HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 10 87 PC MinutesOR
March 10, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, March 10, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard
Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; 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
Bowerman.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present.
South Fork Farms Phase II Final Plat - Proposal to create five (5) lots,
with an average lot size of 4.25 acres, to be served by a proposed public
road. The total area of the site is 27.4 acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
The property is located on Rt. 710, just north of its intersection with Rt. 29
(approximately 1.5 miles northeast of North Garden). Tax Map 87, Parcel 28.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
Mr. Benish confirmed there had been no changes since the preliminary plat
review.
The applicant was represented by Mr. David Blankenbaker who offered no
additional comments.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the South Fork Farms Phase II Final Plat be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are
met:
a. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and
computations;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road plans and
computations, and commercial entrance;
C. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Planning staff approval of technical items on final plat (final
plat shall be signed and sealed by certified surveyor).
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
/O%
March 10, 1987
Page 2
Roslyn Heights Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create seven (7) lots and a
residue tract of 63.9 acres, from four (4) existing parcels.
Six lots are proposed to be served by a new public road, the seventh lot
and residue tract are proposed for division in Roslyn Ridge Final Plat.
Property, located on the west side of Rt. 743 (Hydraulic Road), just south
of the intersection with Rt. 631 and north of Rt. 657 (Lamb's Road).
Tax Map 45, Parcel 21; Tax Map 61, Parcels 1, 2, and 3. Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. A major issue of this proposal was
double frontage for proposed lots 61-3 Lot 1 and 61-2 Lot 1. The
staff report stated the following: "Proposed lots 61-3 Lot 1 and 61-2 Lot
1 have double frontage: Route 657 (Lamb's Road) and the proposed public road.
It appears that these lots could be designed to avoid any stream crossing
and allow access to Lamb's Road. It is in accordance with policy that the
lots were designed to be served by the internal road. The Virginia
Department of Transportation is in support of access for these two lots
from the proposed internal public road. Planning staff and the Watershed
Management Official do not have a major concern over access across these
streams provided that stream crossings are designed to minimize problems.
This will be a condition of approval." Ms. Patterson also distributed
a letter from an adjacent property owner who asked that no additional
access be granted to Lamb's Road (Shirley and Robert Cooper).
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
There was some confusion about the number of lots. Ms. Patterson explained:
"We are considering ... the residue of Roslyn Farm, this 12 acres,...a lot."
Mr. Cogan indicated understanding that this would make the 7 lots. He
asked where the 63 acre residue tract was located. Ms. Patterson pointed
this out on the map and Mr. Cogan indicated understanding.
Mr. Gould asked if condition No. 2 (A waiver of double frontage is granted
for 61-3 Lot 1 and 61-2 Lot 1.) would allow access to Lamb's Road.
Ms. Patterson. replied this was an issue for the Commission to address.
She added, "We were assuming they were going to have access from the internal
road."
Mr. Cogan asked if it were not an ordinance requirement that a lot that
can be served by an internal road must use that internal road. Mr. Payne
replied, "That's only for private roads, but I think it would not be improper
for you to "
y (impose that condition).
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ethan Miller. Regarding the issue of
double frontage, he stated, "What we've tried to do is provide the possibility
that the two lots in back... can have some flexibility so that the owners
of those lots, the eventual purchasers, will be able to use the internal
public road, if they want."
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Miller which alternative he would prefer, i.e. that
the lots access Lamb's Road, or that they access the internal road.
Mr. Miller seemed somewhat confused as to what the applicant was
requesting. Mr. Horne explained, "You really are asking for all flexibility.
You'd like to be able to go either way and cross the stream if necessary."
Mr. Miller confirmed this was correct.
/O 9
March 10, 1987
Page 3
Mr. Miller added that he did not think this would "change things all
that much." He explained that one parcel already fronts on Lamb's
I%W Road and the second parcel has 1,500 feet of frontage. He stated
that if he had to choose one way or the other, it probably would
not make much difference.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. John Imbry asked if the double fmrtage issue was a legal question.
