HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201900011 Staff Report 2023-01-25COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
AGENDA TITLE:
SP201900011 Malloy Ford Outdoor Storage
and Display
SUBJECT/PRO POSAL/REQU EST:
Establish outdoor sales/storage/display of
vehicles
SCHOOL DISTRICT: Albemarle HS, Burley
MS, Agnor-Hurt ES
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
July 1, 2020
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Richardson, Walker, Kamptner, Herrick,
Filardo, Rapp, Maliszewski
PRESENTER(S):
Margaret Maliszewski
At its meeting on May 12, 2020, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7:0) to approve the special
use permit, with conditions. Attachments A, B, and C contain the staff report, action letter, and minutes
from the May 12, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION:
At the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners discussed the potential impacts of the illumination
of the site on the corridor and on the Carrsbrook neighborhood. Some Commissioners suggested that the
parking lot lights should be turned off or dimmed after close of business, some voiced concerns about the
impacts of reduced illumination on safety and security on site, and some were concerned about equal
treatment of similar uses along the corridor. During the discussion, it was noted that some vehicle display
lots on the Route 29 corridor have very bright lighting. Some of these lots predate zoning and/or the
establishment of the Entrance Corridors (ECs) and have non -conforming lighting that does not meet
current requirements for downlighting and exceeds the maximum illumination levels allowed within the
Entrance Corridors. The Commission asked staff to make the Board of Supervisors aware of the lighting
issues with the understanding that several Commissioners were concerned because of the proximity to
an existing residential neighborhood and the cumulative impact of existing lighting in the corridor.
During the PC meeting, staff stated that there have been previous special use permits (SPs) with
conditions for turning lights off at a certain time, or for reducing the level of illumination at certain times.
These specific conditions are limited to very few SPs. The recent UVA Tennis approval (SP-2017-32)
included a condition requiring the dimming of lights after televised nighttime play, and a recent approval
for the Regents School (SP-2018-11) included a condition requiring no field lighting after 10 PM.
Typically, approvals have not required the dimming or extinguishing of lighting for display uses or
commercial parking lots. Other lighting conditions have typically been applied to sports field lighting. Many
approvals for field lighting limit lighting altogether or limit pole height and/or fixture type. Also,
supplemental regulations in the Zoning Ordinance limit the hours of amplified music for special events
(5.1.25(e)(4)) and for religious assembly uses in the rural areas (5.1.64(b)(2)), which could indirectly limit
lighting, and EC Guidelines provide for the dimming of electronic message signs and LED gas pricing
signs from dusk to dawn.
Staff has discussed the reduced illumination issue with the applicant, who has stated that reduced
illumination is a significant security concern. The applicant reports that even with current lighting levels at
the existing Malloy site (which are less than some non -conforming sites on the corridor), theft and
vandalism occur regularly. The applicant believes the theft and vandalism will increase if lighting levels
are further reduced.
The current condition limiting lighting levels to 22.8 footcandles (fc) at the ground would meet EC Design
Guidelines and is consistent with the existing Malloy Ford site that is adjacent to the north. Staff notes
that future lighting ordinance updates could address appropriate maximum levels of illumination, as well
as requirements for bringing non -conforming lighting into compliance.
A few non -substantive changes have been made to the conditions for consistency and clarification
purposes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board adopt the Resolution (Attachment D) approving
SP201900011.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A - Planning Commission staff report
Al -Vicinity Map
A2 - ARB action letter
A3 - Applicant's proposed plan
A4 - CAC minutes
A5 - Citizen comments
ATTACHMENT B - Planning Commission action letter
ATTACHMENT C - Planning Commission minutes
ATTACHMENT D - Resolution approving SP201900011
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
Staff:
SP20190001 I Malloy Ford Outdoor Storage and Display
Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning/Resource
Management
Planning Commission Public Hearing: May 12, 2020
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBA
Owner: Malloy Properties III LLC c/o Malloy Companies
Applicant: Malloy Properties III LLC c/o Malloy
LLC
Companies LLC
Acreage: approximately 2 acres
Special Use Permit: Section 30.6.3 - Outdoor storage,
display and/or sales serving or associated with a
permitted use within the Entrance Corridor Overlay
TMP: 045000000068A0, 045000000112B 1 (part)
Existing Zoning and By -right use: HC Highway
Location: 2060 Seminole Trail
Commercial — commercial and service; residential by
special use permit (15 units/acre)
Magisterial District: Rio
Conditions: Yes
School District: Albemarle HS, Burley MS, Agnor-Hurt
Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A
ES
Proposal: Establish outdoor sales/storage/display of
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Mixed
vehicles
Use — commercial, retail, employment uses, with
supporting residential, office, or institutional uses in
Neighborhood 1 — Places 29
Character of Property: This is a mostly level property
Use of Surrounding Properties: Commercial uses
that was developed as the former Better Living Furniture
predominate in the area along Rt. 29, including the
Store building. The front showroom portion of the building
Malloy Ford showroom immediately to the north. A
was under demolition at the writing of this report, leaving
vacant parcel is adjacent to the south, and residential
the rear warehouse portion of the building standing. Paved
properties are located across Rt. 29 to the east.
areas surround the building pad on the north, northwest and
east.
Factors Favorable
Factors Unfavorable
1. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive
None.
Plan.
2. The ARB has reviewed the request and has
recommended no objection, with conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP201900011 with conditions.
STAFF PERSON: Margaret Maliszewski
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 12, 2020
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBA
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP201900011 Malloy Ford
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 045000000068A0, 045000000112B 1 (part)
LOCATION: 2060 Seminole Trail
PROPOSAL: Establish outdoor sales/storage/display of vehicles on approximately 2 acres
PETITION: Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a permitted use within the
Entrance Corridor Overlay under Section 30.6.3.a.2.b of zoning ordinance. No dwelling units proposed.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial — commercial and service; residential by special use permit (15
units/acre); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District — overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural
or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access.
AIA Airport Impact Area: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial Mixed Use — commercial, retail, employment uses, with
supporting residential, office, or institutional uses in Neighborhood 1 — Places 29.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The subject property is located just south of the recently renovated Malloy Ford auto dealership on Rt. 29
and is the location of the former Better Living Furniture store. (See Attachment A for a vicinity map.) The
front showroom portion of the store was undergoing demolition at the writing of this report, leaving the
rear warehouse portion of the building to house body shop functions. The recently constructed Better
Living building supply is located to the west, fronting on Berkman Drive. The parcel immediately to the
south (a small portion of which is included in this special use permit request), is partly cleared and partly
wooded. A single-family residence is located to the southwest, on a parcel owned by the applicant.
Commercial uses predominate in the general vicinity. Among them are additional automobile showrooms,
including the Jim Price and Umansky dealerships, which, like Malloy Ford, include showrooms and
outdoor vehicle display areas. A 24' access easement runs along the Rt. 29 side of the subject property. A
travelway extends along the property, providing access to the traffic signal at Gander Drive. Two long
islands located in the right-of-way separate the access easement travelway from the Rt. 29 travel lanes.
The Carrsbrook residential development is located across Rt. 29 to the east.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
• Site plans/amendments were reviewed/approved for the Better Living Furniture site in 1987 and 1996
(SDP-1987-06 and SDP-1996-138). An easement plat was approved under SUB-2017-143.
• Special Use Permits for outdoor sales/storage/display (SP-2016-11) and body shop uses (SP-2016-18)
were approved for the Malloy Ford dealership site on the adjacent parcel to the north (TMP 45-68C1)
in December 2016. Expansion of the Malloy Ford body shop use to the rear warehouse portion of the
Better Living Furniture store (TMP 45-68A, SP-2018-05) was approved in October 2018.
• The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed this proposal at its meetings on January 21, 2020
and February 3, 2020. At the February meeting, the ARB voted 5:0 to forward a recommendation of
"no objection" with conditions to the Planning Commission regarding this proposal. See Attachment
B for the ARB's action letter.
• Violations are pending for the subject parcel and the parcel adjacent to the south (45-112131) related
to unapproved sales, vehicle storage, and employee parking uses.
• Demolition permits (B2020-06D and B2020-647D) were issued on March 17, 2020 and March 31,
2020 for the front showroom portion of the Better Living Furniture store building.
DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to establish outdoor sales/storage/display of vehicles in the area previously
occupied by the recently demolished Better Living Furniture showroom building on parcel 45-68A. (See
Attachment C for the applicant's proposed plan.) The remaining rear warehouse building would continue
to be available for body shop operations. The proposal includes 114 display spaces, 13 guest parking
spaces just east of the body shop, a vehicle storage area northwest of the body shop, a tractor trailer
loading/unloading area in the existing access easement/travelway, and new planting areas. Eight of the
display spaces are proposed on parcel 45-112B1, adjacent to the south. A boundary line adjustment to
add this portion of 45-112B1 to parcel 45-68A is required prior to site plan approval.
SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNITY MEETING:
A community meeting was held as part of the Places 29 Rio Community Advisory Committee meeting on
January 23, 2020. County staff provided a general overview of the special use permit process, a brief
summary of the proposal, and an update on the status of the ARB and Special Permit reviews. The
applicant described the proposal in detail for the attendees. Some CAC members commented that the
existing Malloy site was too bright and asked for reduced illumination. (See Attachment D for the CAC
minutes.) After the meeting, a member expressed concern over the negative visual impact of parked cars,
noise from unloading of vehicles, and overly bright illumination, particularly as viewed from the
Carrsbrook neighborhood entrance. A summary of these concerns was subsequently emailed to staff. (See
Attachment E.)
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall
reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting upon an application for a special use
permit:
No substantial detriment. Whether the proposed special use will be a substantial detriment to
adiacent parcels.
Although the parcel adjacent to the south of the subject property and the parcel adjacent to the north of
the Malloy Ford showroom are vacant and partially wooded, the predominant character of the Rt. 29
North corridor is that of a commercial strip. Retail development in the area includes Northtown Center,
Lowe's, the Rivanna Plaza Shopping Center, Schewel's, and Walmart. The commercial corridor also
includes the Malloy Ford, Jim Price and Umansky auto dealerships, each of which includes outdoor
sales, storage and display of vehicles. The proposed expansion of sales, storage and display parking is
compatible with those sites. The ARB has reviewed this request for impacts on the Entrance Corridor
(EC) and has recommended approval with conditions to limit negative impacts on the Rt. 29 corridor.
With the ARB's conditions of approval, no substantial detriment is anticipated.
Character of the nearby area is unchanged. Whether the character of the adjacent parcels and the
nearby area will be changed by the proposed special use.
The intent of the special use permit requirement for outdoor sales, storage and display is to review the
potential impacts of the activity on the ECs. Section 30.6 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the intent
of the EC Overlay District is, in part, to implement the comprehensive plan's goal of preserving the
county's scenic resources because they are essential to the county's character, economic vitality and
quality of life. An objective of this goal is to maintain the visual integrity of the county's roadways
by using design guidelines. The ARB has applied the County's adopted design guidelines for
development within the EC to the review of this request and has recommended approval with
conditions. With those conditions of approval, the existing character and visual integrity of the area
will be maintained.
Harmony. Whether the proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this chapter, with the uses permitted by right in the district,
One of the purposes of this chapter is "to facilitate creating a convenient, attractive and harmonious
community" (Section 1.4.C). The proposed use will achieve this by satisfying the ARB's
recommended conditions of approval, as outlined elsewhere in this report. Although a special use
permit is required for this use on this site due to the location within the EC overlay district, this use is
considered accessory to motor vehicle sales. Motor vehicle sales is one of the commercial uses
permitted by right within the Highway Commercial zoning district. The focus of the review for the
sales/storage/display use is on the impacts to the EC, not on the use itself. Consequently, the proposed
use is expected to be in harmony with the other by -right uses in the district and with the intent of this
chapter.
...with the regulations provided in section 5 as app&cable,
There are no additional regulations in section 5 related to vehicle sales, storage or display.
... and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The intent of the special use permit requirement for outdoor sales, storage and display is based on the
need to mitigate the potential negative impact of this use on the aesthetics of the ECs and to mitigate
the potential for development that is incompatible with the historic resources of the County. This is
directly related to promoting public welfare and general quality of life. The ARB has reviewed the
proposal and has recommended approval with conditions regarding appropriate lighting and
landscaping. In addition, the way vehicles may be stored and displayed on site is a potential aesthetic
issue and a typical concern for this type of use. Elevating vehicles for display purposes is not
considered appropriate, and parking vehicles in multiple, tightly packed rows is also considered to
have a negative visual impact. Consequently, the ARB has recommended standard conditions of
approval to address these issues. With these conditions, the visual integrity of the corridor will be
maintained, thereby protecting the quality of life. Furthermore, a site development plan is required for
this proposal. The Site Review Committee will review the site plan for compliance with the relevant
development review regulations that are also set forth to protect the public health, safety and general
welfare. Therefore, a combination of proper site design and implementation of the recommended
conditions, along with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the ARB, would sufficiently
address this objective.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposed special use will be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Places 29 Master Plan designates this property as Commercial Mixed Use. Auto commercial sales
and service is one of the primary uses designated in this category. The Places29 Master Plan
recommends a "Landscaped Development" frontage treatment for this area. This includes a planting
strip with trees between the street and sidewalk and additional landscaping in the form of a landscaped
buffer (to help reduce auto -dominance) between the back of the sidewalk and the parking area. The
existing access easement and travelway on the subject property are inconsistent with this preferred
treatment, but a planting island is proposed between the travelway and the parking lot, and the added
landscaping will help mitigate visual impacts of the increased parking area. (See the Landscape Plan,
C1 of 1, at the end of Attachment C.)
Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan (Natural Resources and Cultural Assets) establishes the goals for
preserving the scenic resources that are essential to the County's character, economic vitality and
quality of life. The EC Overlay District is intended to support those goals by maintaining the visual
integrity of the County's roadways. The ARB addresses potential adverse aesthetic impacts in the ECs
by applying the County's Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines during the review of development
proposals. The ARB reviewed the subject request for conformance with those guidelines. On February
3, 2020, the ARB voted 5:0 to forward a recommendation of "no objection" with conditions to the
Planning Commission regarding this proposal. See Attachment F for the ARB's action letter.
By renovating an existing developed parcel, this proposal meets the Neighborhood Model principle of
redevelopment and Economic Development Strategy 4c of the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages
exploration of opportunities to redevelop underutilized commercial and industrial zoned properties.
For all these reasons, the outdoor sales/storage/display use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Staff has identified factors which are favorable to the request for outdoor sales/storage/display. Factors
favorable include:
1. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The ARB has reviewed the request and has recommended no objection, with conditions.
Staff has identified no unfavorable factors
Staff recommends approval of SP201900011 Malloy Ford Outdoor Sales, Storage and Display based
upon the analysis provided herein, subject to the following conditions:
1. Use of this site must be in general accord with the concept plan "Special Use Permit Concept Plan
SP201900011 Malloy Ford Concept Plan Sheet 4 of 7" last revised March 24, 2020, as determined by
the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with this plan,
development and use of the site shall reflect the general size, arrangement and location of the vehicle
display and storage areas. Permitted modifications may include those required by the ARB, those
necessary to satisfy the conditions of this special use permit, and additional landscaping/screening
approved by the Site Plan Agent.
2. Vehicles must be displayed or stored only in areas indicated for display or storage on the plan entitled
"Special Use Permit Concept Plan SP201900011 Malloy Ford Concept Plan Sheet 4 of 7" last revised
March 24, 2020 (the Concept Plan).
3. Vehicles for display must be parked in striped parking spaces.
4. Vehicles must not be elevated anywhere outside of a building on site.
5. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (submitted with the site plan).
Maximum height of new pole lights (including bases and fixtures), must not exceed 20'. Maximum
light levels must not exceed 22.8 footcandles at the ground in the display lot and 20 footcandles in all
other locations.
6. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan (submitted with the site
plan). Landscaping shown on the plan may be required to be in excess of the minimum requirements
of the ARB guidelines, Albemarle County Code 18-32.9, or both, to mitigate visual impacts of the
proposed use, and must include, but not be limited to, the landscaping shown on the Malloy Ford
Landscape Plan C 1 of 1 revised March 24, 2020.
7. A boundary line adjustment to add the portion of 45-112B 1 on which parking is shown to parcel 45-
68A must be approved prior to final site plan approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTIONS:
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP201900011 Malloy Ford Outdoor Sales Storage and Display
with conditions stated in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP201900011 Malloy Ford Outdoor Sales Storage and Display.
Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reasons) for
recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A
— Vicinity Map
Attachment B
— ARB action letter
Attachment C
— Applicant's proposed plan
Attachment D
— CAC minutes
Attachment E
— Citizen comments
My determination or topography or mmaurs, or any depiction ur phyrdsI Improvemems, propeM lines w Nundarll he for general Information only and shall not be used for Me design, mMlflcagm, or mrmWNm mmprovemEms to real propMy, rcfiv nom plain determination. Alan u, 3020
Map elements may scale larger than GIS data measured in the map or as provided on Me data dmxYaad page due to Me protection used Map Projection: WGS00 Web Mercator (Mtlllary SpMre) (EPSG 38.57)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Phone 434 296-5832 Fax 434 972-4126
February 4, 2020
David Timmerman, AIA
BRW Architects
112 Fourth Street, NE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB-2019-143: Malloy Route 29 Furniture Store Building Repurposing — Conceptual
Review (TMP: 04500-00-00-060A0)
Dear Mr. Timmerman,
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on Monday, February 3, 2020,
completed an advisory review of the above -noted request. The Board, by a vote of 5:0,
forwarded the following recommendation to the Planning Commission:
The ARB expresses no objection to the special use permittrezoning, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Vehicles must be displayed or stored only in areas indicated for display or storage on the
Concept Plan.
2. Vehicles for display must be parked in striped parking spaces.
3. Vehicles must not be elevated anywhere outside of a building on site.
4. Maximum light levels must not exceed 22.8 fc at the ground in the display lot and 20 fc in
all other locations.
5. Maximum height of new pole lights (including bases and fixtures), must not exceed 20'.
6. The site must be landscaped in general accord with the Concept Plan, except that:
a. The minimum depth of the planting island adjacent to the easternmost parking
row must be 10'.
b. The planting island adjacent to the easternmost parking row must contain 6 large
shade trees, 3%" caliper at planting, interspersed ornamentals, and a row of
shrubs. Trees shown adjacent to the frontage planting bed are acceptable due to
the preexisting geometry of the access road.
c. Add two interior parking lot trees in the double-parking row, consistent with those
on the Malloy showroom site.
d. Shrubs provided at the perimeter of the display area must be a minimum of 30"
high at planting.
c. One large shade tree, 2W caliper at planting, must be added along the south
side of the southernmost parking row.
The ARB may require landscaping that is in excess of its design guidelines,
Albemarle County Code § 18-32..9, or both, in order to mitigate the visual
impacts of the proposed use on the Entrance Corridor.
The ARB also offered the following comments for the applicant's next site and architectural
submittals:
Recommended changes to the proposed building renovation:
1. Indicate new and existing equipment locations on the plans.
2. Add the standard equipment note to the site and architectural plans. "Visibility of all
mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
Recommended changes to the site Plan:
1. Indicate new and existing equipment locations on the plans.
2. Add the standard equipment note to the site and architectural plans. "Visibility of all
mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
3. Add a row of shrubs and one large shade tree, 2%" caliper at planting, along the south
side of the southernmost parking row.
4. Add the standard plant health note to the site plan. "All site plantings of trees and shrubs
shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is
prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall
health of the plant."
5. Show tree protection on the site plan.
6. On the site plan, round contours with a ten -foot minimum radius where they meet the
adjacent condition.
You may submit your application for preliminary ARB review at your earliest convenience.
Application forms, checklists and schedules are available on-line at www.albemarle.org/ARB.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski J
Chief of Planning/Resource Management
434-296-5832 x3276
mmalfszewski@albemarle.org
cc: Malloy Propreties VII, LLC
c/o Malloy Companies
8150 Leesburg Pike Ste 720
Vienna, VA 22181
Valerie Long
Williams Mullen Law Office
321 E. Main Street, Ste 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
File
0
Sam's Club
Umansky
Hopda/Subaru
ofAj lottesville
s 0
a w
Walmart
Jim Price
/ Auto Grotx
N
X
f' QJ
Better Liviprd
,
Building
Supply
f s MF Kegler's
41 / Lanes
Sch,e&lao
Furni
CampA�/a,
jy✓ v �� N
Ag r Kurt
WIII
Harbor,FreightTools
We&e tart' s �oo*vill
Sclol °o
Lowe
NTS
s
Carrsbrook
I
� 4
H
existing
drainage
easements
body shop # I
location
Ens4rg W�Id�g n.B� Nye
j Wd„hcp.n��w
SP20i6Q"OIB, ctMi
M-ngirc �debvrd t.
vehicle storage area
landscape screening
vehicles awaiting repair
30 employee spaces
TMP 04500-00-00-112BO
B Properties LC
4.42 acres
zoned Highway Commercial
Cor-;munitq Development Department
TMP04500-00-00-066CO
Charlottesville Realty Corporation
5.73 acres
zoned: Highway Commercial
service
building
--y_ service bays
internal
street trees
screening-,,TMP04500-00-Do-058GI
.0 shrubs Malloy Properties III. LLC_- -
S-t9Acres
zoned: Hicghway Cormxteroa
vehicle
storage area
new serva
screening
trees drop-off
stormwater building
managml -,.y/'z4�JOihtgo0ess
6ci
a,_ r
Filo*W" zaa-s- ItF &Mii wrr-b ,#.altz6y toieD
Ap-c-1, er i.^.e 6;;_ ^ Of `uipervisors 86DY SHOP
Date to o
A
80 0 80 160 240
Graphic Scale: 1"=80'
sales, service,
and parts
R
spaces
5P 201800005
Amendment to 5P 201 600018
May 21, 2018
revl5ed July 1 1, 2018
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
CONCEPT PLAN
SP201900011
MALLOY FORD
APPROVED SP201800005
Sheet 2 of 7
Additional Notes:
1. Sheet 2 has been included for
illustrative purposes only and is not
subject to conditions of SP2019-11
Submitted 18 November 2019
Revised 02 March 2020
REVISED 24 MARCH 2O20
project: 19.057
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
—
�
J l / ii/i I II
TMP 45-112B
III I Owner: B Properties LC l li iii l l iii
�I II IIII D.B. 1723-690
+
- - __ __ / /� �/i ��. p'� N
41
/
/ Owner �erties�II1 LC— s +
\ — — — 496- i �7 . 63-471 — — — / — „" . +
�/
\ + , 'Exis
\\ - -4s4- I ' I I I / \«.. + oy Pord�
III[/
J
\460_
— —3,225 SF boundary line-
\4J6- — adjustment
— — — — from TMP 45-112B1
— — — -472- — - to TMP 45-68A
470 — — -- _
Body shp permitted
P2018-5
9120 SF + . + + + + TIvP 45-68C
IIIII of existing building \ : -Owr e I Malley Pope 'es III LLC
D.B. 48�3-4 1
to remain
V9
III■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■'� �;' I
IIII■■■■■■■■■■■■■III
■■�l■■■■■■■■■■■III 462
,,
II■■■1 -mo
30,096 ■■■II
WON, I t Im
�1111'1■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■II ems-=—■
@ill■■■■■■■■■■■I■■■II
��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■IIl
fee
HL �F �z
- -M- -&
60 0 60 120 180
Graphic Scale: 1"=60'
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
CONCEPT PLAN
SP201900011
MALLOY FORD
DEMO & BOUNDARY LINE
ADJUSTMENT
Sheet 3 of 7
Additional Notes:
1. SP2018-5 permits a body shop in
existing —9120 SF building
TMP 45-68A & 45-1121131 (portion)
Submitted 18 November 2019
Revised 02 March 2020
REVISED 24 MARCH 2O20
project: 19.057
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
--
' 498—Vehicle Storage \'
-494— .\ I 1
---- I 9120SF .\* + r
\\ \ - of existing building * *\ * : y + . * *
\ I 1 <90 to remain I
� I � I I I I * I
l — 488 I /
� — J/ 11 I I
- - J / / ' 13 guest parking spaces /
v v484
I I I I o
aaxv i 6
— — — — — — 482nJ
\ +ea
19
- - - - - - - - - - --
�476- — — — — — — — — — —
172- Existing boundary line
� — — 470— — — -- — — —
d66 -
60 0 60 120 180
Graphic Scale: 1"=60'
I
•II �
� 1 \
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
CONCEPT PLAN
SP201900011
MALLOY FORD
CONCEPT PLAN
Sheet 4 of 7
Additional Notes:
1. 13 guest spaces provided
2. 110 spaces designated for outdoor sales/
storage/display use
3. Total parking on -site: 123 spaces
4. Landscape to comply with Entrance Corridor
Design Guidelines
Key
Conceptual Grading
Existing Stormwater
Conceptual Stormwater
®
Vehicle Storage
Subject to SP2019-11
0
Vehicle Storage
Approved by SP2016-11
_
Outdoor Sales/Storage/Display Use
Subject to SP 2019-11
Outdoor Sales/Storage/Display Use
Approved by SP2016-11
TMP 45-68A & 45-112131 (portion)
Submitted 18 November 2019
Revised 02 March 2020
REVISED 24 MARCH 2O20
project: 19.057
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
f
9]
/ III II III ***�---\+ I
+� , +
I III I I I +\ .. I I
+ I l
---IjIiIII ++ /
/ I 1 1 �. ' � �• r i
_ J/'/III \
713 guest narking spaces n
\
- - --------
484 -------------------'
482 I I I / ; Malloy Ford
-------462. I I i ; I I•,
7.
