1989-04-05April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
435
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on April 5, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. and F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H.
Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve 4.1, and to accept the remaining items
on the consent agenda as information. There was no further discussion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Street Sign Request for Rocky Hollow Road (State Route 769
East). The request was received from Ms. Nancy L. Thompson, a resident along
Route 769, east of Route 20, requesting a street sign to identify this road.
The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above:
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify
the following road;
Rocky Hollow Road (State Route 769 East) and U. S. Route 20 at
its intersection.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this through the Office
of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the ¥irginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and
maintain the above mentioned street sign~
Item 4.2. Copies of the Planning Commission Minutes for March 14 and
March 21, 1989, were received as information.
Item 4.3. Notices dated March 17, 1989,1!from the Department of Conserva-
tion and Historic Resources, of its consideration to include the following
sites in Albemarle County on the Virginia Landmarks Register and nomination to
the National Register of Historic Places: Cove Presbyterian Church, Monti-
cola, Woodlands and The Cedars, were received as information.
Item 4.4. Copy of Senate Joint Resolution No. 137 Requesting Local
Governing Bodies to Amend Their Zoning Ordinances to Permit Employer-Sponsored
Child Day Care in Areas Zoned for Business and Industry; received as informa-
tion.
Item 4.5. Copy of Senate Joint Resolutiqn No. 160 Requesting Local
Governments to Initiate On-Site Sewage Management Districts; received as
information.
436
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 2)
Item 4.6. Notice dated March 23, 1989, from the Department of Transpor-
tation of a public hearing to consider the proposed location and design of
Barracks Road (Route 654) at the intersection of Georgetown Road (Route 656)
and also of Georgetown Road (Route 656) beginning one-tenth of a mile north of
Old Forge Road (Route 1472). A public hearing will held on April 24, 1989, at
Jack Jouett Middle School.
Item 4.7. Notice dated March 27, 1989, from Virginia Power, of an appli-
cation filed with the State Corporation Commission for approval of expendi-
tures for new generation facilities pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-234.3
and for a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to Virginia
Code Section 56-265.2; received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZTA-88-04. David Spradlin. Request to amend the
definition of PUBLIC GARAGE in the Zoning Ordinance to include salvage activi-
ty. (This item had been deferred on December 7, 1988, pending the outcome of
the following applications.)
Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-88-06. David Lee Spradlin.
LI zone to allow a public garage/salvage and/or junkyard.
Daily Progress on March 23 and March 29, 1989.)
Request to amend the
(Advertised in the
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-88-20. David & Mary Spradlin. To rezone seven
acres from RA to HI. Property on the east side of Route 620, approximately
2.5 miles north of Woodridge. Tax Map 104, Parcel 14Fi. Scottsville Dis-
trict. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 23 and~March 29, 1989.)
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-88-27. David & Mary Spradlin. To rezone seven
acres from RA to LI. Property on the east side of Route 620, approximately
2.5 miles north of Woodridge. Tax Map 104, Parcel 14Ft. Scottsville Dis-
trict. (Advertised on March 23 and March 29, 1989.)
Mr. Horne gave a staff report covering agenda items 6, 7 and 8 as fol-
lows: ~
"BACKGROUND: The applicant was issued special use pgrmits in 1977
and 1983 for operation of a PUBLIC GARAGE. The County staff repeat-
edly attempted to insure compliance with the various conditions of
approval including two convictions in General DistriCt Court and two
referrals of the special use permit to the Board for revocation or
other disposition. After ten years of repeated violation, the Board
of Supervisors revoked these special use permits in early Fall, 1988.
The Planning Commission recommended disapproval of Z~A-88-04, an
amendment to the definition of 'public garage' to include 'salvage
yard,' on November 15, 1988. The accompanying special use permit
seeking to reestablish approval for a public garage ~as deferred
indefinitely. Subsequently, the Board of Supervisor~ deferred
ZTA-88-04 until such time as all pending petitions c~uld be presented
simultaneously.
STAFF COMMENT: The issue to be addressed in review .~f these various
petitions is whether or not a salvage yard is appropriate in this
particular location. Based on past and continued inability to comply
with County regulations and General District Court omders, it should
be anticipated that the salvage yard would be operated in an unregu-
lated manner and that imposition of conditions of approval would be
ineffectual.
ZTA-88-06: Amend LI~ Light Industrial zone to allow iPublic garage/
salvage and/or junkyard: Staff recommends denial of !%his zoning text
amendment for the following reasons:
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
437
In prior review, staff stated that 'SALVAGE YARD operations are
permitted under the definition of JUNK YARD, which is allowed
only by special use permit in the HI, Heavy Industrial, zone.
Therefore, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have
made prior decision that SALVAGE YARD is a use of such objec-
tionable nature as to be of a heavy industrial character and
,
must be reviewed individually, even within the HI zone.
The LI, Light Industrial zone is intended to permit 'industries,
offices, and limited commercial uses which are compatible with
and do not detract from surrounding districts.' The HI zone is
intended to accommodate uses 'which have public nuisance poten-
tial and will therefore be subject to intensive review for
locational impact on surrounding land uses and the environment.'
The Zoning Ordinance currently contains adequate provision for
SALVAGE YARD. Given the nature of the use, current provision
(i.e. special use permit in HI) is correct.
ZMA 88-27 - Rezone to LI (accompanies ZTA-88-06)~ ZMA-88-20 - Rezone
to HI: Staff recommends denial of these rezoning petitions for the
following reasons:
In SP-88-71, staff recommended denfal stating that 'this loca-
tion is inappropriate for a motor vehicle salvage operation in
terms of environmental concerns, relationship to adjoining
properties, and adequacy of transportation facilities.' These
concerns are valid regardless of t~e nature of the application
(i.e., RA zoning, LI zoning, HI zoning).
SP-88-71 was reviewed as to locational and other guidelines of
the HI Heavy Industrial zoning district and recommended as not
satisfying those guidelines.
Industrial rezonings in rural locations have only been approved
under peculiar circumstances which have justified such zoning
outside of designated growth areas.: Staff can determine no
peculiar circumstance in this case. There has been no invest-
ment, peculiar site characteristicS, or other circumstance
identified to demonstrate that existing zoning is incorrect.
During prior review, the Planning ~ommission questioned whether
this use was of primary service to ~the immediate area or a
regional-oriented use. In June, 19~8, the General District
Court ordered the applicant to remo~ve the then 200 vehicles from
the site. In November, 1988 the Zoning Administrator reported
that about 430 vehicles were located on the site. An increase
of +_230 vehicles in five months, inli~staff opinion, is indicative
of a regional scale business. Regi6nal businesses should be
located in appropriate urban designations. Staff can determine
no need for this particular type of!use to be located in a rural
t!
area.
438
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 4)
"April 4, 1989
Board of Supervisors
c/o Estelle Neher
Clerk of the Board
County Office Building
McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(Hand-delivered)
RE: Proffer Zoning Applications
of David and Jean Spradlin
Lady and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Va. Code §15.1-491.2 and Albemarle County Zoning Ordi-
nance §33.3, prior to the Public Hearing on April 5, 1989, my clients
proffer conditions of the zoning to which they will formally agree.
The proffer zoning request is to enable them to be zoned in order for
them to continue their 11 year business and to agree to conditions
which the County likely desires. This communication is made pur-
suant to the statute and shall not elaborate on other pending appli-
cations nor address the arguments to grant proffer zoning but merely
conveys pursuant to the statute the proffered conditions.
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
RELATIVE TO CONDITIONAL ZONING
David and Jean Spradlin agreed to have their land s~bject to condi-
tional zoning and proffer as conditions for conditional zoning these
conditions to which they will agree. (Hereinafter, '~the Spradlins".)
The Spradlins will agree to the following conditions.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
No use shall occur on the property other than the existing
uses within the proffered zone. (In other~words, the
Spradlins agree to waive all other uses oflithe granted
proffered zone.) Present uses are the public garage that
includes a body workshop, salvage of motor!vehicles and
sale of parts relative to the public garage existing and
agricultural uses.
Tappin Water Treatment Company shall provid!e to the Zoning
Administrator an annual water/well inspection report on
wells on and around the property. If trac~s of pollutants
are discovered, the Board of Supervisors o~i notice by the
Zoning Administrator can immediately call fiora hearing to
discuss the same, seek redress, and if necessary terminate
the zoning for good cause shown, i~
There shall be no ground disposal of gasolihe, oil, anti-
freeze, or other lubricants associated wit~ cars. (Nor has
there even been such disposal.)
Receipt and disposal of all discarded, abandoned, or
wrecked cars will be completed pursuant to ~a state salvage
and licensing procedure issued by the state~.
No junkyard refuse will be allowed or accepted by the
Spradlins. Only motor vehicles shall be a~iowed or
accepted, il
Hours'of operation shall be 8:00 a.m. to 5:i00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday. (The existing business ~ays and hours.)
For emergency only other than normal working hours, the
business will pick up by wrecker on call v~hicles as
requested by County or State police.
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
439
7)
The reservoir of car storage shall not exceed 400 cars
located only in the area shown for storage on the site
plan. The storage area will keep all cars in an orderly
manner. The Spradlins are agreeable to work with neighbors
on reasonable screening or fenced confinement of the
storage area if the same be desired.
8)
The business use and proffered zone shall be restricted by
the Board of Supervisors to the Spradlins and their imme-
diate family only.
9)
No sale of the business or land under the proffered zoning
shall occur by the Spradlins unless approved by the Board
of Supervisors before hand on terms and conditions that the
Spradlins and the Board of Supervisors can mutually agree
to.
10) In the event the Spradlins cease doing business for any
reason, the Board of Supervisors shall terminate by notice
the proffered zone and the Spradlins agree that all vehic-
les and motor parts shall be removed at their sole expense
from the property and a cleani~up made. In the event the
County is forced for any reason to remove the cars and
clean up, the Spradlins agree' that they will be personally
responsible for the cost thereof.
11) The Spradlins will agree to c6ntinue all conditions of
their special use permit except the provision of no more
than 2 inoperable cars.
12) The Board shall revoke its approval for non-compliance of
these conditions at any time u~pon proof of the same at a
public hearing. I
This being the conditions to which they:!.will agree, the Spradlins
request the approval of conditional zoning to allow the continuance
of their 11 year business, i
I remain, ~!
Respectfully, ~
(Signed) J. BENJAMIN DICK
OF COUNSEL"
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission on February 28, 1989, unanimously
recommended denial of the petitions (Agenda Items 6, 7, and 8). If the Board
wishes to approve this request, Mr. Horne continued, staff would recommend
rezoning the property to HI, rather than cha~ging the ordinance and affecting
the zoning of other areas in the County.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ben Dick, legal counsel for the appIicant, addressed the Board. He
said his client met every condition of his special use permit, except the
condition concerning the limit on the number of inoperable cars that could be
kept on the property. He said Mr. Spradlin Cannot operate his business and
keep only two inoperable cars on the property. Previous Boards have allowed
Mr. Spradlin to operate this business and run a public garage, Mr. Dick said.
