Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA198700007 Approval - County Zoning Map Amendment 1987-09-02164 September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, - Virginia, was held on September 2, 1987, at 7:30 P. M., in the Auditorium of the County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P. M., by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. 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. Way, to approve 4.1 and 4.2 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded voter AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Item 4.1.- Request for a street sign to `identify State Route 601 (Old Garth Road), having been received from Mrs. H. Patricia Pedersen, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS request has been received for street sign to identify the following road: Old Garth Road (State Route 601) at:its intersection with the U. S. Routes 29/250 south bypass ramp and Old Ivy Road (State Route 601); WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the Office of the County Executive and. conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above -mentioned street sign. Item 4.2. Statements of Expenses to the?Compensation Board for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of July, 1987, were approved as presented. Item 4.3. Letter from -the Chairman of the Board addressed to Mr. John A. Sanderson, Greenwood Citizen's Council, in response to concerns about the Greenwood Chemical Plant, received as information. Item 4.4. A copy of the Planning Commission's minutes for August 11 and August 18, 1987, received as information. Item 4.5. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for the Month of July, 1987, received as information. 178 September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve SP-87-63 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval for SP-87-63 are set out in full below:) 1. Administrative approval of the final plat., 2. County Attorney approval of amendment to existing road main- tenance agreement to include all lots as finally approved. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve ZMA-87-10, as recommended by the Planning Commission. (Mr. Lindstrom noted that the correct spelling of the name is "Putnam" and not "Putman.") Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion: Berkmar Drive Extended - Review for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said Agenda Item Nos. 7 and 8 will be heard together. Mr. Horne gave the Staff Report for Berkmar Drive Extended as follows: "Attached is a staff report on a proposed relocation of the Berkmar Drive Extended Road, which is a proposed road in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. This report was reviewed by the Planning Commission in conjunction with ZMA-87-07 JeffersonSquare Shopping Center. The Commission unanimously found this road relocation to be in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan subject to the rezoning of four commercial lot remnants west of the proposed relocated Berkmar Drive Extended. The Board of Supervisors will be reviewing ZMA-87-07. State Code does not require that the Board directly address the Commission's finding on the road relocation, but I feel that the Board should be aware of their determination should they wish to take action to either conform or overturn the: Commission's action on the road extension itself. Background On September 4, 1986, the Board of Supervisors amended the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to describe a roadway network to be con- structed from Rio Road to the Hilton Hotel site on the west side and parallel to Route 29 North. An alignment for this roadway was identified at that time. In addition to intersections, at Rio Road and Hilton Drive, two other connectors would be provided to U. S. Route 29 North: Carrsbrook Drive would be relocated to the north and a new crossover established on Route 29. Sight distance at the existing Woodbrook crossover would be improved and connection to Berkmar Drive Extended established. The northern +750'feet of the roadway is'.committed to be constructed by the developer of the remainder of the.Hilton site. Current Proposal In order to accommodate Jefferson Square Shopping Center, the applicant proposed relocation of a portion of Berkmar Extended about 450 feet to the west of its original alignment as'well as realignment of the Woodbrook connector road between Berkmar Extended and U. S. Route 29 North. Also, Jefferson Square would: 177 September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Construct the Woodbrook connector road (+1300 feet) to Virginia Department of Transportation standards and provide signalization improvements at Route 29 North. - Continue the Colonial Pontiac roadway from Route 29 North to Berkmar Extended (+750 feet) initially as a private road with provision for realignment to public road standards. (This improve- ment may be bonded.) - Construct Berkmar Extended from station 8+00 to station 23+00 (1500 feet) and provide temporary turn-arounds at each end. Staff has reviewed the proposed relocation in two regards:_ - Additional costs to develop remainder of roadway. - Implications for future land uses in the area. Costs: The Engineering staff has calculated a total increase in costs for the relocated portions not proposed for construction by Jefferson Square to be about $85,250. Staff opinion is that the relocated northern portion of the roadway could be built by developers, however, the southern 800 feet including intersection improvements at Rio Road would likely become a County project. Costs for this southern portion would increase about $42,2$0. The vast majority of this increased cost ($33,000) is based on