----- ; I;
- - \ \476- f - ` = Guest Spaces -
0
tt
e .\. --
�66r, \
- . . .
' ----- ------ - - - - -- ----
-'_' -- - --
- - — c --- *-- ----- -
- -----
464-
A, / Route 29
-------------------------- ----- _-------------------- �E -z Soltth''r------. -----•
/ /
,
Route 29
North - -
60 0 60 120 180
Graphic Scale: 1"=60'
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
CONCEPT PLAN
SP201900011
MALLOY FORD
CIRCULATION
Sheet 5 of 7
Key
• • • • • •
Guest Circulation
®
Vehicle Storage
Subject to SP2019-11
0
Vehicle Storage
Approved by SP2016-11
_
Outdoor Sales/Storage/Display Use
Subject to SP2019-11
Outdoor Sales/Storage/Display Use
Approved by SP2016-11
TMP 45-68A & 45-112131 (portion)
Submitted 18 November 2019
Revised 02 March 2020
REVISED 24 MARCH 2O20
project: 19.057
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
l / i��'j
/
496-
i
I I I I
II) Ili li li
\
/
/
/
/
/
Route 29,
JVULLl i
/
Route 29
84
ae:
/
\ _ I
v 46a
�476- _ _ _ _ _ — _ — — _
—472 70- ——
aa— — — -- — — —_i
_ — 468 —
Truck reversal movement
/1
60 0 60 120 180
Graphic Scale: 1"=60'
\
spaces"
I /
't -
N
\
+
�
1
1
\+
+
I
r
-
I
+/+
+
/
\
I
I \
1 \ \
Guest Spaces
vv - — —� —�
Route 29' — — — —
I
r ou o
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
CONCEPT PLAN
SP201900011
MALLOY FORD
CIRCULATION - TRUCKS
Sheet 6 of 7
Key
Truck Circulation
Southbound Approach
—
Truck Circulation
Northbound Approach: Entry
Truck Circulation
Northbound Approach: Reversal
Truck Circulation
Northbound Approach: Exit
Tractor Trailor Loading/Unloading
Area
®
Vehicle Storage
Subject to SP2019-11
Vehicle Storage
Approved by SP2016-11
_
Outdoor Sales/Storage/Display Use
Subject to SP2019-11
Outdoor Sales/Storage/Display Use
Approved by SP2016-11
TMP 45-68A & 45-112131 (portion)
Submitted 18 November 2019
Revised 02 March 2020
REVISED 24 MARCH 2O20
project: 19.057
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Section A -A
Section B-B'
I20 0
I__I I__I I__I
Graphic Scale: 1'
Guest ---Travelway
..
Parking 24�
r:y
b �I�
20 40 60
8'
Existing
Better Living
Building
Travelway
24'
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
CONCEPT PLAN
SP201900011
MALLOY FORD
CONCEPTUAL SECTION
Sheet 7 of 7
Existing
parking lot
and accessway
42'
Display Existing
parking
18' accessway
Landscape recommended 24
by Entrance Corridor
Route 29
— 468
466
Route 29
+1 1 — 468
gbh 1213 1
Submitted 18 November 2019
Revised 02 March 2020
REVISED 24 MARCH 2O20
project: 19.057
SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
ant
Min.
Total
Sylmbol
Planting Type
Botanical Name
Common Name
Cal./Height
Quantity
Canopy
Canopy
SF
OLarge
Shade Tree
Ulmus americana
American Elm (Princeton)
3.5" Cal,
7
397
2779
4d
Large Shade Tree
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
2.5" Cal.
8
370
2960
Large Shade Tree
Zelkova serrato 'Green
'Green Vase' Zelkova
2.5" Cal,
12
350
4200
Vase
Medium Deciduous Tree
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
2.5" Cal.
4
397
1588
0
Evergreen Tree
Cryptomeria japonica
'Yoshino' Cryptomeria
4'-5' Ht.
4
123
492
Yoshino
Broadleaf Evergreen
Magnolia virginiana
Sweetbay Magnolia
6' Ht.
3
113
339
0
Ornamental Tree
Cercis reniformis
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Redbud
6-7' Ht.
5
124
620
Deciduous Shrub
Aesculus parviflora
Bottlebrush Buckeye
30-36"
20
36
720
Evergreen Shrub
Ilex glabra 'Densa'
Densa Inkberry Holly
30-36"
38
23
874
Evergreen Shrub
Rhododendron 'PJM Elite'
Rhododendron
30-36"
40
13
520
TOTAL CANOPY
15092 SF
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:
�s s
SITE REQUIREMENT (32.7.9.8): 10% CANOPY REQUIRED.
SITE AREA 92708.5 x 10% = 9,271 SF
k
CANOPY REQUIRED: 9,271 SF
—'
CANOPY PROVIDED: 15,092 SF
STREET TREES (32.7.9.5): LARGE SHADE TREES (3.5" CAL.)
i
35' O.C. PARALLEL TO ROAD
\
REQUIRED: ROUTE 29 — 247 LF/35 = 7 TREES
PROVIDED: 7 LARGE SHADE TREES & 5 ORNAMENTAL TREES
INTERSPERED ALONG THIS FRONTAGE
INTERIOR/PARKING LANDSCAPE (32.7.9.6): 5% OF PARKING PAVED
I
AREA. 37803 SF x 5% = 1,890 SF
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED: 1,890 SF
%
LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: 5,650 SF
LARGE SHADE TREES (2.5" CAL.)
123 PARKING SPACES (123/10 = 12)
REQUIRED: 12 LARGE SHADE TREES
/
PROVIDED: 12 LARGE SHADE TREES
SCREENING SHRUBS — AS NECESSARY TO MINIMIZE
CD ?
APPEARANCE OF PARKING
NOTES:
C'�
1. Contractor to apply mulch bedding around all proposed trees
and shrubs. All other landscaped areas shall be sodded.
2. All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to
reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of
trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally
and only to support the overall health of the plant.
3. All landscaping and screening shall be maintaned in a healthy
condition by the current owner or property owners' association
and replaced when necessary. Replacement material shall
comply with the approved landscape plan.
SHIMP
ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT
912 E. HIGH ST. 434.227.5140
CHARLOTTESVILLE VA, 22902 JUSTIN@SHIMP-ENGINEERING.COM
0
O `� G
�o
U JusT> rsxnMP a
45183
110
p
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
EXHIBIT REVISED FOR SP2019-11
MALLOY FORD
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SUBMISSION:
2020.01.28
REVISION:
2020.03.02
2020.03.24
191111110161
LANDSCAPE PLAN
19.057
J M -H
W 7
z
z
• •• •0
Graphic• -
Places 29-Rio Community Advisory Committee
Minutes January 23, 2020 Meeting
County Office Building, 401 McIntyre, Room 235
ATTENDEES:
Committee — Nancy Hunt, Audrey Kocher, Lee Kondor, Brian MacMillan,
Martin Meth, Tom Paoletti, Pete Thompson, Judy Schlussel, Nicole Scro,
Rick Seaman
Board of Supervisors — Ned Gallaway (excused for emergency)
Planning Commission — Bruce Dotson
County 'Staff — Tori Kanellopoulos
CALL to ORDER — Chairperson Nancy Hunt called meeting to order at
6:00. Declared a quorum present.
APPROVAL of MINUTES — Minutes from December meeting approved
with one spelling error correction. Vote was 10 for approval.
