HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 01 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
June 1, 1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, June 1,
1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Ms.
Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Jared
Loewenstein; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Rodney Thomas. Other officials present were: Mr.
Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Susan
Thomas, Senior Planner; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Mr. Maynard Sipe, Planner; Mr. Daniel
Mahon, Planner.
Approval of Minutes — May 18,1999
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved deferral of the approval of May 18cn
minutes because several Commissioners indicated they were missing pages. Staff agreed to provide
Commissioners with a new complete set of minutes.
Matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda
SDP 99-046 Charlottesville Catholic School — Critical Slopes Waiver and One -Way Circulation
Request
Mr. Finley thanked staff for "working things out" with Mr. Bishop, the adjacent property owner.
Mr. Thomas said that he had seen Mr. Bishop at a recent meeting, and he "was just really happy."
Ms. Thomas reported that Mr. Glenn Brooks of County Engineering had explained to Mr. Bishop
"how much of a cut" was being proposed.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of the Consent Agenda. The
motion passed unanimously.
Deferred Items
CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc. — Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for property consisting of
approximately 53.89 acres located in Urban Neighborhood 4, described as Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels
2A and 213, lying east of Fifth Street Extended (State Route 631) and north of Interstate 64, within
the Scottsville Magisterial District. The proposal seeks to change the designation of the area from
Industrial Service to Regional Service, to support the eventual rezoning from LI, Light Industrial, to
C-1, Commercial, or PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Deferred from the May 11,
1999 Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioners asked Ms. Thomas if she had anything to add to the information previously
presented. She responded that everything is explained in her memo, and added that the applicant has
provided a detailed explanation of his alternative language.
236
Mr. Rooker asked about the applicant's concern regarding Best Management Practices, and asked if
Mr. Hirschmann had provided input on the requirement for additional steps beyond the basic BMPs.
Ms. Thomas responded that she and Mr. Hirschmann spoke today; he reaffirmed that he feels it is
important to include something beyond what the Watershed Protection Ordinance would require
because the site is so close to streams.
Mr. Rooker asked if there are other properties within the county where BMPs had been exceeded.
Ms. Thomas replied that UREF and Still Meadows are examples of properties that are going just
beyond the minimal. Ms. Thomas stated that the Water Protection Ordinance is engineering's area
of concern, but putting language in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment "provides a foundation
which can be built on with more specificity as we go along."
Mr. Rooker indicated that Mr. Hirschmann had suggested things that might be implemented on the
Brass, Inc. site.
Ms. Rieley asked if second -story buildings had been investigated, referencing Mr. Blaine's mention
of the recent failure of MJ Designs as a two-story structure in his memorandum.
Ms. Thomas said she made inquiries to the City Planning Commission regarding the closure, and
they indicated that the store was profitable. She said she further learned that the closure was due to
problems that MJ Design's parent company had on a national level, and had nothing to do with the
1%ft profitability of the Barracks Road store.
cm
Mr. Finley asked if any Commissioners would like to hear from the applicant.
Mr. Nitchmann said he has no concern about the amount of square footage allocated. "I think that
when you're dealing with 2.3 million square feet of land, it's not going to be obvious to the naked
eye the difference between a 160 or 195 or 210 square foot building. I think [the applicant] is going
to do what's required for them by us as far as the protection of the water and so forth. We've got
enough zoning laws and building codes in effect to make sure that the environmental issues are
handled and handled properly .... I still feel adamantly about the fact that the southern part of the
county, the people in the Scottsville District [and other areas south of 64] can certainly utilize a
discount store in that side of town."
Mr. Nitchmann continued that he believes that it would decrease traffic that goes through he city
over the years, and added, "the only thing missing on the south side of town is a discount store." He
said that if 65% of people in America shop in discount stores, that statistic would hold true for our
area also, and said that all those cars are going either up 250, up 5t` Street extended or Avon Street to
go through town to get up to 29 North. "I would like a discount store to go there, and I don't really
care who it is. I'd like to have a well -run one that's got an established track record, so that it's going
to be there for a good many years, because right now there's 4500 houses out there, there's a
possibility over the next 15 or 20 years that there could be 11,000 households out there. That's a
considerable increase in families out there, that are going to need more shopping that's available on
that part of town."
237
Mr. Nitchmann added that he is not "sold" on the two-story concept, because of a rapidly aging
population. He emphasized that he wanted the Commission's action to ensure that the applicant can
attract a discount store, and asked to hear from the applicant on his opinion regarding size
limitations. Mr. Nitchmann asked staff if the CPA is specifically for this 53 acres only. Staff
confirmed that it is site specific. He noted that most of those who signed the petition in favor of the
large discount store are from the Scottsville district and the south end of town; most who signed the
petition against a mega -retailer were city people. Mr. Nitchmann asked for the applicant's
comments.
Mr. Rooker objected to the applicant's speaking at the meeting. "We've had two lengthy public
hearings on this issue; the applicant spoke at both of those [and] was given substantial time even
prior to the public hearings to present this proposal, and we actually did not vote at the last session to
give the applicant a chance to meet with staff and to present a written critique of the proposals that
were before us ... I don't know that it would be fair to the general public to allow the applicant to
have further time to address this issue without allowing any rebuttal." He asked if the public hearing
should be reopened for public comment also.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I think we know where the public is coming from on this."
Mr. Rieley said, "I think we know where the applicant is coming from on this."
Mr. Finley noted that an alternative has surfaced which the applicant has not had an opportunity to
Akw address.
Ms. Washington said that in other public hearings, the Commission has allowed to come back at the
end and comment. "I don't think this situation really is any different than past situations where the
public didn't have a right to speak, but the applicant was allowed to come forward .... I think it's only
fair that the applicant be allowed to address [the proposals] since they sent in [revised] information."
