Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 22 86 PC MinutesJuly 22, 1986 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 22, 1986, County Office Building, Meeting Room 7, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Cogan. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the July 8, 1986 meeting were approved as submitted. ZMA-86-03 G. Thomas Forloines - Request to rezone 3.71 acres from C-1 Commercial to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 61Z-03, parcel 2 is located on the east side of Rt. 29N approximately 400' north of the intersection with Westfield Road. Charlottesville Magisterial District. A proffer limiting usage of the property has been submitted. Deferred from June 24, 1986. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report explained that staff had originally recommended denial of the rezoning for the following reasons: (1) Existing zoning provides reasonable use of the property; and (2) This site is within the major concentration of C-1, Commercial zoning established along Rt. 29N on the 1980 zoning map. However, the report stated that staff was now recommending approval of the rezoning since it was felt that with the proffer on limitation of usage, and considering other existing uses in the immediate area, the character of the area would not be substantially changed by approval of the petition. The staff report also stated: "Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended modification of access to this site. Staff did not recommend such modification previously due to detrimental on -site effects including loss of parking and circulation problems. Any intensification of usage would require site plan approval at which time access would be addressed." Mr. Bowerman asked if one of staff's original reasons for denial (i.e. Existing zoning provides reasonable use of the property) was no longer of concern to the staff. Mr. Keeler replied, "The applicant is actually reducing the number of uses that would be available to him by this rezoning. Character of the uses is what we were looking at." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Tom Forloines was present but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that "if the usage of the property is intensified and the Zoning Administrator requires a site plan, that's when we feel (the access issue) should be addressed. We agree with the Highway Department that some improvement needs to be made, but the way the site is currently laid out, it would be very difficult /,2 July 22, 1986 Page 2 to retrofit this site to one entrance at this time." Mr. Michel indicated he was concerned about allowing additional uses for the site and he hesitated to approve the petition without requiring the Highway Department's recommendations. Mr. Michel was primarily concerned with access to Rt. 29. Mr. Keeler confirmed that no conditions could be attached to a rezoning. Ms. Diehl indicated she shared Mr. Michel's concerns. Both were concerned about the board range of uses and the fact that the specific use for this property was not known. Ms. Diehl stated there were a number of uses that can be made of the property with its current zoning and, therefore, she could not support the rezoning. Mr. Bowerman indicated he agreed with Ms. Diehl. Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-86-3 for G. Thomas Forloines be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed (5:1) with Mr. Stark casting the dissenting vote. The matter was to be heard by the Board on August 20, 1986. Woodbrook Village North Site Plan - Proposal to locate a two-story retail building of 12,000 square feet gross, 5,000 square feet net, served by 50 parking spaces. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is located on the east side of Rt. 29N and the north side of Woodbrook Drive, adjacent to Woodbrook. This parcel is adjacent to the recently approved Sterectypes Site Plan proposal. Tax Map 45C-2, parcel 1. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She also read comments from a letter received from Mr. Sylvester, a resident of Woodbrook, which listed the following concerns: (1) Will 50 parking spaces be sufficient? (He was concerned about overflow parking on Woodbrook Drive and suggested that this be designated a "No Parking" zone.); (2) Visual screening; (3) Maintaining an appealing entrance to Woodbrook rather than having an asphalt parking lot in place of shrubs and trees; (4) "I would like you to confirm the possible flow of traffic through the site plan from Woodbrook Drive to Rt. 29 at the Stereotypes site. This would relieve the single entrance and exit congestion on Woodbrook Drive. Woodbrook Subdivision has only this one entrance and exit. The exit onto 29 is often backed up past the proposed entrance to the Ron Martin site." Staff recommended approval of the site plan subject to conditions. It was determined the applicant was requesting administrative approval of the subdivision plat. /192 July 22, 1986 Page 3 Ms. Diehl asked for an explanation of staff's condition "No disturbance of 20 foot buffer adjacent to Woodbrook." Ms. Patterson replied, "It may be necessary that they supplement screening. They have not submitted a landscape plan to our satisfaction yet. There is a note on there that says if any trees are removed they will be replanted. They haven't requested that they grade or disturb anything within that buffer. Because they haven't requested it, we haven't addressed it and we're saying until they request to grade in that area, that will not be allowed. They may have to supplement with trees, or plants or whatever's agreeable to adjacent owners." Mr. Bowerman asked, "The whole site plan is before us, but the only improvements at the present time are on parcel A?" Ms. Patterson confirmed this but stated that landscaping may also be involved on the other parcels. Mr. Bowerman asked how the parking would be controlled in relation to subsequent uses in the remainder of the building in view of the fact that the site plan has already been approved. Ms. Patterson explained that that would be controlled through the Zoning Department, i.e. when an occupancy permit is applied for, a zoning clearance will be required. At that time the Zoning Department will check to make sure that parking is adequate for the cumulative uses. It was determined that all 50 spaces that are required for this use are within parcel A lot lines. Mr. Bowerman asked if the second floor of the building was intended only for storage. He pointed out that Mr. Martin's letter had referred to some "walk-in traffic" in that area. Ms. Patterson indicated it was her understanding that the second floor was for storage, but she acknowledged Mr. Bowerman's point concerning Mr. Martin's letter. It was determined the entrance on the Stereotypes site was both an ingress and a egress, thus traffic would have access to the site from both Rt. 29 and Woodbrook Drive. