HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 08 1998 PC Minutes..-
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on. Tuesday, September
8, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms.
Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Dennis Rooker; and Mr. Will
Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development;
Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Ms. Margaret
Pickart, Planner; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Minutes of the
August 25, 1998 meeting were unanimously approved as amended.
-------------------------------------
ZMA 98-02 Airport Road Office Complex - Request to rezone 2.5 acres from RA, Rural
Areas to C-1, Commercial with proffers. A conceptual plan that accompanies the rezoning,
though not proffered, shows construction of an office building. The property, described as
Tax Map 32, Parcel 41 B, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas, and designated for Office Service in the Community of Hollymead. Deferred from the
September 1st Commission.
The applicant was requesting deferral to September 29, 1998.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that ZMA 98-02 be deferred to
September 29, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-41 Wal-Mart Stores. Inc. - Request for an amendment to an existing special use
permit, in accord with the provisions of Section 30.6.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, to expand
the outdoor storage and display within the EC Entrance Corridor overlay district on 13.284
acres. The proposal calls for the addition of five (5) outdoor storage containers on the south
side of the existing Wal-Mart Store building. The property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel
68135, zoned HC Highway Commercial, is situated on U.S. Route 29 North in the Rio
Magisterial District. This property is located in a designated development area
(Neighborhood 1) and is recommended for Regional Service.
Ms. Pickart presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Rooker asked: "(Are we), in effect, getting into a situation where we are allowing, by
temporary storage unit, what we would not allow by way of increased size of building, i.e. if
they were seeking to expand the building to include what they now have in terms of
temporary storage units, whether or not they could do that on this site? I don't want us to
get into a situation where we are allowing people to skirt the parking and other requirements,
giving them an incentive to use temporary storage units rather than put in a permanent
building." Ms. Pickart said the storage area on the south side of the building --the enclosed
area --was always intended for expansion. She did not know the current number of parking
spaces, nor what would be required if the expansion were built. Mr. Benish said the
9-8-98 2
Ordinance would require very little parking for storage area and any impact to parking
requirement would be related to retail expansion area. He referred to a note on the plan
approved for the previous expansion which said: "The 30,000 square foot future expansion
is not approved at this time. Future development is to be limited by the availability of
parking."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Guy Fogg. Answers to Commission questions were
as follows:
--The gates will be closed at all times, except when loading or unloading.
--Storage units will not be stacked. He had no objection to a condition which would
disallow the stacking of units.
--60 parking spaces will be "temporarily" lost while this area is used for storage.
These spaces (and additional) are made up, however, by the fact that the area which is
used for garden sales in the spring will be available for parking when the storage units are in
use. "It is a tradeoff." He believed there are currently 171 "surplus" parking spaces.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker said he could support the request if two conditions are added:
--The gates will remain closed except during loading and unloading activities.
--The storage units will not be stacked.
He confirmed that his concern about stacking is related to visibility.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-41 for Wal-Mart, Inc.
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The temporary storage containers shall be located within the existing enclosed storage
area on the south side of the building and shall not exceed 9'6" in height.
2. The gates will remain closed except during loading and unloading activities.
3. The storage units will not be stacked.
The motion passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------
CPA 97-02_N & S LL (Southpointe) - Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for
Neighborhood 5 to change the designation of land located in the southwest quadrant of the
Fifth Street/1-64 interchange from Transitional to Regional Service. This area includes
approximately 41 acres. This site is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish and Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Staffs recommendations were as
follows:
OR
9-8-98 8
(1) The existing Transitional designation should remain but the Land Use Plan
recommendations "could be amended to articulate the scale and character of development
that is expected for this area." The report explained:
Although no change in designation would therefore be needed under this interpretation,
the Transitional designation admittedly must flex and stretch to accommodate the
larger sued structures contemplated by the applicant (# �5,��4 s10) and the more
intensive activity which would result.
(2) There should be no change to the Urban Density Residential designation currently
applied to the four -acre parcel at the intersection of County Green Road and Old Lynchburg
Road. The report explained:
Given tha hesitancy to clearly designate a residential element in the larger shopping
center mix on the main parcel, staff is concerned that all residential holding capacity
could be lost at Southpointe if the office use displaces residential on the smaller
parcel. Given the barrier created by Old Lynchburg Road, staff additionally feels that
there is a natural demarcation between the small parcel and the main portion of the
site, one which appears to reaffirm the appropriateness of residential at the former
location;
(3) A change to Regional Service (from Transitional) should not be made to the property at
the eastern end of the main parcel at this time. The applicant was requesting this change to
allow for the hotel/motel c",ornponent Of the proposal. T hle repot explained:
[A change to regional service] would be a reversal of the 1995 actions (with the
adoption of the Lane Use Plan) by the Board of Supervisors to: 1) not designate this
area Regional Service as recommended by the Planning Commission; and 2) remove
this area from consideration under the Interstate Interchange Policy.... The Board's
actions were based on the intent to avoid the visual, traffic, and other land use impacts
of, and the character created by, highway oriented type development to the larger
(mostly residential) neighborhoods along this portion of the Fifth Street corridor.
Establishing these uses on this parcel may well provide a precedent for development
of travelers' services along this corridor, which is inconsistent with the Board's intent for
this area.....