Mr. Rooker said the primary purpose of delaying the vote at the May 1 lth meeting was to allow the
applicant to provide written comment and meet with staff, which he has done.
Ms. Washington said, "The applicant had a short amount of time ... it was only fair to give the
applicant to have the opportunity to review [this]." She said that if the Commission voted on
whether the applicant would be allowed to speak again, he would probably be allowed.
Mr. Rooker suggested making a motion to allow the applicant to speak.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded allowing the applicant to readdress
the Commission.
Mr. Rieley said that in the applicant's proposal, principal should be spelled "principle" not
`'principal."
Log
238
Mr. Rooker said that prior to the last meeting, the applicant did have a copy of the alternate proposal,
and the applicant made comments to Mr. Rooker on that. "The ones that I thought made sense, I
incorporated into the proposal. The proposal was altered to take into consideration comments made
by the applicant. The further comments that he's made to me are not ones that I personally could
support ... I don't think that they advance the public interest... [or] improve the proposal."
In a 4-3 vote, with Mr. Washington, Mr. Finley, and Mr. Nitchmann in favor, and Mr. Rieley, Mr.
Loewenstein, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Thomas against, the motion failed.
Mr. Rooker handed out a computation of square footage possibilities (Attachment "A"). He
explained that they are taken directly from the alternate proposal, and illustrate "the kind of
flexibility with square footage that exists within the proposal that's on the table that was made by
Mr. Rieley and myself." Mr. Rooker said that while the applicant took exception to the problem of
second -story space, every two-story building has a first floor, and this proposal allows for 225,000
square feet of total first -floor square feet, offering many potential uses. Mr. Rooker added that the
applicant under this proposal could have single -user buildings of 150,000 square feet among the mix
of uses that are permitted.
Mr. Rooker emphasized, "I don't think that we have a created a situation that is unworkable for an
applicant that is willing to use some imagination on the site, and I think that we ought to require the
applicant to use some imagination on the site .... in fact, the applicant came forward to us with a
design expert who showed sketches of potential utilizations of this property that would seem to
indicate to me that these restraints would be no problem at all, because he was incorporating two-
story buildings in his concepts." Mr. Rooker referenced the pictures presented by the applicant
initially, each of which depicted two-story or more buildings. "I don't think we've really in this
proposal deviated from what the applicant all along has led us to believe from a design standpoint
this property might be used for."
Mr. Rooker said he agreed with Mr. Nitchmann that this property is in the designated growth area,
noting the county's policy of infill development to try to protect rural areas. He continued that the
property is suited from a transportation standpoint to have retail, and this growth area is currently
97% residential and has no retail zoned property in it. He noted that the county has a policy to try to
cut down on automobile trips by providing services within he designated growth areas. Mr. Rooker
added, "I think there is a limit to what we should allow to happen on this particular piece of
property, especially given the fact that it's at the corner of two entrance corridors.
Mr. Rooker said that in his review of Wal-Mart superstores around the state, "often by themselves in
a sea of asphalt, I see extremely ugly presentations that I don't think we would want to have at the
entrance to Charlottesville to be seen off of Interstate-64, 5`" Street." He mentioned the two large
Wal-Marts at the north and south entrances to Lynchburg. "I think we can [permit] the kind of
shopping you're talking about without allowing that kind of environmental plunder and aesthetic
plunder."
Mr. Rooker concluded, "We're pursuing, I think, exactly what the applicant said he intended to do."
Mr. Finley asked for more explanation on the square footage and building limitations.
14*.
119
Mr. Rooker responded that the configurations were picked up in part from staff s original
community service proposal, with some added flexibility. He continued that the applicant could
have three 50,000 square foot buildings linked, all one-story, with a single user of the attached
buildings, adding that there is nothing that prevents opening up of interiors for a full presentation of
merchandise. "It would put us in a situation where if the ... big user there failed as a business, we
wouldn't have a single, non-subdividable large monolithic structure that was unoccupied."
Mr. Rooker noted, "I don't think there is a tremendous difference between what the applicant
recommended and what we recommended, but there are some subtle differences."
Mr. Rieley said, "I think it's important that these buildings be conceived of as 65,000 square foot
buildings. That's the size of the building that's called for under Community Service designation....
the smaller units will give much more flexibility in fitting this development into this really difficult
site — there are streams, floodplains, hills, steep slopes, important wooded areas to work around. A
single big -box makes it almost impossible to avoid blitzing the entire site. The Engineering
Department drawings really confirmed this. The applicant — despite numerous requests from us —
has never shown us how a big -box of the entire square footage that is being requested could fit on
site .... That's an enormously important reason to conceive of these as 65,000 square foot units, but
allow the flexibility to attach them where it makes sense."
Mr. Rieley added that the smaller boxes will make it much easier to fill in "when the inevitable
move -out occurs" than if site is dominated by one big store. He said that the 65,000 square foot unit
*,%W gives the designers tools to work with so they can address and maximize the square footage within
the site, and do it in a way that is site specific "rather than being some corporation's model that gets
plopped down in a place where it really doesn't fit very well."
Mr. Finley said, "If you're using Lowe's as a benchmark, that's one building. Why is northside any
different than southside?"
Mr. Rieley said, "If you visualize Lowe's on this site as it is, it's a horror. It won't fit. There's no
way you can put... a building of that size on this site without taking a wooded knoll and making it
completely flat. That's the problem. It's a model that does not fit on this site very well. What
we've tried to craft is something that allows the applicant substantial square footage... half the size
of Fashion Square Mall on that site off of 5t' Street. It's enormous." Mr. Rieley said it would be up
to the applicant's talented design team to make all of the square footage fit, and added that it could
not be done with a big box without devastating the site.
Mr. Finley noted the applicant's statement in his memo to Ms. Thomas that says that the building
limitations "effectively precludes this shopping center from attracting a major anchor tenant."