Mr. Cogan explained that it would require a waiver, which the
applicant has requested.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated it appeared that with a slight "redrawing of the line"
the two parcels in question "could stand on their own" with access to
Lamb's Road and without double frontage.
Mr. Cogan stated the question was whether the parcels should be allowed
the option of going either way, i.e. either access to Lamb's Road or
access to the internal road involving a stream crossing. He indicated
he favored access to the internal road.
Mr. Miller confirmed that the small parcel already has access to Lamb's
road. Mr. Horne added that the parcel has access only to Lamb's Road.
�kw Mr. Cogan suggested it would be advisable for the applicant to determine
where the building sites will be on these two parcels since that will
significantly influence the access issue.
OR
Mr. Michel agreed with Mr. Cogan and pointed out that it appeared the
30-acre parcel could access Lamb's Road without having to interfere with the
stream and the otli parcel probably would better access the internal road.
Mr. Michel added that he did not feel strongly about the issue, "one way
or another." He did not feel Lamb's Road would be dramatically impacted
and felt it was a tossup between the streams and the road.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that parcel 61-3 would involve a stream crossing
regardless of which access was decided upon. Regarding this particular
lot, Mr. Keeler pointed out that "the housing site will probably be
determined by the Health Department. He reminded the Commission that
since it would be reviewing the final plat, it might be desirable to
leave the issue of access to that lot open until that time. He pointed
out the possibility of the Health Department approving a building site
adjacent to Lamb's Road, and the Commission restricts the access to
the internal road, then two stream crossings would be necessary.
Mr. Payne suggested the possibility that the Commission could possibly
allow access to Lamb's Road but require that it be only one access to
serve the two parcels.
io 9
March 10, 1987 Page 4
Mr. Horne endorsed Mr. Keeler's suggestion that the access for the
small lot be determined at the time of the final plat.
Mr. Cogan advised the applicant that the Commission would like to see
the building sites designated on the final plat. Mr. Miller stated that
it was his intention, depending on the Health Department's approval
of possible building sites, to allow the ultimate purchasers of the lots
to determine the final building site.
Mr. Cogan stated, "I think we need to get to a point, however, that the
potential purchaser needs to know they are not going to be able to get
out both ways."
It was felt that the 30-acre parcel would have to access Lamb's Road
only because there was not enough space for a building site east of
the stream.
Mr. Horne stated that if the preliminary plat was approved with
the conditions suggested by staff, a restriction on access is not
addressed, but double frontage would be approved, "which, on the
surface, would seem to allow access both ways." He suggested
that if condition 2 was eliminated (i.e. A waiver of double frontage is
granted for 61-3 Lot 1 and 61-2 Lot 1.), then the Commission might
consider adding a notation "that access to those two parcels will be
determined at the time of final plat approval." Mr. Payne indicated
he felt this was the way the matter should be handled.
It was determined the following would be added as condition 3:
"Access to parcels 61-3 Lot 1 and 61-2 Lot l shall be determined at time
of final plat."
Mr. Stark expressed some confusion about approving the preliminary plat
with condition 2 remaining as a condition. Mr. Payne explained:
"The motion is to approve and grant the waiver subject to a condition
reserving to the Commission the opportunity to restrict access as to
the final plat." Mr. Stark felt that condition 2 should be modified
to reflect this. Mr. Payne explained that the addition of condition
3 as suggested addressed Mr. Stark's concern.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Roslyn Heights Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Health Department approval;
b. County Engineer approval of road design, drainage plans and compu-
tations;
C. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road design,
drainage plans and computations;
d. Planning staff approval of technical notes to plat and road name;
e. Zoning Administrator approval that there is one dwelling unit on
61-1 Lot 2, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance;
f. County Engineer and Watershed Management Official approval of
stream crossing(s);