Mr. Spradlin is providing a much-needed service to the residents of his
community, Mr. Dick continued, by paying residents for their old cars and
selling them to a salvage operator in Richmond. Mr. Dick said this business
may not fit the zoning and planning puzzle that the Board has fashioned over
the years, but the General Assembly does provide for conditional zoning. He
said this statute is very important to his client. Mr. Dick said it may not
seem altogether desirable to zone one piece Of land HI in the southeastern
corner of the County, but the General Assembly passed the statute to handle
unusual cases and he thinks Mr. Spradlin's case is unusual.
Mr. Dick said some of the mistakes committed by Mr. Spradlin were of his
own making, but the ordinance and the County regulations more or less prompted
him to violate the law. Mr. Dick said what his client did is similar to an
440
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 6)
act of civil disobedience, because the law ran counter to his ability to run a
successful business and support his family. Mr. Dick then handed out copies
of the statute and said this law gives local governing bOdies the power to be
flexible in zoning certain areas, subject to conditions proffered by the
applicant for the protection of the com~nunity.
Mr. Dick said the Planning Commission was concerned about the impact of
Mr. Spradlin's business upon the environment. He said Mr. Spradlin hired the
Tappan Water Treatment Company to test the wells on the property and evaluate
the quality of the water supply. An independent company in Cleveland, Ohio,
was hired to run an analysis of the drinking water. He handed to the Board
the results of the test. According to Mr. John Tapscott, there were no
contaminants in the water from Mr. Spradlin's business of 11 years. If the
Board approves his client's request for rezoning, Mr. Dick said, Mr. Spradlin
will agree to having the water supply tested annually. }f these tests reveal
the presence of contaminants, his client will bring the matter immediately to
the attention of the Board, submit to a public hearing, and either correct the
problem or close the business. Mr. and Mrs. Spradlin have also agreed that
the business will be restricted to their family; if they decide they no longer
wish to conduct the business, the zoning would revert to ~RA, Rural Areas, and
the business would be discontinued. If the Spradlins wish to sell their
business, Mr. Dick continued, they would do so only after' receiving the
approval of the Board. Finally, he said, the Spradlins agree to waive all
rights to any other use allowed in either LI or HI zones,~if the Board agrees
to rezone the property.
Mr. Dick said he disagrees with the staff's claim that they have repeat-
edly tried to compel his client to comply with the condi~$ons of the special
use permit. He said his client found only one of the co~itions troublesome.
He said only two inoperable cars are allowed under the us~e "junk yard", but
Mr. Spradlin's business is not a junk yard. He said Mr. iSpradlin's clients
bring only cars, not old toasters and refrigerators. He i~aid Mr. Spradlin
provides a valuable service to the community. Mr. Spradiin helps County and
State police with automobile accidents and hauls his neighbors' cars out of
ditches in the wintertime for free.
Mr. Dick said he thinks Woodridge should be designated a Village in the
Comprehensive Plan. He said arrangements are made in the~iComprehensive Plan
for the zoning needed in Villages to provide services forlltheir residents.
said Mr. Spradlin and the owners of two country stores in!! the Woodridge area
would like to see their business accepted by the County. ~iI
Mr. Dick read the following definition of a "junk yard" from an old
Albemarle Zoning Ordinance: "the use of any area or land"of more than two
hundred square feet and in location for buying or selling~?.or storage for
keeping ... junk including scrap metal and other scrap materials. The term
'junk yard' shall include the term automobile junk and grave yard". Mr. Dick
said this definition does not describe Mr. Spradlin's business. He said his
client operates a garage and body-work shop. Mr. Spradli~ removes parts from
the cars people bring him, shelves, inventories and sellslthese parts, and
then has the remainder of the cars crushed and sent to RiChmond. He said
gasoline from these cars is siphoned out and used; lubricants like antifreeze
and oil are poured into 50-gallon drums and removed from ~he property. Mr.
Dick said the biggest source of contaminants on the Spradlin property probably
comes from the one hundred roosters kept on the property,!'Inot the automobiles.
Mr. Dick urged the Board to listen to the citizens w~.o are about to speak
on behalf of Mr. Spradlin and to help Mr. Spradlin work with the staff. He
asked the Board to allow a businessman, who is operating successful business
that helps everyone in his community, to continue to run is business.
Mr. Grant Cosner addressed the Board and said he own~ property near Mr.
Spradlin's business.~ He said Mr. Spradlin performs a service for the communi-
ty. He said he thinks Mr. Spradlin picked a good location~ for his business
because land is still inexpensive in the southern part of ilthe County. He said
the Board has the power to regulate and restrict the business, but he thinks
the Board should allow Mr. Spradlin to remain in business.?
Mr. Yern Hoover addressed the Board and said he owns iProperty which
adjoins that of Mr. Spradlin. He said he has never had a problem with Mr.
Spradlin's business and thinks the area needs the service ~provided by Mr.
Spradlin.
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
441
Mr. William H. Frazier, Jr., addressed the Board and said he lives about
three miles from Mr. Spradlin's operation. He said he had six cars on his
property and tried to get rid of them. He said he called several scrap
dealers and found one who would take the cars if he paid to have them towed.
Mr. Frazier said he then called Mr. Spradlin, who moved all the vehicles off
his property and even paid him for two of them. Mr. Frazier said Mr.
Spradlin's business helps keep the rest of the neighborhood clean.
Mr. Calvin Frazier addressed the Board and said he runs the Frazier
Repair Service in Charlottesville. He said he has bought a lot of parts from
Mr. Spradlin over the years. Mr. Frazier said he would have to close his
business if he could have only two inoperable cars on his property, as Mr.
Spradlin is being asked to do. He said he does not understand why Mr.
Spradlin should not be allowed to run his business.
Mr. Richard M. Spradlin said Mr. Spradlin sells his automotive parts for
about one-third the price charged in Charlottesville. He said this business
has helped the poor people in the area. He said he does not understand why
anybody would complain about the location of the business.
Mr. Harold Pillar said he has appeared before the Board many times in
attempts to protect the beauty of the County~ He said junk yards belong in
the country and he thinks there should be several salvage yards located
throughout the rural areas. He said salvage.yards are "big business", provid-
ing parts to antique car collectors all over ithe country. He said salvage
yards help keep the cost of automobile repairs down, generate revenues in the
form of sales tax and auto salvage taxes, reduce the space needed at land-
fills, and train new mechanics. He said local governments should allow more
salvage yards to meet the demands created bylgrowing populations. He said
County residents are spending their money outside the County, at Cosner's
salvage yard in Fluvanna County, Powells' salvage yard in Greene County and
Wright's salvage yard in Waynesboro. He sai~ salvage yards should be allowed
in the County and allowed under regulations that do not harm the business.
An unindentified gentleman addressed the Board and said he just moved
into Woodridge, within sight distance of Mr. iSpradlin's business. He said he
thinks Mr Spradlin's business is a salvage ~ard and not a junk yard. He said
the operation is very well-organized. He an~his wife would not have pur-
chased their property if there had been a loH of debris lying around Mr.
Spradlin's property. He said he restores ca~s and relies on Mr. Spradlin to
provide many of the parts. He urged the Board to support Mr. Spradlin's
applications·
Mr. Ellison Jackson addressed the Board~and said he was accused of having
a junk yard himself. He said Mr. Spradlin m~¥ed all his cars and so now he is
out of trouble. ~
Ms. Athlene Harrip, an adjoining landowner, addressed the Board and asked
to see the results of the test run on the wa~r. She said the Spradlins have
agreed to put up an earth wall between the two properties to hide the cars.
If they put up this wall, she said, she willJhave no problem with the busi-
ness. Otherwise, she can see all those cars'Clearly and the business is an
eyesore. She added that no one tested her well.
Mrs. Wilma Spradlin addressed the Board-and said she is the mother of the
applicant. She said her son has worked hard i~11 his life for what he has
today. She asked the Board to grant his request for rezoning so he could keep
what he has earned. ~
Mr. Priddy Carver addressed the Board and said he owns property within
one mile of Mr. Spradlin's salvage yard. He ~as no problem with the business.
He said he appreciates the work Mr. Spradlin has done for him on his automo-
biles. .~
Mr. Ted Spradlin addressed the Board and~isaid he is the applicant's
brother and owns land next to him. He said h~ and his brother use the same
water supply and have never had a problem. He said his brother brings a lot
of business into the area and is an asset to ~he community.
Mr. Wilson Cropp, II, said he owns a sma~ 1 farm in the Woodridge area and
has known the applicant for a long time. He ~aid the zoning makes it very
difficult for people to have businesses in th southeastern part of the
442
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 8)
County. He said nearly all the residents operate their businesses in their
backyards and basements, generally violating the Zoning Ordinance. He said
Mr. Spradlin offers residents in this remote area of the County a service that
keeps them from being stranded.
Mr. Gordon Zimmerman addressed the Board and said he had to have some old
cars removed from his property before he could sell his property. He said he
could not find anybody to haul the cars away until he called Mr. Spradlin, who
took them away and even paid a few dollars for them. He said his parents
still live in the Woodridge area and Mr. Spradlin fixes their cars for them.
He said there are not a lot of rich people in the area; most people drive used
cars and it is sometimes hard to keep the cars running. He asked the Board to
find a way to allow Mr. Spradlin to remain in business.
Mr. Ignatius Roserra said he lives in Crozet and has known Mr. Spradlin
for at least five years. He said Mr. Spradlin has always fixed his cars,
regarless of whether he had the money to pay him.
Mr. Way asked that no one else tell the Board how capable a car mechanic
Mr. Spradlin is.
Ms. Eileen Pillar addressed the Board and said Mr. Spradlin removes old
cars that nobody else will take. She said she knows that!iadjoining landowners
sometimes object to salvage yards, but she thinks the Board should face the
problem of how to dispose of an increasing number of old ~ars. She said Mr.
Spradlin's business does not distract from the neighborho6d; were it not for a
small sign in front of the business, people would not evem know it was there.
She added that Mr. Spradlin has complied with the landscaping requirements
imposed upon him eleven years ago. She asked that the B~rd listen to the
residents of this area and approve the applicant's requests.
Mr. Willard Holsapple said Mr. Spradlin is an honest fellow trying to
make an honest dollar. ~
Mr. Dave Spradlin addressed the Board and thanked everyone who spoke on
his behalf and the Board for hearing his request. He sai~he has been in
bUsiness for eleven years and has helped a lot of people Who keep coming back
to him. He said he cannot comply with the condition limiting the number of
inoperable cars on the property to two and no one from th~ County staff has
helped him comply with this condition. He said he would ~ike to make it clear
that the whole motor is left in the car, not dumped out o~ the ground so that
the oil and gasoline can run everywhere. He offered to a~swer any questions.
