Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 24 85 PC MinutesSeptember 24, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 24, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. Richard Cogan and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the September 10, 1985 meeting were approved as written. (Note: Due to equipment failure, approximately the first 20 minutes of the meeting were not recorded on tape.) Emerald Forest Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 43.61 acres into 7 lots ranging from 5-6.8 acres, with an average 6.3 acres lot size. Lots are proposed to be served by a new private road off an existing private road. Property is located on the west side of Rt. 635, and adjacent to the south of Western Albemarle High School. Tax Map 56, parcel 19 and part of parcel 19B. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Deferred from September 10, 1985 meeting at request of applicant. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She added that the applicant is now proposing a private road and if the Commission should choose to approve a private road, staff's conditions would require some amendment. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Roell, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated he was in favor of a private road because it was felt less trees would be disturbed. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Elizabeth addressed the Commission and indicated she was in favor of the proposal, including the private road, because she felt the applicant was attempting to preserve as much of the environment as possible. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Steve Pack, representing the County Engineer's Office, who indicated his office feels ,z,s'/ September 24, 1985 Page 2 there will be very little difference in the amount of trees that will be disturbed in a public vs. a private road construction. (There was a short recess at this point to allow time to change to a different recording machine.) Mr. Bowerman stated that he had visited the site and he did not feel there would be much difference,in relation to disturbing the land, between a public and a private road. He added he felt the applicant genuinely feels a private road would be more suitable in this location and it is not merely a matter of economics. He stated that since the proposal does meet the ordinance for a private road, he would not be opposed. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, Ms. Patterson explained the conditions of approval would be amended as follows if a private road is allowed: --1.(b) would be changed to read: County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement. --1.(e) would be changed to read: County Engineer approval of private road and drainage plans and computations; --1.(f) would be deleted. --2. would be deleted. --A new condition 2. would read: Staff approval of final plat. Mr. Skove indicated he could not support a private road since it was his understanding they were to be the exception, not the rule. Mr. Bowerman stated he understood Mr. Skove's position and would normally agree, but in this case, since no part of the ordinance would have to be waived to allow a private road and since this was contemplated when the ordinance was done, he was in favor of encouraging good use of land. Mr. Skove agreed the arguments were valid, but stated he was not willing to make an exception without overwhelming argument to the contrary. Mr. Skove moved that the Emerald Forest Preliminary Plat be approved, with a public road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Health Department approval; b. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for joint entrance for lots 1 and 2 and private road serving lots 2 and 3 of Maupin Plat; c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private street commercial entrance, to include sight easements if necessary; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and computations; f. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road and drainage plans; 9 Z �L September 24, 1985 Page 3 g. Planning staff approval of road name. 2. The road from Rt. 635 to lot 5 is to be designed as a public road, to be accepted by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. 3. Staff approval of final plat. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the motion since she felt the Ordinance allows the Commission to consider each application individually and make exceptions when appropriate. She added she did not think the County Engineer has that privilege when he examines an application, i.e. contemplating those exceptions. She stated she was in favor of a private road. The previously -stated motion for approval, with a public road was defeated (4:2) with Messrs. Skove and Gould voting for, and Messrs. Bowerman, Wilkerson, Michel and Ms. Diehl voting against. Mr. Wilkerson stated he had visited the site and was in agreement with Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Diehl. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Emerald Forest Preliminary Plat be approved, with a private road, subject to the following conditions, and allowing staff approval of final plat: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Health Department approval; b. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement. c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private street commercial entrance, to include sight easements if necessary; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. County Engineer approval of private road and drainage plans and computations; f. Planning staff approval of road name. 2. Staff approval of final plat. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. Mr. Payne asked for clarification from the Commission as to the maintenance agreement. He explained he thought he had heard some comments which indicated the agreement would be slightly out of the ordinary. z 5"3 September 24, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Bowerman explained the applicant had indicated there was a mechanism he could use to ensure compliance with the maintenance agreement, which is not always possible. He stated that is one of the things he would be looking for. Mr. Payne indicated he would look forward to seeing the applicant's proposal. The previously -stated motion for approval, with a private road, was approved (4:2) with Messrs. Wilkerson, Bowerman, Michel and Ms. Diehl voting for, and Messrs. Skove and Gould voting against. The Players Club Site Plan - Proposal to locate a raquet and fitness club comprised of 8,450 square feet of existing structure and 25,500 square feet of proposed expansion on 11.94 acres. The expansion includes raquetball courts, offices, gym, whirlpool/ sauna/steam rooms. Property, located in Four Seasons off Four Seasons Drive on the site of the existing pool, tennis courts and clubhouse. Tax Map 61X1, parcel 4. Zoned PUD, with ZMA-85-15 (to expand recreational building). Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Regarding the possible change in parking area, Mr. Michel asked if this would impact any adjacent owners and, if so, would they have a chance to address their concerns. Ms. Patterson stated she did not expect any changes in landscaping, pathways, etc. and she did not feel there would be any negative impact. Mr. Gould asked if the hours of operation were being proposed on a trial basis. Ms. Patterson explained that staff is recommending that the hours be reviewed,after one year's time, by the Commission. She stated the homeowners have accepted the applicant's proposed hours at this time, subject to a review at a later date. Mr. Wilkerson asked if it is determined earlier that the hours are unacceptable, could the review occur earlier than one year. It was determined condition 3. should be amended to read as follows: 3. Hours of operation for outside activities subject to review by Planning Commission one year, or sooner,from the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first phase. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Rob McCloud, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He offered the following comments: [;�a September 24, 1985 Page 5 err --Since there is no formula for computing parking requirements for this type of facility, comparisons with similar organizations have been used to make this determination. --It was determined the proposed hours of operation are 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 8 a.m. to 12 midnight Friday and Saturday. --Primary outside activities will be swimming, tennis and jogging. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Gregory Johnson, president of the Four Seasons Townhouse Association, addressed the Commission and read the following statement: Ladies and Gentlemen: As the designated representatives of the members of our Associations, we are pleased to inform you that the site plan for The Players Club in Four Seasons comes to you with the overwhelming support of the residents. We believe that the Applicant's proposed renovation and expansion of the recreational facilities is both responsive to our desires and sensitive to our concerns. To cite but one example, the Townhouse residents, in particular, appreciate the proposal for the addition of a descending driveway to provide access to the lower level. This directly addresses their concern that access to the lower level via their common driveway may have been necessary, and provides an alternative that not only eliminates that concern, but also provides direct access to the lower level for the handicapped. Many other features of the plan also demonstrate sensitivity to the residential character of the surrounding properties. To be frank, there is some lack of unanimity among the residents in regards to the hours of operation for outside activities, and the lighting that may be involved for those activities. These are matters that were specifically deferred until this site plan hearing. The concern is greatest, of course, among some residents who live near to the club, and who plan to speak individually. However, in considering the concerns that may be expressed, it might be noted that a majority of the residents, including several of those who are concerned that outside activities may be a nuisance, will accept rather liberal hours on one condition: that the hours for outside activities be subject to review in a public hearing after a set period of time. In regards to the recommended improvement to be made to Four Seasons Drive, we support the position of the staff. We feel that it is not necessary nor even desireable to extend the improvement the length of the entire frontage, given the nature of the rest of the street. We believe it will be less disruptive to the flow of traffic to limit the improvement to the vicinity of the club entrance. We conclude by restating that the proposal for The Players Club has the overwhelming support of the residents and recommend approval. Gregory A. Johnson, President Four Seasons Townhouse Association, Inc. 70 Woodlake Driv )4( Robert M. Zak, ident Four Seasons Patio House Association, Inc. 7 Lakeview Drive 2? 5 September 24, 1985 Page 6 Ms. Cassandra Church, whose residence is adjacent to the tennis courts, expressed her opposition to the proposed late hours and suggested that they be changed to a 10 p.m. closing time. Mr. David Davidson also expressed concern about the lateness of the proposed hours of operation and also about the type of lighting that would be used. Mr. McCloud, representing the applicant, explained that the lights that will be used will be compatible with the neighbor- hood, will have no reflectors, and will not be shining directly into the residences. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the question of lighting, Mr. Keeler stated he could remember only three cases where outside lighting has created problems, and in all three the Zoning Administrator has made sure the situations were corrected. In response to Mr. Gould's question about the detention basin, Mr. Elrod (County Engineer) explained that it has not yet been decided which option would be of benefit to both the developer and the County. He stated it is simply a matter of timing of the construction and that some trade-offs might be possible. He confirmed that while there is no disagreement, there is no agreement at this time either. Mr. Gould moved that the Players Club Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit for phases I or II will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Issuance of an erosion control permit; b. County Engineer approval of pathway construction, and parking lot design and: pavement; c`.: County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations; d. Developer contribution to the regional stormwater deten- tion basin in lieu of on -site controls, or whatever agreement that can be worked out with the County Engineer; e. Zoning Administrator approval of parking provisions for each phase; f. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of improvements to full turn and taper lane. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: 4400 a. Staff approval of landscape plan; b. Fire Officer final approval. Y September 24, 1985 Page 7 3. Hours of operation for outside activities subject to review by Planning Commission one year, or sooner, from the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first phase. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Bentivar Final Plat - Located on the south side of Rt. 643 just east of the Southern Railway overpass. Proposal to redivide lots in Bentivar Subdivision from an existing 13 lots with an average size of 5 acres to 27 lots with an average size of 2.5 acres. The parcels cover 73.77 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 46, parcels 111-116 and 132-138. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. He added that after the staff report had been written, the applicant had submitted stormwater detention plans to the Engineering Department, and the County Engineer has commented that he foresees no problems and recommends approval. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Buddy Edwards, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated there are no objections to the conditions of approval and added that stormwater run-off would be minimal. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Jack Kegley, a resident of Bentivar, addressed the Commission and indicated he was in favor of the proposal and felt that most of the residents of the area had always been aware that the lots would eventually be made smaller. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl recalled that when the subdivision had come before the Commission several years before the small lot sizes had been denied. Mr. Payne said he could not recall it having been denied. Ms. Diehl stated that perhaps it had been withdrawn, rather than denied. Dr. Hurt indicated he could not recall it ever having been denied, though it might have been withdrawn. He added that a lot of work had been done on the road, including getting the neighbors to dedicate additional right-of-way. He stated the State now has the road on their plans for paving. He explained he had been waiting to see if that could be done, before dividing the land. It was determined that that portion of the road extending from Bentivar's entrance up to Rt. 649 is currently in the �� September 24, 1985 Page 8 Highway Department's Six -Year Plan. Not included is that section west of the Bentivar entrance. It was determined that staff had suggested that convex mirrors might be used at the railroad underpass to increase visibility around the curve, However, the Highway Department does not favor such "gimmicks" because they can be misleading in terms of depth perception, etc. It was determined there are no current plans to straighten the curve since the Highway Department does not have the right-of- way at this time. Mr. Skove moved that tYe Bentivar Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plan and computations; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road and drainage plans; C. County Engineer approval of bond for public road improvements. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Aldersgate Church Site Plan - Proposal to locate a one and a half story addition of 5,500 square feet for a 350 seat sanctuary, for a total floor area of 8,540 square feet. 112 parking spaces are proposed on 3.6981 acres. Property is located on the west side of Rio Road (Rt. 631), just south of the Fashion Square Mall ring road, and Centel. Zoned CO, Commercial Office. Tax Map 61, parcels 129B and 129B1. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. It was determined three are three potential locations for sewer connection: (1) Fashion Square Mall; (2) An adjacent vacant parcel; and (3) Across Rio Road. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Marcia Joseph, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She made the following comments: --The most feasible sewer connection hook-up is at Fashion Square Mall and the applicant is in the process of obtaining an easement from the Mall. --Immediate hook-up is not being proposed because the use is not being intensified a this time and the delay will allow the applicant] oesecure the necessary funds to make the connection (approximately $22,000). --Bonding of the sewer line will ensure that the � c4 September 24, 1985 Page 9 connection will be made. --The County Engineer's office has indicated they have no objections to the proposal. --The Highway Department (Mr. Echols) has verbally approved the plan, with the only change being that the entrance will need to be moved about 2 feet. The Chairman invited public comment; there being none, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl noted there was no condition relating to the bonding of the sewer hook-up. Mr. Michel expressed some concern about the matter stating that it is not known where the easement will be located, how much it will cost, how it will be bonded, etc. Ms. Diehl agreed and added that she was also concerned about not paving the parking lot, since if it was paved the septic system that is there would have some protection,in case there should be a problem with the sewer connection. Mr. Keeler stated he was concerned about such situations since this has happened with another case recently, i.e. the applicant was to be allowed to use an existing drainfield until it failed, yet now that the drainfield has failed, the applicant still has not made the connection to public sewer even though required to do so. He added, however, that this is not quite the same since there will be a bond and an easement in this case. He stated further, that he is not in favor of paving the parking lot since this would be incentive for the applicant never to connect to public sewer. Mr. Payne stated the failsafe requirement is to withhold the C.O. until the hook-up has been made. It was determined that condition 1. should be changed to read as follows: 1. Sewer connection shall be made within one year from issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or at such earlier time as required by the Health Department. It was determined that though the requirement for bonding is stated on the site plan, it should also be included in the conditions of approval as follows: l.g. Bonding of public sewer connection as provided in note on site plan. Ms. Diehl moved that the Aldersgate Church Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Sewer connection shall be made within one year from issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or at such earlier September 24, 1985 Page 10 time as required by Health Department. 2. No building permit shall be issued until: a. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations; b. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations; C. Issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Trnasportation approval of commercial entrance; e. Staff approval of revised plan showing parking spaces adjacent to existing building brought in to conformance with Zoning Ordinance; f. Applicant has demonstrated that adequate right-of-way is provided for public water and sewer connection. g. Bonding of public sewer connection as provided in note on site plan. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Addition to Rhews Market Site Plan - Proposal to add square footage to existing building, with new area measuring 7,052 square feet on a 4.76 acre site served by 57 parking spaces. Located on the south side of Rt. 631 at its intersection with Four Seasons Drive. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Tax Map 61X1, parcel 2A. Charlottesville Magisterial District. The applicant had requested indefinite deferral of this item. (No formal motion was made to this effect.) The meeting recessed at 9:05; reconvened at 9:20. CPA-85-3 South 29 Land Trust & Sariandale Corporation - Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 as it relates to approximately 19 acres adjacent to the south side of Fontaine Avenue. Applicant is requesting a change in the recommended land use from medium density to commercial for a planned commercial shopping center. Tax Map 76, parcel 17B. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. She confirmed that staff is recommending, at the maximum, a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Gould asked if any other ways of looking at grouping of neighborhoods was considered. Ms. Imhoff stated that this way had been chosen based on road access. She also stated that staff had been limited to those areas on the computer, i.e. the urbanized area of the county. She agreed that a different grouping could possibly lead to different con- clusions. Mr. Skove questioned how the traffic question had been addressed in relation to Rt. 29. He felt the question should have been whether or not development here instead of on Rt. 29 would draw traffic from 29, and not "given development here what effect would it have on 29?" September 24, 1985 Page 11 Mr. Skove stated that he feels quite strongly that development here, instead of on Rt. 29 will draw traffic away from Rt. 29. He conceded that it would have to be something of a regional shopping center rather than a neighborhood one. Ms. Imhoff stated that many of the uses that draw people to Rt. 29 are particular to that area and unless those uses are duplicated at another point, those people will still be using 29. Mr. Skove agreed this was true, but a regional -type use, such as a hotel, would draw traffic away from Rt. 29. