HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 17 85 PC MinutesM
December 17, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, December 17, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice
Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard
Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne,
Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Patricia Cooke,
Ex-Officio.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the December 3, 1985 meeting were approved
as written.
ZMA-85-1 Fontaine Forest - Request to rezone 25 acres of a
54 acre parcel from R-10, Residential to PD-SC, Planned
Development Shopping Center in order to construct an inn and
shopping center. Property described as Tax Map 76, parcel
17B (part) is located on the south side of Fontaine Avenue
approximately 600 feet past the intersection with the Rt. 250/29
Bypass; bounded on the east by the Corporate City Limits.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Regarding the traffic
generation figures shown in the report for retail space
(9,088 vtpd), Mr. Keeler explained that after the report was
written staff had begun using a new source for determining
these figures (Federal Highway Administration Handbook
combined with the International Traffic Engineers' Handbook)
and thus the new total for retail space should be
approximately 6,200 vtpd rather than the 9,088 stated in the
staff report. He explained the new figures are based on the
size of the shopping center. He further stated that the total projected
vehicle trips per day, including the potential residential devel-
opment to the rear of the property, using the revised figures,
would be approximately 11,000 vtpd. Mr. Keeler stated that Rt.
29S currently has the same traffic volume, i.e. 11,000 vtpd, so
this development would double the traffic on that roadway.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question regarding the reason
for the difference in the traffic figures, Mr. Keeler explained
that "in the past Highway Commercial zoning has been compared
to Shopping Center and the same acreage will come up with
different figures, the assumption being that shopping center
traffic is multi -purpose, multi -visit traffic whereas
r Highway Commercial traffic is visiting individual sites."
He stated that these figures show that shopping center
traffic will vary based on the size of the shopping center.
t(0
December 17, 1985
Page 2
Mr. Keeler added that staff is of the opinion that the revised
figures are the most accurate and the most recent.
Mr. Gould asked why the figures are already exceeding the
projections for the year 2000. Mr. Keeler responded that
those figures were projected by the Highway Department
and he was not familiar with what methodology had been used.
Mr. Skove asked if the improvements to Rt. 29 (as listed on
page 6 of the staff report) were part of the zoning map
amendment (ZMA) for the planned development shopping center
(PDSC), i.e. "are the locked into place if this is approved?"
Mr. Keeler responded, "Yes, sir; if they submit those agreements."
Mr. Keeler further explained: "The way the Planned Development section
of the Ordinance is set up, an applicant submits a plan and
works with the staff on refining it in terms of physical layout,
design considerations, etc. At the end of that process when
staff feels that it is appropriate for the plan to go forward,
or anytime that the applicant wishes to go to the Planning
Commission with the plan, then the plan is presented to
the Commission. With older planned developments, the County
simply imposed conditions (e.g. Branchlands had five pages
of imposed conditions). (The County) has tried to get away
from that to where when we approve a planned development we
have two or three agreements as to how the property is to
be developed. This provides a little more flexibility in the
final design. (In this case) staff has discussed these issues
with the applicant and we believe we do have a verbal agreement
from him that this is what he intends to do in terms of improve-
ments to Rt. 29. Between the Commission meeting and the Board
meeting we would like to have that reduced in the form of an
agreement between the applicant and the County."
It was determined this matter was scheduled for Board review
on January 15, 1986.
Ms. Diehl stated, "This is still a rezoning, you're saying,
and normally rezonings do not carry conditions with them."
Mr. Keeler responded, "The Ordinance provides for agreements,
guarantees, etc. between the County and the applicant. It is
not a condition imposed as such, as on a special use permit,
and it is not a proffer as with other zoning applications. It is
an agreement between the applicant and the County."
Mr. Skove added, "And part of the application also." Mr.
Keeler responded, "Yes, sir." Mr. Keeler referred to Section 8.5.4
of Planned Development Districts which states that recommendations
of the Planning Commission to the Board shall include findings
as to:
47
December 17, 1985
Page 3
a. 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 the Comprehensive Plan;
physical characteristics of the land; and its relation
to surrounding area;
b. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities
and services;
C. Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suitability
of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions,
sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or
other instruments, or the need for such instruments
or for amendments in those proposed; and
d. Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as
applied to the particular case, based on determina-
tion that such modifications are necessary or justified
by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or
general regulations as applied would be satisfied to
at least an equivalent degree by such modifications.
Mr. Keeler explained that staff's recommendation to the Commission
is item d, i.e. that the application be changed to include
the provisions for the road improvements and that be in the
form of an agreement as called for in item c. Mr. Keeler confirmed
that this would "go with the land" and be a part of the rezoning.
In response to Mr. Gould's question about verbal agreement
No. 6 (The developer will construct new Rte. 782 through the
site to a standard occasioned by the commercial and residential
development of the site.), Mr. Keeler explained this meant the
road will be sized and designed for 11,000 vtpd. He added that
the design could be reduced at various intersections, i.e.
the farther you get back the lesser pavement width and depth, etc.
would be needed, but the road will be designed for the traffic
to be generated from this property alone. Mr. Keeler went on
to explain that at such time as the new Rte. 782 is constructed,
or possibly earlier, the existing Rte. 782 (basically a gravel
mad with inadequate sight distance) can be abandoned so that
no more money will have to be spent on it.