Mr. Bowie asked how Mr. Spradlin disposes of the oilii?rums containing
lubricants and oil, mentioned earlier by Mr. Dick. Mr. S~radlin said a trash
company collects these drums.
Mr. Dick asked for everyone to stand who wished to s~ Mr. Spradlin
remain in business. Many people stood. ~?
Mr. Dick said the Board has the legal tools necessarM to grant the
applicant's request. He said the Board, as the elected o~ficials and the
legislative body of the County, has the duty to listen to"ithe people who spoke
on behalf of Mr. Spradlin and to preserve this business t~t has helped so
many people in the community.
Since no one else wished to speak to these applicati~ ~s, Mr. Way closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Way said he supported revoking Mr. Spradlin's s~ ~ial use permit
because he believed Mr. Spradlin refused to obey the cond~'~ions that were set
upon the special permit. He said he thinks the matter be~re the Board
tonight is a land use issue. If the County were to have salvage yard, he
said, he cannot think of a more logical place for a salvable yard than this
property, because the cars are so well hidden. He said h~ knows of no other
salvage operators that will go to a person's house, haul ~he car away and pay
the owner for the car. He said this County has a problem~ith the disposal of
unused vehicles. He does not think the first permit to a~low a salvage yard
in the County should be an extension of a country garage. ~i He said he agrees
with Mr. Horne that the most logical way to allow this kin~ of operation would
be to zone the property as heavy industrial, with the restrictions and prof-
fers offered by the applicant. He said he sees value in s~ch a business and
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
443
would hate to deny the request simply because it is difficult to find the
language to permit the request without having salvage yards spring up all over
the County.
Mr. Lindstrom said there are at least 15 properties within 1000 feet of
Mr. Spradlin's business and at least seven properties adjoin his land. He
said this is a serious-looking group assembled here tonight and he is not sure
he would have the courage to protest Mr. Spradlin's business if he were a
neighbor. He asked if the staff knows whether all the adjoining landowners
support Mr. Spradlin's request.
While Mr. Home was checking the list of adjoining landowners, Mr. Bowie
said he visited the property and verified that the cars,are not visible from
the road. He said he has never seen a request supported by so many neighbors.
He said he knows everybody who spoke on behalf of Mr. Spradlin gave up an
entire evening of their time and he thinks t~at says a lot for the community
and Mr. Spradlin. ~
Mr. Home began reading from the list of adjoining landowners, some of
whom were not at the meeting.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks a persuasive argument has been made that Mr.
Spradlin's business serves a need. He asked Mr. Home to describe the re-
quirements for setbacks and so forth that the applicant must meet for such a
business on property zoned Heavy Industrial.
Mr. Horne said this business could be allowed only by special permit even
on property zoned Heavy Industrial, and there is no request for a special
permit before the Board tonight. Should the~Board approve the zoning request,
he said, the applicant would still have to request a special use permit,
giving the Board an opportunity to add condiHions. He said there are general
regulations governing this use, because staff classifies it as a junkyard,
even though it is not a general junkyard. He said all storage and operational
areas must be enclosed by a solid and sightl~ fence not less than eight feet
high or alternative screening and/or fencing~isatisfactory to the Planning
Commission. Any storage yards and access toipublic roads must be maintained
with a dust-free surface. He said any setbagks would apply to structures, not
the storage area, although the Board could apply setbacks to the storage area
in the conditions of a special use permit.
Mr. Lindstrom said the opinion of an earlier Zoning Administrator for the
County was that the vehicles were an inseparable part of the use and were
required to meet a setback of one hundred feet. He asked if this opinion
would apply to Mr. Spradlin's case. Mr. Hor~e said "yes", unless the current
Zoning Administrator changes the policy. He'isaid buffering would also be
required between Mr. Spradlin's property and ~i~that of surrounding landowners.
Mr. Lindstrom said requiring setbacks of~i~ one hundred feet would leave the
applicant less than two acres for the salvag~ operation. He said he thinks
the applicant would need waivers to store th~ number of cars that have been
stored there in the past. ii
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Horne believes it i!is more problemmatic to allow the
business by special use permit alone than to i~ave spot zoning in the rural
areas. Mr. Horne said rezoning the property i~ives the Board the chance to
accept proffers and attach conditions to the i~pecial use permit. He said he
thinks the use is unique and spot zoning is ~eferable to opening up the rural
areas to repeated requests for special use pei~mits.
Mr. St. John said he does not believe re~oning this property can truly be
considered spot zoning. He said Mr. Spradlin~s business is similar to a
landfill, something the County needs somewherg. Even if there is just one
salvage yard in one spot somewhere in the Cougty, he said, he does not think
the rule against spot zoning applies to such ~n operation. He said the Board
could state as a reason for the rezoning that! this one salvage yard, and no
more, is needed by the public in this area. ~e said he thinks that would be a
legitimate way to approve this request withou~ setting a precedent.
Mr. Bain said he is concerned that approving this request could set a
precedent, maybe not for future salvage yardsI$ but for other uses. Mr. St.
John said there was a recent case in Botetour~ County which the Supreme Court
upheld in the face of objections that it was ~pot zoning. A few years later,
444
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 10)
he said, somebody tried to get the same kind of zoning and could not, and the
Court upheld this decision as well.
Mr. Bowie said he does not think the County needs many salvage yards, but
this one has been in business for 11 years. He said thelproffers should be
considered. He asked Mr. St. John if the proffers and the need for this
business make this case different enough that future requests for salvage
yards in other locations of the County could be denied. Mr. St. John said
"yes". He said he thinks the public need can justify locating a salvage yard
on this property, to keep cars from collecting at other places where they are
more harmful to the county than they are here.
If the Board rezones this parcel, Mr. Lindstrom said, there will almost
certainly be a subsequent request for waivers. If the Board approves this
request, a request for a use that has been standing for years in violation of
the Zoning Ordinance, then all the requirements will either have to be waived
or meE. One of the requirements the Board does not have any control over is
VDoT's standards for entrances, Mr. Lindstrom said, and he is not sure whether
the applicant can meet these standards.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about the quality of the groundwater
in the Woodridge area, because the residents have no other source of water.
If the Board approves this request, he said, he thinks there should be a
rigid, verifiable and frequent system for testing the groandwater on this
parcel and adjoining properties. He said he thinks members of the Board
should also ask themselves if this is the kind of area that is usally chosen
for heavy industrial zoning, a parcel that cannot meet th~ setback require-
ments, that cannot meet VDoT's sight distance with the cooperation of the
neighbors and that is surrounded by 15 small, residentiat.!!lots.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the applicant has made ~ good case that this
kind of use should be accommodated in the Zoning OrdinanCe. He said he thinks
it is unrealistic to expect that such a use can be locate4 in the urban areas,
because the land there is expensive and the residents wil!~ complain. Never-
theless, he said, he is concerned about allowing a proper~y to be rezoned when
the Board knows that it may be asked to waive a major provision in the future.
H~ said he is also concerned that someone in another parti!iof the County may
~nt to use his or her property in a similar way. He saii~ he would like to
forget the history of this case, but he cannot forget tha~ there were condi-
tions attached to the first special use permit that the a~plicant refused to
comply with on the ground that he could not adhere to the'.ilicondition and
conduct his business. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concernedi!!that this applicant
or a successor may decide he cannot abide by the necessar~ environmental
testing or dispose of petrochemicals properly and conduct:ibis business. Mr
Llndstrom said this applmcant has a history of not comply~ing with County
regulations and approving his request for rezoning would ~llow an intensive
use with possible consequences for the health of his neighbors.
Mr. Way said he thinks the setback requirements were ~establmshed to
shield residents from heavy mndustr~al uses ~n urban area~~. where there is no
natural buffer. He said this is not the case with Mr. Sp~adlin's business.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. }tome how he would recommend ~insuring the qualitI
of the groundwater if the Board were to approve Mr. Spradl~n's request. Mr.
Horne said the wells surrounding Mr. Spradlin's property could be tested. If
the Board is inclined to approve this request, he said, the staff would like
the opportunity to reword some of the conditions to clari~y what sort of tests
would be conducted and how often. He said staff would alsD want to consult
with the Watershed Management Official.
If the Board is going to approve this request, Mr. Lindstrom said, he
would rather defer action until the application for a special use permit is
also before the Board. Mr. Home added that staff just r~eived the proffers
yesterday and has not reviewed them.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about the mechanism for testing the
groundwater. If a neighbor's well is tested and found to be contaminated,
there would be no way to solve the problem. He said the o~ly way the test
could be effective is to drill and test wells in the Spradlins' property so
that any contamination could be dealt with before it spread to the rest of the
wells in the area.
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
445
Mr. Horne said petrochemicals move through the water table so quickly,
they would probably reach the neighboring wells before they were noticed in
the wells on Mr. Spradlin's property. .He said the cars can also be stored in
a way to make collecting an accidental spill easier.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the applicant should be bonded, so if a well does
become contaminated, he will be responsible for it.
Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned about a statement made by the applicant
that someone who collected trash came by andl collected the oil drums. She
said trash collectors are not authorized to dispose of such chemcials; there
are collection services specifically licensed to dispose of these lubricants.
If the Board is considering the possibility that this property may be a
suitable location for this business, under certain conditions, Mr. Home said,
the staff would like to review the application in more detail, consult with
the applicant and his attorney, clarify the language in the proffers and
return to the Board with applications for rezoning and a special use permit.
Mr. Bowie said he shares the concern over the disposal of the petrochemi-
cals. He said he wants the staff to review the application. If the problems
can be worked out, he said, he is inclined tO support the request. He does
not think salvage yards are needed all over ~he County, but Mr. Spradlin's
salvage yard is needed in the southeastern part of the County and the business
has been there a long time.
Mrs. Cooke said she is inclined to suppqrt this application if Mr.
Spradlin and Mr. Dick can address the Board'~ concerns about the disposal of
the chemicals and the compliance of the applicant with County regulations.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Board should make provisions for a salvage
yard somewhere in the County and particularly!in the community of Woodridge.
He said he is concerned about the overutilization of the site, and he would
want a bigger piece of land, if he were Mr. Spradlin.
Mr. Way said he thinks most of the members of the Board wish to proceed
with this application. He said some details~must be examined before the
application comes back before the Board and h~ asked for a motion to this
effect. ·
Mr. Dick said the applicant asks that the Board defer action until the
request for a special use permit comes befor~the Board.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and sec
action until the request for a special use pe
Mr. Home suggested that the request for
to the Planning Commission to be heard along
~nded by Mr. Bowie to defer
~mit is before the Board.
rezoning to HI be referred back
'ith the request for a special
use permit. Mr. Bain agreed and said the Plaything Commission could coordinate
the proffers with the conditions on the special use permit.
