HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 15 88 PC MinutesNovember 15, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 15, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr.
Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tour Jenkins; Mr. Larry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl,
Vice Chairman; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present
were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. John Horne, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior Planner; 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 October 25, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
ZTA-88-05: Additions to 3.0 Definitions, 5.0 Suppl ntary Regulations,
and 27.0 Light Industry for Body Shop Use - To provide a definition and
category of use to distinguish a body shop from other automobile uses. To
permit a use with nuisance aspects in the nature of -industrial types of uses,
within industrial zoning subject to special use permit and certified engineer's
report review and in accordance with supplementary regulations.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report stated that Ms. V. Ross
Johnson, a member of the public, had originated this application.
Mr. Keeler added to the staff report and explained that there had been
no category "body shop" listed in the Ordinance thus permitting a body
shop to be located in the C-1 zone and also in the HC zone. He stated
that with this amendment, body work will still be permitted as an
accessory to auto dealership but would foreclose having a body shop under
the term "automobile repair shop."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Payne, attorney. He stated his
clients had instructed him to draft a proposal for the Zoning Ordinance that
would be "as nearly unexceptionable as is possible to make an industrial
type use." He felt the applicant's proposed wording was even more restrictive
than staffs. He stated it was his client's intent to have a project
"that no neighbor would object to."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel stated the amendment was an effort to more clearly define the
Commission's intentions. Therefore he moved that ZTA-88-05 to amend the
Zoning Ordinance as it relates to body shop use be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval as follows:
3.0 Definitions
Body Shop: A facilitys other than a private garage, designed or used
/3 �
November 15, 1988
Page 2
for the repair, replacement and/or restoration of the body and/or
chassis parts of motor vehicles, including collision repairs, in which
mechanical repairs are performed only as is incidental and necessary to
such body work.
5.1.31 BODY SHOP
a. There shall be no storage of parts, materials or equipment except
within an enclosed building.
b. 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 shall be limited to locations designated on the approved
site plan.
c. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the authority of the
governing body in the review of any special use permit, including,
but not limited to, the regulation of hours of operation, location of
door and/or windows and the like.
''these regulations shall be in addition to the provisions of Sections 4.14 and
Section 32.0
27.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
11. Body shops (reference 5.1.31)
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
(Note: Ms. Patterson pointed out .a typographical error in the amendment
prior to the Commission's voting on the motion, i.e. under paragraph (b)
5.1.31, the word "designed" should have been "designated" as stated above.)
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the LI zone was a more appropriate place for
this type of use and the proposed amendment was clearer than the current
interpretation.
SP-88-91 V. Ross Johnson - V. Ross Johnson petitions the Board of Supervisors
to issue a special use permit to operate a body shop (Section 27.2.2.11) on
2.8 acres zoned LI, Light Industry. This petition assumes the approval of
ZTA-88-05. The property, described as Tax Map 32, parcel 17E3, is located
in the Airport Center Subdivision on the north side of Airport Road.(Rt. 649)
about 1,500 feet east of the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report:. Staff recommended approval.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Payne. He stressed the applieant'�,
desire to be a good neighbor. He also passed around a copy of the applicant's
business plan and called the Commission's attention to a drawing which showed
the concept of the operation. He stated the applicant was anxious to save
!36-
November 15, 1988
Page 3
as much of the natural vegetation as possible. He stated the applicant was
fully prepared to address the adjoining property owner's comments (Crutchfield),
at the time of the site plan.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The Commission discussed the possibility of requiring additional landscaping
for the purpose of screening. Ms. Patterson confirmed the Commission could
require additions screening though the Landscape Ordinance addresses screening
from dissimilar uses and from public roads. (Mr. Horne pointed out this property
was surrounded entirely by land designatedfor industrial use.) Mr. Horne
also confirmed the Commission could make this a condition of the special permit.
Ms. Diehl pointed out that at the time of site plan -review she would be
looking carefully at the placement of the building and the sensitivity to
the trees. Ms. Patterson suggested the following additional condition:
• Site plan review shall include preservation of existing trees and
landscaped screening as much as possible.
Mr. Jenkins asked if there was a need for any special treatment of wastes
from this facility.
The applicant, Ms. Johnson, explained that wastes would be contained in
barrels and then removed from the site and disposed of elsewhere.
It was determined the following condition would also be added:
9 The Certified Engineer's Report shall address disposal/removal of wastes.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-88-91 for V. Ross Johnson be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.31 Supplementary Regulations.
2. Site plan review shall include preservation of existing trees and
landscaped screening as much as Possible..
3. The Certified Engineer's Report shall address disposal/removal of wastes.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion Which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on December 7, 1988.
ZTA-88-04 David Spradlin - David Spradlin petitions the Board of Supervisors to
amend the definition of public garage in the Zoning Ordinance to include
salvage activity.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the petition
for the following reasons:
13G
November 15, 1988
Page 4
(1) The Zoning Ordinance currently contains adequate provision for
salvage operations;
(2) A salvage operation bears no relationship to the statement of intent
-of the RA zone;
(3) In 1987, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to specifically restrict
inoperative motor vehicles within the KA, Rural Areas zone and
residential zoning districts;
(4) Based on the foregoing and in view of state efforts to control such
uses as outlined in the Code of Virginia, staff can determine no public
purpose to be served by approval of this amendment. To the
contrary, such amendment is viewed as contrary to past state
and County efforts and to the general public purpose.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Keeler confirmed that staff was
offering an alternative wording for the.amendment, i.e. the applicant
proposed one wording, the staff another.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by 'Mr. Benjamin Dick. Mr. Dick gave d very lengthy
presentation which was more related to the special.permi.t than the zoning amend-
ment. He gave a great deal of background information, including a description
of the property and surrounding uses. He stressed that the use has been in
existence since 1978. He stated that the only violation tix. Spradlin has been
cited with is "too many inoperable vehicles" on the site. He indicated Mr.