Mr. Rieley replied, "There are Wal-Marts, K-Marts and Dollar Generals all over the country that are
smaller than 65,000 square feet — even if that was an absolute limit, which it is not. New ones of that
size are being developed at all time." He added that the memo goes on to say that small specialty
shops are more likely to compete with businesses in the downtown area, and "I wonder since when a
65,000 square foot building can be described as a specialty shop." Mr. Rieley added that a 65,000
140
square foot building is bigger than any store downtown, and re-emphasized that the overall size of
the development in compromise proposal is more than % the size of Fashion Square Mall.
Mr. Rooker said that the proposal gives the applicant tremendous flexibility, with single -story space
of 150,000 square feet, and 225,000 square feet if second -story footage is added.
Mr. Rieley commented that this is a sloping site, and there are two-story shopping centers with first
floor access on lower floor and second floor access on the upper level, such as the Towers Shopping
Center in Roanoke. "There are lots of ways in which creative design on this site can use reasonable
scale models to create a lot of retail square footage. What it does not allow is the national model of a
huge block put down on a site that can't tolerate it."
Mr. Rooker mentioned that Lowe's is in the middle of a huge, all -commercial location, placed in a
Regional Service area. He said that this site is different because it is adjacent to residential, and the
alternate proposal tries to allow for some transitional treatment of the site through the residential
areas. "I think there are some fundamental differences between... Route 29 and this specific site off
of 5th Street."
Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant could just put footers in to accommodate eventual re -division,
instead of putting walls in that meet the smaller space criteria.
Mr. Rieley replied that they need to be conceived of as separate buildings, but they could be
adjoining and attached. "I think there are a number of things like that in Comprehensive Plan
+ language that will have to be ironed out when the specific proposals come before us .... If the
applicant came before us ... with a compelling case that putting two of these beside each other would
decrease the impact on the site rather than create more, and that was the most efficient way to utilize
the site, my feeling is that this Commission — or whoever is sitting in this place would be reasonable
in interpreting how that would be implemented."
Mr. Rieley concluded that he feels that the buildings should be conceived of as 65,000 square foot
buildings, not as a big -box that can be subdivided. "That puts us in a box... in that we are then
evaluating how well a box can be divided up, rather than thinking about how 65,000 square foot
units can best be fit on a site."
M
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the alternate proposal would allow for adjoining three 65,000 square foot
buildings.
Mr. Rieley replied yes, but added, "I would think within this Comprehensive Plan language, it
would be incumbent upon the applicant to show that that is a reasonable way to arrange the units on
this site, rather than starting from the proposal that you can have one big box that can be
subdivided."
Mr. Nitchmann asked, "What's the difference? Other than the way it's presented verbally the fact
that I'm going to have 160,000 square foot underneath roof, and I can subdivide it later into two
65,000 square foot buildings and whatever's leftover, or I'm going to build three 65,000 square foot
941
buildings, but inside of that outer shell, I'm going to leave 80% of the connecting walls and not
lo.w construct them."
cm
Mr. Rieley said the difference is under this language, it is incumbent upon the applicant to show that
pushing these things together is a reasonable thing to do.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "So what you're really saying there then is you don't feel personally that it's
going to be possible for them to have larger than a 65,000 square foot building standing on its own."
Mr. Rieley said, "We're not going to make it easy for him to put a huge box in that can then be
subdivided."
Mr. Rooker said, "The language in the Comprehensive Plan is not specific. It is relatively general...
I don't think that as written this prohibits the applicant from linking buildings to create a larger space
to be used by a single user."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "If I was the company saying I want to come to Charlottesville, what you're
basically telling me is that you design the building, bring it to us first, and we'll tell you whether or
not we're going to let you build it."
Mr. Rooker said at this stage, the Commission is considering a somewhat general language change,
and if the applicant decides to pursue it, it would go to the board, and if they passed it, the applicant
would need to seek a rezoning that would come before the Commission because any change to the
Comp. Plan does not change zoning on the property. "It's merely an indication of what we think is
desirable in the community for this piece of property.... Assuming that the applicant follows that
procedure... we'll see more specifics and we will be able to deal with them in a specific way." Mr.
Rooker noted that if a rezoning is also granted, the applicant will have to come back with a site plan,
which is even more specific. "I think we could argue about how language might be applied in
certain circumstances, but it's somewhat conjecture at this point ... we're clearly allowing a single
user to own and operate up to 165,000 square feet."
Mr. Rooker added, "We don't know how they might want to design that space today, but I don't
think we're precluding a lot of different potential designs that might be reasonable on that property
and attractive, and very commercially marketable."
Mr. Finely said, "You still have the same total square footage, and each building I presume would
have to have sidewalks around it .... plus more walls, more cost. Don't you believe that standards in
place [will make it "nice and beautiful"] and most of all feasible for what the owner wants it to be.
don't see why three 65,000 square foot buildings would be any [more] attractive than a nice, well -
designed all -in -one."
Mr. Rooker commented that the language in the Comprehensive Plan is not intended to be overly
specific, and leaves some judgement to be exercised at the rezoning level and site plan level. "What
we're looking at here is some language that does give us some flexibility in the future to see how
this potential development might be presented on this property.
141
cm
Mr. Finley said, "When [the applicant] said that a smaller building would effectively preclude a
shopping center from attracting a major anchor tenant, and it's what people in the south want, you're
saying you don't think that's correct."
