HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 01 1998 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DECEMBER 1,1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 1,1998 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. William
Finley; Mr. Rodney Thomas; and Mr. William Nitchmann. Other officials present were: Mr.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Susan Thomas,
Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Mr. Juandiego Wade, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman.
The meeting convened at 6:05 p.m. A quorum was established with 6 members present.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the November 10, 1998 minutes
as amended. The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the November 17,
1998 minutes as amended.
Public Hearing:
SP 98-57 Vintase Market
Proposal for a special use permit to construct a 12 foot addition to south side and a 14 foot
addition to the rear of the existing Vintage Market [10.2.2.22] as well as to relocate the main
entrance to the south side of the building. The property is described as Tax Map 102, Parcel 27C
and consists of 1.9 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance corridor. The site is located
on Route 20 (Scottsville Road) approximately 5.1 miles south of the intersection with route 742
(Avon Street) in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This area is not located within a designated
development area of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission moved, seconded and
unanimously approved indefinite deferral of SP 98-57.
SP 98-56 Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad
Proposal for a special use permit to allow fundraising events in the existing Scottsville Volunteer
Rescue Squad building [10.2.2.5]. This is an amendment of an existing special use permit (SP
96-50). The site is approximately 9.738 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. This property, described
as Tax Map 130 Parcel 713, is located on Route 6 (Irish Road) at the intersection of Route 6 and
Route 737 9Mountian Vista Road) in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is
designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and is not located within a designated
development area. The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved deferral of SP
98-56 to December 15, 1998.
SP 98-47 Limited Service Hotel
Special use permit request for a 100 room limited service hotel [22.2.2.7] on a portion of a
37+acre parcel, zoned C-1, Commercial, EC, Entrance Corridor, and AIA, Airport Impact Area,
as described as Tax Map 32 Parcel 41D. The property is located west of Route 29 North
(Seminole Trail) and the Forest Lakes North commercial area, and south of State Route 649
(Airport Road), in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The site is designated for Regional Service
in the Community of Hollymead.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, referencing a "concept map" submitted by the applicant
solely for purposes of information and illustration. She pointed out the proposed hotel site and
other uses for the entire parcel which would come to the Commission through other projects,
giving a general sense of the potential site layout. Ms. Thomas illustrated the road alignment,
stating that VDOT has not officially commented on the plan, and said that it appears to be a
workable alignment given the site's topography. She said the hotel plan is the first proposal for
the 37-acre parcel, and told the Commission that the applicant's CPA amendment request to
redesignate the rear of the parcel for more commercial usage will come to them on December 8�'.
Ms. Thomas added that although she did not identify negative impacts, she felt the best planning
process for the parcel as a whole would be served by looking at the CPA for the larger area, then
"fitting in the smaller pieces."
Mr. Rooker mentioned the 1989 approval of SP 89-72 which allowed for a 144-unit hotel on the
property, and asked Ms. Thomas if something has happened since then that makes the current
proposal less desirable. Ms. Thomas responded no, but she felt "it was impossible to know
where best to site the hotel or how best to....develop the parcel when the future of the larger area
is somewhat in question at the applicant's request. That Comprehensive Plan amendment was
not initiated by staff, rather by the same applicant... there's a feeling that the area may undergo
some change...."
Mr. Rooker asked whether staff supported SP 89-72. Mr. Cilimberg said that coincided with the
rezoning of the property, and at that point there was no question about changing the Comp. Plan
designation for a larger area. "It was simply within the plan that the rezoning occur, and the
special use permit was necessary with that rezoning for the hotel to be developed. We were
dealing at that point in time with no question of changing the Comprehensive Plan or expanding
the commercial to a larger area. We were simply dealing with a rezoning and that special use
permit which were before us at the time and actually included a conceptual plan of how the
different uses would be laid out under that rezoning action. It was a different time and I think
different circumstances in terms of what future uses might be occurring."
The applicant's representative, Katurah Rowell, addressed the Commission. He said that the
hotel is clearly in the C-1 district, and driving force for the rezoning application is the Carmike
Theater project in the rear of the property, which consumes 12.5 acres. Mr. Rowell said the
request for the special use permit is specifically for the hotel; if that is approved, then they would
submit a site plan as supplemental information for the entire rezoning of the project. "It's hard to
request them to go to the expense of doing all their site plan work not knowing whether or not a
hotel is even permissible. There will not be an application for a site plan until the whole project
is under consideration." Mr. Rowell told Commissioners that if the special use permit is
approved, then the applicants would follow up with a Comp. Plan with individual site plans for
Carmike Theaters, the hotel, a restaurant, and projects for the front of the property. Mr. Rowell
said he would be coordinating all the site plans for each individual part to make a unified
landscaping approach for the parcel.