CAC 2020 meeting schedule: 2/27, 3/26, 4/23, 5/28, 6/25, 7/23, 8/27, 9/24,
10/22, 12/03
Election of new committee officers:
1. Chairperson:
a. Rick moved to nominate Marty.
b. Seconded by Nancy.
c. Unanimous vote to elect Marty new Chairperson.
2. Vice Chairperson:
a. Lee volunteered as Vice Chairperson.
b. Unanimous vote to elect Lee new Vice Chairperson.
3. Secretary:
a. Tom volunteered to continue as Secretary
b. Unanimous vote to retain Tom as Secretary.
Community Meeting for Malloy Properties Special Use Permit (SUP) SP-
2019-00011:
1. Introduction to SUP process and Malloy's request by County staff.
2. Replace most of exising building at 2060 Seminole Trail with parking
for addition inventory storage and display.
3. Presented to ARB, action deferred. Several request from ARB on
planned vegetation and trees
4. To be re -present to ARB in February, then Planning Commission and
then BOS.
5. Audrey made comments about light ppollution.
6. Pete asked about the potential for light reduction.
7. ARB has no control over setting lighting standards.
Community Meeting for ZMA 2019-00014:
1. County Staff introduced rezoning request.
2. Rezoning request to be presented to Planning Commission at February
18 meeting.
Bruce Dotson's report:
1. Planning Commission organization changes, new members, one
returning member, new Chairperson elected
2. Bruce will be leaving in May
3. 999 Rio Rd project, approved by Planning Commission on 4-3 vote,
on to BOS meeting on March 4.
4. 2231 Seminole Lane, former office of Real Estate III, unanimous
recommendation for requested change
Old Business:
1. Revised proposed Resolution to Deny ZMA-2019-0008, introduced
by a. Comments/explanation of proposal by Rick.
b. Rick moved to adopt resolution, seconded by Nancy
c. Nancy had questions about trail head parking
d. Vote called, 6 in favor 4 opposed, no abstentions.
e. Proposal to be forward to Planning Commission and BOS.
New Business:
1. Marty introduced a request for CAC to consider areas of interest for
the CAC to focus on for 2020.
a. Updating master plan for the Places 29-Rio area
b. Seek new members
2. All CAC meeting to be held January 29 at County Office Building on
5U' Street.
Adjourned at 7:32
From: Martha Leinbach <pacermell3@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 10:04 AM
To: Margaret Maliszewski
Cc: Ned Gallaway
Subject: Information on Malloy Ford: specifically site along RT. 29 which
was the old furniture building and potential plans for that site
CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on
links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
I talked with you last evening at the end of your presentation to the Rt. 29-Rio CAC meeting re: Malloy
Ford and my attempts to try to get information on specifics of their revised site plan for the land adjacent
to their new dealership. This is the site that contains the old Better Living Furniture building in the front
and their body shop in the rear.
I have concerns primarily about the visual presentation of that site as seen from the entrance to our
neighborhood ( Carrsbrook) across the street given that is our neighborhood's primary exit onto Rt. 29
and we (all residents) have to see and pass by that location sometimes numerous times in a day and
certainly daily. I know other Carrsbrook and Woodbrook neighbors also have concerns about the noise in
the night of transports in and out of that site and very bright lights emanating now and potentially in the
future if more lighting is permitted.
Could you please help me find information on:
—new proposed site plan(s) by Malloy presented to the Rio CAC in January 23 and/or to the ARB on
February 3.
—any new presentation to the Planning Commission.
I listened to the ARB podcast from February 3 and thought I heard something about Malloy going back to
the Planning Commission. Have they done that already since the January 2020 presentation. Mr.
Dotson told me last night after I spoke with you that he thought they had already been to the Planning
Commission re: this new section of the site. Where is the process now?
When will it go before the BOS?
—any written or verbal communication available regarding their proposal for the "furniture building" site
and surrounding area including
not only visual screening and landscaping but what type of cars will be allowed in this new space if indeed
it just becomes a parking lot and what will be allowed to be seen there. The original site plan calls for all
cars needing repair and all employee cars to be in the back area —not along the frontage. Malloy chose
to move to this site and I wish them well as a business but they seem to have reduced their square
footage from their previous location yet have increased their traffic, use and inventory. How is that
allowed?
Malloy has repeatedly violated the parking in the grassy area near the old furniture building. I contacted
the county in August of 2019 and again in January 2020 initially through Ned Gallaway who referred me
to Mr. Svobova, the zoning compliance officer. They also have parked along the frontage road on both
sides when told they could not use the grass with not only cars but dump trucks, small to medium size
commercial vans and on occasion large empty transport tracker trailers. In one of the entrance corridor
studies originally done re: original site and view of unpleasant buildings etc an engineer commented "
traffic driving 45 miles per hour on Rt. 29 would only visualize that site for 3.44 seconds. The residents of
Carrsbrook and Woodbrook have to see that site everyday sometimes multiple times a day and not just
for 3 seconds. Please consider that other dealerships along Rt. 29 are mostly directly across from other
commercial entities and NOT a neighborhood. Also there is a traffic light very close to the furniture
building location so traffic will ocasionally sit there longer to view the entrance corridor.
Thank you for offering to help me locate this newer information. Your assistance is appreciated.
Sincerely
Martha Leinbach
Carrsbrook resident
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
June 12,2020
Valerie Long
Williams Mullen
321 East Main St., Ste 400
Charlottesville VA 22902
vl o ngidwi I I iamsm u l len.com
RE: SP201900011 Malloy Ford Outdoor Sales, Storage and Display
Dear Ms. Long,
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 12, 2020, by a vote of 7:0 recommended
approval of the above -noted application to the Board of Supervisors with the conditions outlined in the staff report, as
follows:
1. Use of this site must be in general accord with the concept plan "Special Use Permit Concept Plan
SP201900011 Malloy Ford Concept Plan Sheet 4 of 7" last revised March 24, 2020, as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with this plan, development and use
of the site shall reflect the general size, arrangement and location of the vehicle display and storage areas.
Permitted modifications may include those required by the ARB, those necessary to satisfy the conditions of this
special use permit, and additional landscaping/screening approved by the Site Plan Agent.
2. Vehicles must be displayed or stored only in areas indicated for display or storage on the plan entitled "Special
Use Permit Concept Plan SP201900011 Malloy Ford Concept Plan Sheet 4 of 7" last revised March 24, 2020
(the Concept Plan).
3. Vehicles for display must be parked in striped parking spaces.
4. Vehicles must not be elevated anywhere outside of a building on site.
5. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (submitted with the site plan). Maximum
height of new pole lights (including bases and fixtures), must not exceed 20'. Maximum light levels must not
exceed 22.8 footcandles at the ground in the display lot and 20 footcandles in all other locations.
6. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan (submitted with the site plan).
Landscaping shown on the plan may be required to be in excess of the minimum requirements of the ARB
guidelines, Albemarle County Code 18-32.9, or both, to mitigate visual impacts of the proposed use, and must
include, but not be limited to, the landscaping shown on the Malloy Ford Landscape Plan C1 of 1 revised March
24,2020.
7. A boundary line adjustment to add the portion of 45-112B1 on which parking is shown to parcel 45-68A must be
approved prior to final site plan approval.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 296-5832 ext. 3276 or email mmaliszewski Aalbemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Chief of Planning — Resource Management
Planning Division
cc: Malloy Properties III, LLC
clo Malloy Companies, LLC
1300 Richmond Rd.
Charlottesville VA 22911
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes May 12, 2020
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at
6:00 P.M.
Members attending were Julian Bivins, Chair; Karen Firehock, Vice -Chair; Tim Keller; Jennie
More; Bruce Dotson; Rick Randolph; Corey Clayborne; and Luis Carrazana, UVA representative.
Other officials present were Margaret Maliszewski; Andy Reitelbach; Charles Rapp, Planning
Director; Andy Herrick, County Attorney's Office; and Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to the Planning
Commission.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Mr. Bivins called the regular, electronic meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. and established a quorum.
He said this meeting was held pursuant to and in compliance with Ordinance No. 20-A(6), "An
Ordinance to Ensure the Continuity of Government During the COVID-19 Disaster."
Mr. Bivins said that electronically present that evening were: Mr. Dotson, Mr. Carrazana, Mr.