Staffs report included proposed language (marled %Mth "bullets -- •" in the report) to amend
the text of the Land Use Plan, Neighborhood 5 Recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan to renect the recommendations stated above, and also included text to address
transportation improvements that are related to those changes.
Staff answers to Commission questions were as follows-.
--Proffers are submitted by the applicant and evaluated by staff at the time of
rezoning. The applicant has indicated that it is their position that traffic ir„provenzent,7 at the
Interstate Interchange are related to an existing condition and are a "public responsibility."
The applicant, has, during discussions with staff, addressed other traffic impro'vernents at
„,.. other intersections along the corridor.
--No specific cost estimates have been assigned to the various components of
transportation improvements (listed on pane 5 of the staff report), but staff might be able to
0167
9-8-98 4
determine a "range." Mr. Rooker thought it would be helpful to have an idea of the cost of
these recommended traffic improvements prior to Commission action on this request.
— Tiie third r ecom i tendation under transportation improvements (page 5 of staff
,.{ 11 1 L_ ., _.• , r
repo" l), `.nil„cih bQginS "f11r4her development," ent is a general s at�rnent €or I.Ir v�isC3C3i�I�tJ��'� 5�11 I• i .
I V I 11 h V J t1 IVI 4V VI I V 1 VI VI 1 Jl VI / IV I \Vtyl 11./V V V.
Rooker thought it would be helpful to have more detail from staff in terms of "recommended
timing" of the transportation improvements and their relationship to this proposed
development and other potential A., elopment along Fifth Street.
--Given the fact that the City has no plans to widen it's portion of Fifth Street, Mr.
Loewenstein cautioned that any transportation improvements roust not "turn Fifth Street into
a funnel."
--Staffs statement that "it is not anticipated that this development would significantly
increase traffic on Fifth Street" is based upon the Traffic Model. Mr. Rooker could envision
that some traffic might actually be taken off Fifth Street because shoppers will not have to
'travel Fifth Street on their way to the shopping and entertainment areas in the northern part
of the county.
--Regarding the 4-acre parcel, staff is concerned about the loss of residential holding
capacity in this area. Staff is riot aware of any public comment on retaining urban density
on the parcel. Because the applicant's plans for the 4-acres are not as defined as for the
rest of the property, staff felt it was best to retain the existing designation until the proposal
for the parcel is better articulated by the applicant. Under both R-10 and R-15 zoning there
is the possibility for some office -type uses which might meet the applicant's "flexed use
expectation" which has been discussed. The residential holding area for Neighborhood 5 is
Nka,,, a potential 1800 to 4,500 additional dwelling units. Approximately 300 units of that could be
on the R-10 zoned portion of this property.
--Referring to staffs statement that some " flex and stretch" could be used to
accommodate the applicant's proposal under Transitional designation, Mr. Rieley asked if
that same "flex and stretch" could be extended to that portion of the property where the
hotel/restaurant is proposed, "with the caveat that the applicant car] address staffs concerns
about the character of the area, and the scale, etc.?" Mr. Benish responded: "I think there
are ways to do that. It was probably the most extensive area that we debated at the staff
level. There vvas a real clear intent by the Board to limit highway -oriented type of activity.
But I think there is the possibility within certain design constraints to address some of the
concerns that we have. What we were reluctant about is the question of how, during a
rezoning, do you differentiate between those expectations? We looked at the possibility of a
hotel with a community orientation as well as a travel orientation. Something with more of an
extended stay with community facilities in it that could serve the community and not just the
highway traveller could very well fit. But how do you describe that and then start to justify
those types of facilities that fall into that grey area? We wondered if we were really
stretching beyond what the Board (intended)." Mr. Loewe istein said anott er ti car is ration
about this type of use is whether this type of facility would increase traffic flow into the City.
Mr. Benish added that the staff does not really have a clear idea of the need for hotels and
motels and though the applicant did provide a market analysis, "there are still those same
fundamental worries that we have that are related to big -box retail --what happens if you
overbuild and the community is left with buildings that need to be reused."
—Mr. Rooker asked to what extent, in terms of proffers at the time of the rezoning, can
the County obtain assurance that the development will build out as depicted in the design
drawings presented by the applicant. He said: "if we could do that, it seems to me we might
�� D
be able to address the concerns about the hotel within that proffer (process)." Mr. Benish
responded: "I think that is certainly possible. We don't intend, within a comprehensive plan
amendment, to suggest a particular plan. The applicant, though they have done a good job
in trying to design this to fit, have admitted that they have not finalized their plans. So it
would probably not be a good idea, at this time, to even suggest a specific plan. What we
try to do in this language is articulate with words what we would hope to see to try to reflect
that picture. At the time of rezoning --and with your discussions reflected in the minutes you
are on record as to your expectations --we can look, in the case of the rezoning, with the
language that we have in the Comp Plan and what the reasonable expectations were at the
time and we can accept a proffered plan of development at a rezoning." Mr. Rooker pointed
out that the applicant has gone beyond what is required at the time of a comp plan
amendment and has presented a plan to the neighbors which the neighbors support. He
said he believes neighborhood support is tied to the design that has been presented. He
said: "I would not want to see a change in the Comprehensive Plan and then a proposed
rezoning which did not include some very specific proffers to make certain that what may
have induced us to be receptive to this change in the Comprehensive Plan is not going to
definitely be built there." Mr. Benish said it is for that reason that the Commission must be
comfortable with the proposed language changes in the Comp Plan because if this
development should not go forward, this change "is going to set the stage for how we
evaluate a rezoning and what expectations you are putting on a future applicant, be it this
applicant or some other...."