Mr. Gould asked how realistic is the assumption made in
verbal agreement No. 8 that Highway Department funding can be
coordinated with the developer's funding.
Mr. Keeler responded, "That
what we are recommending is
`%We Fontaine/Rt. 29 Business in
improvement. The Cat Study
so if each phase is assumed
15 or 20 years off. I'm no
may or may not happen. Basically
that currently the four-laning of
the CAT Study is a Phase IV
is a 20-year plan, in four phases,
to be five years, it would be
t optimistic that we will get
N
December 17, 1985 Page 4
through the Phase I and Phase II improvements in 20 years
because of funding problems, etc. Here we are recommending
that we go to the Highway Department requesting that that
project be moved up in time frame; hopefully this would be
undertaken at the same time as these other roads improvements
and would at least get it up towards the front. So with this
development and those other improvements, if you compare the
"brown" to the "red" (on the drawing), is only about 800 feet
of road."
Mr. Cogan asked at what stage of development these road
improvements would be required.
Mr. Keeler responded that this had not been covered in any
detail. He continued, "At the time of the establishment of
either of the commercial entrances, the "red" improvements
will be required. Practically speaking, if the developer
is going to regrade the road and grade it out to four lanes,
it would be to his advantage to do the whole thing at one
time. But, no, we don't have a definitive phasing plan.
I think if he established one entrance and not the other,
the only improvements we'd see would be those to get that
entrance in."
Mr. Cogan emphasized he felt this needed to be clearly
spelled out, i.e. there should be a schedule or a phasing
plan to avoid any possible future problems.
Ms. Diehl asked if the westernmost entrance was 500 feet
from the ramp as the Highway Department suggested. Mr.
Keeler responded, "Yes." Ms. Diehl also asked if a traffic
light being installed at the major intersection was part
of the agreement. Mr. Keeler responded, "I don't think that
was discussed at length." Ms. Diehl asked if Rt. 29 would
have to be closed for some time while the hill was being
removed. Mr. Keeler responded that Mr. Echols would have
to answer that question.
There being no further questions for Mr. Keeler, the
Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Donn Bent, representing Dr. Hurt, addressed the Commission.
He emphasized that development would take place gradually
over a long period of time and would not occur overnight.
Thus, he felt highway concerns were not as urgent as they
might seem. He alse stated he felt "highway improvements
follow traffic; they don't generally precede it."
Mr. Leonard Dykes, co-owner of the property, addressed the
Commission. His comments included the following:
--The staff report does not make it possible to
to see how all the "pieces of the puzzle" come
together to a coherent whole.
--The decision to amend the Comprehensive Plan made
it possible, at least, to take a formal look at a
site specific, complete plan.
'i
December 17, 1985
Page 5
M
FR
--Fontaine Avenue is the Interstate gateway to the
University and the hospital.
--Traffic coming to the University and the hospital is
currently directed to Emmett Street and Rt. 29 North
for food and lodging.
--The absence of a regional shopping center in this
section of the county forces shopping traffic to
go to Rt. 29 North.
--The CAT Study traffic figures were based only on the
socio-economic data of the city and the county,
excluding the University and the hospital as
"state-wide generators" of traffic.
--The traffic problem on Fontaine Avenue already exists
and is greatly contributed to by the University and
hospital, though planning seems to be based on a
"flawed" projection (i.e. the CAT Study).
--The proposed development will reduce traffic to
Emmett Street and Rt. 29N.
--The development will generate less net traffic increase
on Fontaine than the standard models used for projections
of average commercial traffic increases.
--The applicant's proposal will offer a level of functional
efficiency unmatched by any commercial area in and around
the city or the county because nowhere else is there a
combination of a motel, office buildings, shopping center,
auto service station and adjacent 290-unit residential
housing. This kind of integration of facilities will
create an internal movement of pedestrians and automobiles
that will lessen traffic on Fontaine Avenue.
--The development offers unequaled combinations and
facilities that will serve the University's and the
hospital's advancement in science and hi -tech in the
challenging years to come.
--The staff report states that the development is
feasible, with appropriate regard for public concerns.
Mr. David Carr, who holds an option to purchase the land,
addressed the Commission. He expressed his gratitude to staff
for their work on behalf of this issue. He stated he has
been a part of this community for many years and he felt this
site is ideal for the current proposal and is in keeping with
the County's wishes.
Dr. Charles Hurt, owner of the property, addressed the Commission.
His comments included the following:
--The development will improve the entrance to the city
and will improve surrounding residential property
values.
--The City has zoned property along Fontaine Avenue
for commercial development, taking residences and
changing them into commercial establishments, thus
it is difficult to understand the City's opposition
to this proposal.
70
December 17, 1985
Page 6
--The development could only have a beneficial effect
on the neighborhood.
The Chairman then invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed
their opposition to the proposal: Ms. Shirley Munson, repre-
senting the League of Women Voters; Mr. Earl Price; Mr. Cliff
Harvey; Mr. Bruce Averill; Fred and Betty Schwab; Dr. David
Capheso; and Ms. Allyson Campbell. (Ms. Campbell, who
represented most of the residents of Piedmont Faculty Housing,
presented a document to the Commission which cited sections of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance which are in conflict
with the proposed development. She did not read the document.