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Dom Bent, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He suggested that this application, and the rezoning request for Fontaine Forest (the next item on the agency, should be looked at together since the two are interrelated. Mr. Bowerman stat d that comprehensive plan amendments are not site specific a0would prefer that the two proposals be dealt with separately. Ms. Diehl agreed. Mr. Bent continued and stated that those who were opposed to the development are not looking at it realistically if they think this land should remain in its virginal state. He also pointed out that the development will not take place overnight as seems to be implied by the staff report. He also stated that the developers of this land (Dr. Hurt and Mr. Carr) are reputable developers and life-long residents of Albemarle County who are deserving of the County's trust. Mr. Donal Day, a resident of Buckingham circle, addressed the Commission and indicated he was opposed to the amendment because there is no compelling need to change the comprehensive plan and because of the increased traffic that will be on Fontaine Avenue. Mr. and Mrs. French Swab addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the proposal for the following reasons: (1) Increased traffic on inadequate roads; (2) Commercial development would be a blight on the landscape. Dr. Charles Hurt addressed the Commission. He stated he felt the residents of Buckingham Circle would be better served by commercial development on this site than on the presently zoned commercial site adjacent to the residents (next to the Chinese restaurant). He added that if he developes the land he will provide for a pedestrian and jogging path along the highway. Mr. Leonard Dykes addressed the Commission and offered the following comments: 241 September 24, 1985 Page 12 --The question seems to be not whether there should be commercial use of Fontaine Avenue, but rather how much commercial use should be allowed. --He felt the staff had dismissed the Comprehensive Plan's specific designation of the I64 and Rt. 29S Interchange for regional use development. --The tract is at the gateway to the University and the hospital. --People coming to the University and the hospital from this side of town are directed to Emmet Street and Rt. 29N for food and lodging. --He quoted from the Comprehensive Plan as follows: "Regional use need not be located adjacent to an interchange but should have direct access to an interchange over a road segment of adequate capacity and non -local function." --The tract is well -located, being at the western end of Fontaine Avenue away from the residential areas. Because it is adjacent to the ramps, it can serve interstate traffic with a minimum of impact on the eastern end of Fontaine Avenue. --Limiting commercial development to 3-5 acres would result in a serious economic underuse and would represent a misuse of a social asset created by a highway system paid for by public funds. Mr. David Carr, who has an option to buy the land, addressed the Commission. He offered the following comments: --The time to utilize this land has come. --The location of the hospital is adding to the pressure to make use of this land. --The uses foreseen are some shopping and high quality office uses as well as hotels. --Fontaine Avenue will eventually be improved. --This proposal fits all the criteria that have been set forth. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Skove stated that although he agreed that traffic patterns around this site are less than desirable and the site might not be ideal, he still felt allowing development here is preferable to pushing more development up Rt. 29N. Ms. Diehl agreed there are problems on Rt. 29, but these problems do not justify creating another problem in another part of the county. She added she is very familiar with this area and Fontaine Avenue cannot support the amount of traffic that would be generated by any type of regional development. She pointed out that there is already land, commercially zoned, that is an ideal location for regional development at that interchange. She stated she did not feel this land could support a large commercial development and added -�)/ n September 24, 1985 Page 13 she would be "hard pressed" to agree to a small commercial development since within 1/3 ale of this tract there several groceries, an auto parts store, a dry cleaner, a laundry, four garages and four restaurants which are serving the neighborhood. Mr. Bowerman stated that as this county has been developed residentially, with commercial development being placed on Rt. 29N, people are left with only one option, i.e. to go to Rt. 29N where the services are. He stated he felt that while this might not pull traffic off 29, it could begin to deal with development south of town in terms of lessening the increase in traffic on 29 by offering an alternative. He pointed out that over 1,000 units which have already been approved or are in the works, are scheduled for this area and the pressure is going to continue. He added this is where the highway system is, utilities already exist, it is not in the watershed and it is clear development will take place here. Though he indicated he was not sure as to the size of development that should be allowed, he felt it should be more than five acres. He stated he was convinced of the need for commercial development in this section of the County. He agreed there were problems, but felt there were even greater problems with the alternatives. Mr. Wilkerson compared this area and proposal to the Pantops shopping area. He recalled that many residents had been opposed to the Pantops shopping center in the beginning, but are now very pleased with the development. He felt traffic on Fontaine Avenue could be no worse than it is on Rt. 250. Ms. Diehl pointed out that Rt. 250 is a four -lane divided highway, and Fontaine Avenue is not. Mr. Wilkerson stated he would still rather live with the traffic problems and enjoy the convenience of the shopping center. He also stated