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following. --It is the applicant's goal to develop the property in such a way as to provide good unified access to the property and good utilization of all the sites. --The applicant has submitted to the Planning Department a non -binding proposal as to the possible development of parcels B and C, which are similar to A. --He stated, "I visualize the properties being developed in such a way that each would have access agreements and maintenance agreements over all the parking spaces and all the drive -through areas, so that the aggregate effect would be that if there was a particular high - volume use somewhere on the site, there would be plenty of parking space available at the time all the sites were developed, although +° each individual site would be brought in and site -planned with its own number of parking spaces that are required." . n 4 July 22, 1986 Page 4 --He compared this use as being similar to BEST Products, i.e. where a smaller area is available to the public and a larger area is used for storage and inventory. --It is the applicant's intent to submit a landscape plan for parcel A which will meet all of staff's requirements. He added, "In addition to that we will preserve the 20-foot buffer area, particularly along the rear line with the residential area. At the time parcel C is developed, we would again return with a site plan that shows a detailed landscape plan for that whole parcel." --The conditions of approval, as outlined by staff, are acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Michel pointed out that it appeared that some parking spaces were on parcel B. Ms. Patterson explained that those were four additional spaces, in addition to the 50 that are required. She stated that the 50 that are required are within parcel A's lines. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Dennis Hauser, President of the Woodbrook Neighborhood Association, addressed the Commission. He stressed that Woodbrook has only "one way in and one way out". He indicated he felt allowing this property access to Woodbrook Drive would make existing traffic problems worse. He was also concerned about the buffer area and the possibility of removing 15-20 year old dogwoods and replacing them with 12-18" pines. Mr. Hauser also questioned the accurancy of the statement that deliveries from suppliers would be made via pick-up trucks as indicated by Mr. Martin's letter. He agreed that deliveries to customers would be made with pick-up trucks, but felt that tractor -trailers would be delivering merchandise to the business. Mr. Bob Cook, President of the Woodbrook PTO, addressed the Commission. He indicated he feared this would be the beginning of a trend whereby all the entrances to subdivisions along Rt. 29 would, in essence, become parking lots. Additional concerns included the following: (1) What type of signs will be permitted on the property? (2) What type of lighting will be permitted and how will it be controlled? (3) Will landscaping and buffering be adequate visual protection for the subdivision? (4) Is this some type of "blanket" approval which will allow lot C to develop with parking and buildings adjacent to homeowners' lots? (5) How will this effect the drainage around the subdivision? Mr. Bob Sylvester, a Woodbrook resident adjacent to lot C, addressed the Commission. He was concerned about the buffer area and suggested that the retaining wall that exists on the Stereotypes lot be carried out further. He also suggested that since this is the only entrance and exit for Woodbrook, it might improve the situation somewhat if parking was prohibited from along the street. Mr. Greg Hemans, representing the Stereotypes Retail Center, addressed the Commission. He was primarily concerned with the parking for the property and what might happen in the future if the use should intensify. He also feared that if lots B and C were developed at the same intensity, C A ,-I July 22, 1986 Page 5 this would result in an "unfair burden for parking" being placed on his property. He also questioned whether the business would actually be using only pick-up trucks for movement of merchandise. He pointed out that if tractor -trailers were ever unloaded on the site, it would make the traffic area quite congested. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Hemans stated he has no agreement with the adjacent property to share parking area. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Osborne was allowed to respond to some of the concerns that had been raised by the public. He explained that after many discussions and meetings with staff, it had been decided that the access shown was the best possible choice, and that a straight -forward access drive through the property is a good safety feature. Regarding the buffer, he stated it was preferable to wait until parcel C is developed since very little grading will take place on parcel C at this time. He added, "But I am sure the applicant would be happy to provide possibly an 8-foot high opaque fence if that was more agreeable to the adjacent property owners... in lieu of the vegetative buffer. I am sure he could use the space a lot better if the fence was up there rather than staying out of a 20-foot easement for the vegetation." Regarding the retaining wall, he stated, "I don't have any specific knowledge on the design of the Stereotypes site, but it appears to me that the requirement for the retaining wall was due to the grade at 29 access point. On our property, because the grades are rising, a requirement for a retaining wall is not necessary, and we don't anticipate any retaining walls on any of the parcels that are on our site." Regarding drainage, he indicated he was unfamiliar with any plans for any kind of channelization. Mr. Stark asked if, at the time the Stereotypes site was approved, there was any discussion of an access onto Woodbrook Drive. Ms. Patterson replied, "We required that they plat access to this parcel that we're reviewing tonight." She confirmed that this was in accordance with what is shown on this plan. She said, "You can see that they match up. We'll be sure they work before we sign any plat creating an easement." Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the access shown was probably the best that can be obtained. He felt that using Woodbrook Drive, where a traffic signal exists is a good feature and he felt there was adequate "stacking" on Woodbrook. He added that the suggestion for "No Parking" along Woodbrook was a very good point. Mr. Keeler pointed out that staff is aware that Woodbrook has only access and that school buses must use that access, and Rt. 29, to transport students from other subdivisions (Carrsbrook, Northfields, Raintree, Fieldbrook). He pointed out (on the map) a location where a road in Carrsbrook could be connected with a road in Woodbrook thus eliminating the need for the school buses to travel on Rt. 29. He felt it was important that the Commission be aware of that situation. He stated that each time staff has suggested that these two roads be connected, it has been opposed. /nl July 22, 1986 Page 6 Ms. Diehl again expressed some confusion about the parking. Ms. Patterson responded, "I was just going to say I got it opposite. I'm sorry." Regarding the possibility of parking spilling over onto other lots, Mr. Keeler stated that it was not uncommon in commercial areas for the owner of the property to post signs restricting the parking to his use only. He added, "I do think that you've got a large building here that has 50 parking spaces and we had a condition that the future use of the building would be limited by the availability of the parking and we put that on there to further deter the BZA from granting variances to let more intensive uses in there to where they just don't have adequate parking. That is a condition that is recommended to you." Ms. Diehl questioned the accurancy of calling the entire second floor storage area particularly in light of the description given in the applicant's letter. Ms. Patterson stated she understood Ms. Diehl's concern and the Zoning Administrator is aware of the concern and has stated he will review the situation. Ms. Diehl asked if this was within site coverage regulations. Mr. Keeler replied that there are no site coverage regulations for commercial districts. Mr. Keeler suggested that the Commission might wish to add a condition stating that the second floor will be used for storage only. There was some discussion about parking requirements based on floor area and comparison of this operation to an "over-the-counter" sales operation. It was determined an over-the-counter use has the strictest parking requirements (1 space/ 50 square feet open to the public). Mr. Keeler pointed out that the current use will be for the sale of major appliances. Mr. Bowerman stated that "carry -out" items would be stored on the second floor (T.V.'s, VCR's, etc.). Mr. Wilkerson pointed out that the foremat presented by the applicant is the same that is currently being used in his other stores. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the applicant was restricting himself. He stated, "He's putting down 5,000 square feet and he's got to have 50 parking spaces for that plus three other uses within the building that he may have. He just has to be aware that if his requirement is for thirty spaces, they other three uses can only generate 20 parking spaces and the Zoning Administrator is going to enforce that." Mr. Bowerman asked for comment from Mr. Osborne, the applicant's representative. Mr. Osborne stated it was his understanding that only a small area would be open to the public and the large majority would be the storage area. He added, "We went over the number of parking spaces and we are aware of the limitations that apply to the building. It is with that full knowledge that (the site plan) is here." July 22, 1986 Page 7 Ms. Patterson suggested the following condition: "The second floor shall only be used for storage and shall not be open to the public." Mr. Bowerman agreed this would be desirable. Regarding deliveries by tractor trailers, Mr. Osborne stated, "Currently I don't think a tractor trailer could negotiate what we have proposed. On our master plan, with the development of parcels B & C, there are more parking areas and drive -through aisles and a complete circuit could be made around the building. As I understand the operation, the ware- housing of the large items is going to stay in a city warehouse at this time so only smaller vans will be necessary." Mr. Bowerman indicated he still felt it would be necessary to use large vehicles when stocking the second floor, particularly for special sales, etc. Mr. Osborne replied, "I am on record with my clients requesting that they have those sort of things available and they directed me specifically to go after what we have proposed tonight." Mr. Bowerman indicated that an additional condition addressing this issue might be necessary. However, he stated he did not know how such a condition could be enforced, even though the intent was clear. Mr. Horne stated, "If it is your intent that there not be semi -trucks on the site, then I think that condition is appropriate. But if it is your intent that you don't really mind if they're there but they need adequate turning movements and loading spaces, I think a more appropriate condition would be an amendment to the plan to provide for that. It is going to be very difficult to enforce vehicular control on this site." In response to Mr. Bowerman's question regarding the buffer, Ms. Patterson confirmed that it is staff's intent that the 20 feet of buffer be completed with the development of this parcel. However, Mr. Bowerman had understood Mr. Osborne to say the applicant would like to put up a fence temporarily because grading might be necessary with the development of parcel C. Mr. Keeler had understood Mr. Osborne to offer to put the fence in lieu of the 20 foot buffer area. Mr. Osborne stated, "During the construction of the access road in Parcel A, we don't foresee any construction activity on Parcel C. There is a sanitary sewer that runs across the property but it shouldn't effect the 20-foot existing vegetative area that is out there now. We don't have any intention of touching that. I was offering if it was more reasonable for the adjacent residential uses to have a fence there in lieu of the 20-foot vegetative buffer, that would help out the development of parcel C in the future. I think there is plenty of vegetation on parcel C in the 20-foot buffer as it is now." Ms. Patterson stated there is a distinct gap beside the existing white pines which needs to be filled. Mr. Bowerman asked if a fence or vegetative screening was preferable. Ms. Patterson indicated it was difficult to determine until a use is determined for parcel C. She stated that with the development of this site, staff was considering requiring some additional white pines. 