Spradlin would not be able to operate with a restriction on the number of
vehicles and therefore the Ordinance should be amended. He stated that the
use has existed since 1978 with little or no opposition. He felt the rapid
expansion of Mr. Spradlin's business proved the need for this type of use.
He felt the proposed amendment "accomplishes the purpose, fits the need,
gives the County a sufficient amount of control andaddresses all the issues
that any special permit will address."
The Chairman invited public comment.
,ir. Ellison Jackson addressed the Commission. He spoke in favor of the
proposal and indicated that if Mr. Spradlin's special permit were denied, it
would negatively impact his business also. (It was not clear exactly what
:sir. Jackson was referring to.)
fir. Jim Thacker, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He
expressed concern about the possibility that Mr. Spradlin's property will
drain onto his property and particularly about the possible pollution of the
creek. (Mr. Keeler pointed out that staff would request that the Board
of Supervisors ask.the State Water Control Board to make an on -site inspection
to determine if the use was caus'ing any pollution problems.)
?GIs. Athlene Herub, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission.
She expressed concern about devaluation of property. She indicated that
her objections would be somewhat lessened if she did not have to see the
applicant's business during the winter months.
/3i
November 15, 1988
Page 5
Ms. Herub suggested that the applicant be required to construct an opaque fence
around the property.
Mr. Dick again addressed the Commission and offered to have "water studies made"
and also to construct an opaque fence. Mr. Dick stressed that he felt the
applicant had a vested right in the use and that the use offered a public service.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
In response to Mr. Stark's question, Mr. Keeler stated there are other
salvage yards operating in the urban area and in the City, but not in the rural
areas.
Ms. Diehl pointed out that this site was serving more than just the Woodridge
area.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he had difficulty viewing this in the same context
as public garages. He felt there was a need for public garages in the rural
areas and that need was reflected inthe current zoning. He felt that a
salvage operation did not provide the same service. He pointed out that
this was a non -site specific zoning text amendment proposal and therefore
effected the entire county. He felt staff's arguments for not including
salvage operations in the rural areas were convincing.ones. He stated
that he could support staff's alternative proposal for definition of
"public garage." He felt the purpose of a public garage in the rural areas
was to provide a repair service for the rural community, but not to provide
for the renting, selling or storing of vehicles.
Ms. Diehl stated she could support public .garages ,in the rural areas but
she did not find salvage yards compatible with the rural areas.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZTA-88-04 for David Spradlin be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins asked how this action would effect the special permit request.
(It was determined that Ms. Diehl's motion was to deny the zoning amendment
as proposed by the applicant. Action on staff's alternative amendment
could not be taken until it had been advertised for public hearing.)
Mr. Keeler explained there were two alternatives in dealing with the
special permit: (1) Pass the ZTA on to the Board°and'defer action
on the special permit until the Board has acted on the ZTA; or (2) Assume
that the Board may disagree with the Commission's action on the ZTA and
review the SP accordingly.
Mr. Jenkins asked if there was any way the applicant could continue to operate
his business.
/JA9
November 15, 1988 Page 6
Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant currently has no authority to operate
this business. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant's prior approval
had been for not more than 2 vehicles. (It was noted that the number 5
had been taken from state regulations.) In response to Mr. Jenkins'
questions, tisr..Keeler stated that a junkyard currently exists on Avon Street,
but there have been none approved since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant has admitted he has been unable to
comply with the conditions imposed on him by the County and this caused the
Board of Supervisors to revoke his permit. He stated there would be no -reason
to apply conditions to a permit if they did not have to be complied with.
Ms. Diehl added that there were no conditions on the special permit which
were inconsistent with other special permits of that nature.
Mr. Jenkins expressed concern about putting a man out of business..
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that conditions were attached to the use and
he stated he was unwilling to feel that we are a villian here and are
closing down a public garage.." He added that the issue with the
zoning amendment was whether or not a salvage yard should be attached to
the definition of :a public garage.
It was noted that the applicant could operate this type of operation in
an HI zone .
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for denial
of ZTA-88-04.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-88-71 David Spradlin - David Spradlin petitions the Board of Supervisors to
issue a special use permit to operate a public garage and salvage yard
Section 10.2.2.37) on 5.514 acres zoned RA, Rural areas. Property described
as Tax Map 104, Parcel 14F1, is located on the north side of Rt. 620 about 3/4
mile north of Rt. 620/728 intersection. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Dick requested that this item be deferred. He also noted that the
applicant had filed a petition for a proffered rezoning to LI, with an
amendment to the LI zone which would allow this use.
Ms. Diehl Moved that SP-88-71 for David Spradlin be indefinitely deferred.
`?r. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Development Impact Fees - Mr. Horne called the Commission's attention to a
memo from Mr. Cilimberg and to two accompanying reports.
131
November 15, 1988
Page 7
Forest Lakes - Re nest for Time Extension - Ms. Patterson explained that the
applicant was requesting an extension of the time period for administrative
approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that the Forest Lakes preliminary
site plan be extended for three months. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
TP WI, /#/:?9
John Horne, Secretary
DS