Mr. Rooker responded, "I don't think that's correct for a couple of reasons... there are a number of
pretty good size users that would like to use 50-65,000 square feet of space." Mr. Rooker referenced
a Wall Street Journal article showing the recent trend in shopping centers, with 40,000 square feet
stores with smaller users. "I think even if you were limited to 65,000 square feet, there are a number
of potential users that could and would occupy that space if it's a development that's well done. But
I don't think this proposal precludes him from linking boxes under appropriate circumstances and
creating a larger connected space for a single user. We're trying to give him some flexibility for him
to do that and achieve that if it's appropriate."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "The general public that were against us will just come out again and say it's
just 160,000 big -box instead of a 210,000 square foot big -box, and those of this sitting on this
Commission that want to will listen to that comment and won't care about what the people in the
southern part of the county wants." Mr. Nitchmann said he did not need any more discussion on the
proposal, and wanted to move forward with action.
Ms. Washington asked what happens if the change is made and a developer decides he cannot fit the
center on it and must abandon the property.
Ms. Thomas responded that the property is zoned Light Industrial and could be developed as such,
which would not change if it the applicant did not rezone it. If the Comprehensive Plan was
adopted, he could still develop under the Light Industrial zoning. He could not move forward with a
shopping center development until he went through rezoning to some sort of zoning district that
allowed a shopping center.
Mr. Benish said with Industrial Districts, 70% coverage is allowed. He added that once the
Comprehensive Plan recommendations are adopted, they will stay in the plan for the general
recommendations for that site regardless of whether this applicant pursues it further or someone else
takes control. Mr. Benish said that the county would use those guidelines in evaluating rezonings for
other types of land use changes.
Mr. Rooker noted that this applicant would decide he could not make the site work, the property
remains light industrial.
Ms. Washington said, "What happens the next time a developer comes and the Comprehensive Plan
doesn't fit what they want to do, and we get the next site -specific change for the Comprehensive
Plan." She stated that she is struggling with changing the Plan to suit one developer.
Ms. Washington continued, "People on the southern end have the right to have a big -box
development if that's what the developers want to put there. I think sometimes we get a little crazy
with [amount of square footage]. We have to in a broader sense, kind of control some things, but
this is the developer's money that we're spending to put something here that's nice for... all the
'741
EM
people of Charlottesville, Albemarle, and the surrounding counties. I don't know where we stop
making these kinds of restrictions."
Ms. Washington said a lot of work has been put in by all parties involved. Regarding traffic, Ms.
Washington said, "I don't think the traffic is going to increase or decrease on that corridor at certain
times of the day no matter what we put there or what we allow to put there. I just don't know when
it is enough government, and when the other people in the county.... we're making all of these
concessions... we need to let the developers put what type of development they want, if that's what
the people in Scottsville and surrounding areas want."
Ms. Washington concluded that residents of the southern end of town need to have some discount
shopping, too, and didn't believe that the mega -store would affect the mall because of the
differences in the stores. "I do think that over a long period of time, those people from Scottsville,
Fluvanna, Louisa, Buckingham, can come into town. They don't have to come over to 29... that extra
money they're spending on gas .... they can stop right there and shop."
Mr. Thomas said, " I think we need to spend as much time as it takes on these projects to make sure
that they're good enough for the community, and we don't destroy a lot of good things that may be
destroyed by a big box or a small box ... that's a very tender area out there ... Moore's Creek
surrounds it... and there is going to be a lot of runoff coming off that piece of property. I grew up in
Belmont, and watched Moore's Creek just about die because of pollution." Mr. Thomas said he
moved onto Locust Avenue and watched Meadowcreek completely die because of unmonitored
construction and runoff.
Mr. Thomas emphasized that their action would affect Moore's Creek, and the runoff will also go
down to the Rivanna River and create potential flooding hazards. Mr. Thomas said that the alternate
proposal is sufficient for that piece of property. "If you walk that property, it's a little flat on
top ... but it will have to be taken down quite a bit to get a footprint of the size that we're talking
about put in, plus the parking lot." Mr. Thomas added that he has talked to a lot of people who want
the big box but said, "I don't think they know the consequences behind tearing that hill all the way
down as far as it will have to be taken to put a box in there, or to put anything on it." He concluded,
"I don't think I could ever support a building any larger than what we're proposing at this time.
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I don't think numbers alone tell the whole story ... we have to be careful not
to make numbers alone substitute for planning decisions. Even a relatively small box can have large
impacts. I'm somewhat concerned about what may happen... on this site even at the lower scale
level. I'm worried about traffic problems, especially for city neighborhoods nearby. I'm worried
about environmental concerns. I'm worried about viewsheds. I'm worried about maintaining the
integrity of the contiguous neighborhoods, once even a smaller box — even if that box is divided
endlessly into still smaller boxes — moves in next door. I'm very glad that we will have the
opportunity — no matter what happens here tonight and beyond ... to look at the fine details and tune
those a little more thoroughly at both rezoning and site plan review."
He continued, "Frankly, I'd prefer to see nothing at all happen on this site, but that's not realistic.
It's much too valuable a site economically to expect reasonably that the landowner won't develop it.
I would much prefer to see a smaller scale mixed -use development than anything larger. I think
?44
people south of the city do indeed deserve convenient discount shopping. I don't think they
Sobw necessarily want it at the expense of good planning or a high quality of life. I think that the
compromise proposal that Commissioners Rooker and Rieley have drafted ... would go farthest
toward accomplishing that end."
lM
M
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he could support the alternate proposal, although he expressed
reservations about the size. "I believe that this probably offers overall the best that we're going to be
able to do towards that end .... it would have be nice to have considered it outside the parameters of
just this one application. With all due respect to [Commissioners Rooker and Rieley and staff], I
think it would have been nice to start with a blank sheet of paper and go up rather than take the
original Regional Service proposal that the applicant brought us and scale down.
Mr. Loewenstein added that it would have been nice to have a Cherrette process take place on this
site .... which would give people from all over an opportunity for input— citizens of the city, citizens
of the county, citizens of outlying regions, who will use this site if it turns into shopping. "I think it
would be a good thing to get input and although we've had input from all these sectors concerning
the specific application that's been before us, and variations on that, we haven't had everyone to sit
down with that blank sheet of paper. And I think this would be a fantastic opportunity to do that."