127 July 22, 1986 Page 8 Mr. Stark asked about the possibility of extending the retaining wall that is behind the Stereotypes site. Ms. Patterson stated she did not think this would serve the same purpose as a fence. It was determined the Ordinance requires a 20-foot vegetative screen or opaque fence. Mr. Bowerman felt the Commission should stick with the 20-feet as stated in the Ordinance. Ms. Diehl stated that while she understood the public concern about the plan, this site has been studied previously and it has been determined that this traffic flow pattern is best. She stated she was still concerned about the parking and was in favor of adding a condition limiting the use of the second floor to storage only. She was also concerned as to how tractor trailers would be able to maneuver the site. Mr. Keeler explained that staff would require that "they drive down that side of the building on parcel B." It was determined condition l.i. would be added as follows: No public access to second floor for retail sales purposes. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Woodbrook Village North Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations; b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations; C. Issuance of an erosion control permit: d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance on Woodbrook and drainage plans; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; f. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; no disturbance of 20-foot buffer adjacent to Woodbrook; g. Fire officer approval; h. Recordation of a plat which provides vehicular access to and from adjacent parcel 93B of Tax Map 45; i. No public access to second floor for retail sales purposes. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire officer final approval. 3. Future occupants will be limited by available parking. 4. No direct access to Route 29 for any proposed lots. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. tin July 22, 1986 Page 9 Mr. Gould indicated he could not support the motion because the uses for parcels B and C are unknown and because of stacking problems and the dangerous traffic situation. He confirmed he would prefer to see a cohesive site plan for all three parcels presented at the same time. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department, to explain the procedure for posting "No Parking" signs along the road. Mr. Echols responded that the signs could be placed if a request was received from the County, but they would need some guarantee from the Police Department that the signs would be enforced. Mr. Keeler suggested a "wait -and -see" approach and if parking along the road becomes a problem, then the County can take action. The motion for approval of the site plan passed (4:2) with Messrs. Stark and Gould casting the dissenting votes. Ms. Patterson asked the Commission to vote on the applicant's request for administrative approval of the subdivision plat. It was determined the Commission wanted to see a site plan for parcels B and C, but it was a consensus that they need not review the subdivision plat creating the three parcels. Mr. Wilkerson moved that staff be granted administrative approval of the final plat for Woodbrook Village North project. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The meeting recessed from 9:00 to 9:15. Willoughby Section 5 Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 97 lots in 3 phases, with an average lot size of 8,500 square feet. These lots are to be served by an extension of Harris Road, and proposed state roads Royer Drive, Olton Place and Landin Circle. Total area of Section 5 is 53.5 acres. There is ±19 acres in lots, ±30.7 acres of open space, and ±13.8 acres in roads. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development of 1.9 dwelling units per acres with ZMA-84-27. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report indicated that parking was an important issue in this review. The report stated: "The applicant requests that 20 lots on the cul-de-sacs be permitted to utilize end -to -end parking. The applicant cites the decreased lot width on cul-de-sacs as making compliance with that recommendation impractical. Mr. Echols of the Highway Department commented that it is important to avoid on -street parking which reduces the function of the cul-de-sac as a turn -around. If cars angle -in rather than parallel park, it may be difficult for larger service and emergency vehicles to turn around without backing." Attempting to clarify the Highway Department's preference, Mr. Bowerman asked, "The Highway Department is saying they either want to have side - by -side parking so that if there are two cars to a house they are not behind one another which means one will be in the street; or to increase the radius of the cul-de-sac from 45 feet to 50 feet and then if they head in there is still enough turning radius for trucks to turn around?" /?9 July 22, 1986 Page 10 Mr. Echols stated this was a concern of the Highway Department and the minimum radius for a cul-de-sac is 45 feet, which does not allow for parking. He indicated if the cul-de-sac is to function as it was meant to function, something will have to be done about the parking. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Highway Department would accept the road, with a 45-foot radius, if there wasn't side -by -side parking. Mr. Echols responded, "Probably." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Michael West, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He questioned whether increasing the size of the cul-de-sac would solve the parking problem since it will not change the habits of the people. Mr. Bryan Smith, the applicant's engineer, addressed the Commission. He offered no additional comment but stated he was available to answer questions. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Stark's question, it was determined the driveways were "double car deep and double car wide." Regarding the driveway issue, Ms. Patterson stated "We would like to offer a compromise which is a 'wait -and -see' attitude. We will wait to see what happens in the previous section, Section 4, which was approved with end -to -end parking. (We could wait to see) if we have that problem with the reduction of the function of the cul-de-sac." Mr. Keeler added, "Fielding Court is under construction right now. The lots on Fielding Court are about the same size as the lots on these cul-de-sacs. If once that's occupied there doesn't appear to be any problem then we wouldn't impose the larger cul-de-sac or the side -by -side parking. But if there is, then the developer would have to meet one of those two requirements." Mr. Bowerman stated the Commission was addressing the issue because staff had brought it up. He added that the original condition of ZMA-84-27 was kind of loose because it contained the word "should." (Driveway entrance locations for each lot will be reviewed with the final road plans. Off-street parking should provide side -by -side as opposed to end -to -end parking spaces to discourage on -street parking.) He stated if it becomes a problem there may be other ways to deal with it such as lining the streets in a parallel fashion which should encourage people to park "with the long part of the car towards the curb rather than nosing it in." Ms. Diehl asked about the grading in the previous section and whether or not there was grading over and above the conditions that were established before. Mr. Keeler stated it was his recollection that there was and the developer was just as concerned as staff when it was discovered because "these were large nice trees which he intended to save." , !7 ^ July 22, 1986 Page 11 Pq Mr. Michel moved that the Willoughby Section 5 Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions with the cul-de-sac parking problem to be reviewed at a later time if a problem arises: 1. The final plat for any phase will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and computations; b. County Engineer approval of lot grading; c. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations where applicable; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and computations; e. Issuance of an erosion control permit; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; g. Fire Officer final approval; h. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation final approval of work done to upgrade Harris Road; i. County Attorney approval of Homeowner's documents. 2. The maintenance of sidewalks and appurtenant structures in highway right-of-way shall be resolved, or the sidewalks deleted from road plans. 3. The recreation area shall be installed or bonded with the second chronological phase. 4. The final survey for each successive phase shall be submitted within one year of the date of approval of the previous phase. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Mr. Michel confirmed that his motion included administrative approval of the final plat. Mr. Wilkerson acknowledged this addition to the motion. Mr. Horne stated, "What you have done isgranted us the option of staff approval of the final plat. If at the time the final plat for Phase II comes before us we see a problem in Phase IV, we would bring that final plat to you for resolution of that issue. You have just given us the option of staff approval of the final plat." Mr. Bowerman pointed out that this was a difficult site to work with in relation to grading, drainage, etc. In response to his concerns, Mr. Pack, of the County Engineer's Office, stated that someone visits the sites periodically and if a problem should arise the applicant should contact his office and the matter is "worked out in the field." The motion for approval of the Willoughby Section 5 Preliminary Plat passed unanimously. "d I July 22, 1986 Page 12 Colonial of Charlottesville Site Plan - Proposal to locate an auto dealership and service facility with 44,772 square feet of buildings. The site will be served by 643 parking spaces. The total area of the site is 10 acres. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is located on the west side of Rt. 29, just north of the Rio Road intersection with Rt. 29. Tax Map 45, parcel 94. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. A primary issue in this review was access to the site. The report stated: "Access to the site will be from a private cul-de-sac road served from Rt. 29. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has noted concern with possible U-turns occurring on Rt. 29 in order to access this site. This road is shown in an alignment generally appropriate for a future connection to the proposed parallel road (from Rio to Hilton Heights Road). The provision of this connection would eliminate the need for U-turns on Rt. 29. Staff will work toward refining the alignment of this road with future development of the properties involved." Mr. Bowerman asked if connection to the proposed roadway (if approved), would be required. Mr. Benish responded, "Strongly recommended as this phase develops. It depends on the nature of this when we get to the point where the other properties are being developed. It would be required, yes." If the proposed parallel road is not constructed, it was determined traffic would have to make U-turns at the Woodbrook crossover. (Though this would not currently be possible, Mr. Benish explained that with planned improvements at the Woodbrook crossover, it will be possible at some time in the future.) In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Benish confirmed that if the parallel roadway is approved, this site would have access to that roadway as well as to Rt. 29. Mr. Bowerman indicated he still did not