Mrs. Cooke withdrew her first motion and!imoved that the applicant's
request for rezoning to HI be referred back tn the Planning Commission to be
considered with the request for a special use ~;.permit. Mr. Bowie seconded the
motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks seven acres'is not enough land for this
business and he does not want to give the applicant the illusion that he
intends to support the request for a special use permit when it appears before
the Board. He cannot forget the history of t~is business and does not see how
the safety of the public can be insured.
At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote: iii
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Meslsrs. Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Agnor asked if it would be appropriat~ to remove from the agenda or
deny ZTA-88-04, ZTA-88-06 and ZMA-88-27. Mr. pick asked that these requests
be deferred with ZMA-88-20. Mr. St. John recqmmended that all four applica-
tions be deferred. Mr. Horne said it would b~ clearer for the Planning
446
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 12)
Commission if they dealt with only one possibility: the rezoning to HI and a
special use permit for the use.
Mr. Lindstrom said it seems to him that the Board has adopted a resolu-
tion of intent to amend the map to Heavy Industrial with a special permit on
the property. This is the action that the Board is passing back to the
Planning Commission. He suggested that the other items be deferred, but not
sent back to the Planning Commission. He asked Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Bowie if
they agreed with his clarification of their motion. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Bowie
agreed.
(Note: The Board recessed at 9:27 P.M. and reconvened at 9:37 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-89-02. Tom Wimmer. To allow a country store
antiques and public garage on property zoned RA. Property on the west side
Route 810 at Nortonsville, approximately one-fourth mile west of intersection
with Route 663. Tax Map 8, Parcels 31 and 32. White Hail District. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on March 23 and March 29, 1989.)
Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This property is developed !with seven
buildings including a store, garage, mill house, and'~' single family
dwelling. The store and garage, established by L. Gii Parrish,
operated more than 50 years. Other properties in thee area are
developed with single family dwellings. ~
Comprehensive Plan: This site is in a rural area i~~ the Comprehen-
sive Plan. The closest designated growth area is the Earlysville
village about 7.5 miles away. The Greene County Comprehensive Plan
recommends this as an agricultural area.
Staff Comment: In August, 1982, the Planning CommiSlsion reviewed a
C-1 rezoning request for this property (ZMA-82-9, Fr!ancis P. Gibson -
L. C. Parrish Estate). In that report staff stated ~that:
Staff is concerned about the intensity of development of this
property in terms of highway safety, lack of public utilities,
and the character of the area. While staff opinion is that the
County should permit reasonable use of the property, intensifi-
cation of usage is not appropriate in staff opinion.
Under ZMA-82-09, the applicant requested as many as '~even uses.
Later that year, a second application, (SP-82-57, Robert Blachly &
Kurt Henschen) was approved authorizing a country st~re, gift/craft/
antique shop and public garage. That special use permit was not
perfected and subsequently expired. Another special~!use permit was
issued in 1985 (SP-85-41) for the same uses. At tha~ time, staff
recommended that no change of circumstance had occurred since prior
review. Again, the permit was not pursued and has s~!nce expired.
Under this current petition, staff recommends that of
circumstance has occurred regarding the garage building. The struc-
ture has been permitted to deteriorate to the extentii0f roof col-
lapse. The 1988 Real Estate Department assessment snows the struc-
ture as having 'no value,' and therefore, staff reco~mmends that no
use of the structure need be extended through zoningi~action. To the
contrary, staff opinion is that a public benefit can.i~result from
removal of the garage building~ Virginia Department~of Transporta-
tion has commented that: ~
This section of Route 810 is currently non-tolebable. The
existing access to this property is uncontrolle~I with a wide
surface area for access. The Department recommends that the
access to this property be controlled with a siqgle entrance
centered along the frontage and adequate sight ~stance
obtained. Currently there is adequate sight distance to the
west and only 185 feet of sight distance to the east. The sight
distance to the east can be improved with removal of part of the
existing garage, which is only 14 feet from the lcenterline of
Route 810 to the corner of the building. This r~quest would
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
increase the traffic generated from this property compared to
the current vacant usage.
Country stores (both with gasoline service) are located about 2.5
miles away on Route 664 and about three ~miles away at BDo~sville.
Traffic on Route 810 in this area is about 550 vehicle trips per day
west of Route 664, and about 750 vehicle trips per day north of Route
664. Route 663 carries about 880 vehicle trips per day and Route 664
carries about 550 vehicle trips per day, While a country store at
this site could serve traffic not likely served by these other
stores, traffic volumes are relatively low. Again, a store was
operated at this site for over 50 years~ indicating a viable market.
Special use permits have been approved on two prior occasions. Staff
recon~nends denial of the public garage. Staff recommends approval of
the country store and gift/craft/antique shop as allowing reasonable
use of the property, subject to the following conditions:
1. All uses shall be limited to the existing floor area of the
buildings in which such uses are lo~ated. The gift/craft/
antique shop shall be located in the dwelling which is physi-
cally connected to the store. The 'country store shall be
located in the store building;
2. No auctions and no outdoor displaY~i~f merchandise;
3. The existing garage building shall~-b removed;
4. Administrative approval of sketch plan to include:
Fire Official approval of reinstallation of gas pumps;
Virginia Department of Transportation entrance approval
in accordance with comments in%this report;
Fire and Building Official approval of buildings;
Health Department approval;
Staff approval of parking layout;
Should sale of gasoline not occur, !the Fire Official may require
the removal, filling or other safet~ measures for the under-
ground tanks. ~
447
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 9, 1989,
by a vote of five to one, recommended approva!i of the petition but changing
Condition #3 to read: "... or modified to obtain adequate sight distance as
necessary".
Mr. Horne said the applicant contacted the Planning staff yesterday and
proposed to remove the garage and a small house directly behind the garage and
operate the garage to the rear of the propertY between the barn and a dwelling
unit. Mr. Horne said the staff recommends that the operation of the garage be
approved at this location, subject~o approval of the sketch plan. He recom-
mended adding Condition #4f to read: "Staff approval of new garage location".
Condition #3 should also be reworded to read:i~ "The existing garage building
and house shall be removed".
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Wimmer, the applicant, addressed!the Board. He said he wished to
raze the existing garage and house ~o eliminate any danger to travelers
entering and leaving the store. He said building a new garage to the rear of
the property will enhance the value of the property, improve the view and
enhance the safety of motorists.
Mr. Perkins asked if the applicant is familiar with the new guidelines
issued by the Environmental Protection Agency'ilconcerning gasoline tanks. Mr.
Wimmer said "yes", and that a representative from Texaco would be installing
the tanks according to federal, state and loc{1 regulations.
448
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 14)
Mr. H. R. Herring addressed the Board and said he lives near
Nortonsville. He said removing this garage would make Nortonsville a prettier
place and he approves of Mr. Wimmer's plan.
Since no one else wished to speak to this application, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks this application would benefit Nortonsville.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to
approve SP-89-02 with the conditions of the Planning Condition and amending #3
to read: "The existing public garage and house shall be removed" and adding
#4f to read: "Staff approval of new garage location between the barn and the
existing dwelling in the rear portion of the property as shown on the sketch".
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are as follows:
1. Ail uses shall be limited to the existing floor ~area of the
buildings in which such uses are located. The gift/craft/
antique shop shall be located in the dwelling which is physi-
cally connected to the store. The country stor9 shall be
located in the store building; ~
2. No auctions and no outdoor display of merchandise;
3. The existing public garage and house shall be r~moved;
4. Administrative approval of sketch plan to include:
a. Fire Official approval of reinstallation of~ gas pumps;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation entrance approval in
accordance with comments in this report; ~
c. Fire and Building Official approval of buildings;
d. Health Department approval; ~
e. Staff approval of parking layout; ~.~
f. Staff approval of new garage location between the barn and
the existing dwelling in the rear portion 6~ the property
as shown on the sketch; ~i
5. Should sale of gasoline not occur, the Fire OffiCial may require
the removal, filling or other safety measures fo~ the under-
ground tanks.~
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-89-18. Alford Associates. ~ allow for the
expansion of an existing motel (Quality Inn) in the RA zon!~. Property on the
north side of Route 250 approximately one-fourth mile easti! of its intersection
with Interstate 64. Tax Map 78, Parcels 44, 45 and 45A. ,Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 23 and March 291! 1989.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This special permit is sough~ by the owners
of the Quality Inn which is west of the subject properties. Other
development in the area includes a well driller's off~ce and yard,
single family dwellings, and a small mobile home park?i The subject
parcels are developed with a single family dwelling a~d a package
sewage treatment plant. .~ii
History: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, ~ its meeting
on February 17, 1988, unanimously approved the applicant's request to
rezone approximately 1.56 acres of PA, Rural Areas, tg! HC, Highway
Commercial. In addition, the Board of Supervisors approved a special
permit to allow a parking structure on 0.87 acres on ~=operty to be
rezoned from PA to HC. These requests were granted on' other property
located west of the existing Quality Inn.
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
449
Description of Request: This request is for an expansion of the
current motel use. While the proposed structure will be physically
separate, its use is directly related to the Quality Inn development.
The applicant proposes to locate a building of 55,035 square feet (a
three story structure at 18,345 square feet per story). The proposed
use will be 100 motel suites. Elevation drawing of the proposed
structure indicates that the building is to have a brick facade.
Access to the proposed development is to be through the existing
Quality Inn.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The Interstate Interchange
Development Policy outlined in the current Comprehensive Plan recom-
mends that the Shadwell interchange of Interstate 64 be considered
for interstate-oriented development including 'highway service
businesses which primarily rely on the .interstate traveller as a
market including hotels, motels, restaurants, and other such uses.'
Regional uses including convention centers should also receive
consideration. The Comprehensive Plan identifies four urban inter-
changes to receive consideration for such development. At these
interchanges the current Comprehensive Plan does not specify that
areas susceptible to the policy be restricted to the designated Urban
Area. =~
Updated Comprehensive Plan. The Interskate Interchange Development
Policy of the updated Comprehensive Plan recommends that 'land in the
vicinity of interstate interchanges should be developed in a manner
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the
area in which it is located.' The revi~ed Plan recognizes that a
majority of landswithin close proximit~ of these interchanges are
not part of the Growth Area and are mostly designated as Rural Areas.
