such materials could be stored though under Section 27.2.1(17) such storage is precluded. Mr. Rittenhouse felt this was just included for emphasis. Mr. Johnson disagreed. He quoted from Section 27.2.1(17) of the Ordinance: "Warehouse facilities and wholesale businesses not involving storage of gasoline, kerosene or other volatile materials, dynamite, blasting caps and other explosives, pesticides and poisons, and other such materials which could be hazardous to life in the event of accidents." He felt this wording should be included in the conditions. Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff: "I assume this condition would not supersede the Ordinance?" Mr. Keeler responded: "That's correct. There are other uses by right in the LI zone to which this property could be put, depending on the availability of parking. Any use of an industrial character is required to submit a performance report developed by an engineer under 4.14 of the Ordinance that addresses not only storage of hazardous materials but also air pollution, noise pollution, radiation and a number of other things that are normally viewed as being objectionable by industrial uses. I don't think you need that condition in there if you want to strike it. It's just an advisory type of condition." Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Johnson if he would prefer that condition No. 4 be deleted. Mr. Johnson responded: "No. Not unless we want to recognize that we are allowing the storage of all this, because it would be allowed following regulations as has been identified. If this is by -right under sub -paragraph 17, 17 has these conditions. We are either going to do it or we're not in accordance with 17." irc~/ May 8, 1990 Page 5 Mr. Rittenhouse noted: "I thought you read that that provision precluded it." Mr. Wilkerson asked: "But that provision doesn't restrict it, does it?" Mr. Johnson responded: "It precludes it. It says 'warehouse facility and wholesale businesses NOT INVOLVING'." Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted: "So if the Ordinance precludes it, this condition doesn t really need to be there because it is commenting on what happens with a precluded use in the first place." Mr. Keeler interjected that the Commission was getting very confused on this subject. He explained: "You're looking at one use that's listed by -right. There are a number of other uses --contractor's office and equipment storage yard, for example, which could involve the storage of hazardous materials. We put this in the conditions to make the applicant aware that he will have to comply with applicable state and federal regulations. 4.14 states: 'No use shall hereafter be established or conducted in any industrial district in any manner in violation of the following standards of performance: noise, glare, air pollution, water pollution, radioactivity, electrical interference.` 4.14(8) requires a certified engineer's report --'Each future applicant of an industrial character shall submit to the County Engineer as part of final site plan approval, a certified engineer's report describing the proposed operation of all machines, processing, products and by-- products, stating the nature and expected levels of emission or discharge to land, air and/or water, or liquid, solid or gaseous effluent and electrical impulses and noise under normal operations and specifications of treatment methods, mechanisms to be used to control such emission or discharge. The County Engineer shall review the applicant's submittal and make comment and recommendation prior to final Planning Commission action on the site development plan.'" He stated this is also followed by the Zoning Administrator for issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Johnson interpreted: "What you're saying is how it's stored or what not --that it's precluded. I could follow everything you've said and store gasoline." Mr. Rittenhouse clarified that the application was for a by - right use in the LI zone. He explained: "Included in the by -right use is a warehouse facility for wholesale business not involving storage of gasoline, kerosene, or other volatile materials, dynamite,, blasting caps, and other /5,7 May 8, 1990 Page 6 explosives, pesticides and poisons. For this to be a by - right warehouse use, by definition, storage of these materials is not allowed by right. So the applicant does not have a by -right use of storage here. The condition would address anything that might be considered hazardous that's not specifically excluded here, (e.g. gasoline or paint thinner) or some other potentially hazardous material. I don't think there is anything inconsistent with having that condition in there. It covers any incidental hazardous materials and is reminding the applicant if there is anything that is considered hazardous, then all these regulations have to be complied with. It doesn't imply that he can then store gasoline, kerosene or anything that's precluded from this by -right use." Mr. Johnson stated: "If we authorize it under sub -paragraph 17, none of that is allowed, no matter how he stores it -- whether its state or anything else." Mr. Rittenhouse agreed. Mr. Johnson asked how the applicant knows that is applicable. Mr. Rittenhouse responded: "Because the Zoning Ordinance tells him that it is --because this isn't a special permit. This is a by -right warehouse application... and we haven't given him relief from that provision of the Zoning Ordinance." The Chairman called for a vote on the previously stated motion for approval. The motion passed unanimously. Landfall Preliminary Plat (SUB-90-00$) - Rural Preservation Development to create seven development