Mr. Loewenstein concluded, "This is arguably the most important undeveloped parcel left in the
urban ring. I think for that reason alone, it merits consideration for a Cherrette process; however, I
know that's not going to happen tonight. I will support the compromise with some reservations, but
I would like to suggest that the Board in its wisdom consider some alternatives."
Mr. Nitchmann commented that he is not going to support the alternate proposal. "I think it's going
to be very, very difficult for superstore or a discount store that can offer the citizens of the southern
part of the county the goods that they would like to buy at a discount price. I don't believe with the
personality right now of this Planning Commission that you will get three 65,000 buildings hooked
together no matter what form they bring it in."
Mr. Rieley said, "I really think this is a [situation] in which we learned a lot from the process. It was
an open one ... in the course of it I changed my opinion substantially about this .... I do think it's
important to reiterate that ... most of the people who spoke against the big box did not speak against
commercial development on this property. And most of them didn't even speak against a discount
store on this property, Most of the people who spoke in favor of the proposal were speaking in favor
of discount store... only one person out of two public hearings said `we want a big box.' Being in
favor of discount shopping does not mean being in favor of a mammoth store on this site."
Mr. Rieley continued that he is proud of the alternate proposal because it responds to both groups of
people, and if it's adopted by the Board, "it will send a clear message to the Board that we want to
work cooperatively with the applicant in developing this site very well. But I think it will send an
equally clear message that we're not interested in the standard big -box."
Mr. Finley said he would not support the proposal because from an environmental engineering
perspective, "the big box will not have any more impact on the site as three smaller buildings... with
145
OR
smaller buildings... with the ordinance already in place and your interim design manuals... they'll be
obliged to take care of environmental problems even if it goes beyond the BMPs."
Mr. Finley continued that however the Commission votes, the developer might decide to place the
store elsewhere. "A development that will bring a million dollars in revenue to our county — one
that's actually going to pay for itself — will go elsewhere. Then the people on the south will have to
drive [elsewhere]." Mr. Finley added that he "feels inadequate to sit here and start juggling figures
around, and placing buildings around ... I'm not nearly as capable of working that out to look well, to
function well, as the people who are going to spend millions to build it."
Mr. Loewenstein asked what the procedure was, given that the item considered is CPA 97-05 Brass,
Inc.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that being a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the proposal does not fall
within what is typically considered as a rezoning or special use permit application. Mr. Cilimberg
added that Albemarle is one of the few places in Virginia that has a Comp Plan Amendment
application process; normally it is all instigated by the Planning Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of the Alternate Community Service
Proposal as drafted. The motion passed in a 4-3 vote, with Mr. Rooker, Mr. Rieley, Mr.
Loewenstein, and Mr. Thomas voting in favor, and Mr. Nitchmann, Ms. Washington, and Mr. Finely
voting against. The Board date for the item has not yet been scheduled.
SP 98-63 Trinity Presbyterian Church — Petition for a special use permit to allow an additional
building and parking on the parcel in accordance with Section 13.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance
which allows churches by special use permit. The property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 17C
and 17C 1 is located at 3101 Fontaine Avenue where Fontaine Avenue deadends near the northwest
interchange of Interstate 64 and the Route 250 Bypass.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report, noting a map of the church site. She stated that the applicant is
requesting an addition to the church to allow for a gym, classroom, small outdoor amphitheater, and
an additional parking area to the rear of the existing building. Ms. Echols noted that staff has
reviewed the special use permit and had some concern that there is a lot of parking at the location.
She indicated that staff learned that there are three services each Sunday, with 1200 — 1300
attending, and currently there is not enough space for everyone to park. Ms. Echols read the
recommended conditions as outlined in her staff report, noting a maximum of 105 new parking
spaces. She added that staff also recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver to enable
building in the rear of the site.
The applicant, Mr. Fred Missal of the Cox Co. addressed the Commission and offered to answer
questions.
Mr. Loewenstein asked about the size of the amphitheater and how much grading would be
necessary for that.
246
Mr. Missal explained that initially they had designed the site without the amphitheater, but they were
concerned about making the steep slopes in the back usable and take advantage of it. He continued
that they initially developed a plan for an amphitheater that is 80 feet in diameter, but the Trinity
building committee feared they would be cutting down too many trees, so the designers decreased
the size down to 30/40 feet in diameter and incorporated the grades in the land. Mr. Missal said that
the amphitheater will be entirely grass turf, and will not have a solid structure. In response to Mr.
Loewenstein's question about the number of people it would accommodate, Mr. Missal said that the
amphitheater would be used primarily for Sunday School classes — possibly 30 to 50 people.
Mr. Rieley asked about the pavement. Mr. Missal said it was "prime and double -seal," confirming
that all the pavement out there now is that composition. He noted that there is a stormwater
management facility to the left of the new parking, which has been designed to handle the
impervious runoff, and said they are intending to include BMPs with the project.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of SP 98-63 with
conditions as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of a critical slopes waiver
pertinent to SP 98-63. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-22 Triton (Bellair) — Request for special use permit for a personal wireless service facility in
accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for radio -wave
transmission and relay towers. The property, zoned R1, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor, and
described as Tax Map 76C Section 2 Parcel 1, contains approximately 1.5 acres and is located on the
west side of the Route 29 By -Pass (Monacan Trail), approximately one-half mile south of the
intersection of Routes 29 and 250 West (Ivy Road) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District, at 14
Deer Path. This site is located in Neighborhood Six, and recommended for Neighborhood Density
Residential. Applicant requests deferral to June 15, 1999.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded deferral of SP 99-22 to June 15, 1999.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 99-01 - Pantops Place — Request to rezone 12.3 acres from R-1, R-6 and R-10 Residential to
PRD Planned Residential District to allow up to 130 dwelling units in retirement village. The
property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcels 55 A-1 and 55-A5 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial
District on Route 150 East, adjacent to Westminster Cantebury, approximately 1.13 miles from Free
Bridge and the Charlottesville City limits. The density of the development is 10.5 dwelling units per
acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density, recommended for 6.01-34
dwelling units per acre in Urban Neighborhood 3, Pantops. Applicant requests deferral to June 29,
1999.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
NOW
247
CR
MOTION: Ms. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded deferral of ZMA 99-01 to June 29,
1999. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Finley left the meeting, and Ms. Washington chaired the remainder of the meeting.