The revised Plan recommends that rural 9teas not be developed except
as provided under current zoning. The '~evised Comprehensive Plan
also recognizes hotel, motel, conventio~ center, etc, as interstate
oriented development. ~
In the opinion of staff, this request i~ consistent with the current
and updated Comprehensive Plan's recommended land use guidelines for
interstate interchange development. Th~s request for expansion of an
existing motel use can be accomplished ~nder~ the existing RA, Rural
Areas, zoning by special permit and, therefore, is consistent with
both Plan's Interstate Interchange Poli~y. Conversely, the updated
Comprehensive Plan states under Agricultural and Forestal Land Use
Goals and Strategies that 'commercial l~nd uses in the rural areas
impacts agricultural and forestal activ~ty.~ Some commercial uses
currently permitted in the Rural Areas ~re not consistent with the
intent of the district (such as motels, lipublic garages and restau-
rants) and may cause conflicts with agricultural activity'.
In the opinion of staff, the previous s~atement noted under Agricul-
tural and Forestal Land Use Goals and S~rategies is not directly
applicable to the subject property. Wh~
approved the 1980 Zoning Ordinance allo~
permit in the Rural Areas, it was envis~
Shadwell Interchange, while zoned rural
commercial development (given the inter~
Growth Area and direct access to primar
Should a motel be allowed in the Rural
n the Board of Supervisors
ing motels by special use
oned that areas such as the
might be appropriate for
~ange's proximity to the
and interstate highways).
~eas, staff would contend
that the interstate interchange areas r~:~ognized in the Comprehensive
Plan for development would be an appropriate location for such a use.
Staff Comment: While the applicant s r~quest for expansion of an
existing motel use is consistent with t~e Comprehensive Plan s
recommended land use guidelines for int~state interchange develop-
ment, this request does not satisfy the iInterstate Interchange
Development Policy completely.
Staff offers the following analysis: !~
450
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 16)
The Interstate Interchange Development Policy is explicit in the
recommendation as to access and transportation. The Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation has commented 'that the Comprehensive Plan
states that access at this interchange is to be a minimum of 1000
feet for any major intersection or commercial entrance. The existing
intersection of Route 1107 is approximately 400 feet from the 1-64
interchange. The Department does not support any requests that allow
more traffic than is allowed by-right.'
Staff reviewed the previous requests, ZMA-87-16 and SP-87-94 Seville
Associates, under the interstate interchange access~criteria. Staff
determined with the previous request, given the limited amount of
commercial use proposed, there would be little if any impact on the
existing entrance. The Board of Supervisors required that the
applicant upgrade the existing left turn lane (eastbound) and the
existing right turn lane (westbound) in accordance with staff and
VDOT comments at the time of site plan review. Staff would recommend
with the current request that substantial improvements to the exist-
ing right and left turn lanes at Route 250 also be required.
Staff has determined that this request could generate an additional
700 vehicle trips per day, all of which would utiliMe the existing
intersection at Route 1107. It is impossible for the applicant to
adhere to the interstate interchange access criteria= without complete
relocation of the existing entrance.
Intensity of development in regard to the proposed s~ructure is also
an issue. The applicant's proposed conceptual plan ii~ndicates a
building eight of at least 40 feet. Given the rural areas zoning,
location of a structure of this height will require i~a variance from
height restrictions of 35 feet in the RA, Rural Areas. In addition,
the applicant will be required to adhere to the landscaping provi-
sions contained in the Zoning Ordinance as well as 6he guidelines set
forth in the Interstate Interchange Development Pol}~y concerning
aesthetic integrity of proposed development ....
Utilities: This property is not located within the.albemarle County
Service Authority's jurisdictional area for water or'sewer. The
property on which the Quality Inn is located is in t~e Service
Authority's jurisdictional area. The water supply f!~r the existing
development is from a number of existing wells located throughout the
Motel properties. The applicant has stated that pas~ problems with
the on-site water system were in terms of operationali deficiencies as
opposed to system deficiencies. The Inspections Dep~rtment has
commented that increased fire protection for the new~iistructure would
be necessary. The proposed structure will possibly ~equire sprinkler
protection of the building which Would occasionthe ~eed for a
substantial on-site storage facility. Staff would r~commend that the
Planning Commission recommend the subject property fSr inclusion in
the Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdictional area for
water, if approval is granted. (Extension of publiciwater was
required with the prior petition), i~
In terms of sewage disposal, the applicant has state~ that the exist-
ing package sewage treatment plant has enough capacity to accommodate
the proposed development, and is currently operating~at only 20
percent of its capacity, which is a yearly average. :~i
Summary and Recommendations: Staff opinion is that ~he Alford
Corporation request is consistent with the Interstat~ Interchange
Development Policy of the current and the updated Comprehensive Plan
as well as more general policy to permit expansion o~. existing uses.
While the existing entrance does not meet the recox~nded separation
from the interstate interchange, staff is of the op~mon that any
impact additional traffic from the proposed development may have on
the interchange area can be lessened by improvementsi:to the existing
entrance and turn lanes.
April 5, 1989 (Regular-Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Staff has found this request not to be of substantialdetriment to
adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be
changed, and that this request will be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this ordinance. Staff recommends approval subject to
the following conditions:
The Planning Commission shall review the preliminary site plan;
which shall be in general accordance with the plan titled 'con-
ceptual site plan' dated February 2, 1989;
Department of Engineering approval of increased usage of central
sewer system prior to Planning Con~nission review of site plan;
The proposed structure shall be subject to the development
standards noted in Section 21.0 Commercial Districts - Gener-
ally, including additional development restrictions that the
Planning Commission may deem appropriate;
Decel lane westbound on Route 250 and left turn lane eastbound
be extended and approved to handle additional traffic. Extent
of improvements to be determined during site review.
Public water shall be extended to the property at the time the
property is included in the Service Authority's jurisdictional
area for water."
451
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 21, 1989,
recommended approval of the petition by a vo~e of three to two, subject to the
conditions in the staff's report and adding Condition #6 to read: "Commence-
ment of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit
within three years from the date of issuance'~of the special permit".
Mr. Bowie said he visited the site and ~his building would be located on
relatively high ground. He asked what the visual impact of this building
would be on the surrounding area. Mr. Horne~said the building would be
visible from Route 250, but it will be behin~ two commercial structures and
should not be obtrusive. ~
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Horne to address the~'~oncern expressed by members of
the Planning Commission: the safety of the ~cess. Mr. Home sa%d there may
be a constraint placed on the length of the i~ft turn lane, due tO its loca-
tion within an island of the interchange. M~I. Home said VDoT and the staff
believe that the turn lane can hold 200 feet~Df stacking, but that the length
of the taper lane may be limited.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Mr. Walter Alford, President of Alford orporation, addressed the Board.
He said the Corporation has tried to find ancther way to access the property
and even acquired a contract to purchase the~Sleepy Hollow Trailer Court to
use as a possible avenue to reach the motel. He said there was no way to meet
VDoT's grade requirement if the roadway went through the Sleepy Hollow proper-
ty and so the Corporation did not buy the prcperty. He said having the access
through the existing Quality Inn would tie together the two complexes. He
said tall trees stand on the hill and would s~reen the proposed building from
Interstate 64. He said the Corporation asks ithat construction of the building
begin within three years of the issuance of ~e permit, rather than the 18
months required by County regulations, to allow the Corporation time to raise
finances and iron out any difficulty with ha~ng publmc water extended to the
site. '1~
Mr. Bowie asked how much higher the propgsed building wouldbe than the
existing building. Mr. Thacker, head of construction for the Alford Corpora-
tion, said the new building would be about 35iilto 40 feet higher than the
existing buiding. ~
Since no one else wished to speak concerhing this application, Mr. Way
closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
452
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 18)
Mr. Bowie said he wished the new building would not be so tall, but the
proposal is in accordance with the County's regulations.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve
SP-89-18 with the conditions of the Planning Commission. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out as follows:)
The Planning Commission shall review the preliminary site plan;
which shall be in general accordance with the plan titled
"conceptual site plan" dated February 2, 1989;
Department of Engineering approval of increased usag~ of central
sewer system prior to Planning Commission review of site plan;
The proposed structure shall be subject to the development
standards noted in Section 21.0 Commercial Districts - Gener-
ally, including additional development restrictions that the
Planning Commission may deem appropriate;
Decel lane westbound on Route 250 and left tur~!lane eastbound
be extended and approved to handle additional traffic. Extent
of improvements to be determined during site reView;
Public water shall be extended to the property ~at the time the
property is included in the Service Authority's:~jurisdictional
area for water;
6. Cox~nencement of construction of any structure n~cessary to the
use of such permit within three years from the ~ate of the
issuance of the special permit.
Mr. Lindstrom said the General Assembly recently pas~ed legislation
giving counties specific architectural control over the m~jor approaches to
cities and urban parts of counties. He said the propertyii~just discussed is
part of an important approach to Charlottesville and the ~astern urban area of
the County. He asked the staff to consider how the County might take advan-
tage of this legislation, applying it to Route 250 East a~d West, Route 29
North and South, Route 20, Route 631 and the approaches t~ Monticello.
Mr. Bowie said he would also like to see how the Board can protect the
aesthetics of these roadways.
Agenda Item No 11. SP-89-07. Winfried Adler. To allow computer con-
sulting, sales and service to be located in an existing s~gle family resi-
dence. Property on the west side of Rio Road (Route 631)~!between Hillsdale
and Old Brook Roads. Tax Map 61, Parcel 129A. CharlotteAVille District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 23 and March 2~, 1989.)
Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This property has frontage on Rio Road and
is situated between Hillsdale Drive and Old Brook Road. A single
family dwelling is located on the property.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes the following condi-
tions: ~
1. Use.
2. Access.
Limit the specific use to computer systems consulting,
sales and service;
Close access to Rio Road. Provide access to Hillsdale
and Old Brook Roads; except if staff c~nnot support
access points, access will be limited to Hillsdale
two
Drive;
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
453
Design.
Maintain the existing residential structure (+1600 sq.
ft.)
Clean up debris, and preserve all large trees.
As justification for his request, the applicant states that
there is no reasonable residential use of the property due to
its narrow shape. He states further that Squire Rill Apartments
are to be considered separate. In:addition, he states this is a
low volume traffic generator, which generates less than that by
residential development of the site.
History: SP-87-71 Betty K. Haigh-Lawson (Top 100 Video) was recom-
mended to the Board of Supervisors for denial by the Planning Commis-
sion on September 15, 1987. The applicant withdrew the request prior
to the Board of Supervisors' review..