lots and three rural preservation tracts from two existing parcels totalling 294 acres. Average size of the development lots is 3.83 acres and the rural preservtion tracts average 87.33 acres. The lots are proposed to be served by a private road accessing Rt. 641 approximately 3/4 mile east of its intersection with Rt. 640. Property, described as Tax Map 34, Parcels 49 and 50, is zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommeded approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Ms. Susan Riddle. She explained the history of the proposal. She explained that it had been determined that a public road would require 85% more grading and thus would cause more environmental degradation than a private road, May 8, 1990 Page 7 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined that the seven development lots were of similar size. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that approval of this preliminary plat anticipated approval of SP-90--20 for the same applicant. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Landfall Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of road 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 and issuance of a commercial entrance permit; d. Issuance of a special use permit in accordance with Section 30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay District, of the Zoning Ordinance. e. Staff approval of rural preservation easements. 2. Administrative approval of the final plat. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. - - The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to permit fill in the floodplain for road construction [Section 30.3.5.2(1)]. Property, known as Landfall, consists of 262 acres and is located, on the south side of Rt. 641 in the Landfall Subdivision in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Property is described as Tax Map 34, Parcel 50 and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to one condition. May 8, 199C Page 8 The applicant was represented by Ms. Susan Riddle_ She briefly explained the proposal. She explained that the road crossing crosses a "finger of the floodplain and does not actually cross the channel of Preddy Creek." She quoted the County Engineer's comments as follows: "We support the applicant's conclusion that since the floodplain elevation at this location is controlled by backwater effects from the C & 0 railroad bridge, the proposed fill will not result in increased flood levels due to the 100 year storm event." In response to Ms. Huckle's question about the location of the 48 inch pipes, Ms. Riddle explained that those pipes would be located under the road to take care of the drainage that comes from the area behind. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on the applicant'= statement relating to "balancing out and fill in the floodplain if so requested or required by the Board of Supervisors in order to obtain approval of this special use permit." He stated: "I assume that neither staff nor the County Engineer is requesting that cut and fill be balanced in the floodplain." Mr. Tarbell responded that the County Engineer had made no indication of such a requirement. Ms. Riddle added that Mr. Moring felt balancing out and fill would be redundant. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP--90--20 for Bruce & Pamela VanderLinde be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. Approval of the Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Marine Resources Commission if applicable. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP 90-21 Jefferson National Bank - The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to allow for a bank with three drive -through windows on 1.38 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 84A (part of) is located on the north side of Rt. 250 West adjacent to Ivy Commons and Duner's. Zoned C-1, (Inmmerrial in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. 14-0 May 8, 1990 Page S SDP-90-26 Jefferson National_ Bank Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 1,920 square foot bank to be served by 14 parking spaces on a 1.38 acre site. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 84A (part of) is located on the north side of Rt. 250 West adjacent to Ivy Commons and Duner's. Zoned C-1, Commercial in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. The report concluded: "The applicant has submitted justifications for the waivers and revised the plan in accordance with staff's recommendations. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit and the preliminary site plan with conditions." Mr. Rittenhouse made the following statement about the variance granted by the BZA: "On April 10 the Board of Zoning Appeals granted relief from the Scenic Highway setback requirement and this is a special permit application that is before us and it is my understanding that that BZA action is not binding on the Planning Commission in this regard because it is a special permit application and we are to hear this application on its own merits including the question of whether a scenic highway setback reduction is appropriate for the proposed use." He asked Mr. St. John if that was accurate. Mr. St. John replied that that was not exactly accurate. Mr. St. John explained: "Under the Ordinance the Commission itself can grant relief in a given case from this highway setback, i.e. allow the building to be closer to the road than the setback provides. But what you are saying is the Commission can disregard the fact that the BZA gave the same kind of relief and say 'Well we don't think the BZA should have done that, or we don't agree and we're not going to grant this