//0
March 10, 1987
Page 5
n
2. A waiver of double frontage is granted for 61-3 Lot 1 and 61-2 Lot 1.
3. Access to parcels 61-3 Lot 1 and 61-2 Lot 1 shall be determined at time
of final plat.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Merchants Outlet Mall Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 114,450 square foot
one-story mall with 30 shops, to be served by 489 parking spaces. Total
site area equals 9.508 acres. Parcels IA and 1B equal 9.631 total acres;
less dedication and proposed parcel B, plus portions of two adjacent lots
for stormwater detention and buffer. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property,
located on the north side of Route 649 (Proffit Road) and east of Route 29
North, adjacent to 84 Lumber Company. Part of this property is known as
the previous Ewing Ford Site. Tax Map 32A-2 parcels lA and 1B. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The major issue in this proposal
was on and off -site traffic circulation, particularly (1) access around
the building; (2) the truck exit; and (3) parking lot discharge points.
The staff report made the following statements about these concerns:
Access Around the Building: The plan proposes one-way travel looping
around the building for employees, the handicapped and delivery/service
trucks. The applicant's planner has worked with Planning and
Engineering staff to ascertain that the turning radii meet the minimum
for semi -tractor trailers around most of the building. Because
truck access is not provided completely around the building, #2
"Truck Exit" is necessary. The employees and the handicapped will
exit onto the main mall road approximately 45 feet from the entrance
to Proffit Road. More than two vehicles cued to exit the
site may effectively block this exit from the loop road around the
building. Loading spaces will be parallel parking adjacent to the
building.
Truck Exit: Trucks will exit by a separate truck exit road controlled
by an electronic access gate. This truck exit road west of the main
mall road is located in the 50-foot joint access easement with adjacent
parcel 1. The adjacent parcel previously developed as Monticello Home
Builders Model Home is presently vacant. The truck exit lane will be
separated from the entrance and exit lanes for parcel 1 by a
median, to prohibit entrance to the mall at this location. Signage
and pavement markings will be important to reduce the confusion for
vehicles entering the site or exiting the loop around the building.
The Zoning Ordinance discourages one-way travel (Section 4.12.6.2).
It is difficult to enforce and can complicate emergency access. As
a general rule, the Planning Commission must specifically approve
one-way travel. The applicant proposes the following measures to
facilitate this circulation: (a) Signage "Employee, Loading and
Handicap Only" around building; (b) Pavement markings showing travel
direction; (c) Electronic control access gate for truck exit.
To our knowledge, an entrance/exit design of this type has never been
approved before.
I/I
March 10, 1987
Page 6
Parking Lot Discharge Points: In accordance with staffs recommenda-
tion, the plan was revised to reduce the number of parking area discharge
points onto the entrance road. These discharge points are off -set,
and not aligned. Direct alighment would reduce short, confusing turning
movements, but may not be possible due to the number of spaces required
on this site for a building of this size.
The staff report concluded: "Planning staff concurs with the County Engineer
that by relocating the building and utilizing the lot proposed for future
development, circulation could be substantially improved. These
issues were not emphasized at the first plan review, and since that time
the applicant has had the building designed and has proceeded in good
faith based on staff comments."
Ms. Patterson confirmed that staff has approved the landscape plan,
though it may later be determined that additional screening may be
required around the stormwater detention pond. In response to Ms.
Diehl's concern, Ms. Patterson stated that staff does have the
authority to require additional trees in the event some of the
hardwoods and cedars are removed during grading.
There was some question as to how the electronic gate on the truck exit
would work. Mr. Keeler stated he did not think it would be "an
extremely sophisticated mechanism" and would possibly be an electronic
eye. Ms. Patterson suggested it might be triggered by a certain
weight.