Staff Comment: By special use permit, non-residential commercial
uses in the R-15 Residential zone are limited to 'retail stores and
shops on a single floor, compatible with the residential characteris-
tics of the district, with a gross floor area not exceeding 4000
square feet.' Professional offices are also provided by special use
permit. These provisions are intended to permit limited-scale
commercial uses as convenience to largeuscale residential develop-
ments, while general broader-market com~.ercial uses are accommodated
in the various commercial zoning districts. Since adoption of the
1980 Zoning Ordinance, other than SP-87AT1, only one special use
permit has been processed under this prqvision, and due to the pecu-
liar circumstances of the case, should mot be viewed as comparable to
this petition (i.e., in SP-85-31, Woodl~ne Partnership, the property
was surrounded by commercial, industria~ and other non-residential
uses). {
Staff disagrees with the applicant's position that due to its narrow
shape, this lot cannot reasonably be de~eloped residentially. Deve-
lopment into residential use is possibl~ with appropriate unit type
and siting on the lot. This lot width,~ii89 to 134 feet is similar to
that found within Squire Hill clusters.~
Virginia Department of Transportation s~ated that: 'This section of
Route 631 is currently non-tolerable an~ is scheduled for widening in
1990. Previous comments for requests o~i this property have indicated
a recommendation to align Hillsdale DriVe with Route 652, since these
two roads are the major side streets an~ would eliminate an intersec-
tion on Route 631. As the plans submitted indicate, the access to
this property should be on Hillsdale Dr~ve~ and not on Route 631,
where the current driveway is located. {A minimum of 400 feet of
sight distance is required on Hillsdale ~rive and a sight easement
would probably be needed along the property frontage to the north. A
30 foot wide commercial entrance is reqt
Hillsdale Drive. And they have previou~
should be as far from the intersection
the removal of vegetation across the fro
Hillsdale Drive would be necessary to ob
The applicant requests access from both
ired for the access on
ly commented 'the entrance
f Route 631 as possible, and
ntage of this property along
rain sight distance.'
~illsdale Drive and Old Brook
Road. Staff views substantial public bemefit to be derived from
closing Old Brook Road and instead providing access to those proper-
ties from Hillsdale Drive (Branchlands c~llector road). However,
this was reviewed by both Planning and ~rginia Department of Trans-
portation staff for the previous special?permit request, and was
deemed impractical. Staff cannot suppor~ two entrances for the
proposed use. In staff's opinion, it is~not warranted in order to
provide safe and convenient access to th~ use, and it would encourage
short-cuts. Staff recox~ends restrictin~ access to Hillsdale Drive
for any development of this site. ~:
By-right residential development, could result in ten dwellings, or
70 vehicle trips per day. While no generation study figures are
available for this specific use, staff estimates 61 vehicle trips per
day based on I.T.E. figures for general 9ffice use. Please note that
454
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meetingl
( Page 201
this figure differs from that shown by the applicant in his applica-
tion. Therefore, traffic generation from this use would not exceed
that of by-right development. This finding differs from that for
SP-87-71, which would result in increased traffic generation.
However, both requests fail to meet the intent of these special
permit provisions to proVide a service to the residential area. In
fact, the previous requestfor a video rental use would provide more
of a convenience to the surrounding residents than the present
request. A commercial/office use is not consistent with the Compre-
hensive Plan's land use designation for this area, which is a desig-
nation for high density residential use. The proposed Comprehensive
Plan designates other areas in close proximity to this site for
office service use. Such land use designation is more appropriate
for the proposed use.
Staff recommends denial for the reason that this use is not consis-
tent with the intent of Section 18.2.2.11 and 18.2.2.12. The pro-
posed use provides none or extremely limited service and convenience
to the surrounding residential area.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
1. This permit is issued for computer systems consulting, sales and
service use only;
2. Building area limited to 2500 square feet, to ~nclude main-
taining the residential structure;
3. Access limited to Hillsdale Drive;
4. Site plan approval to include preservation of ~ature trees, to
the extent possible;
NOTE: Commercial use provisions have become a p~oblem in the
higher-density residential districts. St~ff would recom-
mend that language be added to the specia~ permit cate-
gories to clarify the intent of these provisions - i.e.,
that the use be primarily supported by an~ a service to the
residential area. Or, the Planning Commi~ision or the Board
of Supervisors may chose to delete these ~rovisions
entirely."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 21, 1989
unanimously recommended denial of this petition. Since ~hat time, the appli-
cant has offered to limit access to the property to HilI~dale Drive..
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there are commercial and retail services lacked b
the residents in the neighborhood of this property, sinc~ they live so close
to several shopping centers. Mr. Horne said Albemarle S~are Shopping Center
is the nearest service area.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ralph Main addressed the Board and said he is t~e attorney represent
lng Mr. Winfried Adler, the applicant and contract purchaser for this proper-
ty. He introduced Mr. Adler and Mr. Gary Sum~ners, with ~he engineering firm
PHRA, to the Board and asked them to speak on their plan~' for the site.
Mr. Adler, President of Adwell Infosystems, addressed the Board, He sai~
his company provides computer solutions for business and i~rofessional markets.
He said his company will generate little traffic because ~he employees do mos~
of the work on-site at other businesses. He said sellin~ computer equipment
is not the main objective of Adwell Infosystems. He said about 1170 people
live in the Squire Hill Apartments and Ms. Reva Coombs, ~ ~o manages the
apartments, said these tenants are mostly young professic %als. He said
Venture Development Corporation, a marketing research gtc ~p in Nantic, Massa-
chusetts, states that 18 percent of all households have ~ ;rsonal computers.
Therefore, he said, there is a minimum of 84 personal cox ~uters that could be
sold to the tenants of Squire Hill Apartments. If the Bc ~rd approves the
request, he said, the property will be occupied by the o~er and maintained
a park-like state and the house on the property will be r.enovated.
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
455
Mr. Gary Summers addressed the Board and said the applicant has agreed to
restrict the request. He said the request is reasonable, would provide a less
intensive use of the land than a by-right use, and is in accordance with
County regulations.
Mr. Main said the use proposed by his client would be of no detriment to
the surrounding properties. He said the proposed use would not increase the
traffic and would require no additional services from the County. He said the
use proposed by his. client wouldactually enhance the value of the surrounding
property, because the business and property will be visually pleasing and Mr.
Adler will be providing a valuable service to his neighbors. Mr. Main said
Mr. Adler's business would not change the character of the area. He said
other uses of this property, such as a restaurant or convenience store, would
increase the traffic in this area. He said the Zoning Ordinance sets out
requirements for special use permits in the R-15 district as follows: "pro-
fessional offices ... retail stores and shops, single-floor, compatible with
the residential characteristics of the district, with a gross floor space not
to exceed 4000 square feet". Mr. Main said he found nothing in the Zoning
Ordinance specifying that the office or retail business must be used primarily
to serve the nearby residential area. He said he thinks the Planning staff
has gone too far in its interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. He urged the
Board to approve Mr. Adler's request for a special use permit.
Ms. Betty Haigh-Lawson, current owner of the property, addressed the
Board. She said she would like to sell her ~roperty for a price as near to
its value as possible. She said she has lived on this property for over 30
years and believed the property would someda~ provide a heritage for her
children when it was sold. Without a specia~ use permit or rezoning, she
said, she cannot sell her property. She sai~ she thinks a small, primarily
service-oriented business, with a low impactii'ion the traffic, would be an
improvement over the current usage of the property. She said the property is
surrounded on three sides by roads and the S~uire Hill Apartments and would be
difficult to develop. ,~
Since no one else wished to speak to th~s request, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before ~he Board.
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission ~
to extend commercial zoning along Rio Road. i~'
Commission believe that this property may be!!
ry between residential and commercial uses.
different uses are usually difficult to esta
Planning Commission is that lining Rio Road
md the Board have been pressured
He said members of the Planning
crucial to establishing a bounda-
He said boundaries between
lish, but the opinion of the
~ith retail businesses should be
avoided.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is inclined to support this application for the
following reasons: the size of this property, its location between two
intensively developed properties and the roads surrounding the property. He
said the use proposed by the applicant would~..!be less intensive than the use
recommended in the Comprehensive Plan and wo~ld require no waivers. If the
property were developed according to its R-i~i designation, the County would
have to waive its setback requirements. Mr. iLindstrom said he is also recep-
~ properties
tive to this proposal because he does not th~nk there are many in
this same set of circumstances.
Mrs. Cooke said both the residents and r~epresentatives of businesses in
this area have been concerned about traffic ~0r a long time. She does not
think approving this request will endanger the character of the area or set a
precedent. She said she would rather have t~is property used for an unobtru-
sive commercial activity than an intensive r~sidential development and the use
proposed by the applicant would have little ~mpact on the traffic.
Mr. Bain said perhaps this property should not be zoned R-15. He said he
undestands the concerns of the staff and Planning Commission about where to
stop commercial development along Rmo Road. iPerhaps the zonmng of this
property should be reduced to R-6, he suggested.
Mr. Home pointed out that there is very little difference between the
traffic estimated to be generated by a by-right development of this property,
staff s estimate of the traffic generated by
70 vehicle trips per day, and the '
456
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting~
( Page 22)
the applicant's proposed use of the property, 61 vehicletrips per day. Mr.
Home said the staff would like to know what the Board has in mind for this
property in the future, whether it be a possible rezoning or certain low-in-
tensity commercial uses allowed by special use permit, because staff has
received many inquiries about this property.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the use proposed by the client would be a good
use of the property until it is developed to its potential.
Mr. Bain said he would not be interested in rezoning this property to
commercial zoning.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with the staff's opinion that any use of
this property should serve the surrounding residents, but he thinks a good
case has been made that many of these residents may avail themselves of the
service offered by Adwell Infosystems.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr~ Bowie to approve
SP-89-07, subject to the conditions of the staff's report~. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain.
(Note: The conditions of approval are as follows:)fi
This permit is issued for computer systems consulting, sales and
service use only;
Building area limited to 2,500 square feet, to!~nclude main-
taining the residential structure; ~-
Access limited to Hillsdale Drive;
Site plan approval to include preservation of Mature trees, to
the extent possible.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-89-08. Phil Rogers. To allow recreational
facilities on property zoned PUD. Property on the north !~ide of Hollymead
Drive across from the Silver Thatch Inn. Tax Map 46B2, Si~ction 1, Parcel 4.
Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 23 and March 29,
1989.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: i~
"Character of the Area: This parcel is presently vacant. It is
surrounded by P.U.D. Zoning. Adjacent to the east are developed
residences including single family detached dwellings on White Oak
Place. Dedicated open space (vacant) is adjacent toi~!i, the north and an
undeveloped commercial lot is adjacent to the west. i~iThe property
slopes moderately to severely down from the road in ~ront, to the
rear of the lot. With the exception of the adjacent!i~idwelling~ on
Hollymead Drive which is located on the same level, this property
lies significantly above the nearby residential lots:'.and open space.
Applicant's Proposal: To locate a 23,700 square foot racquet and
fitness center within a metal structure on 2.37 acre~. Facilities
include three tennis courts, aerobic and weight room~, and a pro shop
for limited retailing and services, Such as racquet ~tringing. A
parking variance was received for the tennis court pgrking require-
ment. A total of 54 spaces will be provided.