assumption that roadway fill would need to be imported. Possible cost increase to the County should be weighed against the fact that Jefferson Square Shopping Center would construct one -quarter of the total length of Berkmar Extended as well as the Berkmar/Woodbrook connector. Land Uses: In development of the original alignment,=: effort was made to locate along property lines where possible to avoid extensive property damage costs and relocation of uses. The original alignment skirted the developed area of the Greenfield Mobile Home Park while the new alignment proposed by the applicant would displace several units and possibly result in discontinuance of the park. Also attempt was made during development of the initial alignment to have the Berkmar Extended roadway serve as a boundary between residential and commercial zones. This was not viewed as practical for the southern portion of the roadway due to extensive depth of commercial zoning. Therefore, the southern portion of the roadway was aligned through these deep parcels to split commercial develop- ment into reasonably dimensioned areas. The applicant's proposed alignment would leave four commercial lot remnants on,the west side of Berkmar Extended. (While not subject to the current rezoning petition, the properties are controlled by the sellers of the shopping center properties.) These lots would consist of about 6.5 acres with 1200 feet of frontage on Berkmar Extended. Whether developed individu- ally or as a unit, strip development would likely occur. A matter of concern to the Commission and. Board during discussions of the Berkmar Extended roadway was increased pressures for commercial zonings in the area. Summary and Recommendation: While the proposed realignment would increase cost fora short section of Berkmar Drive Extended, construc- tion costs were not a major consideration in determining current alignment. These increased costs (when viewed in thejoverall context of the entire roadway) are not a serious problem. The proposed realignment would displace several mobile homes and possibly result in discontinuance of Greenfield Mobile Home Park. Due to rising land values in the area, staff would recommend that Greenfield park not be viewed as a permanent use. (Staff is unaware of any plans to discon- tinue the park.) For reasons stated earlier in this report, staff recommends that the four commercial lot remnants created by road realignment be rezoned from Commercial to R-6, Residential. 7 September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) Staff, therefore, recommends that the Planning Commission find this realignment to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, 'subject to the above rezonings." Mr. Horne said that during its review, on August 18, 1987, the Planning Commission found the realignment, with the proviso of the rezoning of the commercial lots, to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan: At this time, Mr. Horne pointed out the original alignment and the realignment on the map. Mr. Fisher asked what the relocation of the road. accomplishes. Mr. Horne said the realignment will provide the applicant with additional enclosed acreage for development; the applicant and the public will benefit by the provision of alternate a.ccess.'to Route 29; the public will benefit by the accommodation of a large-scale development, which can finance a large portion of the roadway. Before giving the Staff Report, Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission found the request in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. If the Board wishes to take separate action, it can. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-87-7. Jefferson Square Shopping Center. To rezone 37.5 acres from HC to PD-SC for a regional shopping center. Plan a total of 274,986 square feet in separate buildings served by 15.12 parking spaces and three entrances onto Route 29. Property located on west .side of Route 29N, in the southbound lane adjacent. to Colonial of Charlottesville (development under construction) across from'Woodbrook. Tax Map 45, Parcels 93A, 93C, 94, 94A, and 108. Charlottesville`District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 19 and August 25, 1987.) "PETITION: First Interstate Development Company petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 34.6149 acres to PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center, to permit establishment of a 274,986 square foot shopping center on land on the west side of U. S. Route 29N just south of the Woodbrook crossover in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This property is further described as follows: Parcel A is an undeveloped 1.7254 portion of Tax Map 45, Parcel 93C which currently houses a veterinary practice which would remain. Property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Parcel B is a 6.2213 acre portion of Tax Map 45, Parcel 93A zoned HC, Highway Commercial with a proffer as to access. Parcel C is a 14.1798 acre portion of Tax Map 45, Parcel 108 zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Parcel D consists of 8.9684 acres and is the residue of the Colonial Pontiac site. This property has access and traffic generation proffers. Parcel E consists of 3.52 acre portion of Tax Map 45, Parcel 94, currently zoned R-6 Residential. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL -APPLICATION PLAN The applicant proposes construction of a 274,986 square foot shopping center with five major stores, 27 shops, and three outparcels (to be ideveloped with such uses as fast-food restaurants or banks): USE (TENTATIVE) BUILDING AREA Major Retail A (discount department) Major Retail B (drug store) Major Retail C (food store) Major Retail D (clothing store) Major Retail E (garden shop) Retail Shops Outlot A (fast food) 78,823 square feet 40,OOO square feet 30,000 square feet 24,OOO square feet 36,063 square feet 51,600 square feet 5,OOO square feet 17 September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) Outlot B (bank) 5,000 square feet Outlot C (fast food) 4,500 square feet GRAND TOTAL 274,986 square feet The shopping center developer would construct a portion of Berkmar Drive Extended to the rear of the site. The access serving the Pontiac dealership to the south would be continued to Berkmar Extended and the Woodbrook connector on the north would also be constructed. Therefore, the shopping center would be physically surrounded by roadways. The main portion of the shopping center would be L-shaped located primarily on grading cut while the parking area would be located primarily on fill. The Jefferson Square Shopping Center compares with other County shopping centers as follows: Building Area Site Area Building/Acreage Sq. Feet Acres Sq. Feet/Acre Fashion Square 578,456 57.0 10,148 Jefferson Square 274,986 34.6 7,948 Pantops 177,762 17.6 10,100 Albemarle Square 168,695 22.8 7,399 Shoppers World 140,842 12.6 11,178 While Jefferson Square would be the County's second largest shopping center, building coverage would be comparatively_ low. This has permitted design flexibility to accommodate landscaping/buffering, logical building pattern, and a sound internal circulation pattern. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - INTRODUCTION Of the 34.6 acres proposed for rezoning, 3.5 acres is currently residential while 31.1 acres is already zoned commercial. Benefits to the applicant in seeking PD-SC zoning include: - A more favorable floor area -to -parking standard; and - A broader range of commercial uses Benefits to the general public derive from the opportunity to address the proposed development in broader terms than are realized under conventional zoning and site plan reviews. Historically, in the case of shopping center development, attention is focusedon transportation concerns. U. S. Route 29N has been a roadway of cons"iderable community concern, therefore, in approaching this zoning petition, staff has employed the following framework for review: - Traffic generation under PD-SC zoning should not represent an increase over potential traffic under existing zoning. Since 1979, staff has employed this approach for several rezonings along. Route 29N; - Since 1976, it has been County policy that staff recommendations reflect the best transportation and access improvements for each development review with the Commission/Board exercising discretion regarding actual required improvements. The remainder of the report will deal with issues of physicaldevelopment and rezoning criteria with particular emphasis on transportation issues. SITE CHARACTERISTICS The area proposed for rezoning has a depth of about'1400 feet. With 650 feet of frontage on Route 29N, the property would''broaden to a width of about 1350 feet to the west. Elevations vary from about 470 feet near Route 29 to 540 feet along the western border of the property. A major swale runs through the middle of the site which would be partially filled toaccommodate development and reconfigured near Route 29 for stormwater detention. While current elevations vary by 70 feet, finished grades would vary September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting): (Page 17) by 30 feet (front to rear) to achieve appropriate parking area and roadway grades. Soils on the site consist of Elioak loam, Glenelg loam; and.Hazel loam. Elioak loam is a deep well -drained soil with depth to bedrock in excess of five feet. Limitations for development include Clayey subsoil, low strength, and frost action.- Excess fines and thin layers limit usage as a source of roadfill. Hazel loam is a moderately deep, excessively drained. soil with depth to bedrock at 20 to 40 inches. Rapid surface runoff results in severe hazard of erosion. This soil is a fair source of roadfill. Glenelg is a deep well -drained soil with depth to bedrock in excess of five feet. Hazard for erosion is severe due to rapid surface runoff. Seepage,. low strength, and frost action are limitations to development. - Glenelg is limited as roadfill due to low strength and excess fines. See the Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia, for comments for building site development. Several small areas of the site exceed 25 percent slope. Special approval by the Planning Commission is required to grade these areas.' Droughty soil conditions were encountered during development of the auto dealership to the south._ In regard to Jefferson Square Shopping Center, the project would be constructed at onetime as opposed to phased. development. Given soil restrictions and field experience combined with significant grading, special attention needs to be given in develop- ment and review of grading plans to avoid excessive soil erosion and runoff problems. (Several sites in this area may be subject to grading at the same time compounding dust and other problems.) WATER AND SEWER; FIRE PROTECTION This site is within the Albemarle County'.Service Authority jurisdic- tional area for both public water and public sewer. Public water is available from an eight -inch line at the site. Fire flows in the area are 2500 GPM at 20 PSI. Required fire flow will depend on method of construction. Public sewer is available at an eight -inch line. Capacity is available for the Jefferson Square Shopping Center. Based on projected flows, it appears that the line will be at capacity and that an additional parallel line will be necessary to serve other properties in the area. AIR POLLUTION The State Air Pollution