Mr. Stark expressed concern that some severely handicapped individuals
might find it a hardship to drive completely around the building to
reach the handicapped parking spaces. He pointed out that they would
be required to circle all the way around the building in order to
arrive at a space that they were only 15 feet away from when they
entered the site. Ms. Patterson pointed out that there are some
handicapped spaces located in the primary parking area, but that
given the size and design of this buidling, there was little choice
but to locate some of the spaces on the other side of the building.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. W. S. Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He explained that this project was originally discussed with staff in
December 1984, at which time it was determined that staff's concerns
about the development were: (1) Setbacks that would be required from
the private access easement to 84 Lumber; (2) Whether any particular
requirements for bus parking would be required; and (3) Whether
stormwater detention would be required in that area. He stated that
from that time,up to March, 1986, the applicant has worked to address
these concerns. The applicant determined that no stormwater detention would
be required other than normal state requirements for erosion control; that there
were no particular bus parking requirements; and that there were no
unusual setback requirements from the private access easements. He
stated that the staff then determined later that stormwater detention
would be required and therefore the applicant acquired additional property
//A
March 10, 1987 Page 7
for stormwater detention and additional property for grading easements.
Not being aware of any other staff concerns, the site plan was submitted
on March 3, 1986, at which time there were additional concerns of
staff regarding sight distance problems on Rt. 649 and control of the
access road. The applicant worked to address these additional concerns
and contracted to purchase the corner site so that control of the access
road would be within the hands of this applicant. This had taken until
the first part of 1987, and resulted in the current plan. He pointed
out that the handicapped spaces located adjacent to the building
were put there at staff's suggestion. Mr. Roudabush stressed that this
has been a long process and emphasized that the applicant has
attempted, from the beginning, to determine staff and Highway Department
concerns and has addressed those concerns. He stated that the
truck exit issue had come up very recently and the current design is
one that was originally proposed by the applicant. (He explained that
an alternate design proposed by staff was not well received by the
Highway Department.) He stated the applicant has no objections to
the suggested conditions of approval.
Mr. Edward Bain, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
Regarding the one-way traffic issue, he pointed out that only a
small percentage of the traffic would be travelling on the one-way
route. He stressed that though the Ordinance states that one-way
traffic is to be "discouraged" it does not prohibit it. He pointed out
that though there is room for two-way traffic, the applicant feels that
a one-way design with limited use is preferable for the traffic around
the building.
Regarding the loading area, Mr. Roudabush explained there would be no
tailgate loading since most deliveries are made in small trucks. He
stated these business would not be dealing in "heavy -type" merchandise.
Regarding the handicapped parking spaces, Mr. Roudabush stated he felt
the spaces on the far side of the building could relocated to other
places in the parking lot and still be convenient for the handicapped.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Echols, representing the Highway
Department.
Mr. Echols stated that long-range plans show an interchange at this
intersection which would take most of this site and the CAT Study shows a
4-lane divided highway which would require considerably more right-of-way
than is required for this improvement. He stressed, however, that these
are long-range plans with no set construction dates. Regarding access,
he stated there was concern that the access line up with the eventual
access for the property across Rt. 649, and the applicant appears to
have addressed that concern. He stated that the turn lanes are shown on
the site plan as required. Regarding the truck exit, he felt this was
probably the best of several alternatives, but added that the functionality
of the design will depend on what type of business is eventually built on the
corner lot. He stated that the access to the corner lot has already been
determined as a result of a previous subdivision plat. Mr. Echols
added that since one person will now own all the property, it is conceivable
that accesses can be combined.
i�3
March 10, 1987
Page 8
Mr. Keeler explained that the subdivision plat was approved in the 70's
and since that time the Commission has refused to change the access to the
corner lot on at least a couple of occasions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The Chairman invited comment from the County Engineer.