Mr. Rooker clarified with Mr. Rowell that whether or not the Comprehensive Plan change is
approved for the rest of the property, the applicant's intent is to go forward with the hotel plan
for that portion of the parcel. Mr. Rowell said "That location is the only suitable section of the
land where we can make a flat enough spot to put a building of that size."
Mr. Finley asked about the previously approved special use permits that have expired, and asked
why this permit needed to be approved before the CPA goes through. Mr. Rowell responded that
there was a previous owner to the property, and those deals fell through, so he put the property
ins
on the market. He said that the applicant was not eager to spend a lot of money on site plans
without knowing whether or not a hotel would be allowed there.
Mr. Howard Burnette, President of Southeastern Associates (the potential property owner and
hotel operator), addressed the Commission. He described their plan for a "suites" hotel, with 80
to 100 rooms, and would include the 4.5 acre parcel behind it for a limited service restaurant.
The hotel would include some meeting rooms for business purposes and a swimming pool, and
the rooms would be a larger 2-room style with microwaves, small refrigerators and other
conveniences.
Mr. Burnette said that they have already spent $30,000 in study, and did not wish to spend any
more until they could tell the franchiser they have a properly zoned parcel. He acknowledged
that by getting the zoning designation, they are not getting approval of the site plan and hence
could not build the hotel until the overall plan, including ingress/egress to Route 29, is approved
next year. "From a business point of view, we simply would like to the comfort as we move
forward in outlaying funds... we have a parcel that is properly zoned."
Mr. Ed Coleman, Chairman of Southeastern Associates, addressed the Commission. In response
to Mr. Thomas' question about the definition of a limited service hotel, Mr. Coleman said that
their proposed facility would not have room service or a full sit-down restaurant or general
alcohol service. He said there would be a nicely appointed deluxe continental breakfast area and
other amenities in individual high -quality rooms that would be priced accordingly. Mr. Coleman
said they are trying to establish a residential look to the properties, including building materials
and landscaping.
Mr. Rooker asked what the timing would be for development of the parcel if the special use
permit is approved. Mr. Coleman responded that once all permits are approved, it could take up
to 12 months to construct and open the facility. He added that they want to move forward as
quickly as possible once the site is approved.
Public comment was invited. None was given, and the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Thomas asked Ms. Thomas why she recommended denial of the permit. She responded, "I
recommended denial on really the basis of the process. It wasn't so much that I had a problem
with the hotel use or anticipated negative impacts from it, but I [was] quite influenced by the
Southpoint process, and I felt we ended up with a very good product and I would never assume
that I could anticipate the kinds of design guidelines that might come out of a Comprehensive
Plan amendment like the Southpoint amendment. And although this property can certainly
develop on its own without that CPA, I think it's always beneficial if you can unify an area
through design...."
She added that because VDOT has not yet responded, the road alignment could float and
influence the development of the site. "Once the SP is granted, the site development is a
ministerial act, and there really is no way of holding that off to time it with the [CPA] so that we
know some answers about the larger site before the hotel develops .... I just felt that the cleanest
way to do it is to look at the big picture first and then go down to the micro level. It's not really
the use, it's the process."
IFIV
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be feasible to accomplish those objectives with additional
conditions. Ms. Thomas responded that because she didn't know the larger site would lay out
such as the possible locations of the regional stormwater facility and pedestrian networks, she
couldn't anticipate what to include as conditions.
Mr. Rooker commented that if the CPA was not behind this, the reason for recommending denial
would not exist because the proposal would be considered in isolation. Ms. Thomas stated, "We
do have the opportunity for some master planning that we don't often have, and in my view this
is a very significant commercial area in a portion of the county that is trying pretty hard to
develop its own identity, and I think this commercial area is going to be a key part of that. I felt
that it was advantageous to do everything possible to do a unified planning job."