Keller, Ms. Firehock, Ms. More, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Clayborne, and himself.
Mr. Bivins said the public could access and participate in this electronic meeting by following the
link available at www.albemarle.org/calendar, or by calling 877-853-5257.
Consent Agenda
There was no consent agenda.
Public Hearing Items
SP2019000011 Malloy Ford
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski said this is a request for a Special Use Permit for outdoor sales,
storage, and display in the Entrance Corridor. She said the property in question is the site of the
former Better Living furniture store, which is located at 2060 Seminole Trail (Tax Map Parcel 45-
68A). She said a small portion of TMP 45-112131 on the adjacent parcel to the south is also
included in the request.
Ms. Maliszewski said the properties are located just south of the renovated Malloy Ford auto
dealership, and the site was previously occupied by Better Living Building Supply. She said the
Commission may recall reviewing the proposal for outdoor display of vehicles at that site in late
2016. She said the outdoor sales and body shop uses were approved for Malloy Ford for that site
in December of that year.
Ms. Maliszewski said in October of 2018, the body shop's SP was amended to include the rear
portion of the Better Living furniture store building, which is the site under consideration.
Ms. Maliszewski said the current proposal is to replace the showroom portion of the Better Living
furniture building with a paved parking area. She said this would leave the rear warehouse portion
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES— May 12, 2020
of the building to accommodate body shop operations that are already approved
Ms. Maliszewski presented photos showing the furniture showroom still standing, noting that
demolition of the structure is either underway or already completed.
Ms. Maliszewski presented the applicant's concept plan showing the new parking areas, which
include 13 guest spaces in front of the main building, an area of vehicle storage to the northwest
of the main building, and 110 display parking spaces between the building and street.
Ms. Maliszewski presented the corresponding landscape plan. She said one of the primary
methods for mitigating the visual impacts of parking is with landscaping. She said the plan shows
landscaping that is consistent with Entrance Corridor guidelines and with the landscaping
approved from the Malloy Ford site to the north.
Ms. Maliszewski said the Special Use Permit for outdoor sales, storage, and display is required
specifically because the site falls within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. She said although
a Special Use Permit is required for the sales, storage, and display use, the use is considered
accessory to motor vehicle sales. She said motor vehicle sales is permitted by right within the
Highway Commercial Zoning District.
Ms. Maliszewski said the Planning Commission is not considering the general motor vehicle sales
use that evening. She said they are considering the outdoor display aspect.
Ms. Maliszewski said the purpose of requiring an SP for the outdoor display use is to allow for
review of the potential visual impacts of the outdoor display on the Entrance Corridor. She said
the intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is to ensure quality development that is
compatible with the County's important scenic, historic, architectural, and cultural resources. She
said there are Entrance Corridor design guidelines that have been adopted to help meet that
intent.
Ms. Maliszewski said the Architectural Review Board has applied the County's Entrance Corridor
guidelines to the review of this request. She said after some requested revisions to the plan were
made, the ARB had no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit, with conditions. She
said those conditions are related primarily to the location of parking, the method of display, and
the landscaping and lighting. She said these are standard conditions for this type of use.
Ms. Maliszewski said staffs recommendation is for approval, with the conditions listed in the staff
report.
Mr. Dotson said the staff report mentioned some violations. He asked if Ms. Maliszewski could
explain these, as they were not elaborated in the report.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that there has been parking in places that are not approved for parking.
She said some of this has occurred in front of the furniture store site and on the adjacent parcel
to the south. She said the Commission would hear from the applicant that if this plan is approved,
the parking problem would go away, as the plan provides the parking needed.
Mr. Dotson said there was mention of accessways or frontage road along the front of the property.
He asked if the applicant owns this and has been granted an easement, or if this is owned by
VDOT.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES— May 12, 2020
Ms. Maliszewski replied that her understanding was that there is an existing easement there, and
that this was not a new situation.
Mr. Dotson asked once the furniture store goes away, what the remaining wall of the body shop
would look like.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that the current proposal is for a blank wall that would be painted to match
the Malloy Ford auto showroom to the north. She said there would be landscaping in front of it.
She said if the SP is approved, this would still need to go through the site plan approval, and
would go back to the ARB for final review.
Mr. Dotson commented that he was not excited about the blank wall.
Ms. More said her question was mainly addressed in Condition #5 (lighting). She said there was
a concern that was relayed to staff after the community meeting about lighting and how this would
reflect off the cars. She said she saw there was a condition, and that the ARB would have the
final approval on the lighting plan. She said perhaps this was outside of the Commission's
purview, but knowing the amazing things that can be done with lighting, she liked what was in the
plan, but she wondered if they could have lighting work specific to a space where it is directed in
one place but not in another. She asked if this were part of the consideration that would come
from the ARB, and if the proposed lights were ones that are typically recommended or approved.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that the standard lighting ordinance requirements would apply regardless,
meaning that they would not be able to have more than 0.5 footcandle spillover into the street.
She said the pole light fixtures would be the shoebox style of fixtures so that all the lighting is
pointed down. She said there were not any standard requirements, however, for aiming lighting.
Ms. More said they have seen some amazing examples of what people are able to do with
directing light to specific places and not have it shine out into areas it wasn't intended along the
corridor.
Mr. Keller asked if staff remembered what the Volvo dealership did in terms of permeable pavers
and lighting.
Ms. Maliszewski asked if Mr. Keller was referring to the Volvo on Route 250.
Mr. Keller replied no. He said he was referring to the new dealership. He said they were proposing
state of the art for auto dealerships in terms of both lighting and paving. He said they should revisit
that plan to see whether they are staying with the best practices, or whether they are falling back
to an earlier form.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that staff could go back and look at this. She said only a portion of that
site fell within the Entrance Corridor, which could be why she was not remembering those details.
Mr. Randolph said the ARB indicated that the maximum light levels must not exceed 22.8
footcandles at the ground, and 20 footcandles in all other locations. He asked if those standards
are applied, in the judgment of the ARB, it was the case that they would substantially address the
concerns that Carrsbrook residents have raised prior to the application being considered that
evening. He asked if, in other words, what the ARB came up with would substantially reduce the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES— May 12, 2020
likelihood that they would have a diffusion of light broadcast beyond this specific property
Ms. Maliszewski replied that she was not sure that the Carrsbrook residents are only concerned
about the light spreading. She said it was her understanding that it was about the overall intensity
of the illumination.
Ms. Maliszewski said the ARB was not attempting to specifically address the Carrsbrook
residents' concerns, as the ARB is just focused on the Entrance Corridor guidelines. She said in
the standards and the guidelines, 20 footcandles is generally the limit. She said early on, there
had been an allowance for up to 30 footcandles for some display lots, but that this had been
reduced over the years. She said 22.8 footcandles is the maximum on the adjacent Malloy Ford
showroom property, and that this number is in the application to keep this consistent. She said if
there are residents that think the existing Malloy Ford site is too bright, she would assume they
would think that the new lot would also be too bright.
Ms. Firehock said her questions were along the same lines as Mr. Randolph's. She said she
wondered if there was a possible remedy of having the applicant, as part of the condition of the
approval, turn the lights off at some time in the evening (e.g. 9:00 p.m.). She said she is sensitive
to the residents not wanting this to light up the area at night, and as they pointed out in their
comments, this site is somewhat unusual in that it does abut a residential neighborhood. She said
the Commission's job is to minimize the friction between somewhat incompatible uses. She said
she couldn't imagine they would need anyone to be looking at the cars after perhaps 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Randolph said he believed the car dealership's concern could be that they need a certain
level of lighting after 9:00 p.m. to assure security so that no one is breaking into vehicles or
stealing tires. He said from an insurance standpoint, they likely need to have a minimal level of
illumination on the parking lot from whenever their business ends that day to the following
morning. He said it would be helpful to know what that minimum standard of footcandles is, as he
liked Ms. Firehock's thought process in trying to see a potential reduction in the overall level of
illumination. He theorized that once they finish work at night, they could try to bring down the
intensity of the lighting.
Mr. Bivins said they were discussing one car dealer that is right next to another (with two lots),
which is next to Walmart, which is next to another car dealer with four lots on it. He said he would
want the Commission to take a hard look at applying requirements to one property owner that
they would be hard-pressed to apply to the other three property owners next to it.