Mr. Steve Creswell addressed the Commission. He indicated that if this
proposal was "back at square one" he would discourage one-way traffic
with the truck exit as proposed. However, he felt the project was
"too far along to consider that even though there is the possibility
of relocating the building." He stated that the proposal is probably
the best option, though it is not an ideal situation. Mr. Creswell
stated he did not really anticipate any problems with the one-way
design. His main concern was potential problems with trucks exiting
onto Proffit Road. He explained there is a natural tendency to park
in the front of the building so unauthorized traffic around the building
should not be a problem.
Mr. Stark again expressed his feeling that those handicapped parking
spaces located on the far side of the building should relocated to
a more convenient position.
Mr. Michel stated he was concerned about the fact that the property is
being developed so intensly. He was sympathetic to the long history of
the project but added that he felt, in view of the acquisition of the
corner proper.ty,the applicant and the County would be better served
with a redesign of the project which would make the plan function better.
He stated, "To me, this is a tough site plan —with access problems,
circulation problems, handicapped access problems, etc. which are
only going to be solved in the least objectionable (manner).... I'm not
sure the opportunity isn't here to do something well."
Mr. Gould agreed with Mr. Michel.
Mr. Bain again addressed the Commission and pointed out the turnover in
staff that has occurred during the course of this application. He
stated, "As new staff people come on, things can't keep changing.
Sometime or other there has to be some definitive answers. The one-way
traffic (issue) has just been mentioned in the last month. ... These
questions have been asked and thousands of dollars have been spent.
..When you address issues set forth in the ordinance and you attempt
to answer them and answer them within the guidelines of the site
plan and you come forward then with that plan and then they say 'No
this and no that', that gives us real difficulty. I think it gives a lot
of people in the county difficulty when you are trying to work and do
some development."
March 10, 1987 Page 9
Mr. Keeler acknowledged there had been several staff changes during the
course of the application. He added, "When we initially started talking
rr' about this property, we were talking about additions to the existing building
and rezoning the property to a Planned Development Shopping Center to
get a more favorable parking standard. The Zoning Administrator at that
time determined that there was a more favorable parking standard
available, so initially we were talking in the context of a preliminary
zoning plan which by virtue of a decision in the Zoning Department
was negated so they could go directly to a site plan."
n
Mr. Cogan stated the Commission might be over emphasizing the one-way
traffic issue since it most likely will only be used by the
employees and truck traffic, provided that the handicapped spaces
are moved from the far side of the building. Regarding access to the parking area, he
pointed out that the road is already in place. Regarding the truck exit,
he questioned the possibility of being able to relocate the access to
the corner parcel since it is currently as far away from Rt. 29 as possible.
Mr. Cogan agreed there were problems with the proposal but he did not view
them as major problems.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he agreed with Mr. Cogan and he was particularly
sympathetic to the fact that the applicant has "proceeded in good faith
based on staff comments." He added, however, that he agreed that the
handicapped parking spaces should be relocated.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Merchants Outlet Mall Site Plan be approved
subject to the conditions proposed by staff with the following addition:
l.k. Stuff approval of relocation of handicapped parking from
the southerly side of the building to an area not served by
one-way access.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion for approval.
Mr. Gould indicated he was sympathetic to the problems that have resulted
because of changes in staff, but added that the Commission could not
be put in a position of not requiring what was best for the County.
He was opposed to approving one-way travel since it has never been
approved before. He also felt that the success of the circulation
design depended too much on human behavior.
Mr. Michel stated he was in agreement with Mr. Gould and that he
could not be put in a position of accepting something that is
"least objectionable."
The motion for approval failed to pass (3:3) with Commissioners Cogan,
Wilkerson and Stark voting for approval and Commissioners Diehl,
Michel and Gould voting against approval.
Mr. Cogan asked if staff had ever suggested to the applicant that
the design of the building and its position on the site should be
changed. Ms. Patterson stated, "I think it was expressed verbally,
but I don't think the point was emphasized."
PC
March 10, 1987 Page 10
Mr. Cogan responded, "That's part of my problem."