Mr. Rooker suggested adding a condition that stated the site plan would not be approved until a
master plan for the overall property is developed. Mr. Kamptner said a condition could provide a
link to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
In response to Mr. Rooker's suggestion that a condition to clarify the intended design of the
facility, Mr. Cilimberg responded that if approval were recommended, it would be preferable that
the Commission not include any design conditions because the property is in the entrance
corridor, and the ARB has asked that they not be "hamstrung" by design conditions. Mr.
Cilimberg commented that if a condition is placed that states no site plan would move forward
until there is a master plan, the time frame could end up running longer than a special use permit
is valid. Mr. Kamptner added that the Board of Supervisors can extend the special use permit
period.
`'� Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern that if the Comp. Plan process takes a year or more to go
through review, it might affect the applicant's window of opportunity. Mr. Nitchmann asked the
applicant, "If we approve the SP with a condition that says you have to wait until there is a
comprehensive site plan developed for this area and it has to go through the Comprehensive Plan
process first and that takes a year and a half, is that still within your window of opportunity or
acceptable to you?"
Mr. Burnette said it is acceptable to Southeastern Associates, and told Commissioners that
Virginia Land Company has allowed them to extend their option through January without
additional fees, and are content to continue. Mr. Burnette said they have no problem with a
condition that requires a plan for the entire site before the hotel piece proceeds. Mr. Coleman
said he wasn't sure how long the franchiser would be willing to wait, but if the special use permit
was granted Southeastern would be willing to spend money to see if the deal would work. Mr.
Burnette recalled that the particular franchiser for their proposed hotel provides an 18-month
window, and gave the date of November 25'h as the start of that 18 months. "Once we sign that
document and send them the $50,000....we've got 18 to 24 months to break ground. Their
definition of breaking ground is digging and pouring footers."
Mr. Finley asked if the CPA is supposed to come to resolution next week. Ms. Thomas clarified
that the first step of the CPA comes to the Commission next week. Mr. Cilimberg said step one
is for the Commission to decide whether it is worth considering the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment by passing a resolution of intent, which then goes to the Board for passage. He said
that the resolution outlines staff s initial findings as to the relevance of moving forward with the
CPA, then the Commission decides whether or not it is worth moving forward. Mr. Cilimberg
107
said the staff s recommendation notes several points regarding this specific area, and provides
language for that.
He added that while this particular property is what has instigated the review, the Board and the
Commission typically look at the larger overall area, not just a parcel, in their consideration. Mr.
Cilimberg added, "If the Board were to pass a special use permit with conditions as you've
included, what we would know is that for whatever period of time that special use permit is
approved for, a limited service hotel could go on this parcel within the conditions established.
Otherwise, how that would fit, how it would be accessed, how other land uses would relate,
would end up being part of the Comp. Plan amendment and ultimate rezoning and master plan."
Mr. Rieley commented, "It seems to me that all of those things are going to hold up the final plan
for this particular parcel anyway. I have to admit that I am in agreement with staff completely
on this — I think the approval of this as a discreet element really limits the possibilities for the
rest of the property, particularly because of it's location almost in the middle of the
property..... the phrase that our colleague Mr. Anderson used at one time not in relation to this
project of `ready, fire, aim' planning comes to mind. I think that staff is exactly right that this is
going to be missing a huge opportunity to look at this in a cohesive way. If this had been
presented to us with a very compelling plan and this as an element of it... I think I would feel a
little bit different about it. I think that we can do a lot better with this piece of property than the
suggestions that are in the outlying parcels on this. I think once this goes... we've lost an awful
lot of flexibility in dealing with the rest of the property."
Mr. Finley asked if the special use permit does not pin down the exact location of the property
could it still be fit into a master plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that the SP is for a portion of a 37+
N"W' acre parcel, and nothing in the conditions actually pins down the location, just the size, and asked
Mr. Kamptner to clarify whether the SP would allow for the hotel anywhere on that 37+ acres.
Mr. Kamptner replied, "Yes, and the condition puts a cap on the size of the hotel and the size of
the hotel site to 4.5 acres."
Mr. Rooker commented that the Commission could accomplish some planning objectives with
appropriate condition language while allowing the applicant to move forward with the project
financially with the franchiser. Mr. Cilimberg said the only part of the 37 acres that the special
use permit could apply to would be the C-I part, which would essentially be any location "below
the fold" topographically. Mr. Kamptner added that the Commission could impose a condition
that would place the hotel "in general accord with what's shown on a conceptual plan."