A site plan has been submitted, with a request for administrative
approval. Subdivision of this parcel, to create the~2.37 acre lot,
is preliminarily shown on the site plan. In accordance with staff
recommendation, a joint entrance to serve future development of the
residue is proposed. The applicant also requests administrative
approval of the subdivision.
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
457
Tennis lessons and fitness programs will be offered. Membership will
be open to the public for a fee. In addition, there will be hourly
court rentals and fitness programs for non-members. Maximum hours of
operation would be daily from 7 a.m. 11 p.m., although tradition-
ally most usage occurs between 9 a.m. - 9 p.m. There is less facil-
ity use anticipated May - October.
The court enclosure itself will consist of 120 feet by 160 feet. The
peak height of that structure is 40 feet. No lights can be seen from
the tennis structure itself and there are no noises associated with
the building.
History: Hollymead Planned Community was approved in May 1972. The
plan was revised in 1977 to reduce the total number of dwellings from
740 to 583 units. To date, the Silver Thatch Inn is the only estab-
lished commercial use. Currently 32 acres of vacant commercial land
exist at the western end of the development.
When the current Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1980, provision was
made to recognize previously approved Planned Communities (PC) as
Planned Unit Developments (PUD). By the consensus opinion of the
Zoning Administrator, County Attorney and Planning staff during
review of the Hollymead Shopping Center (Food Lion), it was deter-
mined that uses permitted in the commercial area are those permitted
in the former B-1 Business zoning at the time of and following the
original Hollymead approval with SP-156i Commercial recreational
uses are permitted by Special Use Permig in the former B-1 and
present C-1 districts. This petition complies with the conditions of
the zoning approvals.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is 16cated within the Community of
Hollymead and is designated for commerc{al uses. It is shown in the
proposed Comprehensive Plan for neighborhood service· A proposed
road connection is shown in this vicinity in the existing Plan which
was inadvertently omitted from the proposed updated Plan. This road
connection will provide access through {he Hollymead commercial area
on north Hollymead Drive to undevelopedi~fhigh density residential
property to the north. The proposed co~nector location is currently
under review· It is relatively certain!ithat this road would not
cross this 2.37 acre site, due to its 16cation and terrain.
Staff Comment: There are two primary issues relative to this
request: fire safety requirements and ~ompatibility with the resi-
dential area. In addition, access will f~ibe discussed. Discussion of
these issues follows: '~
1 FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS ~
· ~
Section 32.7.6.1 of the Zoning Ordihance site plan requirements
includes 'hydrant locations and fir~ flow requirements shall be
,
as prescribed by Insurance Service pffice s (ISO) standards and
subject to approval of the Albemarle County fire official·' The
fireflow available from an eight-inCh waterline with hydrant 125
feet distant, is 1100 gpm at 20 psiS.
sprinkling the building or building
fireflow requirement is 1750 gpm at
area is a major contributing factori
ment.
The Building Officials and Code Adm:
does not require sprinkling in this
adopted the ISO standards for their
protection. The applicant verbally
fireflow requirements from the cent
specifics of this case.
their general standard.
According to ISO, without
firewalls, the lowest
20 psi. The tennis barn
to this fireflow require-
Lnistrators Building Code
case. However, we have
additional standards of fire
sought a reduction in the
~al ISO office, based on the
That request was denied; they upheld
The Commission may recall that the Greens at Hollymead apartment
complex encountered a similar probit.em meeting fire requirements
due to available fireflow, and a desire to avoid the expense of
458
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 24)
sprinkling. Planning staff and the Planning Commission did not
support this waiver request. They originally requested a vari-
ance from this ISO standard, but 'instead utilized the option of
constructing firewalls. This alternate provision within ISO is
not practically possible here and would require a firewall
separating the tennis barn from the auxiliary areas and fire-
walls between each of the three tennis courts to lower the
fireflow requirement to 1000 gpm at 20 psi. Citing the expense,
this applicant is unwilling to do the alternate option, that of
sprinkling the building.
The applicant applied for a variance of the Ordinance require-
ment to meet the ISO standards. The Board of Zoning Appeals
chose not to act on the variance, stating that it was not
properly before them and was out of their jurisdiction, and is
for the Planning Commission review. Therefore, the applicant
presently requests that the Commission waive the requirement of
compliance with ISO standards. The applicant offers as justifi-
cation the fact that it will be non-combustible construction and
contents, with very low numbers of occupants within the tennis
barn.
Because there is no specific provision for an e~ception to this
section, it is considered under the general 'Waiver, Variation,
Substitution' Section 32.3.11 of the site plan ~ordinance. The
language of this section is similar to that fo~ review of a
variance.
Planning and Inspections Department staff rec0mmend~!~enial of this
waiver based on the following:
1. The waiver would not serve the public interest, but would
solely serve the economic interest of the ?pplicant.
2. The applicant has the option of seeking p~perty which
meets fire safety standards.
3. If development is proposed where fire protection is inade-
quate, staff would recommend denial or alt!~rnate methods of
protection, if possible.
4. An exemption of the fire safety standard m~y potentially
endanger public safety and set an unwise p~ecedent. This
opinion considers protection of off-site l~ves and prop-
erty.
5. Staff can find no unusual conditions pecul!i~ar to this
property, which cause hardship or significant degradation
of the site or adjacent properties by strict application of
these requirements.
The applicant has agreed (see correspondence from Applied Technilogy
and Engineering, P.C., dated February 27 and March 2i 1989) to accept
the requirement of compliance with ISO standards, ra~ her than denial
of this petition.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AREA
The Special Use Permit criteria (Section 31.2.~ [) and this
property's location within a P.U.D., necessitat~ review of
compatibility of the use with surrounding propel ties. Due to
its proximity and higher elevation with respect ito the surround-
ing residences, this use will be highly visible~
The building height of 40 feet at the peak and ~he building size
result in a building mass which requires sensitive grading and
landscaped screening so as to be unobtrusive to i!the residential
area. It is staff's opinion that with some mindr modifications
to which the applicant has verbally agreed, thi~ can be accom-
plished on this site.
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
459
Towards this goal and in accordance with staff comments, the
applicant has redesigned the plan to: a) reverse the building
and parking such that the building instead of parking'area is
directly adjacent to the residential area; b) relocate the
entrance away from the residential area and to provide joint
access; and c) provide level area adjacent to the building and
to install one row of trees a minimum of eight feet in height.
As a result of the closest adjacent owner's concerns, additional
revisions have been made. These are as follows:
With approval of a waiver of Section 21.7.3 to allow
grading within the 20 foot buffer zone, an earthen berm
will provide additional screening. The berm height will be
six feet in front of the parking and four feet in front of
the tennis barn. Evergreen trees will be planted on top of
the berm, with a minimum of eight feet height for the first
row. This will create an effective screen height of 12 to
14 feet. There is presently no significant vegetative
screening in this buffer zone~and in staff's opinion the
proposed berm better serves the intent of this section.
The tennis barn will be lowered by a two-foot cut. In
staff's opinion, additional cut would be impractical.
In addition, the adjacent owner recommends shifting the building's
front entrance to the other side, further from them. The applicant
has chosen not to do so, commenting tha~ a 25 foot shift is of little
effective consequence. And given the shape of the pro shop and how
internal circulation works, a center do~r is best. The Planning
Director will notify the Erosion Contro~ Officer of the Vanda's
concern of erosion of the bank. ~i
Staff recommends that adjacent owners b~ notified upon County receipt
of the final plan. If solutions to conderns cannot be resolved, it
will be referred to the Planning Commission for review.
3. ACCESS
The applicant has agreed to plat a ~joint access easement to
serve some or all of the residue's ~!future development. This was
recommended to reduce conflict points, or side friction on the
}Iollymead collector road, Hollymea~ Drive. In plan review,
staff will attempt to align this p~oposed entrance with that
across Hollymead Drive serving the iSilver Thatch Inn.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has recommended a
right turn lane into the site. St~ff is of the opinion that it
is not warranted at this time, for ithis use. With future
development, left and/or right tur~ lanes into this entrance
will be appropriate.
Summary: In staff's opinion, with the ~equirements of compliance
with ISO fire safety standards and withlappropriate screening and
lighting, this petition will not be of ~s~bstantialdetriment to
adjacent properties and is consistent width the Zoning Ordinance, the
Comprehensive Plan and the public health, safety and general welfare.
Without these conditions, staff would n~t recommend approval of this
request. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
Compliance with ISO, Insurance Service Offices fire safety
standards;
Planning staff approval of lightinM plan, to include none or
minimal spillover onto residential iproperties;
Planning staff approval of landscape plan, to include a double
staggered row of evergreen trees d~ectly beside the building
where it is visible from residential properties, with one row of
trees to be a minimum of eight feet in height;
460
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 26)
Building area shall be limited to 23,700 square feet, building
height shall not exceed 40 feet at the peak;
5. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. - 11 p.m.;
6. Administrative approval of the site plan and subdivision plat.
If the applicant does not comply with recommendations of staff, the
site plan and/or subdivision plat will be brought to the Planning
Commission for review."
(Note: Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:05 P.M. and returned at 11:1~
P.M.)
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 28, 1989,
unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions in the staff's
report, but amended #1 to read: "Waiver of section 32.7.6.1 is granted;
compliance with the BOCA Code is required with the following stipulations:
(1) Fire Official approval of any change in use in accordance with ISO stan-
dards; (2) No seating in the tennis barn; and (3) No fixed mechanical equip-
ment other than lighting in the tennis barn." The Planning Commission also
added the word "site" in #4, and amended #6 to read: "Administrative approval
of the site plan and subdivision plat. The plan shall b~i revised to delete
the six easternmost parking spaces." While the Planningi~ommission granted
the waiver, Mr. Horne said, the staff hopes the Board wi~l carefully consider
this request before deciding to judge fire protection standards on a case-by-
case basis. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board should consider giving the staff
the right to review the exterior of the building, since ~he building is to be
metal and the finish may not be compatible with the surrounding area.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Mr. George Gilliam, the attorney for the applicant, iladdressed the Board.
He said the applicant would have no objection ° ~ ' '
to submmtt~Dg the fmnzsh of the
building to the staff's review. In an effort to be brie~, he said, he would
~like to address only the issue of the ISO standards. Heii!said part of the
building is a non-combustible, metal building, with non-~ombustible insulatioi
and asphalt floo~ing. In the case of an electrical fire~.i the only thing that
would burn in this part of the building is the tennis ne~!s, he said. He said
this non-combustible part of the building will be separated from the tennis
shop by a two-hour firewall. He said the applicant asks[only that ,the ISO
standards be waived for the non-combustible part of the 5hilding housing the
tennis courts. He said installing sprinklers in this portion of the building
would increase the cost of the project by ten percent, or $45,000. If the
applicant thought the sprinklers would protect human life, Mr. Gilliam said,
there would be no question about installing them..
Mr. Bain asked why ISO insisted on sprinklers in such a case. Mr.