special use permit unless they give up the variance that the BZA gave them.' That's not exactly correct. It could be correct under a given set of circumstances, though. In a special use permit posture you can impose any conditions that are reasonably related to the use subject to the permit. In other words, if you find that an increase in the setback is necessary in order for this use to meet the criteria for a special use permit...if you find that this drive-in window cannot meet that criteria, in other words they wouldn't be entitled to a special use permit in the first place unless you increase the setback back to what it was without the variance from the BZA or back to some other distance, you can do that, but if you do that its got to be pursuant to a finding necessary for this use to meet the criteria. You can't just do it because if you were on the BZA you wouldn't have granted this variance in the first place. You've got to find that the increase in 161 May 8. 1990 Page 10 the setback is necessary for this use to meet the criteria. In other words, what I'm saying is you treat this setback that the BZA established as if it were -the setback established in the Ordinance itself. You could increase that or decrease it, as you wish, so long as what you do is related to this permit." Mr. Keeler added: "Rich has pointed out in the report that in our opinion it appears the presence of the drive-in window itself to some extent --not necessarily the scenic setback but the 100 foot setback --causes the intrusion in order to get the circulation pattern around there and you could take the bank and turn it and locate it so it would be out of that 100 foot setback. Rather than discuss the issue of the variance, we would recommend that you address items (a), (b) and (c) on page 4 and just forget about the variance. I don't think the variance precludes you from applying this section of the ordinance." Mr. St. John added: "That's exactly what I'm saying. You use the power and judgment that is placed in you by that section of the ordinance." Referring to item (a) [All parking facilities shall be located on the rear side of the structure.], Mr. Keeler explained: "That has been interpreted in the past as being behind the front building line, not necessarily all the way behind the structure, but behind the front building line." He stated he did not know if this was the current Zoning Administrator's interpretation, but that was a determination for the Commission to make. It was determined the bank was sited so that the front of the building would face Rt. 878. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that was a "further twist" to this issue because the scenic setback was from Rt. 250, so it does not relate to the front of the building, but rather to the side. Mr. Johnson interpreted Mr. St. John's comments: "If we do anything, make any move, to increase the 95 foot distance which has been authorized as a variance, we would have to have good, positive identifiable reason for doing so." Mr St. John confirmed that was accurate. The applicant was represented by Ms. Marilyn Gale, engineer for the project, Mr. Jim Garman, representing Jefferson National Bank, and Mr. Tim Michel, the owner of the property. Ms. Gale spoke first. She explained the siting for the building as proposed had been determined by several factors including the location of the drainfields, the location of the access road between the Ivy Commons building and the bank (moving the bank back would have caused the road to be steeper), and the bank's feeling that the f. i May$, 1990 Wage 11 residential neighbors would prefer that the bank be closer to Rt. 250 than to the Village Residential zoning area. She stated the location of the drainfields behind the building would provide the best protection for the stream but at the same time it limits the possible building site. She presented some drawings of the proposed building showing the siting and the elevation. She also presented.pictures of existing businesses in the area. She explained that the proposed position of the building would require less grading and construction. She explained that the applicant is proposing considerably more landscaping than is required. She pointed out that none of the existing businesses are any further than 40 to 50 feet from the right -of --way. She explained briefly runoff control measures. She stated this is the last property in Ivy to be zoned Commercial and the use will not be expanding. She stated: "What is here now is all that there will be in the future." She concluded that the drive -through windows are not an option because they are an essential part of the banking business. Ms. Huckle asked if there were any road improvements planned for Rt. 250. Ms. Gale stated that she thought the Ivy Commons Site Plan, which has been approved, addressed that issue. Mr. Tarbell added that there would be a 100--foot turn lane with an adequate taper lane. Mr. Tim Garman, representing the bank, addressed the Commission. He stated it was a goal of the bank to provide a community service and there was a need for this type of service in the Ivy area. He stressed that the drive-in window was an integral part of the bank. Mr. Tim Michel, the seller of the property and the owner of Ivy Commons, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant has made a good effort to be compatible with the Village of Ivy in terms of architecture. He stressed that this was not an intense use. He recalled that when the property had been rezoned a branch bank had been one of the envisioned uses. He noted that the Ivy Commons plan has received preliminary approval and that dictated the elevation and location of the entrance "back out to 250." He stated he had contacted a large majority of the neighbors and had received enthusiastic support. Ms. Huckle asked about the possibility of moving the building back towards the Ivy Commons building in order not to violate the 100-foot stream setback. Mr. Michel stated that even if the building were pushed "right up against the motel, it would still be violating it somewhat." Mr. Tarbell explained the location of the stream and he confirmed Mr. Michel's comments. Mr. Tarbell also explained that the drainfields would be shared between the Ivy.Commons project and this bank. He added: "There is adequate area for the bank's septic field on the property zoned Commercial." 