She also presented a petition of opposition containing 95
signatures.) Reasons for opposition included the following:
--Topography of the property, i.e. slopes, drainage and
highly erodable soil, make it unsuitable for this type
of development.
--Adverse effect on already extreme traffic problems,
e.g. traffic on Fontaine Avenue will double with no
plans for expansion of this road in the immediate future.
--Too many unresolved questions concerning grading,
utilities, stormwater drainage and highway improvements.
--Decision should be deferred until the City and County
Planning Commissions meet in February to discuss
development south of Charlottesville.
--Increased traffic, particularly in consideration of the
large amount of traffic that is generated during
sports events at the university; such increase will
choke off residents' accesses to their homes.
--Historically, growth usually takes place to the north
and east.
--No plan of this nature should go "unattached to road
improvements."
--Project should not proceed without a joint City/County/
Highway Department agreement on a plan for Fontaine
Avenue from the By -Pass through the Jefferson Park
stop light at Fry Springs.
--Allowing this development will be the beginning of the
erosion of the Comprehensive Plan and its spirit of
controlled growth.
--Approval of this project will mean the County is listening
to the demands of the developers and not to the public.
--There is already adequate shopping in the area and most
residents do not find it necessary to go to Rt. 29N.
--The development does not serve the interests of the
University, the City, nor the County residents.
--A similar development on Pantops Mt. (Riverbend) has
resulted in disasterous traffic problems.
--Both the City and the University are opposed to the
development and their recommendations should be given
significant consideration by the County.
I/
December 17, 1985
Page 7
--The community has not
development and more
before a decision is
--The vast majority of
to the development.
been adequately
community input
made.
the neighboring
informed of the
should be sought
residents are opposed
The following persons addressed the Commission and though they
were not opposed to the proposal, they made the following
comments:
--Mr. Laurence Fredrick (astronomer at UVA) was concerned
about possible interference of lighting from the
development with the McCormick Observatory which has
an international reputation for doing first-class
astronomical work.
--Mr. Pack (Virginia Division of Forestry) informed the
Commission that the Division has no current plans to expand
their facilities. (The Division of Forestry adjoins
the proposed development.)
Mr. Goode Love addressed the Commission and stated he was in
favor of the development since he felt a planned development
of this type was preferable to the "spasmodic" development
that will otherwise occur.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
fir• The Chairman invited comments from Mr. Jeff Echols, representing
the Highway Department.
Mr. Echols made the following comments:
--The Highway Department has met with staff and the
applicant several times.
--The CAT Study shows this ultimately as a four -lane highway
from the by-pass to the city limits and then from the
city limits to the intersection of Maury Ave. and Jefferson
Park Avenue.
--Basically the applicant will "come close to building
most of the County section of the proposed improvements
to Fontaine Avenue."
--Once the actual site plan is submitted, more details
will have to be worked out.
In response to Mr. Skove's question, Mr. Echols confirmed that
it was conceivable that the By-pass will act as a beltway
with a significant amount of the traffic generated by this
development going from the development over to the By-pass.
He added, however, that most of the 11,000 vehicle trips
currently on the road was local traffic. Mr. Skove stated
he felt that some of the local traffic, coming from the north
of town, would use the beltway as access to the development
and would not go through town. Mr. Echols stated that
fir• he did not feel this would divert much traffic from Rt. 29N
because of the difference in the type of businesses on Rt. 29N
and those proposed for this development. He felt this would
be a local shopping area rather than a regional one.
//IS
December 17, 1985
Page 8
Mr. Michel asked when the other improvements to the road
might be expected. Mr. Echols responded that there is
currently nothing in the Six -Year Primary Plan for the
County for this section of road (all currently scheduled
improvements are for Rt. 29 North); there is also nothing
scheduled in the City's current Six -Year Plan for this
section. Mr. Michel asked if these improvements were
added to the Plans at this time, could they conceivably
be done within six years. Mr. Echols responded, "It would
depend on where each locality would prefer to have their
push, i.e. would they want to put it ahead of something that
is already scheduled."
Mr. Gould asked how much money was involved for the improvements.
Mr. Echols recalled that the County part of the cost would
be $400,000 to $500,000 and the City's share was a little more.
He pointed out that a lot of that is for right-of-way costs.
He explained that the County currently has 66 feet of right-of-way
and only 4 more additional feet is needed (for a maximum of 70 feet)
plus what might be needed for grading.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Echols to comment on the possibility of
the Highway Department "tying in" with the developers' widening
and grading of the road, i.e. the "brown" area shown on the map.
Mr. Echols indicated it would depend on the County's priorities
in relation to the requirements placed on the developer. He
added that he guessed "in theory it was possible, but
whether or not in reality it would happen," he seemed unsure.
Mr. Horne explained that the primary allocation process is through
a pre -allocation hearing which is done every year and the County
has had the opportunity, at that point, to appear before the
people at the District to tell them what their primary system
priorities are. He stated there will be a hearing this spring
and, should this be approved, and the County fee]sthat this is
a high priority, the staff will then work, through the Commission
and the Board, to present a resolution at the pre -allocation
hearing (with a member of the Board appearing at the hearing)
requesting the project be placed in whatever the priority the
County's feels is most appropriate.