Mr. Horne pointed out that without a change in the building size or
a change in the location on the site, there are no changes that can be
made to the proposal.
Regarding the corner property and the stormwater detention area, Mr.
Bob Smith, representing the applicant, stated the applicant has a
contract to purchase those properties and "when we take title to
that we will take title to the corner lot as well." He indicated
the acquisition of the corner property had been contracted for
within the last 45 days.
Mr. Gould pointed out that this is an important piece of property and
it is adamant that whatever is done on the property be done well.
Mr. Cogan agreed but pointed out that regardless of what is done to the
site internally, it will not be possible to change the access points.
Mr. Cogan stated that changing the size or location of the building
would not change the traffic flow onto Rt. 649. However, Mr. Horne
stated that though it would not change the access points, it could
change the traffic flow because different kinds of traffic would
be able to get to various points, e.g. there would not necessarily
be a truck -only exit.
Mr. Cogan summarized that those Commissioners who are opposed to the
site plan feel that the proposal is too marginal and that a more
conventional site plan is needed for this site.
The Chairman called for another motion.
Mr. Stark added that the motion should state what could be done to the
plan to make it approvable. Mr. Cogan added, "What changes could be
made that we would feel more comfortable that we're not doing something
to sabotage this location for the future?"
The Commission seemed unsure as to the answer to Mr. Stark's and Mr.
Cogan's question.
Mr. Keeler stated it was his understanding that the Commission's
concerns centered around (1) the one-way circulation pattern; and
(2) the truck exit/access issue. Mr. Michel confirmed those
were the two main concerns.
Mr. Keeler stated the the truck exit issue could be solved by
straightening one corner of the building, thus allowing the trucks
to continue around the building and making only one access necessary.
Mr. Michel asked why this had not been considered a Planned Development
Shopping Center (PDSC). Mr. Keeler explained that the "straight"
parking standard was found to be more favorable than the PDSC
parking standard in this case so there was no incentive to rezone
the property.
March 10, 1987
Page 11
Ms. Diehl indicated she agreed with Commissioners Michel and Gould and
that while changes in staff may have lengthened the process, there have also
been changes in the potential of the site as a result of the recent
acquisition of additional land.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he was under the impression that the corner property
would "be acquired upon completion of this." Mr. Smith responded,
"It is a conditional sale of contract."
Responding to Ms. Diehl's suggestion that it might be possible to
move the building somewhat since the additional property has been acquired,
Mr. Bain stated it was not possible to turn the building because it would
interfere with the recorded easement that exists on the property.
Mr. Gould moved that the Merchants Outlet Mall Site Plan be denied for
the following reasons: (1) overly intense development of the site;
(2) circulation patterns are confusing; (3) one-way travel is to
be discouraged; (4) the location requires that the development be
the most desirable possible.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission must say in what respect the
plan does not comply with the Ordinance. Mr. Payne stated the issue
is whether or not the reasons stated in Mr. Gould's motion are
reasons of sufficiency as set out in the Ordinance.
Mr. Payne added, "If a plan is marginal but it does meet the Ordinance,
you don't have any discretion to approve it or not. You have to approve
it .... If you think it doesn't meet the Ordinance, that's another matter.
Then you certainly have the authority to deny it."
Mr. Cogan asked if that section of the Ordinance which "discourages"
one-way traffic, but does not "prohibit" it was sufficient grounds
for denial. Mr. Payne replied, "No." He quoted the following from
Section 4.12.6.2: "One-way circulation shall be generally discouraged."
Mr. Stark questioned the justification of disapproving the proposal
unless it could be shown that it does not meet the requirements of
the Ordinance. He asked Ms. Patterson if the application did not
meet the terms of the Ordinance. Ms. Patterson replied, "If you feel
that the circulation is a violation of sound engineering design or
standards, there is a section that speaks to that (Section 32.5.24).