04 May 8, 1990 Page 12 In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Tarbell explained the dimensions of the setback and the relation to grading and the stream. There was some confusion about the setback requirements for the road and for the stream. Mr. Michel explained: "The building is 95 feet back from the property line, from the right-of-way point; the stream is probably about 110 feet from the building --it's into the right-of-way of the Highway Department." He explained that when the road improvements are made to Rt. 676 the Highway Department is going to "move the stream, rip -rap the stream and bridge it." In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Michel explained how the level spreader works_ The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Diane Mead, owner of the property directly behind Parcel 84A addressed the Commission. She expressed concern about screening and asked that the existing evergreens remain. She also expressed concern about hours of operation and lighting. She questioned the need for three drive -through windows. Staff and Mr. Garman responded to Ms. Mead's question. Mr. Keeler stated that lighting is covered under Section 4.12.6.4 of the Ordinance. He quoted: "Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall be arranged or shielded to reflect away from adjoining residential districts and away from adajeent streets. Lighting spillover on the public roads and properties zoned residentially or rural areas shall not exceed 1/2 foot candle." Mr. Garman stated the hours have not yet been set for the bank. He stated the bank would not be purchasing the property all the way to the Mead property line. He explained that three drive-in windows are being constructed in anticipation that they will be needed at some time in the future and it is better to construct them now rather than have to add them later. (Regarding Mr. Garman's comments that the bank must meet certain federal regulations in respect to lighting, Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the County's ordinance would prevail if they were more restrictive.) It was determined that the majority of the drainfield will be located on property not owned by the bank. (Mr. Michel stated he would still own the property on which the drainfields will be located.) Ms. Huckle asked if it was permissable for drainfields to be on someone else's property. Mr. Garman stated an easement has been agreed to. Mr. Tarbell again explained that the bank has enough area for their septic field on their property, but the remainder of the drainfield will be on the Ivy Commons property. He added that it was his understanding that because of May 8, 1990 Page 13 drainfield location, the other property, zoned Village Residential would be undevelopable. Mr. Bill Stone expressed opposition to the bank's eventual proposal to access the bank from Rt. 678 (when improvements to 678 are completed). He was concerned about excessive traffic on a residential roadway. He estimated 2,400 vtpd resulting from the bank. (It was later pointed out that Mr_ Stone's figures were inaccurate because he had doubled figures which had already been doubled, i.e. the accurate figure was 1,200 vtpd.) Mr. Randy Hopp expressed opposition to the proposal because he felt it would "dramatically change" the character of the area. He expressed opposition to the variance from the scenic setback requirement. He asked that the drive-in windows be deleted because such deletion would eliminate the need to encroach on the scenic setback area and would eliminate vehicular traffic by 75%. Mr. Timothy Colley did not object to the bank, but he did object to the access to Rt. 678. He also asked if the bank would have a Rt. 678 address and if so would this set precedent for more commercial development. There being no further public comment, the applicant was allowed final comment. Mr. Michel pointed out that there would be no residential entrances "on this road all the way back to old Rt. 678, which is approximately 2,000 feet. Regarding the "back field" he stated it would remain just as it is and all the pines at the top would stay_ Mr. Garman pointed out that the traffic figures quoted in the staff report were staff's figures. (It was at this time that the method of determining vehicular counts was clarified.) Regarding entrance onto Rt. 678, he stated the applicant would meet the Highway Department's stringent requirements. Mr. Keeler provided some history of the rezoning of the property (1988) and the proffers which were attached. He quoted one of the proffers related to access: "Direct access to a public road to be limited to the realigned Rt_ 678 with such access to be no closer than 125 feet from the proposed intersection of Rt. 250 nest and the realigned Rt. 678, provided an entrance can be achieved at that location." He stated both the County and the applicant have a right to rely on that proffer. He concluded: "So unless you find that