SP 99-12 Rising Sun Baptist Church — Request to allow a dining area addition to the existing
church in accordance with Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for church
building and adjunct cemetery. The property, described as Tax Map 99, Parcel 86, contains 2.022
acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the west side of Old Lynchburg
Road, Route 631, approximately 0.25 miles north of the intersection of Route 631 Old Lynchburg
Road and Route 712 Plank Road. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Rural Area.
Mary Joy Scala presented the staff report, noting that the applicant proposes an 840 square foot, one
story rear addition to an existing historic church for a dining area to accommodate large gatherings.
She said that staff has reviewed the request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and
recommends approval with conditions.
Ms. Scala elaborated that staff opinion is that the proposed addition will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, as the church property is well -maintained and the use of the church is
periodic. Ms. Scala continued that the dining hall addition will not occasion any additional traffic to
the site; the purpose of the dining hall is to serve the existing congregation, about 50 regular
attendees for Sunday services, and about 100 attending homecomings which occur 3 to 5 times a
year. Ms. Scala reported that the 2-story addition to the church was built in 1987, and the church
plans to add to back of the addition, which will increase the dining area and add bathrooms on the
lower level.
She stated that Virginia Department of Health Approval is needed to accommodate the expanded
kitchen areas and bathrooms, which staff has included as a condition of approval. Ms. Scala said
that VDOT is recommending that the existing gravel entrance be paved with 30-feet width to the
right-of-way line, and the entrance be raised 8-12 inches to enhance site distance to the north. Ms.
Scala said that county engineering reviewed the site and found that the existing entrance is adequate
for the current use.
Ms. Scala concluded that staff opinion is that the proposed addition will add to the convenience of
the congregation, and said that it is more appropriate to require entrance improvements based on an
intensification of use. She said that if an increase to the congregation is proposed in the future, the
special use permit should be amended at that time. Ms. Scala reiterated the proposed conditions of
approval as outlined in her staff report.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if it was necessary to state in the first condition what the Health Department
is approving. Ms. Scala said she did not believe that it was necessary, and Mr. Cilimberg said that it
is usually included if there is an issue regarding the size of a system to accommodate size of a
congregation. Mr. Loewenstein asked if the design of the addition would be similar to the older
addition.
248
,.r Ms. Scala responded that she believed the new addition would be similar to the older one, adding
that the existing addition is behind the church and is not that noticeable from road; the new addition
will be behind the older addition.
CM
09
The applicant, Catherine Burton — clerk of the Rising Sun Church, addressed the Commission. She
said that she is doing the paperwork as the Health Department has required, noting that in 1987 the
person who dug the well/septic system did not finalize a paper that said the work was complete. Ms.
Burton said they have gone back and obtained the septic system documentation, but the person who
put the well in is not in good health, but they are attempting to locate him to secure the proper
papers.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the addition would be similar to that which was added in 1987.
Mr. Gene Burton addressed the Commission, and told them that the addition would be similar
construction.
Public comment was invited. None was offered
Mr. Rieley said that the proposal is an exemplary way to add onto historic building because they are
adding to the addition, not to the historic core of church... He added that church is an important part
of the community, and making the addition will increase their capacity to fulfill their mission. Mr.
Rieley said he agreed after looking at site that there is no need to improve the current entrance.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of SP-12 with conditions as
outlined by staff. Mr. Rieley asked if Condition # 1 needed to be tied to the special use permit,
expressing concern that it may slow down the process. Ms. Scala said that they need to get Health
Department approval anyway to obtain the building permit. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-13 Guaranty Bank at Forest Lakes — Request for special use permit to allow drive-in
windows for a new bank in accordance with Section 24.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows
for drive-in windows associated with a permitted use. The property, described as Tax Map 46B4
Parcel 1 D, contains approximately one acre, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on
Fortune Park Lane approximately 1/5 mile from the intersection of Worth Crossing and Seminole
Trail (Route 29). The property is zoned Highway Commercial (HC). The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Community Service in the Hollymead Development Area.
Mr. Sipe presented the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to build a new bank of
approximately 3,000 square feet with five drive-in windows — four standard teller -operated windows,
and one ATM. He said that the proposal requires Board of Supervisors approval of a special use
permit to allow drive-in windows and Planning Commission approval of a waiver to allow internal
one-way circulation. Mr. Sipe noted that the property, zoned Highway Commercial, is adjacent to
commercial property also zoned HC. He said the property abuts Route 29 at Forest Lakes at the
intersection of Worth Crossing and Route 29.
249
Mr. Sipe continued that there are three adjacent uses with drive -through facilities: McDonald's,
114W First Citizens Bank, and the Forest Lakes car wash. He reported that staff has found the request to
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinance, and other adjacent uses; the
proposed use will not cause substantial detriment to adjacent properties and will not change the
character of the district. Staff finds that the proposed use of drive-in windows is an acceptable
accessory use to a bank, and recommends approval of the proposed special use permit for drive-in
windows with conditions.