understand whether or not connection to the parallel roadway would be required. Mr. Horne stated that this site plan could not have a condition placed on it requiring it to connect to a roadway that might exist at sometime in the future. He added, "There is a possibility that the other parcel of this property, the one to the north of the cul-de-sac road, when and if that appears before us, we would either require, or attempt to, as we do in most cases, work with the developer to convince the developer that it is in his best interests to take access that way. So, no, on this site the condition would not be placed, but on the adjacent parcel it may be placed." Mr. Keeler pointed out that earlier plans for this site had shown developers trying to get access out to Rio Road. He stated, "So we think that the applicant has recognized that for traffic circulation for this property, connection to that connector road would be very important to him." 4 . - I July 22, 1986 Page 13 Mr. Gould asked Mr. Horne if the County could not require that the parcel to the north would have to connect to the connector road. Mr. Horne responded, "I think that would have to be determined at the time that comes in, looking at the use on that parcel. I cannot unequivocally say to you that the parcel to the north, 'We can require that.' We would have to look at what access is necessary for the use proposed on that parcel." Mr. Gould asked what would be different in that case than in this case. Mr. Horne was unsure as to Mr. Gould's meaning, but responded, "The use could potentially be different, the traffic generation level and the need for access could be different to the extent that we felt we could require the second way out. What the staff is trying to get across, independent of whether we need to require that, we feel the parcel to the north, and potentially this parcel in the long run, will see that it is to their best interests to go ahead and do that, for their own purposes,because access is so awkward for this parcel. The question of requiring, we cannot address that now, we would have to see what the use is." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Carter Myers, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated it was his intention to be a good corporate neighbor and an asset to the community. He indicated the business would generate $170,000 of tax revenue, independent of income and sales titling taxes. It was his hope that the business would draw people from other areas. He felt that the business would not generate a great deal of traffic, less than 200 vehicles/day. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Myers indicated he did not feel it would be a problem for car carriers to negotiate U-turns. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Myers indicated he did not feel his customers would have any problem getting to the site, even without the proposed parallel road. He stated, however, that he would very much like to connect to the road should it become a reality. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question about the stormwater detention basin, Mr. Benish indicated the County Engineer's Office foresees no problems. Mr. Pack, representing the County Engineer's Office, explained they would be sharing stormwater detention with an adjacent property owner. He confirmed there were no problems with the plans. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Colonial of Charlottesville Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions, including administrative approval of the final plat provided the prcposed parallel road has been approved at that time, i.e. if the proposed parallel road has not been approved, the Commission will review the final plat. (NOTE: This motion was amended later in the meeting.) 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are met: ' a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and com- putations; July 22, 1986 Page 14 b. County Engineer approval of fencing and guardrail locations; C. County Engineer approval of private road to be constructed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private street commercial entrance; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; g. Staff approval of a landscape plan. 2. Administrative approval of subdivision plat for the property. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Knights Inn Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 116 room hotel to be served by 128 parking spaces. The total area of the site is 3.749 acres. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Property is located between Rt. 29N and the Berkeley Subdivision, adjacent to the Jefferson Motel. Tax Map 61M, Section 1, parcels 6 and 7. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. Mr. Benish added the following two conditions of approval: l.f--VDH&T approval of any grading in the right-of-way, if necessary; and l.g--Bond posted for the replacement of white pines along the access road. Mr. Stark, referring to condition 2.a. (Existing white pines along access road which have died shall be replaced.), asked if there was any way to insure that the trees planted were of a size that would provide adequate screening and would actually remain alive once they are planted. Mr.. Keeler explained that the Landscape Ordinance will require a maintenance bond through the next growing season. Mr. Horne pointed out that had also been a condition of the special use permit. He stressed that the trees are not only to be planted, but also maintained. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Page Morris, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He requested relief from conditions l.e (Stream channel improvements to be completed); l.g (Bond posted for the replacement of white pines along the access road); and 2.a (Existing white pines along access road which have died shall be replaced). He understood that the conditions of the special use permit had addressed the area between his lot and the Berkeley Subdivision, not the existing area between the road and the Berkeley Subdivision. Mr. Horne stated this understanding was incorrect. He stated, "The special permit contained conditions for the entire roadway." With that explanation, Mr. Morris removed his objections to l.g and 2.a. Regarding condition l.e, he stated he understood a performance bond has been posted that the County could call and see that that is performed. He felt it was unfair to restrain his development of the site pending someone else's performance. lq,4 July 22, 1986 Page 15 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the bond, Mr. Keeler stated, "I think we've taken the position in the past that that bond was attached to the subdivision and the subdivision work is not complete (so) why permit any other development in the subdivision. What we're saying is we're not asking you not to approve this site plan, but it is an on -going problem and it was addressed by both the Commission and the Board in no uncertain terms that you wanted that straightened out. But we're not recommending that you not take up this site plan until that's corrected, we're recommending that you go ahead and approve it, but that they not obtain a building permit until that issue is resolved." Mr. Bowerman recalled that had been a very strong point of contention with the Commission. Mr. Bowerman suggested that condition 2.a (replacement of the white pines) be moved to l.h since he did not see any reason to wait. Mr. Benish explained that he had placed 2.a with the Certificate of Occupancy to allow proper time for the planting season to come in. He stated that if that condition is attached to the Building Permit, as suggested by Mr. Bowerman, they could be planted in the middle of August when it would be more difficult to keep them alive. The applicant asked if a change as suggested by Mr. Bowerman would exclude the need for bonding. Mr. Bowerman explained it would not since bonding is to insure that the trees live. Mr. Bowerman indicated he felt it was important to try to insure that the Commission's and Board's concern about the development of the site, in terms of the original proposal, are complied with. Regarding Mr. Bowerman's suggestion to attach 2.a to the Building Permit, Mr. Horne suggested that a compromise might be just to add a date specific to that condition. Mr. Bowerman agreed to this and it was decided condition 2.a. would become separate condition No. 5 and would read: Existing white pines along access road which have died shall be replaced by September 30, 1986. Mr. Michel moved that the Knights Inn Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and compu- tations; b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations; c. Issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Staff approval of revised landscape plan showing double staggered row of white pines (5 to 6 feet in height) planted 10 feet on center along the rear property line adjacent to the Berkeley Subdivision. These screening trees shall tie into the existing double row of pine trees adjacent to the Berkeley Subdivision. /q�- July 22, 1986 Page 16 e. Stream channel improvements to be completed; f. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of any grading in the right-of-way, if necessary; g. Bond posted for the replacement of white pines along the access road. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions are met: a. Fire Officer final approval; b. Installation of sign at the entrance of each dead-end road to delineate those units served by the road. 3. Compliance with Section 5.1.16 of the Zoning Ordinance for the swimming pool. 4. Waiver of Section 21.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow grading within the 20 foot buffer area. 5. Existing white pines along access road which have died shall be replaced by September 30, 1986. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Reconsideration of Colonial of Charlottesville Site Plan - Dr. Charles Hurt addressed the Commission to request clarification of the Commission's action in regard to the condition which was placed on the administrative approval of the final plat (i.e. that administrative approval would be granted only if the proposed parallel roadway has been approved at that time). Dr. Hurt asked for relief from this condition since it meant that the development would not be able to get under way until September (after the Board has taken action on the proposed roadway). Mr. Wilkerson stated he had hoped to be able to hear Highway Department comments concerning U-turns on Rt. 29 if the parallel roadway has not been approved. Dr. Hurt stated this was a very simple plat and it was hoped that it could be submitted next week so the transaction can be closed; but with the condition placed on the administrative approval, the transaction cannot be completed and construction cannot begin. Mr. Myers stressed that even if the parallel road is not approved, his business will not generate an excessive amount of traffic. Mr. Wilkerson asked for Mr. Pack's comments. Mr. Pack recalled that U-turns were a concern to VDH&T but he felt it was not that great a concern. There was also concern about the car carriers not being able to make a U-turn on the site, but this concern had been taken care of with this site plan. Mr. Pack stated that anything placed on this site would involve U-turns, but he did not see this as a significant problem. . -Xi July 22, 1986 Page 17 M Mr. Horne pointed out that "independent of the problem, there is really no solution when this plat comes in." He explained, "They are showing a joint access now, so outside of a explicit condition that we not approve anything but a joint access, it's either that or the parallel road. There's really no other way to gain access to these two subdivided properties. So without the parallel road, what they are showing you is the minimum amount of disruption. So if we bring it back to you, we are not going to have any other solutions." It was determined there was nothing to be gained by Commission review of the final plat. Mr. Michel moved that the site plan for Colonial of Charlottesville be reconsidered. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Colonial of Charlottesville Site Plan be approved subject to those conditions stated in the previous motion, including administrative approval of the final plat, removing the condition that had been placed on the administrative approval with the original motion. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Discussion of the Proposed Parallel Roadway - Mr. Bowerman stated that at the time this proposal was reviewed by the Commission he did not recall there being any representation to the Commission that there were any parcels in this area which could not be served by this roadway. He stated it was his understnading that the entire area could have access to the roadway, one way other another, and it would therefore alleviate U-turns and other traffic problems on Rt. 29. He stated that it appears, however, that the Colonial site does not have access except through an adjacent parcel. Mr. Payne stated that was incorrect. He explained, "This is only one parcel and staff is going to require connection to this road." The Commissioners agreed that this was not their understanding. They understood that staff could only "strongly recommend" connection to the road. Mr. Payne stated, "No. They are going to require a connection to the road in the subdivision plat. Mr. Benish and Mr. Horne said it was going to be a matter of seeing what developed in terms of whether they could require the road to be built there. As to whether this proposed southerly parcel is going to have access to that road, 'yes it will' because that parcel doesn't exist yet, and in order to be approved staff is going to require connection to that road. Whether the road is built is another question entirely." Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Michel indicated that was not the way they had interpreted staff's comments. / V7 July 22, 1986 Page 18 on Mr. Keeler stated, "We are/very weak ground now because it is not in the plan and, in fact, it is before the Board with a recommendation not to put it in the plan." Mr. Bowerman stated he was questioning staff's statement that they would "strongly recommend" but not "require" connection to the road. Mr. Horne stated, "I think you have to realize, the staff did not say in the presentation of that roadway, that on all parcels we could require connection to the roadway. For those parcels that we can demonstrate the need to connect, from the generation on the parcel, we can require the connection. On other parcels, such as this and the one adjacent, I think they stood up before you tonight and said 'we would connect' because we think we need it. So it's a combination of things that will take place all along. Some we will be able to require; some we will be able to convince people to do. Some people may not want to connect to that roadway and in those cases, we may have a problem requiring the connection to the roadway." It was determined construction of the roadway and requiring connection to the roadway once it is in place are two separate issues. Mr. Payne stated, "Once the road is there it is much easier to require them to connect to it. If we get the road in there, I'm really not concerned about making them connect to it. I think the thing John is concerned about is when it's hard to justify making the developer build a section of road because of the intensity of his development." Mr. Horne pointed out that in the case of the Colonial site plan, the plat will be before the staff before the road is voted on by the Board, therefore he stated, "So I can't tell you when that plat comes in I'm going to make him show a connection to a roadway which is not there." Mr. Bowerman thought Mr. Horne had said that he would require him to show this connection. Mr. Horne stated he would not impose such a requirement. He added that if the roadway was in the Comprehensive Plan, then he would have the authority to require that a connection be shown. Responding to Mr. Wilkerson's statement that staff seems to have approved this plan based on the anticipation that the parallel road will be built, Mr. Horne stated, "They need an access to this property. They've built a perfectly acceptable joint -access driveway that will work fine without the roadway. We have worked with them to put that in a position so that if that roadway ever appears back there, that cul-de-sac can very easily be extended on. We could have approved one right in the middle of their site where it works fine for their site, but doesn't work fine to be extended on. All we are saying tonight is 'we put this joint access driveway in a place where if that roadway ever gets approved, it is physically in a location where it can be extended on.' We didn't say we could absolutely require that that happen; we didn't say that we could require that they build a section of that roadway." IM July 22, 1986 Page 19 Regarding the issue of "construction" vs. "connection", Mr. Horne stated, "I'm not going to sit here and unequivocally say that (we can require connection), because it is a legal question. If Fred feels that if we put the road in the Plan, we can always require connection to it, independent of construction, then I'll go by that. But I know it is a very touchy legal subject." Attempting to explain Mr. Benish's statement that staff would "strongly recommend" connection to the road, Mr. Payne stated, "If you come in with a site that generates traffic such that it would justify building that section of road and we can otherwise justify it, yes, certainly you can require it. But if it is not justified on one of those two grounds, then no, you cannot require it. So if your question is 'Can you always require construction in every case?' the answer is no. It is easily conceivable that there could be a plan submitted for one of these parcels that would not justify construction of this and the developer, for reasons of his own, might not want to." Mr. Benish confirmed that this was the question he had answered. Responding to Mr. Michel's concerns, Mr. Horne indicated that if the proposed roadway had been in place, staff "would have attempted to require" the developer to connect to it. Tentative Work Schedule for August - Mr. Keeler reviewed this briefly. The Commission unanimously approved administrative approval for both the Laugherty and Garthfield final plats (scheduled for August 12 meeting). It was determined that the issue of administrative approval for the Alliance Bible Church would be addressed at the time of the rezoning. Since Mr. Cogan had had some concerns about the Garthfield plat, Mr. Keeler stated that staff would check with him to see if he was in agreement with the administrative approval. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. DS -/ �, 7), 41, 11, � � �// tA� John Horne, Secretary /.3 `7