At is staffs position that the hotel component of the proposal requires a Regional
designation. Staff does not feel it is a "typical" Transitional type of use. Staffs statement that
the use does not "appear to be consistent" is staffs opinion. Mr. Benish said: "it was
suggested that there are ways that it could be accommodated, but, on its face —possibly two
hotels with up to 250 rooms with a food court and a separate free-standing restaurant --that
concept is something that is more a highway oriented type of center and not a community
type of center."
--Mr. Finley asked if special permits might still be required for some uses the applicant
might propose. Mr. Benish pointed out that the proposed changes to text in the Comp Plan
are "general guidelines --policy statements --that do not necessarily have to be adhered to
precisely. That will always be subject to the Commission's, and ultimately the Board's,
interpretation. If every word of this is not followed, but the intent is basically followed, that is
what we look for in terms of application of the Plan. It is intended to be general in nature.
We are trying to send the best and most specific message we can, but if there are uses in
the rezoning that meet the general intent but are not precisely articulated here, then 1 think it
is possible that those could be considered."
Mr. Thomas said he had been very impressed with the applicant's plan, particularly with the
proposed landscaping and the buffer along Fifth Street.
In response to Mr. Rieley's request that staff describe how the process works, Mr. Benish
explained: "The ball is in our court right now. What we propose is literally amending the
language of the Neighborhood 5 profile (in the Land Use section of the Comp Plan) and if
you want to make sure that the language states clearly what you intend and then you want
us to make sure that what you intend is doable, from the applicant's standpoint, we can
certainly do that. But, you are basically re -writing that section of the Comprehensive Plan to
��9
9-8-98 6
- articulate what you want to see on that site. We can do whatever you feel is necessary to
ensure what you want is doable with the applicant. You could, theoretically, recommend the
adoption (of this amended text) and the Board could adopt it. We would amend those pages
and that, along with all the other goals and objectives of the Plan, would be what we would
consider in evaluating the rezoning request."
Mr. Benish confirmed that this proposed amendment is specific to this property in
Neighborhood 5. Mr. Rooker said he had been concerned about making a "general change
to the Comp Plan that would apply to all transitional areas."
Mr. Rooker asked if staff feels the proposed approach is preferable to a change to Regional
Service, with proffers to accomplish the objectives of the Comp Plan. Mr. genish replied:
"The most important thing is the specific statements of what your expectations are for
development on this site. There are three ways you could go. We can keep it Transitional.
We can designate part of it Community Service, which is not Regional Service but is closest
to what the proposed shopping center is. We can call one section Regional Service and one
section Community Service, with Regional Service being the hotel area. The Transitional
designation is new and we are kind of working our way through it. We felt the whole idea
was to provide some flexibility and that was the purpose of putting transitional on here. So
our approach was to not change the map and text. We think it meets the broad intent of
transitional. Let's just articulate how we want that Transitional designated so you are not
changing the map and text. That is really what it boils down to."
Given the fact that this is a site specific amendment, Mr. Finley asked if the same process
will be required for any other developer who may have a proposal for a Transitional
designated area. Mr. Benish said there are only three areas with the Transitional
designation. One of these --on Berkmar Drive Extended --already has expectations described.
So there will only be one other where the expectations will need to be articulated. Staff does
not believe this will set a precedent.
Mr. Finley asked if the Transitional designation will cover everything (except the hotel) that is
reflected in the applicant's letter. Mr. Benish said the uses listed in the letter referred to by
Mr. Finley "are entirely consistent with what we would usually see in Transitional."
Applicant comment was invited.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Cliff Harmner. He described the proposal. His
comments included the following:
--The property was once designated Regional Service and the applicant is requesting
that designation be applied once again. Highway Commercial zoning will be sought for the
eastern end of the main parcel to allow for the hotel/restaurant complex. He pointed out the
location for the HC zoning and those areas where Community Service is requested. A
professional office designation is requested for the 4-acre parcel.
--The development will serve the tourist industry and will provide positive fiscal impact
to the County (1.2 million dollars/year).
--The residents of the community have made it clear that they do not desire additional
residential development in the area. The applicant has held several meetings with
,2- 70
9-8-98 7
community residents and the residents support all aspects of the proposed plan. The plan
addresses most of the concerns that were raised by community residents.
--This project supports the aesthetic and architectural issues that apply both to this
site and the entire county.
--To be able to develop a design of this quality requires that all aspects of the project
be in place "to support the entire project." "To handcuff the proposal, by not allowing all the
components to work together, would be detrimental to the whole project."
--The applicant would like to be able to discuss transportation issues with staff,
including how those issues may be addressed with proffers. The problems related to the
Interstate are regional in nature. There is no precedent where any other project was asked
to address the problems associated with a regional Interstate interchange."
--The applicant does not believe the project, as proposed, can be accommodated
within the Transitional designation. Mr. Rooker noted that staff has indicated there might be
a way to permit a hotel with design parameters that would fit into a neighborhood type
shopping center. He asked if that could be done, would it accomplish the applicant's
objectives. Mr. Hamner said he thinks staff is speaking of a different "scope and scale." He
said he believes the hotel/restaurant complex envisioned by the applicant would only be
allowed under a Regional Service designation. He described the hotel component as being a
total of 250 rooms, in possibly 2 or 3 different facilities.