this particular use somehow makes that proffer /� 4 May 8, 1580 Page 14 inadequate then I think the direct access to a public road would be on Rt. 678 as was accepted by the Board of Supervisors a year ago." Mr. Reeler confirmed the access would be on Rt. 678, regardless of the use. The public hearing continued. Mr. Rd Galloway asked if there was more property which could be developed. Mr. Michel stated this was the only development the property would allow. Mr. Tarbell added that the property in question was all that was zoned Commercial with the remainder being zoned Village Residential, but the septic fields for the Ivy Commons site preclude any further development. Mr. Hogan indicated he agreed with his neighbors' concerns_ He asked the Commission to consider the village nature of Ivy when making their decision. Mr. W. A. Paul, representing the bank, stressed that the architecture of the bank had been chosen to fit in with the residential area. He also stressed the need for the drive- in windows and indicated the proposal was not feasible without the windows. Regarding the previous question about the bank's address, Mr. Tarbell stated he assumed the bank would have an address on Rt. 678, but that would not create any kind of precedent for further commercial development because the Comprehensive Plan no longer designates the Ivy area for further commercial growth. There being no further applicant or public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse outlined the pertinent issues before the Commission. He stated the application was before the Commission because of the drive-in Window since C1 zoning allows financial institutions by right. Regarding the scenic setback, he stated: "The Zoning Ordinance says that 'for a use where off-street parking facilities are required to accommodate more than two motor vehicles, the Commission may reduce building setback to not less than 75 feet from the right-of-way of a designated scenic highway provided that all parking facilities shall be located on the rear side of the structures for buildings for which such exception is sought and that such parking facilities will be screened from.view of such scenic highway."` He interpreted that the Commission had the latitude to reduce the scenic setback to not less than 75 feet provided that the parking stipulation May 8, 1990 is complied with. He felt an contemplated by the stipulation the Pear side of the structure." Page 15 important issue was what was that parking be located "on Mr. Jenkins noted that the building faces Rt. 678 so it is the end of the building adjacent to Rt. 250 which is subject to the scenic setback requirement, and therefore that end must be viewed as the front. Mr. Rittenhouse agreed and stated he felt the question is "What is the rear of the building in respect to Rt. 250?" Mr. Jenkins stated he felt this would be the side to the north. Mr. Rittenhouse agreed. He stated: "I think the Ordinance requires that condition receive compliance in order for us to have the latitude to reduce the scenic setback. The question is, does the rear side of the structure contemplate behind the building line as parallel to the scenic highway or does it literally mean the 'rear side?" There was a discussion of the proposed parking spaces and their relation to the question of what was to be considered the rear of the building. Mr. Rittenhouse felt it was a question of definition. He stated he was sure the Ordinance contemplated getting the parking out of view, getting it behind something and getting it screened so that it is not visible form the scenic highway when the setback is reduced. Mr. Grimm felt a vegetative screen could be used effectively to screen the parking area from Rt. 250 if it was designed properly. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that was part of the Ordinance requirement --"and that such parking facilities will be screened from the view of such scenic highway." He stresed that the Ordinance did not say aL, it says and.. Mr. Johnson felt there was no room for other interpretation. He stated: "It has to be behind and screened." There was a brief discussion about a previous zoning administrator's interpretation of the ordinance that "rear" meant behind the front building line. Mr. St. John stated that the Commission was free to impose any condition that it deemed appropriate and a previous interpretation was not a consideration May 8, 1990 Page 18 Mr. Johnson commented that a bank is an ideal commercial neighbor. He continued: "an the other hand, we sit here day and night --these proposals are presented and the landowner says 'This is all I can do with my land; if you turn me down the land is useless' and the applicant comes in and says 'If you don't allow me to put this up on that land, I can't put it anywhere' and neither one of them are accurate, generally, and neither one of the are accurate in this case. So we have to consider, do we want to put a bank on that specific spot. One thing that hasn't been mentioned ... it hasn't been mentioned and it is my understanding that it was never recognized, acknowledged or noted in the proceeding to the Zoning Appeal Board that 250 West appears in the CAT Study and it's shown as a major gateway coming in from the West. Thus, although it is not listed in that plan for widening within the time period, up to 2000, it obviously is going to be sooner or later, one way or another, widened and if you take 95 foot setback from what it is now and 10 years from now you'll widen it, you are not doing anything but decreasing 95 feet. So there's an anomaly of which we cannot identify. There's been a lot of concern about Rt 678. 