Mr. Sipe presented Commissioners with additional information, noting that staff felt is was
important to provide a copy of the ARB's site plan comments — which raise a concern about the
proposed drive-in window (Attachment `B"). Mr. Sipe read from the ARB report, which states that
the proposed four teller -operated lanes will be out -of -scale with the proposed building, and reducing
the structure from four to two lanes would be more appropriate for the Entrance Corridor. Mr. Sipe
pointed out that staff intended for condition one to provide approval for up to five windows with
understanding that site plan review and ARB considerations may prevent the applicant from getting
that full number. He added that if the Commission did not feel comfortable acting on the item at
this time, they may wish to consider deferral until the ARB's concerns are addressed.
Mr. Sipe said that the internal one-way circulation is inherent in drive -through design, and staff
recommends approval of the waiver request if the drive-in windows receive a favorable
recommendation. Mr. Sipe said that if the waiver is approved, staff will proceed with administrative
approval of the site plan. He concluded that staff recommends approval of the waiver with
conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the Commission were to alter the SP language to more closely reflect ARB
concerns, would this revise the waiver request.
Mr. Sipe responded no, that they will still need to the one-way waiver request.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the ARB intends to convey a message that the drive-throughs should be
limited, stating that that is the issue.
Mr. Sipe clarified that the SP action is not intended to limit the ARB authority, but felt that he
needed to inform Commissioners that their action would be taken knowing that the site plan
presented would be revised.
Mr. Kamptner asked Mr. Sipe if he knew when the ARB would complete their review.
Mr. Benish said that the next ARB meeting dates are June 7 and June 21, but the item is not on the
agenda because there has not been a site plan revision submitted yet.
Mr. Maynard stated that he has been informed that the applicant intends to pursue the site plan as
presented with landscaping revisions.
Ms. Washington expressed concern about the number of drive -through lanes, with an existing bank
already there. She mentioned that the Commission granted the credit union 6 lanes, but they only
�,
250
use four. "To me, that is a wasted use." Ms. Washington expressed concern about kids riding bikes
Now to McDonald's, and said having two banks this close together would be even more problematic. She
said that more signage is needed, especially with another bank being added.
Mr. Loewenstein said it would concern him a great deal to see this many lanes of traffic coming out
of that facility into an area where children are biking and walking. He added that there is quite a
sizeable residential population almost immediately adjacent to the site, which generates a lot of
traffic. Mr. Loewenstein wondered if a bank in this location even if it does intend to serve a
sizeable residential population would require that many lanes. "There are not many banks in this
community that are effectively using that many drive -up lanes ... it seems that it may be a little out of
scale." He added that they should not be substituting for the ARB, but agreed with their point as
noted in Ms. Pickart's letter.
Mr. Rooker said the issues being raised are a safety issue, which the ARB would not be considering.
He asked what the distance is that the lanes have to converge before entering the public street, and
noted that it did not look like much distance on the diagram provided.
Mr. Cilimberg noted the large drawing of the plan, and added that the building may be "flipped
around" at the ARB level.
Mr. Loewenstein said he did not feel it was appropriate to approve the permit without knowing about
the building placement, etc.
'`` w The applicant, Brent Nelson of Roudabush, Gale and Associates, addressed the Commission. He
stated that he understood from bank officials that they felt there was sufficient traffic to require the
five lanes.
09
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the bank plans to utilize all five lanes.
Mr. Nelson said his understanding is that the bank does plan to use them all.
Mr. Sipe noted that during the site plan process, this may be restricted.
Mr. Nelson said that some more plans, including the landscaping plan, would be submitted within
the week. Mr. Loewenstein asked if there would be any serious difficulty if this application would
be deferred.
Mr. Nelson said that the bank trustees would prefer that it be reviewed now, because of time
constraints.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the item is not going to the Board of Supervisors until July 14cn
Mr. Loewenstein said it was going to be difficult to for the Commission to make an informed
decision, especially in light of the potential significant changes to the building and its orientation.
251
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Commission would need to consider the item on June 29'h in order for
the item to be considered on time.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded deferral of SP 99-13 to June 29th, 1999.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-19 Wachovia — Request for special use permit to allow the relocation of angled parking and
one-way traffic circulation in accordance with Section 23.3.3.5, 4.12.6.5, and 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance which allows for angled parking and one-way traffic. The property, described as Tax
Map 61 Parcel 122, contains 1.831 acres, and is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Route 29
North near the intersection of Rio Road. The property is zoned CO, and the Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Regional Service in Urban Area 2.
Mr. Mahon presented the staff report, stating that Wachovia is proposing to move the existing ATM
to a free-standing kiosk; to accommodate the move, existing angled parking would be relocated next
to the existing building. Mr. Mahon described the location of the site, on the east side of Route 29 in
front of Fashion Square Mall. He said the property entrance is directly off of 29 near the intersection
of Rio Road, and access is also gained from the Fashion Square parking lot.
Mr. Mahon explained that special use permit approval is required for the drive -through access
portion of the proposal, and in accordance with the zoning ordinance, the Commission must also act
*'' on the request for modification to allow one-way circulation and angled parking. Mr. Mahon
reported that staff has reviewed for compliance with the ordinance, and recommends approval
subject to conditions. He noted that conditions as presented should be modified to state "drive -
through windows will be limited to five, not four (four traditional plus one ATM window). Mr.
Mahon said that staff has recommended approval of the waiver request for the internal one-way
circulation and angled parking.
Mr. Rieley asked about the drive -through bays, and asked where the ATM would be located.
Mr. Mahon noted on the map where the drive -through lanes currently are, and where the ATM
would be. He said the ATM would be located on an "island" north of the building, away from the
building.
Mr. Jim Boyd, of Heyward, Boyd and Anderson, addressed the Commission. He explained he has a
long association with building, including the site plan in 1976 or 1977 to double its size; in 1980,
Jefferson decided it needed an ATM against the building, and the angled parking was moved to its
current location. Mr. Boyd said the current plan would put the parking back way it originally was,
with Wachovia replacing ATMs around the state to replace with a uniform free-standing kiosk
model. He added that this is a safer plan because people will not have to cross traffic to park their
car to get into the bank, and said that Wachovia has made a commitment to upgrade the landscaping
conform to Albemarle County's EC guidelines.