Gilliam said the BOCA regulations exempt indoor tennis courts from requiring
sprinklers. ISO does not address indoor tennis courts s~ecifically; instead,
it lists requirements for indoor athletic arenas, which ~hclude spectators.
Mr. Gilliam said the ISO would apply the same standards tp the facility
proposed by the applicant as it would apply to University~I Hall, which seats
8500 spectators. If the building were to be in an area n~ot served by public
water, Mr. Gilliam said, his client would have to meet o~iy the BOCA stan-
dards.
Mr. St. John said he is reading section 32.7.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance~
which states "where there is public water, the ISO flow ~.~andards apply . In
areas where public water is not reasonably available, Mr.ii! St. John continued,
the Ordinance states "the Fire Official may require such ~alternative provi-
sions as deemed reasonably necessary."
Mr. Horne said installing sprinklers is one method that may be worked
into a formula that will generate a reduced flow requirement. He said the
base flow cannot be met, but the sprinklers would enable the applicant to mee
requirements for a reduced flow.
}
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
461
Mr. St. John said the Deputy Director of Inspections said it does not
make sense to apply ISO's fireflow requirement to this building. Mr. Home
said Mr. Schlothauer supports the staff's recormmendation. Mr. St. John said
Mr. Scholthauer has no other althernative due to the Zoning Ordinance, but he
sees no sense in applying this standard from a practical point of view.
Mr. Gilliam said the standard would not be applied if this building were
to be in an area with enough public water so the stream from the hydrant would
meet the fireflow requirements. He said the ISO is a rating organization for
communities, which uses a host of criteria to develop its rating and which is
owned and financed by insurance companies to assist them in setting premiums.
He said the ISO is nothing like BOCA and the .Board can choose to waive the
requirements of the former. Finally, he said, the Zoning Ordinance empowers
the Planning Commission, not the Board, to grant the waiver and the Planning
Commission has done so. Mr. Gilliam said he has appeared before the Board
many times and he has never asked the Board to waive a safety requirement. If
he felt waiving this standard would endanger the public, he would not make
such a request. He asked that the Board uphold the decision of the Planning
Commission.
Mrs. Cooke asked if there would be any facilities for spectators in this
building. Mr. Gilliam said "no". Mrs. Cooke asked if tournaments would be
held in this facility. Mr. Gilliam said "no~.
Mr..Bowie said the waiver granted by th~ Planning Commission seems to
waive the ISO standard in the entire building, yet the applicant is willing to
comply with the standard in the part of the building housing the tennis shop.
He suggested that this condition be reworded to clarify the applicant's
intent.
Ms. Lisa Glass, of Applied Technology and Engineering, addressed the
Board. She said the BOCA code specifies that if sprinklers are not installed
in an indoor tennis court, sprinklers must i~stalled in all adjacent build-
ings.
Since no one else wished to speak to this request, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Home why he thinks the ISO standards should be
applied to a non-combustible building. Mr. Home said the Fire Official, who
is familiar with both the BOCA Code and the ihtent of the ISO Code and has
consulted with both agencies on this type of issue, recommends that the ISO
standard be applied. The County has established standards for fire protection
and safety, Mr. Horne said, and he does not t~ink these standards should be
applied on a case-by-case basis, because the decisions will become increasing-
ly more difficult. He said the ISO standards are developed with the safety of
the firefighter in mind, as well as that of the general public. In this
location, the firefighters will not have enough fireflow coming from the
hydrants, so the sprinklers are needed to supplement the fireflow. He said he
is concerned that waiving the requirements inlthis case will set a precedent.
Mr. Bain asked if it is possible to increase the fireflow for this area.
Mr. Agnor said he thinks increasing the pressure at the hydrants to insure the
proper level of fireflow would put too much p~essure on pumps and waterlines
in residential districts.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is a technical
should ask itself whether it wants to start m
He said the Board does not know what kind of
this building, what materials will be used in
they will be flammable.
~sue and he thinks the Board
~king such technical decisions.
~eating system will be used in
its construction and whether
Mr. Bowie said he would also like to cha~ge the second clause of the
first condition recommended by the Planning C~mmission to "No spectators in
the tennis barn". He said he thinks the condition should also specify that
the waiver is granted for the non-combustible~tennis barn only. He said it
does not make sense to him to insist that sprinklers be installed in a
non-combustible building. He said conditions #2 and #3 recommended by the
Planning Commission should address the concerm expressed by adjoining landown-
ers about the visibility of the facility. He!suggested adding a seventh
462
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 28
condition stating that the Planning staff is to approve the external finish
the building to insure compatibility with the surrounding area.
With the conditions amended and added to as set out in the preceding
paragraph, Mr. Bowie moved approval of SP-89-08. Mrs. Cooke seconded the
motion.
Mr. Bain said he would like to know what the Fire Official thinks about
the ISO standards and how many jurisdictions have adopted these standards.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Messrs. Bain and Lindstrom.
(Note: the conditions of approval are set out as follows:
Waiver of Section 32.7.6.1 is granted for the barn area; compli-
ance with BOCA Code is required with the following stipulations:
(1) Fire Official approval of any change in use in accordance
with ISO standards; (2) No seating in the tennis barn; and (3)
No fixed mechanical equipment other than lighting in the tennis
barn;
Planning staff approval of lighting plan, to include none or
minimal spillover onto residential properties;~i
Planning staff approval of landscape plan, to include a double
staggered row of evergreen trees directly besid~ the building
where it is visible from residential propertie~, with one row of
trees to be a minimum of eight feet in height;i!i
Building site area shall be limited to 23,700 ~uare
feet;
building height shall not exceed 40 feet at th~ipeak;
Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. ~ 11 p.m.;
Administrative approval of the site plan and subdivision plat.
The plan shall be revised to delete the six easternmost parking
spaces;
Staff approval of the exterior finish of the building for
compatibility with the area.)
Agenda Item No. 13. ZMA-89-02. Charles Pietsch. T6 rezone 1.316 acres
from LI to C-1. Property located on the north side of Route 649, one-half
mile west of Route 29. Tax Map 32, Parcel 17E6. RivannalDistrict. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on March 23 and March 29, 1989.)
Since the applicant was not present, motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and
seconded by Mr. Bain to defer this public hearing to May'~i% 17, 1989. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-88-113. County of Albemarle~ To allow for the
construction of a dam and access road in the flood plain ~f Walnut Creek.
Property located on the east side of Route 631, approximately one-half mile
south of its intersection with Route 708. Tax Map 100, Parcels 33, 35, 37 ant
39. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 23 and
March 29, 1989.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This area is generally comprised of large
acreage properties with some agricultural use and scattered
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
463
residences. With the exception of the area along the road frontage,
this property is wooded with evergreens. It is moderately rolling
land, and is traversed by several streams.
Staff Comment: This special use permit is necessary for development
of the lake and access road for the proposed Southern Regional Park
(see also the Park Master Plan report). The road will be built 22
feet wide and approximately 7300 feet (1.4 miles) long. The dam will
be approximately 40 feet high, and will create a lake with 48 acres
of surface area. The stream, Walnut Branch, is a tributary of the
Hardware River. Walnut Branch has a tributary drainage area of 2.9
square miles at the dam construction site. The stream is not consid-
ered navigable at this point and therefore construction of the dam
will not hinder public use. No public roads will be impacted by this
request.
The water surface of the lake will rise five feet during a 100 year
storm. This five foot rise in water surface elevation will cause the
lake surface to go 300 feet across the southwestern property line.
The lake surface area on the adjacent parcel will be contained within
the existing channel which is approximately 12 feet across. Hunter
and Lillian Graves, owners of Parcel 45, the affected parcel, are
presently negotiating with the County for fee simple ownership or
easement area to include approximately three acres of their property.
Prior to construction which impacts the~flood plain on the Graves'
property, the affected land will be purchased or an easement
obtained.
The County Engineering Department commented, 'we have reviewed the
preliminary plans for the dam for the SOuthern Regional Park. The
design is well thought out and thoroughSy documented. We see no
reason the special use permit should nog be approved subject to the
following conditions,' which are incorporated.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. No dam construction activity shallioccur until County of Albe-
marle ownership or easement for that portion of the adjacent
property (parcel 45) impacted by t~e increased flood plain which
results. No increase in dam heigh~ that would further impact
adjacent properties if permitted; If
2. Department of Engineering approval!of final dam design and
specifications;
3. Department of Engineering issuance~of an erosion control permit;
4. Approval of all applicable permits ifrom all State and Federal
regulatory agencies."
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission ~t its meeting on March 28, 1989,
unanimously recommended approval of SP-88-11~ with the conditions of the
staff. ~
Mr. Mark Osborne addressed the Board and said it was not until topo-
graphic information was collected in the field that it was found that there
would be about four and one-half feet of water pooling on Mr. Graves's
property. During the passage of one hundred year storms, the water would
spill over about 380 feet of the Graves' property. He said the Graves have
tentatively exchanged an easement for the property affected by the level of
water during a one hundred year flood in return for some rights to the lake.
If the depth of the lake were reduced to keeP~the lake from encroaching upon
Mr. Graves' property, except during one hundred year floods, the surface area
would be reduced from about 48 to 35 acres. ~educing the depth of the lake to
the point where it would never encroach upon 'the Graves' property would reduce
the surface area to about 20 acres. Mr. Osbolrne said he thinks it is impera-
tive for the lake to be as large as possible because it will be the center-
piece of the park and he does not think gettiSg the easement will be a
problem. !~
464
April 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 30)
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of the Parks and Recreation Department,
addressed the Board and said the Department is ready to move ahead with the
project. He added that the Department plans to offset part of the costs of
the project by selling timber cut in preparation for the lake.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve
SP-88-113 with the conditions of the Planning Commission. Roll was called an¢
the motion-carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are as follows:
No dam construction activity shall occur until .County of Albe-
marle ownership or easement for that portion of the adjacent
property (Parcel 45) impacted by the increased iflood plain which
results. No increase in dam height that would ~further impact
adjacent properties if permitted;
Department of Engineering approval of final dam design and
specifications;
Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments,
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
Approval of all applicable permits from all State and Federal
regulatory agencies.)
There were no names offered.
Agenda Item No. 16. Approval of Minutes: March 9, April 6, April 13,
April 28 and November 30, 1988; January 18, February 1 (A) and February 15
(A), 1989. No action was taken.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Boar~
and Public.
Mr. Agnor said the School's Long-Range Planning Committee will be ready
to make~a report this month. They have asked to present this report to the
School Board and this Board at 4:00 P.M., April 25. ii
Agenda Item No, 18. Adjourn. At 12:07 A.M., with noifurther business to
come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bain and~seconded by Mr.
Bowie to adjourn to April 6, 1989, at 4:00 P.M. Roll wasicalled and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way.
None.
!I