Mr. Payne quoted Section 32.5.24 as follows: "Nothing herein shall
require the approval of any development, use -or plan or any feature
thereof, which shall be found by the Commission, the Board of
Supervisors, or its agent, to constitute a danger to the public
health, safety or general welfare, or which shall be determined
by such Commission, Board of Supervisors or agent, to be a
departure from or violation of sound engineering design or standards."
Mr. Gould pointed out that "The County Engineer's letter inasmuch
as says that in paragraph four." He quoted from the County Engineer's
+► letter as follows: "The truck exit proposed to Rt. 649 would be
confusing to motorists that try to access the mall.
117
March 10, 1987 Page 12
This may create traffic congestion and/or safety -related problems.
I would encourage you to request additional comment from the
Department of Transportation on this issue. ... The project
appears to be an over -intensive development of the site. Parcel
B, which is part of the site, could be utilized to allow for
less intense development and a better parking and circulation
configuration."
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Echols if he felt the truck exit presented a
safety problem. Mr. Echols responded that the main concern was one
of enforcement and the uncertainty of whether the design would
function the way it was intended.
Mr. Gould added to his motion for denial the additional reason that
the proposal did not comply with Section 32.5.24 of the Ordinance.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne to comment as to whether or not he felt
the motion was appropriate. Mr. Payne responded that it was
for the Commission, (not himself), to determine if the plan is
a departure from sound engineering practice. He added, "It is always
more difficult to defend, if you make a decision based on something
that is a pure exercise of your discretion."
Both Mr. Wilkerson and Mr. Stark indicated they had heard no argument
which would make them change their vote.
The Chairman called for a vote on Mr. Gould's motion for denial
of the Merchants Outlet Mall Site Plan.
The motion for denial failed to pass (3:3) with Commissioners Diehl,
Michel and Gould voting for denial and Commissioners Wilkerson, Stark
and Cogan voting against denial.
Mr. Horne suggested that, in view of the tie vote, it might be
possible to delay action on the proposal until such a time as the
full Commission is present. In the meantime, the applicant could
proceed with some unfinished aspects of the proposal, such as
the sewer design.
Mr. Smith stated he did not feel that would be a very good gamble
on the part of the applicant. He added that he felt the only place
where "some relief might be obtained" would be a possible shifting
of the boundary between "the lot that runs perpendicular to 29."
He stated this could possibly result in a :Less intense circulation
pattern around the property. He indicated the applicant was not willing
to redesign the building.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Payne
deferral was permisaable. He added, "You have
of the original application to act on it and if
then, the applicant has the right to take it to
to have it acted on."
confirmed that a
60 days from the date
you don't act on it
the Circuit Court
9-
ZIA
March 10, 1987 Page 13
Mr. Payne explained the Commission had two choices: (1) To defer the
matter until an odd number of Commissioners are present; or (2) To take
%„✓` the position that the Commission will not act on the issue, thereby
putting it to the Circuit Court. He added that he felt option 2 was
an abdication of the Commission's authority and he would never
recommend such a course of action.
Mr. Payne added that there was a third alternative which was for
a Commissioner to change his vote intentionally, knowing that he
is voting against his conscience, with the strict intention of allowing
the Board to decide the issue.
Mr. Stark moved that the Merchants Outlet Mall Site Plan be deferred to
March 31, 1987 to allow for a vote by the full Commission.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
It was pointed out to the applicant that he might take this opportunity
to address some of the Commission's concerns before the matter is
heard again.
Mr. Gould also stated he would like more detailed comments from the
Engineering Department on the safety issue.
Miscellaneous:
*4010, CIP Work Schedule: Tentatively approved except that the meetings
should begin at 5:00 rather than 4:30.
As the result of a previous Commission discussion regarding the issue
of an Economic Development Plan for the County, Mr. Stark distributed
copies of such a plan for the Virginia Beach area. He asked the
Commission to read this report.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
t
John Horne, Secretary
DS
ii9
9