Mr. Mahon noted that the proposal greatly increases wheelchair access to the building.
252
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of SP 99-19 with
recommendations and revised conditions as set forth by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of the one-way circulation
waiver request pertinent to SP 99-19 with conditions as presented by staff. The motion passed
unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of the angled parking waiver
request pertinent to SP 99-19 with conditions as presented by staff. The motion passed
unanimously.
SP 99-20 Free Union Country School — Request to amend an existing special use permit to
increase enrollment at a private school in accordance with Section 10.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance
which allows for private schools in the Rural Areas district. The property, described as Tax Map 29,
Parcel 15D, contains approximately 4.76 acres, and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District
at 4220 Free Union Road (Route 601), approximately 1/4 mile south of the intersection of Routes 601
and 665 (Buck Mountain Road). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and the Comprehensive
Plan designates this property as Rural Area in Rural Area 1.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, noting that the language in Condition #6 which addresses
construction of additional structures. Ms. Thomas reported that Jan Sprinkle in zoning suggested
using the word "commenced" instead of "completed," because improvements in phases may give
zoning better enforceability in the long term.
Ms. Thomas noted that the wording of her staff report included inconsistent references to enrollment
as students and/or staff.
Mr. Rieley said that there should be consistency in the references.
Mr. Loewenstein expressed concern that the word "enrollment" was correct. He suggested using the
word "occupancy" without specifying the number of students and staff.
Mr. Rooker suggested changing the word "students" to persons.
The applicant, Martha Maclay, the building manager of the school, said they are applying for this
now for long-range planning to accommodate future growth. She said she has applied for maximum
number that licensing factions would approve to prevent repeated application to the county to add
incremental numbers. Ms. Maclay said that the Free Union School standing in community is quite
good, and they want to increase involvement with community. She added that there are a number of
useful things the school provides to the community: parades, picnics, soccer field, nature trail,
playgrounds, bike stop -offs, etc. Ms. Maclay said that they are interested in building a children's
library in the next few years that could be used by the school as well as the community.
253
M
Ms. Maclay said that the enrollment/occupancy is their first concern so that they can establish how
projects will be financed. She reported that they have obtained limits from the Health Department
on septic and water use, and officials have approved the current buildings for that number. She
reported that VDOT had concerns about access from Route 601, and requested that if occupancy
would be increased, then a turn lane would need to be installed; and engineer has been contacted to
begin drawings on the plan. Ms. Maclay said that a counter has been installed to measure peak
times, and reported that VDOT projections showed daily use at 450 trips with 90 persons. She
added that the counter showed that the actual traffic was 200 trips per day, and with increased
enrollment, the trips would increase to as much as 300.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the school does plan to implement the VDOT suggestions.
Ms. Maclay responded that they are having the engineer draw up plans, but didn't know how long it
would take VDOT to approve it.
Mr. Cilimberg said that Condition 1 C goes with schools as standard condition, and Condition 4
addresses the VDOT concern.
Mr. Rieley asked about the enrollment numbers. Ms. Maclay said that they are at the 60 limit, and
agreed that the entrance lane situation needed to be addressed before the coming school year.
Mr. Cilimberg said in this case, VDOT cannot require anything as long as it comes through the
special use permit, but staff is recommending implementing the VDOT suggestion.
Mr. Rieley said that they may wish to build a little flexibility into the condition. Ms. Thomas
confirmed that the condition does not exist in the current special use permit, and would be a new
turn and taper lane. She expressed concern about the curve near the access.
Mr. Loewenstein said he has a lot of familiarity with the school, as his daughter once attended,
stating that entering and exiting the driveway entrance is sometimes a tricky thing. He said that
while carpooling has improved, it must get "fairly dicey" out there from time to time. Mr.
Loewenstein said that he wants to be sure that if the occupancy is stepped up, people are not being
put at risk.
Ms. Thomas noted that the real problem is the increased traffic on the road, and suggested rewording
the condition to give the school flexibility but not leaving it hanging too long.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that occupancy implies different things than student and teacher
attendance, and might limit numbers during special events. He suggested using the language
"maximum number of students and staff should not exceed ninety persons." He further suggested
changing the wording in the condition pertaining to the turn lane to state "Within six months of any
increase in its present authorized enrollment..."
254
0
Mr. Loewenstein said that it may be advantageous to the school to begin the process for the added
taper lane.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the school would not be into the stipulated time period until the enrollment
reached sixty, meaning that within six months the turn and taper lane should be installed.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of SP 99-20 with Conditions 1
and 2 as presented, and other conditions modified as follows:
3. Maximum number of students and staff shall not exceed ninety persons or such lesser number
as may be approved by the State Department of Health and/or the Thomas Jefferson Health
District, or as necessary in order to comply with the requirements of Section 32.0 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. Within six months of any increase in its present authorized number of students and staff of
sixty persons, the applicant shall install the turn and taper lane required by VDOT on Free Union
Road.
5. Prior to any increase in its present authorized number of students and staff of sixty persons, the
applicant shall meet all parking requirements set forth in Section 4.12.6.6.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance; and
6. Upon an increase in the number of students and staff to more than sixty persons, this special
use permit shall be considered to have been exercised. Under approval of this special use permit,
construction of any additional structures and/or improvements at the Free Union Country School
shall be commenced within a period of five (5) years from the date of approval of this permit by
the Board of Supervisors.
The motion passed unanimously.
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
Ms. Washington announced that there would not be a Commission meeting on June 8th; the next
meeting would be June 15th
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
V. Wayne ilimberg irecto f Planning
& Community Devel pment
255