Mr. Randolph said this was a point well taken, except that those other dealerships are not directly
across the street from an entrance to a residential community. He said this is the exception that
the Commissioners were trying to address. He said Mr. Bivins' point was well taken, however, in
terms of the doctrine of consistency.
Mr. Bivins suggested that the entrance was different from backyards, and that in fact, it was the
backyards in Carrsbrook that actually don't front that, but from the three other pieces of property
that he mentioned. He said Mr. Randolph was correct in stating that the entrance is across the
street from the driveway to Malloy Ford. He said it was actually the people who back up to Jim
Price, Walmart, and the former Brown dealership who experience the spillover in their backyards.
He said they could perhaps come back to this conversation when making a decision.
Mr. Randolph said it could be good to discuss this after hearing from the applicant
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4
FINAL MINUTES— May 12, 2020
Mr. Carrazana said he didn't know if the guidelines talk about full cutoff features, but that UVA
has been installing these effectively. He said many of these can be retrofitted into existing lights.
He agreed that there was a lot of impact to the Carrsbrook neighborhood, and that people there
can see the lights across the street from their backyards. He said perhaps there is a way of at
least starting a conversation with this particular site and owner that might spillover to the other
owners in terms of using full cutoff lighting, and that perhaps some retrofits can be applied to the
other dealerships.
Ms. Maliszewski said the lighting ordinance requires that any fixture that has lamps of 3,000
lumens or more would have to be full cutoff. She said this is the type of fixture that would be
proposed in this situation.
Ms. Maliszewski added that the Jim Price property predated establishment of the Entrance
Corridor, and that development predates zoning. She said much of what happens there would not
be approved today.
Mr. Bivins opened the public hearing.
Ms. Valerie Long, representative for the applicant, said she was joined by two members of the
project team -- Ms. Kelsey Schlein with Shimp Engineering, and Mr. David Timmerman with BRW
Architects.
Ms. Long presented images of the existing building and landscaping that was approved by the
ARB. She presented a picture of the now -demolished furniture store building, pointing out that in
the near entire absence of landscaping in this area, this building was built many decades ago,
before the current standards, and likely predated the ARB and its jurisdiction over it. She said the
applicant agrees that there is room for improvement there.
Ms. Long presented another picture, which was from Google Earth and was taken when the
Malloy Ford dealership was under renovation.
Ms. Long said the properties are designated on the Comprehensive Plan for "Commercial Mixed
Use," as is the adjacent existing dealership and many of the parcels surrounding it. She said the
parcels are both zoned Highway Commercial, as is the adjacent Malloy Ford dealership and many
adjacent parcels nearby. She pointed out that the two parcels across the street on either side of
the Carrsbrook intersection are zoned Commercial Office and not Residential. She said all the
parcels are either zoned Commercial or have commercial uses there.
Ms. Long said the entire area has been subject to a handful of Special Use Permit applications
over the past few years. She said she knew some Commissioners were on the Commission at
the time, while others were not. She indicated on a map to the old Better Living Building Supply,
noting that the applicant had obtained a Special Use Permit in 2016 for outdoors storage and
display for that area. She indicated to another area for which the applicant had obtained a body
shop Special Use Permit. She said in 2018, they had obtained approval for a second body shop
in another location. She indicated the location of the existing application.
Ms. Long presented an aerial view, explaining that the old furniture store is proposed to be
replaced with a parking area and landscaping. She said the picture shows the relationship of the
building to the back.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES— May 12, 2020
Ms. Long responded to Mr. Dotson's question about what that building would look like. She said
there was significant discussion with the ARB about this, and that it is proposed to be painted the
same color as the existing Malloy Ford dealership so that it will appear to be part of an extension
of the existing dealership, for consistency. She said they also substantially increased the
landscaping planted in front of that building to soften it. She said this, combined with the extensive
landscaping in the foreground, resulted in the ARB not requiring anything further.
Ms. Long said although a body shop is permitted and could be located there, it could be that
instead of a body shop and at least in the short term, it would be used as an additional vehicle
service area, which does not require any additional special permits.
Ms. Long presented a page from the concept plan showing the demolition and the relationship of
the area to the adjacent dealership. She indicated the area that has now been demolished, and
the 9,000-square-foot building that would remain. She indicated another area, explaining there is
a boundary line there with the adjacent parcel, and that the applicant is proposing to add this
triangular area to the adjacent parcel so that there is sufficient room to add landscaping there on
the southern border.
Ms. Long presented the concept plan that would apply. She indicated the landscaping, noting that
there was significant discussion at the ARB meeting about the landscaping. She said interior
plantings were also added to the interior parking lot. She said there is a variety of tall shade trees,
medium trees, interspaced ornamental trees, and shrubbery located in the area. She said the plan
also shows the detail of the additional landscaping proposed for the space between the parking
and the building.
Ms. Long said the applicant added a significant amount of landscaping in an indicated area, in
response to ARB and staff recommendations, and that it is consistent with what was approved by
both the ARB and the Board of Supervisors as part of the Special Use Permit and Certificate of
Appropriateness for the original dealership parcel. She said a goal throughout is to have a
consistent look in terms of color, level of landscaping, quality of landscaping, and materials.
Ms. Long presented a slide showing the circulation of the site. She said there had been a question
as to whether the access road was new or had been there for a while. She said the access road
was built either by Better Living or by VDOT, for Better Living. She said this happened when
Better Living first opened to provide an access road and travelway for the large delivery trucks
that dropped off lumber and other building supplies to Better Living Building Supply over the years,
as well as furniture.
Ms. Long said part of the reason this site works well for Malloy Ford is that it also has the need
for large vehicles to drop off new cars (i.e. car carriers). She said the applicant proposes to leave
everything exactly the way it is in terms of circulation.
Ms. Long presented an aerial photo, noting that in the foreground of the existing furniture store,
there is a travelway. She said this picture was taken either when Better Living was still open for
business, or before Malloy Ford was in operation. She said the vehicles that created the zoning
violation were due to overflow dealership parking (i.e. new dealership sales), and should not have
been. She said it was then being used for employee parking. She said the site is tight and that
the applicant experienced more business than expected at this location. She said the Special Use
Permit will enable them to avoid those future violations, and will substantially increase the amount
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES— May 12, 2020
of parking for new vehicles as well as relieve space for service vehicles. She said they have a
large service area and likewise, have been pleasantly surprised with the increase in business they
have received, among other things. She said their service bays can accommodate very large
vehicles, tractor trailers, and other service vehicles, which was not something that was previously
an option in this area. She said expanding this service to customers has been a good thing, but
when those vehicles are awaiting service, or have completed service and are waiting to be picked
up by their owners, they take up more space on site. She said this proposal will enable them to
use their entire site more efficiently, in a much more orderly fashion than it has been over the
years. She said originally, Malloy Ford had intended to either sell the furniture store or redevelop
it for a retail use, which is why it has been in somewhat of a stagnant situation. She said once the
dealership was open and running, they quickly realized they would need more parking spaces,
so they have been working with the architects and engineers over the past year to figure out how
to best do that.
Ms. Long said the ARB has recommended unanimously their support for this application based
on the improvements and upgrades made to the landscape plan and other elements of the plans.
Ms. Long said with regard to lighting, the applicant is asking that the application be held to the
same standard, not only that the existing dealership property was held to, but also that all other
applications are held to. She told Mr. Keller that she actually represented the owners of Colonial
Auto, who own the Volvo dealership. She said about four years ago, she helped them with the
Comprehensive Plan, rezoning, Special Use Permit, and ARB approval. She said she didn't
believe there were any different standards applied for that application, and that it was a matter of
standard dealership lighting standards, which is what they are requesting here.
Ms. Long said the ARB is a tough body and do not let anyone get away with anything. She said
the applicant had to go back twice to the ARB in order to secure their unanimous approval, and
that they knew this was important to do before coming to the Commission.
Ms. Long said a number of the existing commercial businesses that were referenced that evening
predate the ARB, and certainly predate the current lighting standards. She said those are some
examples of lighting that are burdensome to some neighbors. She said she also knew through
working with some of the CAC members in the area is that some of the frustration has to do with
the Kegler's Bowling Alley lights as well.
Ms. Long said the applicant believes this application will substantially improve the attractiveness
of the Entrance Corridor at this location, result in a much more cohesive and unified development
pattern of the area, and enable the applicant to expand their business in place and take advantage
of their growing success while supporting their customers. She said one of the important
components of the County's Comprehensive Plan is the Economic Development section which,
among other things, strongly encourages support for existing businesses to expand in place
without creating additional adverse impacts (environmentally, traffic -wise, or otherwise). She said
this will be an improvement for all, and that the landscaping alone will be a substantial
improvement in this location.