Mr. Echols stated that, traditionally, the County has had several
representatives at most of the meetings; however, the primary
funds are allocated "per district" and the Culpeper District
includes 9 counties with the primary money being divided among
those 9 counties. There is no set percentage that Albemarle
County is allocated in any given year.
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Echols stated the
City's money is handled differently, through the Urban Division
out of Richmond, and their funds come from a different "pot"
of money. He explained the City is compared to other
municipalities and the percentage of funds they get is
based on population.
7_4
December 17, 1985 Page 9
Mr. Michel interpreted this to mean that the coordination of
the "red" and "brown" improvements was unlikely and the
coordination of any improvements with the city was probably
moot.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question regarding the traffic light
at the entrance, Mr. Echols responded that when it had
been determined that this development would double the
traffic count, the developer had been advised that at
some point in the future the traffic light would
probably be necessary.
The Chairman indicated there were no further questions for
Mr. Echols and asked for discussion by the Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the inadequacy of Fontaine Avenue
should not be a high consideration in this issue since
most of the roads in the County have the same problem,
i.e. they are already at or above capacity.
Mr. Skove stated he felt this type of secondary or "spin-off"
growth was inevitable and the question was not whether or
not it is wanted, but where it is wanted. He added there
is no really satisfactory area fcr this type of development,
but having weighed all the issues, he felt this was one of
the least unsatisfactory areas. He said he would be able
to support the proposal if he could be assured that the
road improvements would be done before any businesses were
occupied.
Mr. Cogan repeated his earlier concern that he felt it should
be very clearly stated when the road improvements are to be
completed. He added that since it was going to be necessary
for the road to be graded down to get the necessary sight
distance, he felt the other work would most likely be done
at this same time (early on) since it would be uneconomical
to do otherwise.
In an attempt to clarify Mr. Skove's concerns, Mr. Bowerman
asked if he was referring to those improvements that are to
be made by the developer only, or was he also tying these
in with the County and State improvements (the "brown" area
on the map).
Mr. Skove responded, "Ideally, I think both the improvements that
the County were to make and the developer were to make have
been done, you've probably got about the best y can get
out of it. So, basically, what I am arguing isytoth of those
were tied together and were done then I could support it."
Ms. Diehl stated she is very familiar with the site and the
area and has been for many years. She recalled that she
rr had been opposed to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment because
she felt it was premature and because she felt it was a response
y4
December 17, 1985 Page 10
to the Rt. 29 North problem rather than a careful assessment
of the area which will be impacted by the amendment. Ms.
Diehl indicated she was opposed to the rezoning for the
following reasons:
--It is a very difficult site topographically and will
require much grading, blasting and fill. Retaining
walls will be necessary and the floodplain is involved.
The road will have to be closed while work is being
done. Severe engineering problems are going to be
encountered.
--Both the City and the University are concerned about
the rezoning and tIEk comments should be considered.
--There are already sufficient retail facilities in the
neighborhood.
--Will greatly increase the traffic problems in the
area without any improvement plan to lessen the
impact on the citizens of the area.
--Disagreed that much of the traffic would be coming
from the By-pass.
--Is irresponsible to re -zone such a large tract of land
to such an increased volume of traffic without a
comprehensive road plan for the area.
Mr. Gould stated he supported all of Ms. Diehl's statements,
and added that he, too, had been opposed to the Comp Plan
amendment from the first hearing and all that he has
heard has strengthened that opposition. He felt the County
should not be an agent to compounding a lot of problems.
He stated, "This is a disaster that doesn't have to happen,
and I am opposed to it."
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was in favor of the proposal since
he felt it would alleviate some of the traffic since people
would have to drive shorter distances to services. He agreed
with Mr. Skove that the development is inevitable and this
proposal is the "lesser of evils."
Ms. Diehl stated she felt this was a totally negative way to
approach the issue. She felt it should not be compared to
other problems that exist, but rather should be looked at
in totality to what is being put in that area.
Mr. Gould pointed out that he constituancies which make
up the area, the County, the City and the University, two
are in opposition to the proposal and that should be taken
into consideration.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he,too,had a lot of concerns about
the development; however, he felt the PDSC would give the
County more control and a better opportunity to address
the concerns. He felt the proximity to the 250 By-pass and
I64 was a great benefit along with the existence of
utilities. He did not feel the concern about increased
traffic during University sports events was a valid argument
since the same is true of all roads in the area which lead
to the stadium or the arena.
7q
December 17, 1985 Page 11
Mr. Bowerman stated that though he, like everyone else, would
not like to see the community changed in any way, that was
not realistic and it must be recognized that growth is going
to occur. The County is not proposing the location for
the development, but has the opportunity to deal with such
development as it is proposed by developers. He added that
he felt the County has enough controls over the development
of the site and he felt enough improvements to Fontaine Avenue
have been proposed to take care of most of the traffic problems
which may occur. He agreed with Mr. Skove that a large
percentage of the traffic would be coming from the By -Pass.
Mr. Bowerman stated, "It would not take a whole lot to push
me over the other way, but, on balance, I'm leaning toward
it as overall of benefit to the County and the community
rather than a detriment."
Mr. Bowerman stated a main concern was the road improvements
since if it required County, State and developer involvement
"it's dead."
Mr. Skove again stated he felt all improvements should be
made "before someone opens for business," (i.e. the whole
stretch out from the city line to the by-pass).