he felt most of the traffic on 250 was coming from the east, using Pantops shopping center and then going back home (not going to Rt. 29). Ms. Diehl indicated she felt certain most of the traffic on Rt. 29S seldom goes to Rt. 29N, using instead the city mall, the Willoughby Shopping Center, and Barracks Road. Mr. Wilkerson stated that means that county money is then being spent in the city. He stated he fully supported the proposed amendment. Mr. Michel stated he was "going to take the middle ground." He felt the staff report was very accurate and agreed with the staff's recommendation for a small neighborhood center of approximately 3 acres. He indicated he could not possibly support a 19-acre rezoning at this time. September 24, 1985 Page 14 Regarding the size of the shopping center, Mr. Keeler pointed out that acreage and actual floor area are two different things. In terms of floor area proposed for this development, of the 90,000 square feet proposed, 30,000 is for the hotel. He approximated the retail area to be 60,000 to 65,000 square feet. He stated this is about 2 the size of Shopper's World and 1/3 the size of Albemarle Square. Mr. Michel stated he was thinking of something similar to the Woodbrook Shopping Center. Mr. Bowerman stated Woodbrook was approximately on one acre. Mr. Bowerman asked how much 3 acres will support after allowance is made for parking. Mr. Keeler stated Riverbend Shopping Center is at the maximum, it being right at the limit of about 11,000 square feet per acre. He added that, due to some constraints of this site, it might be questionable to limit it to an acreage rather than to floor area. He explained that if the Commission is concerned about intensity of usage, then the application should be dealt with in terms of floor area. Mr. Hurt explained that Riverbend Shopping Center, as it exists, is 70,000 square feet of shopping area and is on approximately 12 acres (including the restaurants). This does not include Hecks. He estimated that Woodbrook Shopping Center is approximately 3 acres. Mr. Carr stated he was unable, at this time, to say exactly how the property will be used should the rezoning be approved. However, he stated he envisions, in the long run, that approximately 130,000 square feet of shopping center would be all the property can support. Mr. Gould stated he had never been in favor of this proposal, and he still could not support it. He stated he felt the applicant has never made a case to justify the rezoning. He also questioned the way the staff had reached their conclusions. In an attempt to summarize the Commission's comments, Mr. Bowerman stated it seemed 3 persons could support the application, 1 could support a lesser acreage, and 2 could not support it. He felt the Commission should work toward some sort of approval of "some" acreage. Mr. Skove suggested it might be possible not to change it to Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan, not to rezone that much property, but to indicate some sort of neighborhood center. Mr. Bowerman stated he was unclear as to how to amend a Comprehensive Plan amendment recommendation so as to only deal with a portion of what was proposed. /_IL September 24, 1985 Page 15 Ms. Imhoff stated this has not happened too often, but recalled a similar situation with a parcel on Rio Road which was rezoned from Residential to Commercial Office and had been very small and parcel specific. She stated staff has been trying to avoid parcel specific situations and the staff report was written with this in mind. She suggested that it would be possible to tie a description of amending the land use plan to the rezoning. This would be accomplished by having an addendum in the Comprehensive Plan document which states that on a certain date this action occurred for three acres as described, etc. She added that the diagram in the Comp Plan is a "bubble" diagram and is not supposed to be parcel specific. Thus a description of the action should be adequate in terms of amending the plan. Ms. Diehl asked Ms. Imhoff if staff had been able to evaluate this proposal in terms of the entire area around the city as would have been done in a total comprehensive plan review. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the Commission had adopted the resolution of intent to amend the Comp Plan and based that on finding of criteria 2. She stated it was never a staff position that this should have even been a Comp Plan amendment. Staff had tried to follow the Commission's directive to find some criteria to measure "need" for commercial zoning. She stated the staff had only dealt with the urban area (based on the computer) and had not researched commuting patterns in the area. She concluded by stating the evaluation by staff was not comprehensive. Ms. Diehl asked if there would be an advantage to not considering this as a Comp Plan amendment at this time, but rather to consider it as a rezoning. She stated that just because the Commission agreed to consider the issue does not mean that it must be approved. Mr. Payne stated this should be based on how the Commission views the Plan as a whole. He pointed out that the "bubble" diagrams are never intended to be precise and are only one element of the Plan. He stated that if the majority of the Commission feels that the Plan contemplates commercial development on this property,or the Commission feels that it should contemplate commercial development on this property, then the plan should be amended. On the other hand, if the Commission feels that some aspects of the plan (e.g. the Interstate interchange) are applicable to this site to some degree and "they speak to this", then it is not really necessary to amend the plan. Mr. Payne continued that if the Commission feels the Plan, taken as a whole, does not contemplate what it feels is appropriate for this property, then it might be desirable to amend the Plan with a physical description of the property included (e.g. the southeast quadrant of this -2/ Z- September 24, 1985 Page 16 property should be developed in a mixture of uses including office, medium -high density residential and neighborhood retail commercial). Another option might be that it be developed in commercial usage including, but not necessarily limited to, a regional shopping center. Mr. Payne emphasized he was not espousing these suggestions, but was only describing possible options. Mr. Bowerman suggested approving a mixed use and leave the question of size to the re -zoning. Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Payne the advantages or disadvantages to such an approach. Mr. Payne indicated one disadvantage is that it is vague. He added that the term "neighborhood shopping center" is a term that has a definite meaning in the Plan. If something larger is contemplated, then the term should be "community or regional" shopping center. He suggested other terms of non -specificity such as "retail shopping center," or "integrally developed retail commercial area." Ms. Diehl stated she could support the staff recommendation at this time, but would be reluctant to designate any large acreage until the entire Plan has been evaluated. She felt a neighborhood shopping center would be compatible with the existing uses. Ms. Diehl moved that CPA-85-3 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval allowing for a neighborhood shopping center in the quadrant south of Fontaine Avenue between the city line and Rt. 29S. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. It was determined the size of a neighborhood center is defined in the Plan. Mr. Bowerman stated this would clearly limit the rezoning request to 3-5 acres. Both Mr. Skove and Mr. Wilkerson stated they could not support the motion since they were in favor of a larger facility. Ms. Diehl stated she was opposed to anything larger without a review of the Comp Plan. Mr. Keeler, referring to page 131 of the Comp Plan, stated the range of a neighborhood shopping center is minimum 3 acres, leasable floor area is 30,000 to 100,000 square feet, to a maximum of 10 acres. With that in mind, Ms. Diehl made a substitute motion to recommend CPA-85-3 to the Board of Supervisors for approval, allowing for a commercial area of 3-5 acres, as recommended by staff, in the quadrant south of Fontaine Avenue between the city line and Rt. 29S. September 24, 1985 Page 17 Mr. Michel agreed to the substitute motion and seconded same. The motion for approval of a 3-5 acre commercial area was defeated (4:2) with Messrs.Wilkerson, Bowerman, Gould and Skove voting against, and Ms. Diehl and Mr. Michel voting in favor. Mr. Wilkerson asked Mr. Carr if he could approximate how much acreage would be needed for his proposal of 99,000 square feet floor area. Mr. Carr stated he felt it would be between 7 and 9 acres. Mr. Hurt pointed out it would be more depending on the size of the hotel. Mr. Carr realized he had not counted the hotel in his estimation, and stated at least 4 or 5 acres would be needed for the hotel. He added that it is his desire to preserve a lot of the "heights" in the land which will mean that much of the land will not be buildable. Mr. Keeler again stated the Commission might want to tie their action to square footage rather than acreage because there will be some difficulties with the site. It was determined the 99,000 square feet was the service station, the grocery store, and the commercial area, but does not include the office area. Mr. Keeler stated the plan he had shows about 30,000 square feet, of the 99,000, as a hotel. Mr. Hurt stated if that were the case, it was a mistake. It was determined Mr. Keeler's plan did not include an office building. Mr. Bowerman indicated he could approve a neighborhood shopping center designation with the additional questions to be dealt with at the rezoning. This anticipated a maximum of 10 acres. He explained that the rezoning is not currently before the Commission and he felt staff did not wish it to be considered at this time because they have not reviewed it. He felt the Comp Plan amendment should be dealt with first, passed on to the Board,and then let the applicant make whatever changes he wishes to make for the rezoning proposal. He felt a neighborhood shopping center seemed a reasonable compromise and reasonable approach to the issue. It was determined staff is recommending 3-5 acres, which is within the realm of a neighborhood shopping center, but a larger neighborhood shopping center is allowable, up to 10 acres. Mr. Wilkerson moved that CPA-85-3 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval allowing a neighborhood shopping center with a maximum of 10 acres. This motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Payne suggested the following possibility, while emphasizing that he was not espousing the suggestion: i.e. to amend the Comprehensive Plan in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Fontaine Avenue and Rt. 29S to allow for mixed development including medium to high -density residential, office commercial and Z/ 7 September 24, 1985 Page 18 shopping center commercial of approximately 100,000 square feet gross floor area. He confirmed that this would include the hotel, but not the office space. He explained that the office would be allowed but would not necessarily be included in the shopping center. It was determined Mr. Skove supported a regional shopping center. Mr. Wilkerson stated he had supported a regional from the beginning but would be willing to consider a compromise. It