Mr. Dotson said that as Ms. Long had difficulties hearing her audio, Ms. Schlein might be able to
answer his question. He said his question was about the ownership of the access way. He said
his assumption was that Malloy owns this, that there is an easement that has been added to
VDOT, and that there is nothing in that easement ownership that would prohibit using it as the
loading/unloading area for the car transport vehicles.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES— May 12, 2020
Ms. Schlein replied this was correct. She said this easement was recorded with the development
of the Better Living property about 30 years ago with the original property owner. She said Malloy
Ford does have the right to access and use this as a loading/unloading area.
Mr. Clayborne asked if there is any fencing or signage proposed that would face Route 29 or the
neighborhood, or be seen by the neighborhood.
Ms. Long replied there were none proposed at that time. She said if so, the applicant would have
to go back before the ARB for any sign permits.
Mr. Clayborne mentioned Mr. Keller's comment about pavers. He asked if the design team has
explored anything on the sustainable side in terms of permeable pavers, or anything that would
be appropriate for this kind of use.
Ms. Long replied that the applicant has not explored that. She said they have focused their
resources on the additional landscaping in order to address the ARB's concerns. She noted they
are not increasing the impervious area, as it is already a developed site.
Ms. Firehock complimented the applicant on the landscaping, noting that it would be much more
attractive than it currently is. She said she had a minor request for the applicant to consider
swapping out one species of tree listed (the red maple). She said this tree is intolerant to heat
stress and is not an appropriate tree to plant in and around parking lots. She said she sent an
article to Ms. Long about this. She said she didn't need to know what tree would replace it, but
only perhaps that the team could check in with Mr. Charles Rapp, who is also a landscape
architect and could help advise on a better selection for that location. She said she didn't want
the landscaping to be dead in six years.
Ms. Long thanked Ms. Firehock for the feedback, adding that the applicant would proceed
accordingly.
Mr. Randolph said he appreciated Ms. Long's point about not supporting local businesses. He
said this point, however, misses the fact that what they now have on Route 29 is basically a Las
Vegas strip. He said there is a high level of illumination through the night, and that driving through
the corridor late at night is like getting a jolt of caffeine. He said he is concerned about the
cumulative effect of adding yet another section of square footage along Route 29 with high levels
of illumination.
Mr. Randolph said he understood that there had already been discussion about ARB standards,
but that he hoped when they get to the Board level, some members of the Board would encourage
the applicant to entertain dialing down the level of illumination at this site. He said this is where
cars will be stored, and there is a way of ensuring (from a safety and insurance standpoint) that
they are visible without there being the same level of visibility as though it is 5:00 p.m. in
December. He said he didn't want to belabor the point but as it goes forward, he hoped there
would be more discussion about the impact of additional square footage on Route 29 with very
high levels of illumination.
Ms. Firehock asked if anyone from the public wished to provide comment
Ms. Shaffer said there was no one signed up to speak.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES— May 12, 2020
Mr. Bivins asked if the applicant had anything to add before closing the public hearing.
Ms. Long said she wanted to make sure that any questions or comments that were raised when
she was having sound issues were sufficiently addressed by Ms. Schlein or others.
Mr. Dotson said he was satisfied.
Mr. Bivins closed the public hearing.
Ms. Firehock said she didn't know if they wanted to have further conversation about the question
of lighting, as there had already been much discussion that evening about the fact that the
applicant is meeting the standards, but that this was actually a special request coming to the
Planning Commission and that the Commission is allowed to consider the impacts on the
neighborhood. She said she would still like to hear from staff on whether there could be any
recommendations to have that lighting turned off, or if there is a lower level of lighting that could
be used for security purposes. She said it did not have to be lit up to the level that Mr. Randolph
had described.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that for other Special Use Permits, there have been conditions for turning
the lights off at a certain time, or possibly even reducing the level of illumination at a certain time.
She said this had never been done for an outdoor display request, but that she did think it made
sense. She said at that point in time, she didn't know what the appropriate level would be solely
for security lighting and that staff would have to look into that. She said there are other uses for
which they have limited the lighting in the past.
Ms. Firehock said it seemed that they did not necessarily have enough information that evening
to make a very specific recommendation, but that perhaps between that time and the Board of
Supervisors' review, staff could look into some options and present them to the Board with the
understanding that several Commissioners raised this concern with this particular use because
of the proximity to an existing residential neighborhood has a cumulative impact of existing lighting
in the corridor.
Ms. More said looking back at the Special Use Permit from 2016 that had to do with the back part
of the building, they were talking about display lighting then. She asked if this was correct.
Ms. Maliszewski said this was correct, and that lighting was considered on the other property.
Ms. More said she was sensitive to what Mr. Bivins said about there being many other properties
that are contributing to the lighting problem in that area, and that some of those may have
happened before there were regulations. She said some are perhaps not ideal to the current
standards. She said she would like to hold this application to the same standard that the
Commission would to another one, but that she was also open to what Ms. Firehock suggested
about security lighting. She said it was not a stumbling block for her, however.
Ms. More said it would be nice, at some point, to have someone be the first to do it, and then
hopefully, they could see change happen so that Route 29 does not look like a Las Vegas strip.
She said there is a fair point in holding the applicant to the same standards as they would to
others. She said that as Ms. Firehock suggested, perhaps the lighting was something staff could
explore prior to the Board.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES— May 12, 2020
Mr. Randolph said he was comfortable going forward to the Board because of the rich discussion
that covered the issue well. He said he did not see anything that was a stumbling block. He said
it would be helpful for Ms. Maliszewski to weigh in for the Board.
Mr. Keller concurred with his colleagues.
Mr. Dotson said Condition #6 (regarding landscaping) says, "The landscaping shown on the plan
may be required to be in excess of the minimum requirements." He asked if this meant that when
this is again before the ARB, that some additional requirements could be made. He asked how
he should interpret this phrase.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that this phrase clarifies that the landscaping may need to exceed the
minimum requirements of the landscape ordinance and Entrance Corridor guidelines.
Mr. Dotson asked if this was saying that the plan the Commission was seeing already may exceed
the minimum.
Ms. Maliszewski replied yes.
Mr. Dotson said he attended the CAC review of the application, and with the staff work and the
fact that it has been to the ARB a couple times and will be reviewed even further by the Board, it
has had a thorough going-over.
Mr. Dotson moved to recommend approval of SP2016000011 Malloy Ford Outdoor Sales,
Storage, and Display with conditions stated in the staff report.
Mr. Clayborne seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
Ms. Maliszewski noticed there was a typo in the SP number, and that it should read
"SP2019000011."
Mr. Dotson amended his motion. Mr. Clayborne seconded the amended motion.
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Herrick if another vote was needed.
Mr. Herrick replied that he believed the vote was already sufficient, but that the Commission could
choose to vote on the amended motion.
Mr. Bivins asked for the vote.
The motion carried unanimously (7:0).
Mr. Bivins informed the applicant that the application would move forward to the Board of
Supervisors.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 10
FINAL MINUTES— May 12, 2020
Old Business
Mr. Charles Rapp (Director of Planning) said he would provide updates on recent Board of
Supervisors meetings.
Mr. Rapp said at the April 15 Board meeting, the Board voted to approve an application plan for
ZMA201900014 Commercial Development, which is a property adjacent to Fashion Square Mall.
He said the Board voted to approve this as recommended by the Commission and staff.
Mr. Rapp said the Tandem Friends School Pavilion was also approved by the Board. He said this
was a Special Use Permit for a 4,500-square-foot pavilion building.
Mr. Rapp said the prior Wednesday, the Board adopted a resolution disapproving ZMA201900015
Child Development Center based on many of the concerns that were expressed by the
Commission and staff several months earlier.
New Business
There was no new business.
Adjournment
At 7:41 p.m., the Commission adjourned to May 19, 2020 Albemarle County Planning
Commission meeting, 6:00 p.m. via electronic meeting.
�
Charles Rapp, Director of Planning
(Recorded by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards and
transcribed by Golden Transcription Services)
Approved by Planning
Commission
Date: 06/16/2020
Initials: CSS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 11
FINAL MINUTES— May 12, 2020