Mr. No Romanesco described the results of a market analysis he performed for the
applicant, the results of which indicate the need for additional hotel and retail services in this
part of the county. He distributed copies of his report to the Commission and called
attention to a letter included in the report which summarized his findings. His report
analyzed retail sales, retail occupancy rates, population trends of surrounding counties, room
night supply and demand from 1991-1997, existing hotel/motel facilities, the age of existing
lodging facilities, and restaurant and lodging sales. Mr. Romanesco confirmed the applicant's
proposal for 250 additional rooms would represent a 10% increase in total rooms available in
the county. (There are presently 2500 rooms, excluding Keswick Hall and The Boar's Head
Inn.)
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Nick Herowitz, President of the Sherwood Manor Homeowners' Association, expressed
support for the proposed development. He said the residents of his neighborhood do not
support high density residential development of this property.
Mr. Gary Level, Vice President of the Sherwood Manor Homeowners' Association, expressed
support for the proposal. He said the applicant has responded quickly to all inquiries and
has attempted to address all concerns. The residents also support the hotel aspect of the
proposal. He said he is aware of no negative comments about the project.
There Ming no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said he attended all the meetings which the applicant held with the neighbors
and the process which the applicant followed is precisely what the County encourages, i.e.
"getting the community involved in the design of projects which will have a major impact on
(__�Z7/
9-8-98 8
their lives." He had heard no objections from the neighbors to the proposed development,
though he did hear many objections to high density residential and to a truck stop type use.
He said he believes there is presently a need for this type of development in this part of the
county, and there will be an even greater need as this part of the county continues to grow.
He said this is a challenging site and he believes a lot of thought has gone into the
environmental aspects of the proposed development. He questioned whether a residential
development could be as well designed. He believed the hotel use is an important
component in the long-term economic vitality of the development.
Mr. Nitchmann questioned a statement in the staff report related to the Board's position on
hotel/motel facilities on this property. He said he believed the intent of the Board was not to
allow a truck stop, but it was not the Board's intent --at least not all members of the Board --
to not allow a hotel use.
Mr. Nitchmann said he believes the cost of the transportation improvements should be
shared with the City, and possibly this developer and the developer on the other side of 164
(if that property develops). He did not believe the cost of the transportation improvements
should be the responsibility of one individual. He said he does not think it would be fair to
expect this applicant to pay for the widening of the Fifth Street ramp, though it is probably
this applicant's responsibility to pay for a traffic signal in front of the hotel.
Mr. Nitchmann said he believes residential development of this property would not be as
"neighborhood friendly and as traffic friendly" as is this proposed development. He pointed
out that residential development would not reduce traffic through the city nor on Rt. 29
North. He does not believe this is "over -kill" given the growth that is expected to take place
in this part of the county in the next 10 - 15 years. He felt any concerns could be addressed
through proffers.
On the question of Transitional or Regional designation, Mr. Nitchmann said: "I think it
needs to be whatever is necessary to make this a successful project. " He questioned
whether Transitional would allow what is proposed, without the need for a lot of special
permits and waivers.
Addressing Mr. Nitchmann's statement, Mr. Benish said he believes Transitional could allow
for what is proposed (minus the hotel). He explained: "The color on the map, which is the
difference between Transitional and Community and Regional service, really is less important
than articulating what your specific expectations are for development. We are basically in
agreement with the shopping center component of it, but we were, on that map of it, trying to
reflect, basically, that proposal using the Transitional color on the map. It is in the text that
we try to address matching that proposal to this. We can do it in Community Service or
Regional Service, I suppose, but we were just trying to keep it simpler and we thought
Transitional designation more clearly intended what has been implied as the real purpose of
this, i.e. to serve this community."
Mr. Benish addressed Mr. Nitchmann's comment about the Board's intent for this area. He
said: "Mr. Nitchmann is right about a particular rezoning request that we looked at on that
site --a diesel station with space for large trucks to come into the area. There was a definitive
9-8-98 9
action by the Commission and the Board to deny that. But in the review of the Land Use
Plan, adopted June 1996, the Planning Commission recommended this area for Regional
Service and the Board of Supervisors chose not to endorse that recommendation and the
Board imposed the Transitional designation when they reviewed and adopted the Land Use
Plan. At that time they also took a further step of taking this side of that intersection out of
the Interstate Interchange Policy, which took highway oriented types of uses out of it. There
was a clear intent to do that. The way the Land Use Plan was adopted, there wasn't a vote
on every single decision. There was a consensus on what changes to make to the Plan and
there was one vote taken on the entire Land Use Plan document. What we are citing in the
staff report is a different discussion than that rezoning request (for the truck stop)."
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Nitchmann's question as to what is the easiest way to get to a plan that
is similar to what the applicant is proposing is a good one. He added: "I think we want to be
mindful of the fact that the 'devil is in the details' and whereas we like what we see --and the
neighbors like what they see --we want to make certain that what we see is what we get."
Mr. Benish responded: "The difference we have is that the total number of rooms and the
number of hotels and the commercial activity at that comer is not consistent with the intent of
the Land Use Plan review and we feel that goes beyond the latitude that we feel is
appropriate under Transitional designation. If you want to approve 2 to 3 separate hotels
and food court and restaurant there, I would suggest changing the designation to, probably, a
Community Service designation, which would allow hotels and motels, if you deem it
appropriate."