Ms. Diehl stated,"qhe tenuousness of what I hear makes it sound
like a house of cards as far as the improvements and the
sequencing of them, with three entities working together."
Mr. Michel stated this was his concern also. He recalled
that he had been opposed before because he did not like the
scale and he still felt the scale was too large. He also
was concerned that a federation of City neighborhood associa-
tions had made a statement opposing the development at the
City Council meeting and he felt this was very unusual.
on the other hand, he stated PDSC zoning would allow the
County to address a substantial portion of the road
improvements to Fontaine Avenue. He indicated he could
support the rezoning if the road improvements could be
coordinated and completed "up front." He emphasized,
however, if the road improvements could not be coordinated,
then he did not think the time was right for the development.
Mr. Michel added that he did not think this development
would alleviate traffic problems in any other part of
the County since people would come off the by-pass, do
their shopping and then continue on into town.
Mr. Cogan stated he did not feel it would be a problem
for all the improvements to have been made before the
development reaches its maturity since it is not going to
be built overnight.
Mr. Wilkerson compared the development to the Riverbend
s%wl shopping area on Pantops Mountain and indicated he felt the
services provided by the shopping center outweighed the
traffic problems that exist.
76
December 17, 1985 Page 12
Ms. Diehl pointed out, however, that when Riverbend was approved
improvements to the bridge were already scheduled (though these
improvements have not yet been done). She stated these
improvements are still in the plan and will be far ahead of
any improvements to Fontaine Avenue.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that, in this case, there is a
major contributor to the improvements, and the County is "getting
a free ride" for a large portion of the improvements.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he felt this would be a tax advantage
to county citizens. Ms. Diehl stated, however, that there is
no such thing as a "free ride."
Mr. Michel indicated he was concerned that improvements would
be done in "sections" and this would add to the existing
problems.
Mr. Skove stated he felt it was possible to coordinate the
County's and developer's contribution though it would not
be possible to coordinate with the City. He again stated
he felt, if possible, it should be required that the stretch
from the City line to the by-pass be built.
Mr. Michel indicated he would vote in the favor of the
proposal if that could be assured, i.e. that all improvements
shown in "brown" and "red" on the drawing will be done.
Ms. Diehl stated she still did not understand how this
could be made a condition to the rezoning.
Mr. Bowerman asked Dr. Hurt if he had given any consideration
to making improvements that go beyond his agreement with the
County, "as a chip (he) might have to give up."
Dr. Hurt responded, "No. I think I gave up a lot of chips
already. This is a tremendous contribution to the road
system." He also stated that he did not envision that the
road would ever be closed, as suggested by Ms. Diehl. He
felt the road could be widened without interrupting the traffic
flow. Dr. Hurt added that he felt, since the road is already
at capacity, the City and County are going to have to make
improvements in the near future in any case.
Ms. Diehl stated she was concerned because there are so many
other important projects scheduled in the planning, such as
Free Bridge, that will take priority over this.
Dr. Hurt pointed out, however, that it is very infrequent
that a developer agrees to do a large portion of the improve-
ments.
11
December 17, 1985
Page 13
Mr. Bowerman recalled that with the Fashion Square Mall
�wr development all the developer had done was improvements
along the frontage of the Mall, not all along Rt. 29.
Mr. Skove pointed out that the traffic on Rio Road and
Rt. 29N is better now than it was before that development.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board of Supervisors makes the decisions
on the allocation of the primary funds. Mr. Horne responded, "They
make the decision as to whether to petition the Highway Department
to change their priorities, but they do not control it like they
do secondary funds." Mr. Horne continued and stated that
if the Commission would like to frame a motion to the Board
it might wish to make a very explicit motion to the effect that attached
to this is the recommendation that the Board appear at the
pre -allocation hearing and attempt to expedite the State's
construction of these additional sections. He explained
that that is the procedure to be followed and there is no
underlying mechanism, i.e. each county lobbies for their
improvements. It was determined that a pre -allocation hearing
will be held in the spring and decisions are then made known
by July 1.
Mr. Skove asked if there were any way to word staff's
recommendations which would assure that the improvements
were done before actual construction on the project is started.
It was determined that Mr. Skove was referring to both the
"red" and "brown" improvements shown on the drawing.
Mr. Payne responded, "It depends on how you want to look at it.
If you want to leave this 'brown/red' dichotomy, because as
Mr. Horne has told you, the control over the funds to build
the 'brown' improvements lies with the Highway Department
subject to the County's influence, i.e. the Board of Supervisor's
influence. I think Mr. Horne is correct, if you want to bring
to bear maximum effort to influence that allocation process,
that is exactly what you should do. You should memoralize
the Board to bring that to the Highway Department's attention.
If you want to put an absolute limit on the idea that the
developer is going to do the whole thing, the 'red' and the
'brown', then you are eliminating that dichotomy and you are
saying that the developer will see that it gets done, and if
he can influence the Highway Department to do the 'brown',
that's fine; if he can't, then he's got to do it. So, in my
view, you are either saying, we are going to do the best we
can to influence the allocation with respect to the so-called
'brown' portions, and require the 'red' portions. I think
you can require that at practically any phase of the develop-
ment that you want to, within reason. Or, you can say that
we'd approve this if the developer committed to having the
entire thing built at the time of whatever stage you might
say, e.g. building permits, or CO's, or whatever."
err
7y
December 17, 1985
Page 14
Mr. Cogan asked if there weren't certain restrictions to
what the developer could do even if he wishes. Mr. Payne
responded, "No, the developer can do anything he wants."