678 is listed in the Six --Year development plan with priority 19 but no funding in that plan, and the plan goes up to 1997. So number one, there's no funding; there has been no engineering that I know of done to define where it would be; there's been no land purchased. In talking about 678 in any degree of anticipation of what it might be or where it might be or when it might be is pretty hard to do right now and I consider quite superfulous. Looking at the overall picture, it reminds me of the old time-honored story 10 lbs. in a 5 lb. bag. You look and there are all kinds of easements, practical and otherwise, being required, not only 250 but setback from the stream, locating next to 678, using an entry for the indefinite future through an adjacent land, putting a septic system on another land. It would seem to me, all in all, we are literally trying to put 10 lbs. where it won't fit. For these reasons I see no reason to approve this at this time." Mr. Rittenhouse asked the applicant to comment on the importance of the location of the 6 parking spaces shown in front of the building. Mr. Garman responded that customers like to park as close to the entry of the building as possible. He also stated that the two handicapped parking spaces must meet certain requirements in terms of location. He concluded that "the parking in front of the building is extremely important." Mr. Rittenhouse asked if there was any opportunity to redesign the site so that the parking could be moved. Mr. Garman stated that many options had been considered and "this is the site that will work and the Health Department is happy with it." He added that altering the site would l.e V May 8, 1990 Page 17 basically mean starting all over again. Mr. Pace pointed out that in determining parking spaces, the applicant had had to work around the location of the road coming out of the existing shopping center. He added that this was also a determination in the placement of the building on the site. Mr. Michel stated that the Zoning Administrator had interpreted the parking should be "behind the front facing wall.' Mr. Keeler interjected that he did not feel there would be any problem with allowing the two handicapped spaces as proposed. Mr. Wilkerson stated that though concerns had been expressed about traffic, having a neighborhood bark would eliminate the need for people to be on the road longer to reach this service. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-21 for Jefferson National Bank be approved subject to the following conditions, and including administrative approval of the final site plan as follows: Conditions for SP-90-21: 1. Construction of an entrance on the realigned Route 678 within one year of the completion of the Route 678 construction. 2. Final site plan is to be in accordance with the plan initialled RET and dated May 8, 1990. Conditions for Jefferson National Bank Final Site Plan: 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. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit; d. Department of Engineering approval of drainage easement plans. e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements to include construction of a 100- foot turn lane with an adequate taper lane for Route 678 entrance; f. Staff approval of the final landscape plan; if 4 May 8, 1990 Page 18 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions is met: a. Fire Officer final approval. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Jenkins asked if it is conceivable that even after Rt 678 is built it might be determined that an entrance from Rt. 250 is more desirable. Mr. St. John responded: "You are stuck with the proffer; they are stuck with the proffer until such time as the Board of Supervisors and the owner change it through a rezoning. Apparently the proffer wasn't something that the County condescended to agree to, that was given in order to induce the County to approve this rezoning. In other words, the County wanted that proffer and the owner was willing to give it. ... Now we have what we wanted at that time. ... I don't believe we can change anything about the proffer here in this proceeding; we have to take the proffer as it is for the purposes of this proceeding." There was a brief discussion about the possibility of closing the shared entrance with the Ivy Commons property at the time the entrance to Rt. 678 is constructed. Mr. Keeler pointed out, however, that the sharing of the entrance was purposely contemplated so as to avoid traffic having to exit back onto Rt. 250 and then go around and enter the bank on Rt. 678. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would not support the motion as stated because he felt what was contemplated by the Ordinance was "that a reduction in the scenic setback be accompanied by not a corresponding reduction in parking " He continued: "As I read the Ordinance, it says 'All parking facilities shall be located on the rear side of the structure.' To me that means on the •rpar side of the structures. If you ask me where the rear side of my house is, I know where that is --that's on the back. The interpretation that we're furthering here on these scenic setback reductions would allow a reduction in not only the building setback, but the parking setback to as little as 75 feet on any scenic highway. And if we apply that interpretation here, I think we're liable to have to apply it next rezoning because that could be perceived to be consistent with this application. What we really have here is a reduction in the scenic setback to 25 feet and a corresponding reduction in the parking setback to 95 feet, and I don't think that's what contemplated by the Ordinance and for that reason