Control Board has stated that individual stores are responsible to apply for boiler and incineration permits, if applicable. STORMWATER Stormwater from this site would drain through the Woodbrook area which has been an area of historical complaint. The applicant has agreed to special detention measures including detention/discharge design for the two, ten, 25, 50, and 100-year storm (County ordinance requires detention measures be designed for the ten-year storm). This will require an increase in storage;volume of about 60 percent over a facility designed to meet current ordinance requirements. The County Engineer has staged that 'we fully approve of this approach. [The applicant's] methodology provides for an improved means of stormwater management above that required by our ordinance. This is of particular benefit considering the intensity of development downstream of the site's location.' SCREENING; LANDSCAPING Due to building layout, staff was concerned. about exposure of building rears to Route 29, the Pontiac dealership and Berkmar Drive Extended. Through a combination of grade difference, landscape screening, maintenance of vegetation and earth berming the applicant has demonstrated that these concerns can:be adequately addressed at time of site plan review. TRANSPORTATION: INTERNAL CIRCULATION Substantial revision has been made to the parking and circulation layout since initial submittal. To an extent, building pattern September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) remains as a restriction resulting in angular but acceptable layout toward the front of the site. Major improvements include: - improved and more predictable parking layout - reduced friction by eliminating parking spaces along major access aisles - reduced points of conflict by protecting intersection approaches of major access aisles from minor intersections - better internal flow of traffic TRANSPORTATION: EXTERNAL CIRCULATION TRAFFIC GENERATION During planning for Berkmar Drive Extended, staff developed general traffic generation figures for the area. For the properties involved in this rezoning, staff has used the figures from the Berkmar study which assume that at least three acres would be devoted to such high generators as banks, fast food restaurants, and gasoline service stations. Credit was, also given for road right-of-way which is to be dedicated under this proposal. Staff estimates that under existing zoning this site `could generate about 17,000 vehicle trips per day while the projected traffic by the applicant under PD-SC zoning would be about 16,000 vehicle trips per day. Staff offers the following observations (please' review staff report for relocation of Berkmar Drive Extended): 1. Traffic generation figures for Outlots A, B, and C are based on sit-down, fast-food restaurant and walk-in bank. A change to drive-in restaurant or bank could increase traffic above existing zoning levels; 2. Staff has recommended rezoning of properties west of Berkmar Extended from commercial to residential which would reduce traffic generation from those properties. To offset the zoning change, additional traffic could be allocated to the shopping center or other properties. If all traffic wereallocated to the shopping center, a total of 2600 additional vehicle trips per day could be generated (i.e. - 18,600 vehicle trips per day). This would provide additional flexibility in the future to the developer in regard to uses for Outlots A B and C. (Note: Uses involving a drive-in window require special use permit approval.) TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Wilbur Smith and Associates has worked with staff in developing a transportation plan including generation and distribution figures. Initially the study reflected distribution based on traffic patterns contained in the CATS Study. Staff recommended that the distribution study be modified to more closely reflect distribution patterns projected for Fashion Square Shopping Center. Under current conditions, 80 percent of traffic to the site would approach from the south, 16 percent from the north, and 4 percent from the east. At time of completion of Berkmar Drive Extended, that roadway would accommodate 21 percent of the traffic, deducing burden to U. S. Route 29N. WOODBROOK CROSSOVER Sight distance at the Woodbrook crossover for the southbound lane of Route 29 does not meet normal VDOT standards. With adjustment to signalization, VDOT will permit a commercial entranceat this location under three circumstances: i September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 1. Reconstruction of the southbound lane north of the crossover to obtain sight distance; 2. No right -turn on red from the new entrance to the southbound lane of Route 29; 3. Construction of a third lane south of the crossover to serve as an acceleration lane to accommodate right -turn on red from the new entrance. The applicant proposes construction of a third lane to permit right -turn on red (Alternate 3). POINTS OF ACCESS Three points of access to Route 29N are proposed by the applicant. One access would be at the Woodbrook crossover, another would the a shared access with Colonial Pontiac -Cadillac, and a third access would be located about 3,000 feet north of the Colonial entrance, just north of Outlot C and will be referred to as the 'middle entrance' in this report. The Planning staff, County Engineer, and VDOT recommended that the middle entrance not be permitted. VDOT has stated that: The Department believes this acreage can be adequately served by two access points. We will allow access only at the Woodbrook crossover and at the existing entrance planned to serve Colonial Cadillac. The [middle] entrance proposed infringes on the southern entrance turn lane and will not be allowed. Following a meeting in the field involving several people including the VDOT District Engineer for the Culpeper District, the applicant verbally modified access proposals as follows : 1. Full access at Woodbrook crossover and Colonial Cadillac; 2. Close existing entrances to veterinarian and provide internal access for veterinarian; 3. Ingress only to middle entrance. Regarding the middle entrance, the Planning staff, County Engineer, and VDOT continue to recommend its deletion.Staff offers the following comments: 1. The middle entrance would intrude on the deceleration lane for Colonial Cadillac -Pontiac. 