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the staff report suggested
otherwise.
Mr. Payne responded, "The point of this is that Mr. Keeler
is telling you that the staff's recommendation is that
if the developer makes certain committments that he has
outlined in his report, he recommends that you recommend it
to the Board. If the developer won't make those committments,
then I presume he wouldn't recommend that you recommend it to
the Board."
The Chairman directed a question to Mr. Carr, the actual
developer of the shopping center, and asked him what his
plans were for the actual "buildout" of the development,
i.e. what "mix" did he envision over what period of time.
Mr. Carr indicated this was a difficult question to answer.
He explained there are four parts to the development: (1) a
hotel; (2) a shopping center; (3) an office complex; and (4)
a residential area. He stated the ideal plan would be
for he himself to develop the shopping center site, sell the
hotel site, either develop or sell the office complex site,
and wait 3-5 years before starting to build any residences.
He continued that it would be at least 3 years before "a
brick could go in the ground" to build the hotel, and more
likely 5 years. He stated the first to be built would probably
be an office building, "in that space to the left," and
probably 20% of it would be in use 2 years after the matter
is approved by the Board. He indicated that if 30% could
be completed and in use after 3 years, that would be a good
start. Mr. Carr added that if nothing should be built
within the first three years except a 40,000 square foot
office building, it might be difficult to spend the money
that would be required to improve the entire road at
that time. He indicated he felt it would be difficult
to make all the improvements at the beginning, particularly
when it may not be necessary. He indicated that "complete
utilization" of the site would be at least a 10-year project.
Mr. Bowerman stated that, in order to address these concerns,
phased site plans were needed which would indicate the
road improvements required for each phase.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the Highway Department has stated
that the only place where the site has adequate sight distance
is at the center of the property, but the developer's plan
shows no entrance at the center, and shows entrances at each
end of the property. He stated such proposed entrances would
necessitate the grading of the existing highway. Therefore,
he asked Mr. Carr if he would do the necessary grading to
obtain adequate sight distance without going ahead and making
the necessary improvements that are shown in "red."
December 17, 1985 Page 15
Mr. Carr responded, "I think you are right on that, but I'll
defer to Dr. Hurt (for an answer)." He added that "if you
were going to pull that road down, you would have to do all
the work, it would only be logical and economical (to do so)."
Dr. Hurt indicated he agreed.
Dr. Hurt added, "You need the sight distance and you need to
change the other road, and I would say all the work in "red"
would be done with the first building."
Mr. Horne emphasized this was a very important point, since
just to get required sight distance, the County feels it can
require these things.
Mr. Skove indicated he understood this from an engineering
point of view, but he was concerned about the fact that the
Commission spends a lot of time discussing roads that seem
to get started one way, then get changed around and never get
built the way they were supposed to have been. He said his
attitude has become "build them all the way they are supposed
to be before you do anything else."
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne to explain the following, which he
quoted from page 5 of the staff report.
"The Code of Virginia limits the nature and extent of
roadway improvements which a developer may offer."
Mr. Payne indicated it was difficult to explain the meaning
since the case law has not been fully developed. He added
that it depends on what time is being considered. He
continued, "Every case that the Supreme Court has ever dealt
with on this issue, they reserved the proposition that if
the developer agrees to this, affirmatively agrees to it,
then he is stuck with it, and frankly, (though) I don't recall
the style of the case now, I recall a recent case where that
is exactly what happened. The developer did agree to it
and then he decided it wasn't areal good idea and they stuck
him with it anyway. What I think that staff is getting at
is that there is some limitation on what can be proffered.
The proffered zoning statute eliminates certain things in
terms of an enforceable proffer. We're not really under
that. I think the other thing is, in terms of the Hylton
case, in the absence of express agreement by the developer
the improvements that you can require are, in my opinion,
(those) which are reasonably related to the entrance into
the property. That's what Mr. Keeler was getting at with
his 'solid red' his 'cross -hatched red', etc. I think, in
this case, what you're really dealing with is that if you
say, 'All right, developer, you haven't agreed to anything,
what can we make you do; what's the limit of what we can
make you do to make this place safe and convenient?' I
think that Mr. Keeler is saying that it is definitely at
least the 'red' and probably the 'red' and the 'cross-
hatching', but probably notincluding the 'brown'."
December 17, 1985 Page 16
Mr. Keeler confirmed this was correct.
Mr. Bowerman stated, "What it comes down to, going with the
staff's recommendation in terms of the roadway improvements
that the applicant has agreed to make, the understanding
being that those road improvements would all be made at
one time with a note to the Board of Supervisors, in some
fashion, saying that because of the money that the developer
is willing to spend on the improvements to this road system,
(maybe 70% would be handled by this development) the other
30% should come from primary funds and that requests should
be made to get those as soon as possible to finish the road.
I'm (not sure) of the wording, but this would be the substance,
so that the whole road could be improved as fast as possible.
I think Dr. Hurt's point is well taken that he is agreeing
to do a lot of things beyond what he might be required to do
except that in order to get sight distance and some other
things, he would also have to be required to do quite a bit
in any event."