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the issue is about overall scale, i.e. the total number of rooms, and
"if so, are we making any kind of significant change by breaking that up into 2 or 3 but
keeping the same total number of rooms, (or is staffs concern about highway oriented
uses)?" Mr. Benish responded: "Highway oriented uses and the tendency of that type of
traffic and that type of appearance in this corridor. You just need to decide whether or not
you think this corridor needs hotels in it. If you think that is appropriate, we will make the
adjustment to this (proposed text change) to allow hotels in it."
Mr. Rieley noted that staff earlier indicated "there is some flexibility to allow some of that kind
of use." Mr. Benish responded: "Yes, but if it is clearly your intent that hotels are
appropriate uses, there is no need to outline a concern about hotels, we just need to identify
how you want those hotels to develop, because we have a specific statement in here that we
feel hotels are not an appropriate use in this Transitional designation. You need to get rid of
that and you may want to add what your expectations are for that hotel development."
Mr. Loewenstein said: "And that is not saying the same thing as saying 'hotels are not
appropriate for this site."' Mr. Benish responded: "Right."
Mr. Rooker said he agrees somewhat with the applicant about the economics of this project,
i.e. (1) "If it is not economically successful it is unlikely it will look like (what has been shown
to us); and (2) Traffic generated by a hotel complex is different than traffic generated by the
shopping center component and perhaps that balancing of traffic will ease traffic problems that may
otherwiseexist past the intersections." He noted that the neighbors have indicated a desire for a
93
9-8-98
10
mixed use, as outlined by the applicant, "and that mixed use probably helps assure, not only
in terms of not having as large a shopping area to fill up, but also in terms of having hotel
guests Ding able to frequent the shopping center, the success of the shopping center." Mr.
Rooker said he believed Mr. Romanesco had made a good case that "the rooms are needed,
or will be needed over a period of time," and it appears this is an area where rooms are
likely to be utilized, and in a way that will help take traffic off existing roads that are presently
over utilized in the 29 corridor."
Mr. Benish said if it is the consensus of the Commission to allow hotels, then staff will need
to modify the proposed text changes and bring it back to the Commission. He said, given
what the applicant is proposing-3 pads for hotel and motel" --staff would be inclined to go to
a Community Service designation.
Mr. Rieley said he agrees that a 3-motel complex "is probably stretching Transitional farther
than we would want to stretch it."
Mr. Rieley commended the applicant`s design team for its responsiveness to both the
Commission and the neighbors. He thanked the Commission's Chairman and the Board of
Supervisors for making a joint work session with the City Planning Commission possible. He
said this sets a "wholesome standard for the future." Finally, he commended staff for what
he described as one of the best staff reports he has seen since being on the Commission.
He said the staff report was clear, concise and compelling and had made the case that
Transitional can achieve, "maybe not everything the developer wants, but the parts that are
going to serve the community the most." He said good points have been made that some
hotel use can complement the project. He said Mr. Romanesco's analysis demonstrates
clearly that a hotel can be successful at this location, "but it does not demonstrate that this is
the best place for a hotel complex of that scale." He said: "I think with a slightly scaled
back --or maybe not so slightly, but I think we should look at it carefully, —hotel -motel complex
that we could end up with a really terrific project that really breaks new ground and sets a
much higher standard for any commercial development than we have in this area. I think the
vehicle to do that is clearly the Transitional designation. I think it has a lot of flexibility and
the applicant, up to this point, has shown a great deal of capacity to work cooperatively with
us and I would look for that to continue. I think within the Transitional designation we could
get a really good project. I think if we set this to either Regional or Community Service
standard, we are opening the door for very ordinary highway development. I don't think they
are proposing ordinary highway development, but we could get it and we would be opening
the door for that. If we leave the Transitional, we are not."
Mr. Rooker asked: "How do we get to the point where we are sure that the development that
has been proposed, in terms of sensitivity to the environment, is, in fact, what is actually built
there. At the time of the rezoning, will we get sufficient proffers to ensure that occurs?" Mr.
Benish responded: "That would be the next step. Our evaluation of the rezoning will look at
the recommendations that are in the Comprehensive Plan, at the evaluation of the site and
particular site constraints and development issues that need to be addressed in order for you
to take that legislative act to change the zoning to the other designation needed for the
proposal. That is when the proffers are anticipated. I think to the extent that we can
articulate what our expectations are for scale of development, the easier it is in that next
12N
11
step. ... If there is a clear understanding of our expectations, the applicant can approach,
either through a planned development or through a rezoning with proffers if they choose,
some of concerns you've outlined."
Mr. Kamptner added: "An alternative approach is if they come in seeking a Planned
Development, then the details would be set forth in the application plan. I think you reach
the same result, but it is a different approach they can take." Mr. Benish said: "PDSC
(Planned Development Shopping Center) would fit well, or PDMC (Planned Development
Mixed Commercial) probably could accommodate this." Mr. Benish confirmed in a Planned
Development approach the design becomes a part of the rezoning. Mr. Kamptner added: "A
Planned Development would also give them a little more flexibility within the design of the
project."