2. The middle entrance would foreshorten the right -on -red acceleration lane. 3. Traffic entering by the proposed middle entrance could access at the Colonial entrance located 300 feet to the south. 4. It is County policy that access points (particularly to U. S. Route 29N) be limited to the minimum necessary to provide safe and convenient access to property which in staff opinion would be provided at the Woodbrook crossover and at the Colonial entrance. The applicant cites as justification for the middle entrance: 1. Extensive road improvements/new road construction; - 2. Closing access to the veterinarian as a safety improvement; 3. Only three percent or 240 vehicles would enter the site by the middle entrance on a daily basis; . September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page .20) 4. The applicant does not consider the Woodbrook or Colonial entrances to be direct access to Route 29N and notes other shopping centers in the area with direct access to Route 29N. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: At 275,000 square feet, Jefferson Square would be the County's second largest shopping center, approaching regional scale. Section 25.1 of the PD-SC regulations states that shopping centers are 'intended to serve areas not conveniently and adequately provided with a broad range of commercial and service facilities.' In current Comprehensive Plan work sessions, staff has proposed that this general area of Route 29N be viewed as appropriate for regional scale uses. In combination with Fashion Square, AlbemarleSquare, and Shoppers World, approval of Jefferson Square would result in 1.16 million square feet of shopping center in the immediate area. Major improvements offered by the applicant include: - Design of stormwater detention facilities to accommodate the two, ten, 25, 50, and 100-year storm which exceeds County standards, providing additional protection to downstream areas; - Construction of one -quarter of Berkmar Drive Extended, the full length of the Woodbrook connector, and continuation of the Colonial Cadillac entrance to Berkmar Drive Extended; - Revision of Application Plan to reflect all comments of Site Review Committee (except for middle entrance). Among the purposes of a zoning ordinance as set forth in the Code of Virginia and cited in the County's ordinance are: To provide for adequate... convenience of access: Staff and VDOT recommend that convenient access can be provided at the Woodb000k and Colonial entrances. - To provide against ... danger and congestion in travel and transpor- tation; to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets: Staff opinion is that approval. of the middle entrance would be contrary to these purposes. The applicant maintains that among other considerations, closure of the veterinarian entrances to Route 29 offset or overcome problems of the middle entrance. Under planned development regulations, the developer and County are to come to agreements as to development of property. :`Therefore, unless the developer agrees to delete the middle entrance, staff recommends disapproval of this zoning petition. While staff acknow- ledges several improvements offered by the applicant,the position of the Planning staff, County Engineer, and VDOT is that the middle entrance is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. RECOMMENDATION Section 8.5.4 (a) :and (b) require the Commission in its findings to determine- - The suitability of the tract for the 'general type of-PD district proposed in terms of relation to the Comprehensive Plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its relation to surrounding area; Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services. Section 8.5.4(d) permits the Planning Commission to recommend approval subject to stipulated modifications. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a positive finding that the proposed Jefferson Square Shopping Center is consistent with the required findings of 8.5.4 (a) and (b) subject to the following modifications and agreements: September 2, 1987 (Regular -Night Meeting) (Page 21) Modifications to Application Plan: 1. Delete middle access to Route 29N and access from veterinarian to Route 29N. Show internal access for veterinarian. 2. Note that Outlots A, B and C are not approved for uses involving drive-in window. Agreements Made by the County and the Applicant: 1. Agreement to develop property in general compliance with modified Application Plan. Variations may be permitted as provided in Section 8.5.6.3'of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Staff approval of subdivision plat to include dedication of right-of-way on Route 29N as recommended by VDOT; property line adjustment or easement to insure access for property to north opposite first access off of Woodbrook connector. Notes on plat restricting access to Route 29N. Plat shall also carry notation as to dedication of right-of-way for new roads upon demand of County. 