Mr. Skove asked if a motion to approve this rezoning would
"include the areas in red, shaded and otherwise,"
Mr. Payne responded, "I think that is staff's recommendation
to you, that you recommend this to the Board of Supervisors
subject to agreement being finalized between the developer
and the County prior to the Board's action." Mr. Payne
confirmed that this was to be submitted, in writing, by the
applicant by January 2, 1986.
Mr. Horne stated, "In terms of our understanding as to what
the applicant has agreed to verbally, it would be the 'red
and the cross -hatched' also, not the 'brown'."
Mr. Gould stated, "Unless we know what the priorities are
in the Primary Plan now, I see no reason to memoralize the
Board because we have already got some very important
priorities that are going to take all the money, (and these
are) to improve things that already in place, not something
that is not in place."
Ms. Diehl stated she felt "it was pie in the sky to think
that we are going to be able to get improvements in there
even with the timeframe the developers are talking about
and County -assisted development."
Mr. Michel shared that concern, but Mr. Bowerman stated he
felt we would be a decade ahead of whenever it is going to
be done by getting 70% of it done now.
Ms. Diehl reminded the Commission that improvements will
be made only to the road in front of the actual development
and do not include any of the other roads that are going
to be greatly impacted by the development. She stated it
does not include the road to the west, nor any of the neighbor-
hood feeder streets.
91
December 17, 1985
Page 17
Ms. Diehl also referred to a statement made in a letter from
11�r the Highway Department (August, 1985) which said that "additional
analyses should be made of the impact of the development on
the levels of service at the Fontaine Avenue/Rt. 29 By -Pass
Interchange and the interchange of Fontaine Avenue with Jefferson
Park Avenue and Maury Avenue." She asked if those analyses
had ever been done.
M
09
Mr. Keeler replied "No." He added that he thought that
recommendation had been made when the Comprehensive Plan was
being reviewed.
Regarding the "brown" sections shown on the drawing, Mr.
Keeler explained, "Once you get on the other side of this
exit ramp, it is basically a four -lane facility." He
continued, "This segment of road probably ought not get
built until the City's project goes forward. The Planning
Staff does not favor acceleration lanes and this would be
just a 200-foot strip of lane that would end fairly
abruptly. So, this portion of the improvement should go
with whatever the City's schedule is. I showed it on
here as being what was necessary to complete the improvements
from the City limits to the by-pass ramp." Mr. Keeler
confirmed that this section was "brown" on the drawing.
He added that what was shown in brown was a total of 600
feet in length. Mr. Keeler pointed out the City line on
the drawing and stated that part of the road (the beginning
of the taper) would actually be in the City.
Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-85-1 for Fontaine Forest be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to staff's
recommendations, amended as follows:
(1) Agreement by the applicant to proceed with the
project in accordance with the concept of the
Application Plan to be guided by comments provided
in this report. The County recognizes that final
plans may vary from the Application Plan;
(Note: This condition was further amended later
in the meeting.)
(2) Agreement by the applicant to proceed with road
improvements as outlined in this report. Such
road improvements to be completed prior to any
occupancy permit. Such agreement would include
provision that the County would proceed as outlined
in this report.
It was determined
would have to be
occupancy permit,
had first stated.
that road improvements referred to in No. 2
completed prior to the issuance of any
rather than building permit as Mr. Skove
«il
December 17, 1985 Page 18
Mr. Gould also suggested the following change for
recommendation No. 1. The second sentence to be
replaced with the following:
The County recognizes that physical layout of the
Final Plan may vary from the Application Plan, but that
critical functions such as access, circulation, sewers,
must remain consistent with the Application Plan and that
the Final Plan must reflect the spirit and concept
of the Approved Plan as required by Section 8.5.6.3.
Mr. Skove accepted this change to his original motion.
Mr. Cogan asked if this motion, as amended, indicated that
staff would oversee how the road construction would proceed.
Mr. Skove responded, "Yes."
Mr. Cogan seconded the amended motion, i.e. that ZMA 85-1
for Fontaine Forest be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval subject to staff's amended recommendations as
follows:
1. Agreement by the applicant to proceed with the project
in accordance with the concept of the Application Plan
to be guided by comments provided in this report.
The County recognizes that physical layout of the
Final Plan may vary from the Application Plan, but
that critical functions such as access, circulation,
sewers, must remain consistent with the Application
Plan and that the Final Plan must reflect the spirit
and concept of the Approved Plan as required by Section
8.5.6.3.
2. Agreement by the applicant to proceed with road
improvements as outlined in this report. Such road
improvements to be completed prior to any occupancy
permit. Such agreement would include provision that
the County would proceed as outlined in this report.
Mr. Michel stated he would still like to see included in the
motion some language which would ask that the Board consider
this a top priority. He felt the Board should be "put on notice"
that if the County is going to allow this development to proceed,
then serious attempts should be made to "juggle" those road funds.
He also felt the same recommendation should be made to the
City.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that should be part of the motion.
Mr. Payne responded, "I don't think it's going to be part of
the action in terms of something that is binding on the
applicant. Probably the best way to do it would be to either
state it as three separate motions, or three parts of the
same action. I think it would be clearer if you stated it
21
December 17, 1985 Page 19
separately, i.e. Mr. Skove's motion as finally amended and
seconded , then with a companion resolution to the Board, and
then, if you think it is appropriate, the same kind of thing
to the City."