Mr. Rooker said that they may not want to pin it down any more so that they have the
opportunity to reconsider location appropriately within the master plan for the property. "It
would seem to me that the applicant and the County would have the option certainly at looking at
other locations at that time — the applicant being interested in getting all of the property approved
for development, and the County being interested in furthering the best plan for the property."
Mr. Finley commented, "But if he's proceeding with the purchase, he's going to have to pin
something down...."
Mr. Rooker replied, "What he's pinned down is that he would have... the zoning right to build a
hotel at least somewhere on this 37 '/2 acre piece subject to subsequent approval of the overall
master plan for the larger development."
1(1R
Mr. Nitchmann agreed with Mr. Rooker and said, "I think we need to come up with some kind of
conditions to move this forward... we've got an applicant who's got an interested party; he's
already put in a substantial amount of money forward on this, and I can understand why he's not
willing to put any more money forward with just the hope that something will happen. This was
approved for a hotel before... I understand what our Comprehensive Plan says, but it really
concerns me that we can say we can deny something because we don't like the process it's going
through....If the applicant withdraws his request for the Comprehensive Plan, he can... with a
special use permit put the hotel there."
Mr. Loewenstein commented, "I think that's a compelling point. I personally think... that this is
a good location for a hotel, and I think that ultimately a hotel is going to end up somewhere on
that parcel. It seems pretty clear. I think if there were a way to do it with appropriate conditions,
I would be willing to move forward on it."
Mr. Finley asked, "Can he move forward with a floating site?"
Mr. Rieley shared his concern. "I'm having a hard time figuring out where the advantage is to
having a special use permit but not having an approved site."
Mr. Rooker replied, "If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is never approved, then he is
enabled to go forward on this 371/Z acre piece with a hotel development .... I don't think it's
necessarily fair to the applicant to make him wait in effect a year to find out whether he's going
to get the [CPA] approval and then go forward with a special use permit application which may
or may not be granted."
Mr. Thomas said, "If he wants to get the money, he has to get the zoning done beforehand...
before they'll even talk to you."
Mr. Cilimberg clarified, "I think what we are understanding you to say that if this were to be
recommended for approval....there would need to be a third condition that essentially said no
site plan would be approved until such time as a master plan were approved following a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a subsequent rezoning." Mr. Kamptner provided technical
language to be included as the condition, and Mr. Cilimberg said it could be fine-tuned prior to
going to the Board.
Staff clarified the general plans for hotel operation provided by the applicant in Attachment C in
Ms. Thomas' report.
In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question about any additional conditions needed, Mr.
Kamptner suggested that something be added to assure the validity of the special use permit isn't
jeopardized by the process that may take place between now and the time they actually
"commence" the use.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "They have 18 months to do this from November 25th — they don't have 18
months to do this from the date that we get through running them through to wringer here. If
we're asking applicants to go through all of this work, it puts some obligation on our part that
says we'll have the CPA completed by February 15th or something." Mr. Nitchmann added that
it's the Commission's responsibility to start putting some dates that say the process will be
finished by a certain date, so an applicant knows when he can get funding and open a facility.
"From a staff standpoint, if you're going to recommend denial of something like this to do the
in9
process, I think it behooves us as part of the government here to come up with some kind of
thing that says we're willing to our part with this if you're willing to do your part with it."
Mr. Rooker commented that Mr. Kamptner's suggestion acted to the benefit of the applicant.
Mr. Nitchmann said his concern remained that the applicant have an adequate window of time to
work within. "It seems that we're setting some precedence here from meeting to meeting."
Mr. Kamptner said that if the applicants find they are running up against the 18 month
commencement period, they can apply for an extension. Mr. Finley asked what would be
involved if an extension is needed, and Mr. Kamptner replied that it would come through the
Commission and Board of Supervisors processes again as a simple action, including public
hearing, with a reduced fee.
Mr. Rieley said although he feels the approach is somewhat convoluted, he would support the
proposal "in hopes that we have crafted this with sufficient flexibility to allow us to get a good
project for the whole property."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SP 98-47 Limited Service
Hotel with the following changes to conditions: (1) Facility shall be developed as a limited
service hotel in general accord with the applicant's justification dated 8/21/98 and initialed
"SET"; (2) Facility shall be limited to approximately 4.5 acres and 100 rooms in size [stet]; and
an additional condition (3) the final site plan for the limited service hotel shall not be approved
until after approval of a development plan for the entirety of Tax Map 32, Parcel 4 1 D (language
will be clarified prior to Board of Supervisors meeting). Commissioners agreed with Mr.