'Right-of-way for Woodbrook connector shall be a minimum. of 60 feet. Right-of-way for Bermkar Extended and Colonial Pontiac shall be determined by VDOT. 3. Agreement to construct Berkmar Drive Extended and Woodbrook connector to ultimate VDOT standards. Agreement to construct Colonial Pontiac roadway to private road standards. 4. Agreement to rezone four commercial lot remnants on west side of Berkmar Drive Extended to R-6, Residential. 5. Agreement to construct stormwater detention facilities to accommodate the two, ten, 25, 50, and 100-year storms. I i Mr. Horne said on August 18, 1987, the Planning Commission met and unanimously recommended approval of the petition, with certain changes to the staff's recommendations. Under "Modifications to Application Plan," No. 2 was changed to read: "Note that any use involving drive-in window on Outlots A, B, and/or C is subject to special use permit approval. Under "Agreements . .," the last sentence of No. 2 was changed to read: "Right-of-way for Wood - brook Connector, Berkmar Extended, and Colonial Pontiac shall be determined by the Virginia Department of Transportation," and No. 5 was changed to read: "Agreement to construct stormwater detention1facilities in compliance with state and local code requirements. Design storm recurrence interval shall be for the two and ten-year storm. Design shall be sufficient to prevent over- topping of U. S. Route 29 for a design storm with a one -hundred year recur- rence interval. The applicant shall provide<as much additional detention as is feasible within the capacity available at,the site in the vicinity of the proposed basin shown on the Application Plan." With no questions or comments from the Board, the public hearing was opened. Mr. George Gilliam said only one and one-half issues remain to be resolved between the applicant and the staff. He said the one-half issue relates to a small piece of land north of the property line. He pointed out the particular piece of land on the map and said the land is not property the applicant is acquiring. However, in fairness, he asked that this piece of land be excluded from the Board's action so only the property the applicant is acquiring is rezoned. Mr. Gilliam said the other issue concerns the Woodbrook Crossover and. Dr. Atkinson's two entrances onto Route 29. He said the appli- cant's reason for wanting ingress from Route29 is that as traffic comes down Route 29 North, it is very easy for someone to go beyond the entrance to the shopping center before they realize it. He said the applicant believes cars can safely enter the shopping center at this point, without having to go any further. Mr. Gilliam said the applicant also believes that to eliminate any concern about cars weaving, there should be no right -turn on red or an acceler- ation lane. Mr. Gilliam said these are not "do or die" issues, although they are important to the applicant. On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Gilliam then made two suggestions: 1) the Board eliminate the right -turn on red and the acceleration lane; or 2) the Board approve the rezoning, but agree to allow September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) the remaining issues to be resolved at the site plan stage, to allow discus- sions to continue with the Highway Department and Engineering and Planning staff. Mr. Gilliam concluded. by showing Board members a colored map depicting the various parcels owned by different people. He said if the parcels were developed individually, it is possible more traffic entrances would be allowed, which he pointed out on the map. He said the applicant does not feel as if he is asking a lot from.the Board, but the applicant does ask that the suggestionsi made be considered. With no one else coming forward to speak, the public ;:hearing was closed. Mr. Horne returned to the map to 'emphasize the Planning staff analysis on the ingress issue and the third, acceleration/deceleration, lane. He said the staff prefers that traffic enter the site at a signalized intersection, given the amount of anticipated traffic generation. He said the staff feels a preferable alternative to the applicant's proposal, is a right -turn on red and two access points. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne if he thought the recommended two entrances provide adequate access for the amount of commercial development proposed. Mr. Horne replied. in the affirmative. Mr. Ron reeler said the two parcels of land that have not been purchased.by_the developer are subject to a traffic generation zoning proffer. He said it is a very low generation figure on a per acre basis. Mr. Keeler said he cannot see any loss to that particular property owner if the property is rezoned to R-6, with therdifference in traffic generation added to the remaining commercial property. Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with the application. However, she agrees with Mr. Gilliam that the road frontage problem should be determined at site review stage so further discussion can take place beforehand. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne to speak to this suggestion. Mr. Horne said he believes there has been sufficient analysis of the issue. He does not feel further discussion will be productive from the Planning staff point of view in that there is no additional information that can be provided to convince the staff that the, third lane is a necessary, safe, and convenient access point. k� Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt his opinion on whether the Highway Department will approve the third entrance. Mr. Rooseveltsaid he did not know. He said the Highway Department's Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways states, under Special Permits, that applications for such a permit for large commercial and industrial sites need special evaluation and the sites should be reviewed on an individual basis. He-sdid the Department. has not had sufficient time to study the new proposal so he cannot advise what will happen. Speaking for the District Engineer and himself, Mr. Roosevelt said they feel the two entrances recommended previously are still the best recommendation. He said the new proposal would require compromising the comfort of those people using the public roads to give a more convenient access to the shopping center. Mr. Roosevelt said, in his opinion, that is not a position the Highway Department should support. Mr. Way asked if discussions had taken place with the 'owners of the property where the road will be realigned. Mr. Horne said the owners are aware of the plans, but no direct discussion has taken place. Mr. Keeler said Mr. Preston Stallings, who controls the property, was preseht at the Planning Commission meeting and said he has no objection to the realignment, provided he will be permitted to relocate the mobile homes. Mr. Fisher said two issues are before the Board: 1) approval of ZMA-87-07; and 2) a finding that the change in the locationsof Berkmar Drive Extended is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if ,there is any legalimpediment to rezoning the four commercial lot remnants on the west side of Berkmar Drive to R-6. Mr. St. John replied that he questions whether the Board can make a contract tonight to rezone that property in the future. Hesaid there is no one at the meeting to enter into an agreement at this time.' In addition, the _ adjoining neighbors to the property in question have a right to notice and to be heard on the issue. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John to.explain what is before the Board concerning the Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. St. John said one of the conditions of the rezoning is that there is an agreement in existence at the time of the rezoning that the four remnant lots will be rezoned in the future; however, the rezoning for those lots was not advertised. September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) for this meeting. Mr. Horne confirmed this and said the rezoning was not intended to take place tonight, just the agreement to rezone. Mr. St. John said tonight the applicant is to agree to make application for the rezoning. Mr. Gilliam said Dr. Hurt, the owner of the parcel,. has signed the rezoning petition. He said, legally, action can be taken which would bind Dr. Hurt; and the Board can act tonight conditioning approval on all necessary parties entering into any agreements Mr. St. John may feel are necessary. Mr. Gilliam said on behalf of all the owners, he can represent that this will be done. i Mr. Fisher said if the recommendations staff made are to be accomplished, then the Board should not act until things are right.Mr. St. John replied that everything that must be done should be completed at the same time, i.e., advertising for the rezoning, etc. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about. all five of the agreements listed in the recommendations, and he wants to understand what the Board's conditional approval of ZMA-87-07 will mean, based. on the agreements. Mr. St. John said he has no question or problem with the agreements that involve any phase of construction. .Mr. Horne ,said under PD-SC zoning, the ordinance calls for the agreements to be made; he is not sure,. however, if the agreements should be in the form of proffers. The agreements are considered part of the rezoning. If anyone of the agreements is not done, then the zoning is not legal. Mr. Gilliam said he is authorized to go on record as saying that if a future application for rezoning of the "orange" outlots is required, the applicant agrees tomake such application within the next seven days or as promptly as possible. 'Mr. St. John asked Mr. Gilliam if he is authorized to make this representation'to the Board. Mr. Gilliam said yes. Mr. Fisher said the Chair will entertaiii a motion at this point. Mrs. Cooke said she was going to make a motion, but after all the "lawyer" talk, she has no idea how to state the motion. Mr' Lindstrom then made a motion to approve ZMA-87-07 as recommended by the Planning Commission. which includes the following modifications and agreements; with the understanding that the orange parcels on the map displayed at this meeting will be subject to a rezoning application in the next seven days,ror as close to that as possible; and that the middle entrance be deleted. Mrs. Cooke asked if that covers it; all! that has been said is covered by the motion Mr. Lindstrom has made. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that by stating the motion this way, it means that the orange parcelswillbe subject to a rezoning application within the next seven days, or as close to this as possible, and the middle.entrance will be deleted. He said he is in favor of deleting the middle entrance. He thinks it would be easier for Board members. to continue to talk about this, and he would';be in favor of more discussion if he was in favor of the applicant's position,but he is not. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks there will be a problem and the less entrances the better. He said he understands that what the Planning Commission staff recommended in their report includes all those things. Mr —Horne replied affirmatively. Mr. Fisher asked for a second on Mr. Lindstrom's motion. Mrs. Cooke said she was going to second the motion, but has a problem with the entrance requirements. She feels the applicant and the Highway Department should be given more time to discuss the issue if thatseems to be important to them. She said that would not have been part of her motion if she had made one. Mr. Fisher said he wants to see if there is a second to the motion before any more discussion. Mr. Lindstrom said it is important that if Board members feel the third entrance is a bad. idea and that safety;is an issue, as do the State staff and the County staff, the item should not be deferred. This might allow �,,,I for a "someone in the State hierarchy" to agree to the third entrance even if f it will not be any better from a safety standpoint. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board members should stand up and vote on the issue now. He said it is not logical to sacrifice the public benefit to private enterprise. Mr. Way said he understands that the applicant's latest proposal has not been fully studied by the staff. Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission staff has, and they still do not recommend it, along with the resident staff of the Highway Department. Mr. Lindstrom said based on the staffs' recommend- ation, he thinks they made a good point. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Roosevelt if he had reviewed the applicant's latest proposal concerning the third entrance. Mr. Roosevelt replied that the September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) proposal had been reviewed at the local level and to an extent at the district level; however, he believes it has not been reviewed beyond that point. At this time, Mr. Fisher said he would relinquished the gavel to the Vice Chairman, Mr. Way, so he could second the motion because he thinks it is proper for the Board to approve the petition with the conditions that have been proposed by the staff. Mr. Way asked if there was any further discussion. With no one speaking, roll was immediately called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) Modifications to Application Plan: 1. Delete middle access to Route 29 North, and access from veterinarian to Route 29 North. Show internal access for veterinarian. 2. Note that any use involving drive-in window on outlots A, B-and/or C is subject to special use permit approval. Agreements Made by the County and the Applicant: 1. Agreement to develop property in general compliance with modified Application Plan. Variations may be permitted as provided in Section 8.5.6.3 of the ZoningOrdinance; 2. Staff approval of subdivision plat to include dedication of right -of way on Route 29 North as recommended by Virginia'Department of Transportation; property line adjustment or easement to insure access for property to north opposite first access off of Woodbrook connector. Notes on plat restricting access to Route 29 North. Plat shall also carry notation as to dedication of right-of-way for new roads upon demand of County. Right-of-way for Woodbrook Connector, Berkmar Extended, and Colonial Pontiac shall be deter- mined by the Virginia Department of Transportation; 3. Agreement to construct Berkmar Drive Extended and Woodbrook, Connector to ultimate Virginia Department of Transportation stan- dards. Agreement to construct Colonial. Pontiac roadway to private road standards. 4. Agreement to rezone four commercial lot remnantson west side of Berkmar DriveExtendedto R-6, Residential. (Note: Verbal agree- ment made by the applicant's representative at the September 2, 1987, meeting, and included in the Board's motion of approval.) 5. Agreement to construct stormwater detention facilities in compliance with state and local code requirements. Design storm recurrence interval shall be for the two and ten-year storm: Design shall be sufficient to prevent overtopping of U. S. Route!29 for a design storm with a one hundred year recurrence interval.. The applicant shall provide as much additional detention as isIfeasible within the capacity available at the site in the vicinity of the proposed basin shown on the Application Plan. R Mr. Lindstrom also made a motion that the Board accept the Planning. staff's recommendation concerning the realignment of Berkmar Drive Extended with a specific stipulation that in actually determining the specific location. of that realignment, at the south end where it intersects with Berkmar Drive, every effort be made to leave the mobile home park as intact as possible, even though this might create a slightly different alignment from thealignment shown on the sketch presented at this meeting. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote: 188 September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9 had been renumbered as Agenda Item No. 5a. Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: March 18, 1985; October 1 (Night) 1986; March 11, June 10, and July 15, 1987. Mr. Way had read pages 1 through 6 of March 11, 1987, and found them to correct. Mr. Henley had read October 1 (Night) 1986, and pages 14 through 22 of July 15, 1987, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowie had read March 11, 1987, page 14 to the end and found them to be in order. Mrs. Cooke had read pages 7 through 14 of March 11, 1987, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. Ila. Appointment: Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee. There was no name offered for this vacancy. Agenda Item No. Ilb. Appointment: Library Board. There was no name offered for this vacancy. Agenda Item No. 12. Executive Session - Personnel. At 10:35 P. M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie,, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn into executive session for the stated purpose. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 10:45 P. M., and immediately adjourned. V CHAIRMAN (NOTE: It was announced to the press immediately following this meeting that Mr. Fisher had submitted his resignation as a Board member during the executive session.)