Mr. Finley raised the issue of the 4-acre parcel. Mr. Benish said staff presently is
corn€ortable with the Urban Density Residential designation. He said it is recognized that
most of the residential holding capacity will be lost with this change in land use, but retaining
the residential designation on the 4-acre parcel "saves a little of it." The R-10 or R-15 zoning
would allow some office space, though given the fact that it is a small site, he did not know
how feasible mixed use may be. Mr. Loewenstein said he supports staffs recommendation
because he does not want to see all the residential potential given up. Mr. Nitchmann said
use of the 4-acres for professional offices had been discussed in the neighborhood meetings
and was supported by the neighbors. Mr. Benish again stated if it is the intent of the
Commission to "provide the applicant the maximum flexibility to implement what he is
intending --a flex use or a mixed use --it would be better to make a change to another
designation. But staff is saying this sort of encourages residential, but the option to consider
offices under a special permit is available." Mr. Rooker wondered how feasible residential is
given the close proximity to the Interstate.
Given the discussion which has taken place, and the indication that there is support for some
type of hotel component, Mr. Nitchmann asked what action the Commission should take at
this time. Mr. Benish replied: "if the concept as fully recommended by the applicant is what
you want us to reflect in this statement, I would suggest we go back, modify the statement
from Transitional to Community Service, and add to the language of the text your design
expectations, if you want to allow that extensive a development of the hotel/restaurant area."
Mr. Loewenstein said he still has questions about the scale of the hotel/restaurant use
because of concerns, including traffic concerns, about potential impact to the character of
the neighborhood, the City, and the entire region. He said people will probably stay more
than one night, and will be visiting other parts of the County and the City, which causes
concerns about traffic. He said he is very pleased with the other aspects of the proposal
and he recognizes that the hotel use is important to the economic viability of the project.
Mr. Rooker asked what negative impacts are perceived from the hotel use. He said the
existence of hotel rooms do not "create" tourists. Tourists are coming to the area and they
need a place to stay. "It seems to me there is a clearly demonstrated need for rooms in the
corridor south of Rt. 250, and this looks to be a nice way to solve that need. To the extent
that the people are staying in this area because it is convenient to areas they are going to
C1 ? _"
12
9-8-98
visit, it would seem to me to generally reduce traffic because you are not increasing the
number of tourists. Increasing the number of hotel rooms does not increase the number of
tourists, it simply helps accommodate the tourists that are there."
Mr. Loewenstein agreed that it could help reduce traffic to and from hotels located on Rt. 29.
Mr. Rooker questioned whether the City would want to reduce tourist visits to the downtown
mall businesses. He said: "I'm not sure that is the kind of traffic on city streets that the City
wants to prevent." Mr. Rooker said: "if the scope of the hotel project can be developed as
presented on this plan visually, and in terms of the environmental impacts they would have to
satisfy, and the requirements and conditions that might be imposed with respect to water
quality, etc., (then) I don't see negative impacts flowing from the fact that you have 250
rooms vs. 180 or 100 or 25. But it is difficult to impose upon an applicant a requirement to
create the kind of project that we see here without allowing for some of the economics
necessary to make the project successful."
Mr. Finley said he believes the project could "tend to balance and probably not increase
traffic at all through the City." The same applies to University visitors.
Mr. Rieley said he thinks there are still a lot of unanswered questions, and one reason he is
more comfortable with a Transitional designation is that it constricts the conversation, a little
more, to what is before us, because that is the reason we would be stretching the
Transitional to accommodate a plan that we like." He said there are clearly some things in
the plan which will have to change so we should "not get so enamored with the plan that we
change the zoning and then end up with something we are not happy with." Items which will
require some changes are the location of the building next to Covenant School and parking
provisions. (Insufficient parking is shown to serve the buildings which are shown on the
plan.) He understood the concerns about a "viable project," but said a lot of successful
shopping centers have been built without hotels.
Mr. Rooker said all projects he is familiar with, in other parts of the country, that are of this
type of design, have some type of hotel component. He said if we want an "upscale
development, we must be mindful of the economics."
Again staff was asked if Transitional can provide the kind of flexibility necessary to
accommodate the scope of the hotel proposed by the applicant, or is a Community Service
designation needed?
Mr. Benish replied: "if it was one hotel, 75-100 rooms, extended stay, with community
facilities within it, and you could arguably say it provided benefit to the community I think
we could probably make that stretch. But three hotels, 250 rooms, a food court and a
highway oriented restaurant, is not really what the general intent is of Transitional. That's the
reason we are looking at scale. The scale is not so much the impact. Presently there is no
commercial zoning in this area. You have a chance to mold the zone to do what you want it
to do. The Board felt at the time this Land Use Plan was adopted that they did not want
highway -oriented types of uses and that is why they took the Regional Service designation --
recommended by staff and the Commission --out of that draft and did not adopt that."
7/6,
9-8-98 13
Mr. Rooker asked about the differences between Community Service and Transitional and
Regional designations. Mr. Benish explained: "Regional Service is 250,000 square feet
minimum and allows for outdoor display and storage and requires a major collector. It allows
uses of a regional scale that are highway oriented, such as department stores, auto dealers,
mobile home sales, hotels, motels and hospitals. Community Service is a maximum of
200,000 square feet and any use should not exceed 65,000 square feet, but it allows for
supermarkets, department stores --all the uses proposed under the shopping center. And it
does say 'compatible Regional Service uses, which then allows us to go back to Regional
Service and say hotels and motels are conceivably permitted. That is how we would change
the language. We would say 'this is a Community Service area and that we anticipate some
level of hotel development that is appropriate in this Community Service designation."'