Mr. Gould asked Mr. Payne to clarify the last sentence of
recommendation No. 2, (Such agreement would include provision
that the County would proceed as outlined in this report), and
asked to what extent this binds the County.
Mr. Payne responded, "That's true, but I think what Mr. Michel
is saying is that he doesn't want that issue to get lost in
the shuffle. If the rezoning is approved, then it just goes
to the Zoning Administrator, gets approved in due course and
nobody remembers to bring it up in the spring. If I understand
Mr. Michel, he is saying to highlight that as a separate
item."
Mr. Michel stated he would like to highlight it as a condition.
Mr. Payne stated, "It is not really in the nature of a condition
because that is something that is within the County's
control."
Since it was determined that the motion was not to be modified
further, the Chairman called for a vote.
The motion to recommend ZMA 85-1 for approval was passed
(5:2) with Ms. Diehl and Mr. Gould casting the dissenting votes.
Ms. Diehl pointed out that she could not support the motion
because nowhere else in the county is there a shopping center
of this size on roads that are so inadequate and without
any long -rand plans for improvement of these roads. She felt the
County is negating its responsibility to the community and
that immediate area, and also to the University and City.
Mr. Gould indicated he was in total agreement with Ms. Diehl.
It was determined this issue would be heard by the Board
on January 15, 1986.
Mr. Michel moved that the Commission adopt a Resolution to the Board
requesting that the Board of Supervisors make Fontaine Avenue
a top priority during the annual Six -Year Plan review.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Michel moved that the Commission adopt a Resolution to be
sent to the City requesting that they make Fontaine Avenue
a top priority during the annual Six -Year Plan review.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
9f
December 17, 1985
Page 20
It was determined that staff would finalize the wording for
the resolutions and present them to the Commission at the
January 7 meeting.
Mr. Skove asked that the City be made aware that the Commission
was very cognizant of their concerns and these concerns had
been taken into consideration as much as possible.
The meeting recessed at 10:15; reconvened at 10:35.
WORK SESSION
Road Construction Standards for Mobile Home Parks - Ms.
Scala presented the proposed standards. It was also
pointed out that the Commission may wish to include a waiver
clause for road construction standards, though the County
Engineer does not recommend such a clause. The staff
report stated that the current private roads provisions in the
Subdivision Ordinance do not permit a wiaver of the road
construction standards. The staff report also stated
that t1- County Engineer is in the process cf preparing a
design manual which will contain engineering standards not
found in the County ordinances. These mobile home park road
standards will eventually be contained in that document,
but until the design manual is adopted by the Board, staff
suggested that the mobile home parks road standards be included
with the Zoning Ordinance Supplementary Regulations for mobile
home parks.
It was determined that, for rental mobile home parks, 3 or
more units would be considered a park and would be subject
to these standards. Ms. Scala added that a rural cross
section would be allowed, but it would have to be prime
and double sealed. She further defined this as "3 or more
mobile homes on the same property."
Ms. Scala explained that the County Engineer was opposed to
a waiver clause since everyone would then ask for a waiver.
Though Mr. Cogan stated he felt the staff's suggested
language concerning waivers was very good, Ms. Scala confirmed
that the County Engineer was familiar with this language
and still was opposed to it being included. It was therefore
decided that a reference to possible waivers would be
excluded with the understanding that it could be added
at a later time if needed.
It was determined that the Commission agreed with staff's
recommended wording for the road construction standards.
Ms. Scala stated the Commission is scheduled to hold a public
hearing on the amendments on January 28, 1986.
9
December 17, 1985
Page 21
The Chairman announced that this was the last meeting for
Mr. Skove and invited comments from Mr. Tim Lindstrom, a
member of the Board of Supervisors, who was present.
Mr. Lindstrom addressed the Commission and made the following
statement:
Though I have not always agreed, I have always
appreciatadthe thought and effort, and the quality
of the thought and effort that Jim has put into
(the position) and I am very much at a loss for
finding anyone who is adequate to replace him.
I know that you all have had your disgareements,
but I expect that your experience has been the
same as mine, that even when you disagreed the
disagreement has been constructive and helpful. I think that
the contribution to the County and the
planning of the County has been as great as
any that I could hope to make. I have to say
that I am sorry he is leaving, though I appreciate
the need to do something else. Some of us are
more intelligent about that than others, but I
do thank (Jim) for being on the Planning Commission.
Mr. Skove stated it had been a privilege and honor to
sit on this Commission.
Mr. Bowerman read the following resolution:
WHEREAS James R. Skove did serve as a member of the
Albemarle County Planning Commission from December 13,
1978 to December 31, 1985, and WHEREAS he served in
that capacity with honor, integrity and wisdom,
and WHEREAS the Albemarle County Planning Commission
did rely on his judgment and advice on numerous
important matters and wishes to express its deep
appreciation to Mr. Skove for his years of valuable
service to the citizens of Albemarle County, NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Planning Commission does hereby express its
appreciation to James R. Skove for a job well done.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the resolution be adopted. Mr.
Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Skove personally explaining that
Mr. Skove's comments had always served as a "benchmark"
from which to form his own opinion, though he may not
always have agreed. He stated he would be greatly missed.
There being no further business,
the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
DS
94,