Kamptner that the applicant not be jeopardized by the process that may take place between now
and the time the developers commence the use (within 18 months); the applicant could apply for
an extension if the 18-month window is not sufficient. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-58 John Buscarino
Proposal for a Home Occupation Class B Special Use Permit to allow the construction of a 2,000
square foot accessory structure which will be used for the manufacture of guitars [ 10.2.2.31 ].
The property is described as Tax Map 114, Parcel 65A1 and consist of 2.28 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas. This site is located on the southwest side of Route 708 (Secretary's Road)
approximately 1,500 feet east of Route 795 (Presidents Road) in the Scottsville Magisterial
District. The property is designated Rural Areas and does not lie within a designated
development area.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, which stated that the proposed activity should not have any
impact on adjacent properties or change the character of the area. Staff has reviewed the request
for compliance with the zoning ordinance and recommends approval subject to the conditions in
the report plus an additional condition that states "the garage should be constructed to look like a
garage." At the Commission's request, Mr. Wade agreed to change the wording to emphasize
"residential garage."
In response to Mr. Rieley's question about the 2000 square -foot size of the proposed garage
compared to the usual 600 square -foot garage, Mr. Wade said that the applicant currently uses a
large unit at his Largo, Florida home, and he knows exactly the amount of space he needs.
iin
The applicant's representative, Willie Mae Perkins, addressed the Commission, and told them
that Mr. Buscarino has a business exactly like this in Largo, and needs to store a lot of different
types of wood. Mr. Buscarino will have no other employees and makes only about eight guitars
per year. Ms. Perkins said her client is internationally known, and has a guitar in the
Smithsonian. She said there would be little or no traffic to and from the house, except for a
weekly delivery of supplies. Ms. Perkins said that there would be windows and a bathroom in
the workshop.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "This is in my area, I think it's a good use. I think it's something we'd like
to promote in the Scottsville district and have more home occupations. If he only builds eight of
these a year, he must be pretty well known throughout the world....I've had no negative calls
about this from any of the neighbors."
Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of the special use permit with the three
original conditions modified to state: (1) Home occupation shall be limited to 2,000 square feet
total, for homemade guitar manufacturing; (2) Fire official approval of materials storage; (3)
Any structure to be utilized in conjunction with this home occupation shall meet all applicable
setback regulations. The condition discussed to clarify a "residential garage" would not be
included.
Reaular Agenda Items:
SDP 98-142 Waffle House Preliminary Site Plan
**AV, Request for a site development plan to construct a 1,700 square foot restaurant and associated
parking on property zoned C-1, Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The parcel is described
as Tax Map 6 1 M Lot 1, and recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood One in the
Comprehensive Plan. It is located on the west side of Seminole Trail (Route 29 North) at the
northwest corner of the intersection of Seminole Trail and Premier Circle in the Rio Magisterial
District.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, and stated that the recommended conditions of approval
as outlined in the staff report are those that have resulted from the site review process. The
project is before the Commission for a waiver to allow grading on critical slopes and a
modification to allow grading within the buffer area between the Waffle House and the Berkley
residential subdivision. Ms. Thomas said an adjacent property owner has asked for the project to
be called up for a full review; it is a by -right use and is zoned appropriately. She said it has been
to the ARB once, and the applicant is working with them on the various entrance corridor
requirements.
Ms. Thomas added, "I think it's possible that the applicant might be able to accomplish his site
improvements without disturbing the buffer adjacent to the residential area, but it was sort of
touch and go so we came forward with that modification [because] to install the curb and gutter
at the Western edge of the parking area there might well disturb that buffer." She said there is a
sewer easement that runs close to the property line, and the tree cover that exists now could be
taken off if the service authority deems it necessary.
Ms. Thomas referenced a letter from adjacent property owner William West, and said that
concerns exist about lights, headlights, and level of activity on the site. She said the applicant is
III
proposing to build a privacy fence which will sit directly above the curb along the parking area
on the western side, running in a north/south alignment, to help screen the headlights of people
turning into the site from Route 29.
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Thomas about the critical slopes on site. Ms. Thomas pointed out that it's
the retaining wall area that will disturb the critical slopes, and indicated that the slopes are
primarily manmade from fill material deposited on the site. "Like many other areas within the
designated development area, the topography may not exactly resemble its original contours due
to activity over the years in the vicinity."