was determined Mr. Michel agreed with staff and would not go beyond a small neighborhood center. Mr. Bowerman concluded that the Commission had reached an impasse. He asked if the next step was to pass it on to the Board without a recommendation. Mr. Payne explained that the Commission did not have to act on the proposal at all and that it did not have to be sent to the Board. He explained another way to do it is to not refer to scale at all and wait for the rezoning. Mr. Payne confirmed that it could be passed on to the Board without a recommendation. This would tell the Board that the Commission had been unable to reach a decision and would ask them to act on the application. Mr. Bowerman stated the Commission had taken the action to instigate the matter and he felt some action should be taken. He added he was not willing to look at the development without a Comp Plan amendment. He recalled that it had first been presented as a rezoning and it had been decided that the only way it could be considered was in relation to its proximity to the interchange and the way to do that was through a Comp Plan amendment. Mr. Wilkerson moved that CPA-85-3 be passed on to the Board of Supervisors without recommendation. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Mr. Payne stated there was one other alternative, i.e. to defer the matter until the full commission is present. It was felt this would be unfair to the applicant. The above -stated motion to pass the issue on without recommendation was unanimously approved. September 24, 1985 Page 19 ZMA-85-1 Fontaine Forest - Request to rezone 19 acres of a 54 acre parcel from R-10, Residential to PDSC, Planned Development Shopping Center in order to construct an inn and shopping center. Property, described as Tax Map 76, parcel 17B (part of) is located on the south side of Fontaine Avenue approximately 600 feet past the intersection with the Rt. 250/29 Bypass; bounded on the ease by the Corporate City Limits. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Bowerman recommended that this be deferred to await the Board's action on CPA 85-3. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-85-1 be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The meeting recessed at 11:05; reconvened at 11:15. After the recess, Mr. Bowerman stated that Dr. Hurt had requested that the rezoning be heard, rather than deferred. Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any recourse, other than the Commission, in terms of moving the matter forward to the Board. Mr. Payne responded that the applicant has no other options. He explained that the issue is still before the Commission and the Board cannot act until the Commission acts. He added that the applicant has the right to have it acted upon with one year from the date of its submittal. He stated if the Commission wishes to take action it has three options: (1) Approval or some version of approval; (2) Denial; or (3) Pass it on with no recommendation. He emphasized that it was improper for any recommendation to be made without first having fully considered the application. He confirmed that full consideration was not required for a deferral. It was determined that since the staff had not had the opportunity to fully review the application (because they were awaiting action on the Comp Plan amendment), the Commission's motion for indefinite deferral would stand. ZMA-85-20 Hollvmead Land Trust & Tri-Ton, Inc. - Request to 37 acres from R-1, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcels 42 (part) and 36 in the southeast quadrant of the U.S. Rt. 29N/Rt. 649 (Proffit Road) intersection. Rivanna Magisterial District. rezone (part) located Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He pointed out that staff is recommending that this property be rezoned to HC Highway Commercial (Tax Map 32, parcel 42, 17.8 acres), but that parcel 36 (part) not be rezoned at this time. Mr. Keeler confirmed also that staff's recommendation for rezoning a portion of this property would be subject to the proffers as given by the applicant. zC 9 September 24, 1985 Page 20 The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Smith addressed the Commission and explained that the facility would not be a truck stop as had been mentioned at one time. It would not have a "sit down" restaurant. He indicated there were no problems with staff's recommendations. He stated the proffer has not yet been executed because it was unclear as to whether or not it would have to be amended. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Smith confirmed that he had no problem with staff's recommendation that only the 17.8 acres be rezoned. He pointed out he was speaking only for Tri-Ton. Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-85-20 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval of the rezoning of 17.8 acres to Highway Commercial (Tax Map 32, parcel 42 (part) and subject to the proffer of the applicant. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which failed to pass because of a tie vote (3:3) with Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Michel and Ms. Diehl voting in favor; and Messrs. Skove, Gould and Wilkerson voting against. Both Mr. Skove and Mr. Wilkerson indicated they were opposed to any further commercial rezoning on Rt. 29N. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt this might alleviate some of the traffic problems on Rt. 29N. It was determined the Commission failed to recommend the application due to a tie vote. The matter was passed on to the Board. It was determined the last two agenda items would be placed on the October 1 agenda (Sidewalk Policy and LURC Draft Report). There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. DS '_7A