alone I'm not going to support the motion." He indicated that he could support the motion if condition No. 2 werp modified to allow two handicapped May 8, 1990 Page 19 parking spaces in that area but the other spaces relocated to the rear (as he interpreted the rear). He clarified that he defined the rear as "the side opposite the scenic highway." Mr. Wilkerson stated he interpreted the rear as being the side opposite the front of the building. The Chairman called for a vote on the previously stated motion for approval The motion passed (5:2) with Commissioners Grimm, Andersen, Jenkins, Huckle and Wilkerson voting for the motion and Commissioners Johnson and Rittenhouse voting against. NEW BUSINESS There followed a lengthy discussion, introduced by Mr. Johnson, about the process for the granting of variances and the process for appealing BZA decisions, and in particular the variance which the BZA granted related to the scenic setback requirement for the Jefferson National Bank project. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the fact that a variance can be granted without the requirement for any public notification. (Mr. St. John later pointed out that this was not accurate because the BZA is required to give public notice of its agenda just at the Commission is, and the BZA properly follows this procedure.) Mr. Johnson noted that though Section 34.4 requires that the Zoning Administrator submit a copy of a variance request to the Commission, that apparently is not the usual practice as the information is supplied to staff but not forwarded to the Commission /� f May 8, 1990 Page 20 Mr. Johnson read the following prepared motion: "i hereby move that in accordance with the provision of paragraph 34.6, Zoning Ordinance, the Director of Planning and Community Development, County of Albemarle, appeal the action of the Board of Zoning Appeals which granted relief from the 150' setback as identified by VA-90-22. This appeal is based on the following conditions: (1) No available information indicates that identification that this section of Route 250 is included in the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study, Year 2000 Transportation Plan, was made available to or considered by the Board during its deliberations, and.(2) The Board failed to find that (a) 'undue hardship' would result with denial of a variance, or (b) such hardship resulting from the current zoning 'is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity,` such findings being required by paragraph 34.2, Zoning Ordinance, in order to authorize such variance." He reminded the Commission that only 2 days were left in which an appeal could be filed. Mr. Wilkerson stated he could not support such a motion because the applicant had followed all the normal procedures in good faith and had received approval. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion, noting that he was doing so in order to place the issue before the Commission for discussion. Ms. Huckle stated that she felt the Commission should keep in mind the fact that BZA decisions can be appealed. There was a discussion about how appeals are made. Mr. St John explained the procedure. He explained that the BZA is appointed by the Circuit Court and its members do not answer to the Board of Supervisors. He further stated that both the Commission and Board have standing to appeal a BZA decision. He added, however, that an appeal by a single Commissioner or a single Board member, without the support of the other members of the Commission or Board, has never been done. He stated also that it is certainly not envisioned that the Commission order the Director of Planning and Community Development to appeal a decision, though the Director has standing on his own to appeal. He explained that historically the Commission has recommended that the Board of Supervisors take action to appeal a BZA decision. n May 8, 1990 page 21 Mr. St. John also pointed out that consideration of the application in question, in terms of the CAT Study, was not a statutory requirement, i.e. if the other criteria were met, the property's relation to the CAT Study was not an issue for consideration. (Mr. Keeler later stated that staff does make comment on variances that would appear to conflict with the CAT Study; however, he stated he did not think the CAT Study goes this far with a four -lane project on Rt. 250 West.) Mr. Keeler added that the Zoning Administrator had followed proper procedure for notifying the Commission because it has been a policy of the Commission that the Planning Department receive notification so that staff could make comments in terms of the County's planning policies. He stated staff does not comment on every individual variance, but only on variances that involve policy issues. Mr. St. John confirmed this was correct. Mr. St. John added that the Commission could change the established policy for receiving notification of BZA actions if it so desired. (It was decided this matter would be discussed at some later time.) Mr. Johnson amended his motion to state that the Commission (not the Director of Planning) appeal VA-90-22. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt it would be inconsistent for the Commission to make such an appeal because the Commission had just had an opportunity to address the setback and "the Commission, as a body, declined to do that." The Chairman called for a vote on Mr. Johnson's motion that the Commission appeal VA-90-22. The motion failed (1:6) with Commissioner Johnson voting in favor, and all the remaining Commissioners voting against. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. DS V. WayVO Cilimberg),/Secretary /7.J V