Mr. Rooker said: "And it would give us control over the scope of that development." Mr.
Benish responded: "It could."
Mr. Nitchmann said there is the chance here for a high quality development and he would
not want to see that lost because we are working inside boxes." He said he would like staff
to work it out with the applicant and then bring it back to the Commission.
Mr. Benish said staff needs a clear consensus from the Commission.
Mr. Loewenstein said it seems clear that "we want to ensure some flexibility and at the same
%,. time we want a certain measure of protection... and whatever should go on this site at any
time, we would be seeking those broad overall goals."
Mr. Nitchmann said it may be that the way to be successful in the future "is not to look so
much at hard written standards, but view them as guidelines." As an example, he said he
hopes the parking requirements can be flexible and can address some of the concerns
expressed by residents, such as wider spaces.
Mr. Finley said the Commission needs to reach a consensus on the 4-acres also. He
supported including the 4-acres in the change in designation.
Based on staffs description of the different possible designations, Mr. Rooker said he
believes Community Service comes the closest to fitting the goals that have been discussed.
It does provide the flexibility for the hotel component at the scale sought by the applicant, but
it also provides a measure of control in achieving the desired design. He said: "I don't think
we're locked into 250 rooms just because we tell staff to consider Community Service. I am
just saying if ultimately we agree that the scale sought by the applicant is appropriate, we
can grant that without stretching the definition of the Land Use designation." He said he
feels Regional Service would be going beyond the scope with which he is comfortable.
Mr. Rieley asked if it is "equally easy to restrict Community Service" as it is to stretch
Transitional Service. Mr. Benish said: "Yes, I think you can." He called attention to the first
"bullet' in the staff report which says "flexibility of scale is warranted" and it also recommends
that "the area include development under a master plan." He stressed the importance of
articulating in the Comp Plan language what "concept' is envisioned for the development of
c�277
9-8-98 14
.. this area. The designation of the colors on the map is more of a nuance and we are just
trying to keep some consistency that we don't stretch these things so far they have no
meaning at all.... What we need to know from the Commission is to what extent of this
proposal you are comfortable with and we can make the words and the colors on the map
work."
Mr. Rooker said he supported directing staff to develop language to designate the property
as Community Service in the Comp Plan. The Commission can then act on that revised
language at a future meeting.
Mr. Finley said he felt the 4-acre parcel should be included because looking at the entire
property would provide the chance to achieve a "better balance" for some residential. Not
including it means any residential will be "boxed up in the 4 acres." Mr. Rieley added: "I
think Mr. Finley raises a good point, but I'm not sure what the mechanism is to fold some
residential into the other part of the property and treat it all the same way."
Mr. Benish said potential language related to the 4 acres could be: "The four acre parcel at
the intersection of Country Green Road and Old Lynchburg Road is designated for mixed
use development with residential and offices encouraged to the extent feasible." Mr. Rooker
said: That would give us some flexibility at the time of rezoning." Mr. Benish replied: "You
are just stating what the intent is for what you would like to see happen there. Then the
applicant needs to come in and indicate whether that is feasible or not."
Mr. Loewenstein noted that Mr. Hamner's letter of July 8, 1998 says "mixed uses Pace on
the second level is anticipated in this primary area we are talking about and the design would
be of a flexibility that might allow for some residential use as well as the demand warranted."
He said he would prefer to exclude the 4 acres at this time.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the applicant could comment on the Commission's discussion.
Mr. Hamner once again addressed the Commission. He said it is the applicant's intent "to
fulfill this concept for the character of the development" and that can best be achieved in a
Regional Service designation. He said the plan shows Highway Commercial development at
one end and PDSC and a Commercial designation across Old Lynchburg Road. The
applicant is willing, at the time of rezoning, to discuss proffers that will make sure that the
character of development is as depicted in the drawings. He said a Regional Service
designation would allow the applicant to control the financial aspects that will ensure the
success of the project and at the same time obtain the character of development as shown.
Mr. Rooker asked the applicant to explain his objections to Community Service. Mr. Hamner
said Community service would work well for the middle area, but the hotel/motel complex has
not been fully formulated and if it is too small it will not be possible to attract quality tenants.
He said in the past staff has not been enthusiastic about stretching the limits of definitions in
the regulations." The applicant said it will be much more difficult to fulfill the promise of this
,,: development if all the property is Community Service and" then try to fit a hotel/restaurant
complex in there."
9-8-98 15
Staff confirmed that if it is the Commission's intent to anticipate the consideration for hotels,
staff will write that intent into the language.
Mr. Washington questioned why the applicant was requesting Regional Service given the fact
that the Board has already made the decision that Regional Service is not appropriate for
this property. She said the Commission is trying to work with the applicant to allow the plan
that is proposed, though possibly at a smaller scale for the hotel component. She wondered
why the applicant was not willing to compromise also. Mr. Hamner responded: "We think
we would retain the flexibility we need by coming it at from the Regional Service perspective
even though we are willing to proffer out undesirable uses. We are willing to make sure it is
clearly understood that this central portion is a community service center. That has been
our point from the beginning. I'm not sure of the best way to handle it but Regional Service
would be our preference because we are willing with the Commission and the Board to make
appropriate proffers to bring about the character of development that we have presented."