Referencing the staff report, Mr. Loewenstein recognized that the ARB would ultimately decide
what the tree buffer would include, but asked if it was possible to encourage them to allow more
rapid growth and do a better job of providing some natural screening sooner then what's been
done in the past. Ms. Thomas responded that the ARB's focus would be on the view from Route
29, not on the trees behind the privacy fence. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission could
condition for the plants behind the fence. Mr. Loewenstein commented that this would help
ameliorate the neighbors concerns, and is a matter that needs to be addressed in this area anyway.
Commissioners agreed that the language in the condition for approval of a landscape plan needed
to be refined to emphasize the buffer.
Mr. Thomas said, "I live on that corridor....and when a buffer disappears I've seen what that can
do. I'm glad to see everyone is really concerned about the buffer between commercial and
residential, because it's been a big problem."
Mr. Finley recalled a plan the Commission approved which stipulated as a condition the buffer
1�%Ww, plantings be worked out in agreement with the neighbors. Mr. Cilimberg told Commissioners
that addressing the planting issue would most appropriately be included in their action to modify
to allow grading within the buffer.
Public comment was invited. The applicant, Roger Hewitt of Northlake Foods, the largest
franchiser of Waffle Houses. He said that they are sensitive to the concerns of the Berkley
subdivision residents, and have submitted a revised landscape plan that includes additional
landscaping to add additional screening and be consistent with vegetation along Premier Circle.
Mr. Hewitt says a double row of trees behind the privacy fence is included in the landscape plan.
He said the privacy fence would be extended slightly around the corner of the northwest corner
of the property to screen additional parking lot lights.
Mr. William West, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He said that there is
virtually no tree barrier currently on site, stating that the trees once there had been bush -hogged
out. He added that he is encouraged by the new landscaping plan proposed by Waffle House, but
expressed concern about the long-term maintenance of the buffer, and the need for agreements
that could be taken to the zoning board if redress was necessary. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. West if
he had a preference for trees on site. Mr. West responded that the land falls off very rapidly, and
said a barrier up to the first six or eight feet is important.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Thomas expressed concern about the curb construction intruding into the buffer. Ms.
Thomas responded that it would be necessary disturb it slightly, but added "I'm not sure we're
i»
losing much by disturbing the buffer there, particularly since the privacy fence is going to be
constructed right above the curb..."
Mr. Finley asked what maintenance agreements are normally involved in site plan approval. Ms.
Thomas said that the installation and maintenance of the fence and the landscaping are
conditions of the site plan approval, and if they are neglected, the applicant would be in violation
of that approval, which is enforced by zoning.
Mr. Rieley commented that the applicant seems to be working with staff and neighbors on a plan
for mitigation and restoration of the buffer, which will probably be better in a few years than it
was recently. He suggested Austrian Black Pine be considered instead of Leyland Cypress.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of SDP 98-142 including the
preliminary site plan, the critical slopes waiver and modifications to allow grading within the
buffer, with amendment to condition 1 a (for a landscape plan) to state "the landscape plantings
west of the fence will be adequate to provide significant year-round screening for adjoining
property owners." The Commission encouraged staff to work with the applicant and neighbors
to include better screening and buffer trees behind the proposed privacy fence.
SDP 98-141 Rio at Greenbriar Convenience Center Preliminary Site Plan
Proposal to demolish an existing service station for construction of a gasoline
station/convenience center, on approximately 1.69 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 61,
Parcel 146 B, is located on the north side of Rio Road East and Greenbriar Drive intersection in
the Rio Magisterial District. The property is zoned C-1, Commercial, and is currently designated
for Neighborhood Service in Urban Area 2. In a 5-1 vote, the Commission moved, seconded and
approved the site development plan and critical slopes waiver to construct a new gasoline
station/convenience center with conditions as set forth by staff.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, which described the proposal to demolish the existing
service station and establish a 6,300 square foot gasoline/convenience center on the property. He
said that approval of this development would result in the third convenience center within a
1,000 foot distance on Rio Road. Mr. Morrisette said there have been no requests for Planning
Commission review under the provisions of the zoning ordinance; however, staff has received
numerous concerns from the current tenant and residents within the vicinity. The applicant is
also proposing to construct on critical slopes.