Mr. Rooker said it appears there is a consensus to move forward with a Community Service
designation, but he questioned there would be the same consensus for Regional Service.
He said it appears the project could be accommodated with a Community Service
designation, even with the scope of the hotel complex that is proposed by the applicant. So
the question is: "Do you want us to move forward with a Community Service designation
not?" Mr. Hamner responded: "I think we could move forward with Community Service but
we would really like some definite instructions that allows the flexibility to work on the
hotel/motel/restaurant complex ... and some of the other specific issues of the site. That
should be clearly understood."
Mr. Nitchmann said the applicant has not yet convinced all the Commissioners as to the
scale of the hotel complex, so there may have to be some compromises on both sides." He
said he believes staff understands the consensus that hotels are desirable on the property,
but "they may not be as large as the applicant would like. He again expressed the hope
that staff will not be working "inside a box" and that "we are all going to have to bend and
compromise on the design."
Mr. Loewenstein said it appears there is a consensus on Community Service designation for
the property, but "there is not full agreement on anything else."
Mr. Benish asked if the Commission had concerns about any of the other language proposed
in the staff report.
There was a discussion about the Transportation Improvements on page 5 of the staff report.
Mr. Nitchmann said that section "needs a lot of work." He said this development should not
be held up because of VDOT projects which may not be completed for many years. He
said it is not this developer's responsibility to make all these improvements. Mr. Benish said
only the second "bullet" is specific to this development. It reflects VDOT's recommendations
for what improvements are needed for this scale of development. Ms. Thomas later noted
that the applicant has agreed to either install, or participate in the installation of, a number of
the items listed under the second bullet. It has always been clear that this applicant did not
79
9-8-98 16
feel responsible for Interstate interchange improvements and that is one reason the language
is so general in the third bullet.
Using the plan, Mr. Hamner pointed out the locations where the applicant has agreed to
provide signalization, and other areas where the applicant is interested in participating in
providing signalization. The applicant also agrees there should be a decel lane at the
entrance to the site from Old Lynchburg Road, but there is a question about the extent of
that decel lane. Staff confirmed that these types of details will be addressed during the
rezoning.
Mr. Rooker asked if the words "further development," in the third bullet, refers to
development which occurs after this project. Mr. Benish said it is a general statement which
speaks specifically to the interchange improvements regardless of whether it is this proposal
or some other. This statement says that at the time of a rezoning, the issue of timing of
development needs to be consistent with addressing these issues. He stressed that these
are general recommendations." He added: "The question was raised about timing. I think
one of the things we need to look at in terms of timing of developing is, comparatively in a
rezoning what is the difference between the traffic generation of what is by -right and what the
rezoning is. Based on the traffic analysis, the residential use from this site generates a little
over 6,000 trips; this proposal generates 16,700, trips "out of the site."
Mr. Rooker asked if these transportation improvements are cast in stone when the Comp
Plan Amendment is passed. Mr. Benish pointed out that the word "should" is used and that
was intended to provide flexibility, but, "as a County we have to decide whether we are going
to control development and time it with our infrastructure or not." This is trying to stress that
we are going to try to time development with infrastructure abilities. Mr. Benish added:
However this issue is addressed (this language) doesn't necessarily say that this property
owner has to proffer (these improvements). We are saying that development in this area
needs to be timed with the improvements to this intersection."
Mr. Finley asked how the top paragraph on page 5 would be revised. Mr. Benish suggested:
"Regional services are not recommended including large scale, highway oriented
development. A compatible regional service use of this area may be hotels and motels." He
added that whether the designation is Regional Service or Community Service, the property
still must be rezoned and the Commission will be able to look at the merits of a proposal.
He said there can also be a statement about what scale of hotel is appropriate for the site.
Mr. Finley said the word "compatible" is the key word. Mr. Loewenstein said he is
comfortable with this approach.
Mr. Benish explained that if the 4-acres were included in the Community Service designation
it means it is going to be a non-residential type of development that may have a mixed use
included. Maintaining it as residential means it is going to be residential and under certain
zoning provisions special permits can be requested." Staff is recommending that it remain as
currently designated-- Urban Density Residential.
It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to re -write the proposed amendment
language with the property being designated for Community Service and the 4-acre parcel to
17
.. remain, as presently designated, for Urban Denisty Residential. Staff will return a revised
amendment to the Commission for action, possibly under the Consent Agenda, in the next
few weeks (possibly on September 29th).
Mr. Rieley said he would join the consensus, but with some reservations because he felt the
staffs original recommendation for Transitional was correct. He said: "I also think this is an
important project which will require compromise on everyone's part."
Mr. Thomas said he, too, supports the consensus. He commended the applicant for the
work on the proposal. He said the project will be an asset to the community.
No formal action was taken.
-----------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Change in Meeting Time - The possibility of changing the meeting time to 6:00 p.m. was
once again discussed briefly. It was agreed that the time would be changed on a trial basis
for the remainder of the year.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that Commission meetings
begin at 6:00 p.m., effective October 1st, and that the change will be evaluated at the end of
,, the year and a decision as to whether or not to make the change permanent will be made at
that time.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0:1, with Commissioner Finley abstaining.
Mr. Finley said he abstained from the vote, but he supported the concept.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
M
on
.• l