Mr. Morrisette said staff has received numerous phone calls and referenced a letter from the
existing service station tenant, Gary Hicks, and a petition comprised of 71 signatures
(Attachment B) opposing demolition of the existing service station. Mr. Morrisette said the
majority of those concerns reference the value of the current use of the existing structure, and
although staff recognizes that the service provided by the station is a valuable neighborhood
service, the owner of the property decides what use to extinguish or incorporate. Staff notes that
the proposed gas station is a by -right use in the C-1 zone district.
He further noted that staff has determined the proposed development meets the minimum
requirements of the zoning ordinance, except for the critical slope waiver, and mentioned the
objectionable aspects of the operation raised by the letter such as traffic, noise and lighting are
being addressed through the site review process; other concerns raised by the letter such as hours
of operation and loss of existing services are matters of use and are not subject to site plan
iiz
review regulations. Conditions are included to address such issues as lighting and stormwater
management.
Mr. Morrisette said the applicant proposes to grade and construct on critical slopes, which
comprise approximately 13% of the site; of those slopes, about 35% of the critical slopes are
proposed for disturbance. He noted the slopes are manmade as a result of the grading for the
original service station; staff does not view them as an aesthetic resource. Staff has reviewed
this request for compliance with the zoning ordinance, and recommends approval of the
preliminary site plan and critical slope waiver request subject to the conditions that are listed.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Morrisette said the drop inlet and stormwater
management would be located where critical slopes are, and possibly the corner of the building
would also disturb the critical slopes. Staff further noted that this is the third time they have
reviewed the site plan, and this is the best version they have seen to minimize the slope impact.
Brent Nelson of Roudabush, Gale and Associates, who prepared the site plan, addressed the
Commission. Addressing Mr. Rieley's question about how steep the proposed slopes are below
the parking lot and the building, Mr. Nelson responded that the slopes are 2 to 1. In response to
Mr. Loewenstein's question about the approximate setback of the building's lower corner, Mr.
Nelson answered that the building is about one foot off the line, and said the walls would have to
be an appropriate fire code rating because of that.
Mr. Mark Anderson of Anderson Oil Company, who owns the property, addressed the
Commission. He told Commissioners that they would be eliminating the traditional service
station and replace it with a self-service convenience store with some level of food service; he
said he is aware of he competition in the area.
Mr. Anderson said he hopes to bring more cars off of the road into the facility and put them back
onto the road; he said the biggest issue they've faced is the relocation of the light to give the
property a sole entrance, instead of the two existing entrances on either side of the light. Mr.
Anderson said that the existing station is not one they are "particularly proud of because of the
U-Hauls and vehicles there for repair. "When we have the opportunity to remove a traditional
service station to put in what we think is a nicer, cleaner, brighter and safer facility, we do that."
Mr. Thomas asked if he planned to install a car wash on site, and Mr. Anderson responded that
they wanted to, but because of the traffic pattern on the property, there was not enough room to
construct one.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr.
Rooker asked staff if it was common to allow commercial buildings to be partially built on
critical slopes; staff indicated that it is increasingly common. Mr. Rooker asked staff if the
entrance to the property is being improved by the new plan; Mr. Morrisette replied that staff has
worked extensively with VDOT, and this is the best solution they have come up with thus far.
Mr. Rieley said, "The issues before us relative to critical slopes... are fairly limited. I think if it
were within our power to say that we won't have another convenience store and instead we'll
have a good old fashioned filling station where flats can get fixed I'd vote for it in a heartbeat,
but we don't have that authority."
114
Mr. Rooker commented that in some ways the aesthetics will be improved. Mr. Thomas agreed,
and also noted that the U-Haul trucks do clutter the current facility, but added, "I'm like Mr.
Rieley, if I could vote for a good old service station sitting there that's what I'd vote for to, but
it's an improvement, especially the intersection — you can get run over coming out in two
different places there very easily; it's very dangerous."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of SDP 98-141 with
recommended conditions and the critical slopes waiver request. In a 5-1 vote with Mr. Thomas
dissenting, the motion passed.
New Business
Mr. Loewenstein told fellow Commissioners that they would be discussing procedural issues at
next week's meeting, and asked staff to distribute copies of KALAC comments and Board of
Supervisors existing guidelines/new policies to the Commission prior to the meeting. He said
that joint meetings with the City Planning Commission will also be discussed.
Mr. Anderson commended the recording secretary on her summary of his presentation on the
University.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimt
Secretary
on
I I i