HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 15 1998 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DECEMBER 15, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 15,1998 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were:
Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Finley; Mr.
Rodney Thomas; and Mr. William Nitchmann. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas,
Planner; Mr. David Benish, 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 minutes of the December 1, 1998 were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Benish presented a review of the December 9th Board of Supervisors Meeting. He said that the
Board reviewed three items that the Commission had previously taken action on: Wayland's Grant
Rezoning Request, which the Board approved with deletion of condition limiting hours of operation for
the office component of that proposal; Triton Communications Towers (tower within a tower proposals)
at Barracks Road and Pantops/State Farm, both of which the Board approved.
Consent Aaenda•
Boudreau's Off -site Parking Waiver
Request for construction of 23 additional parking spaces which requires a modification of section
4.12.3.3. of the zoning ordinance in order to allow the parking spaces to be located on an adjacent
property.
SUB 98-205 Stevens, George Waiver Request
Request for approval of a private road in conjunction with administrative approval of a final subdivision
plat to create one lot of 26.3548 acres leaving a residue of approximately 174 acres. The existing private
driveway (Middle Mountain Road) currently serves three properties.
SUB 98-228 Keswick Farms Phase 2 Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Request for approval of joint access easement to serve two lots and creation of an open space parcel in
conjunction with approval of a preliminary subdivision plat creating a total of 10 lots on 200.598 acres.
The Commission moved, seconded, and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda.
SP 98-56 Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad (Sign #50)
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
7B, is located on Route 6 (Irish Road) at the intersection of Route 6 and 737 (Mountain 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. Deferred from the December 1, 1998 Planning
Commission Agenda.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, stating that in 1997 the Board of Supervisors approved the rescue
squad with a condition that fundraising uses require an additional special use permit. Staff has
recommended approval with conditions, with Condition #4 reworded to state "No organization that is
119
not exempted from Chapter 12 — Article 2 Division 1 of the County code shall conduct dances, unless a
permit has been obtained for such event(s). Mr. Nitchmann suggested that Condition #2 be changed to
state that noise generated from such activity shall not exceed what is allowed in the noise ordinance,
rather than specifying a decibel level in the event that changes.
Mr. Rooker asked for clarification of "major event" as mentioned in Condition #3. Mr. Wade and Mr.
Benish explained that major events would be considered to be those things such as weddings, receptions,
etc. not normally associated with the business operations of the rescue squad. Mr. Wade said the rescue
squad does have one regular business meeting per month. Mr. Benish mentioned that the primary
concern is to have the uses consistent with the capabilities of the septic system.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I think we need to make this as lenient as possible. Any of us up here who have
worked with non-profit organizations know how difficult it is to raise funds, and... there's no one else in
this community that provides the services that our rescue squads do for our citizens, and I think we need
to make this as easy for them to raise funds as possible... "
Mr. Nitchmann asked if Condition #5 regarding drinks was non-alcoholic drinks. Mr. Wade indicated
that this meant any types of drinks, and Mr. Kamptner emphasized that the County is preempted by state
law to prohibit alcohol service. Mr. Nitchmann asked why the parking lot is required to be paved. Mr.
Wade said that the zoning ordinance requires once a facility generates over 350 vehicle trips per week, it
must be paved, and it was part of the site plan approval that it be paved.
Mr. Finley asked what needed to be done to the septic system to make it acceptable. Mr. Wade replied
that the rescue squad would have to install another tank, including a device for switching tanks. He
suggested that the applicant clarify the septic system needs.
The applicant, Kay Hardin, a member of the Scottsville Rescue Squad Board, addressed the
Commission. Mr. Hardin said the problem they've had with the building capacity is the limitation on
the septic tank system, and said the Health Department is requiring them to install two additional tanks,
making a total of 4 tanks and control system. He said that the ground excavation for the new building
allowed its placement to be lower and more soundproof, and said they have doubled the insulation in the
building walls and ceiling to further control noise.
Mr. Finley asked why the health department asked them to limit their attendance to 100 when they built
the site a few years ago. Mr. Hardin said that there was a miscommunication between the rescue squad
and the Health Department, and the system designed by the Health Department at the time limits events
to 100 people without using the cooking facilities. He said there is a limit of 3 gallons per person per
day without cooking, and 10 gallons per day with cooking. Mr. Hardin said they hit a 50-gallon per
minute well when the drilled, so there is ample water supply, but a limited septic system. He mentioned
the Health Department is requiring two tanks — 2,100 gallons and 4,000 gallons to be added.
Mr. Hardin emphasized that the squad must use the facility for fundraising events to pay off the
$300,000 loan for the building, and said that other rescue squads and fire departments have been very
successful in renting out large rooms like theirs, which is 60 x 55 feet, holding 200 people in a shelter
capacity situation.
Public comment was invited, and speakers were given a three -minute time limit.
Ralph Smith, who lives directly across the street from the new rescue squad facility, addressed the
Commission. He mentioned that he building lacks aesthetics and looks like a warehouse. As a former
county police officer, Mr. Smith raised concerns about the types of events that would be held there,
Vzn
especially if alcohol is served. In response to Mr. Rieley, Mr. Smith said he did not have any specific
suggestions for the conditions attached to the permit. He mentioned that the new lighting at the rescue
squad is extremely bright.
Mr. Hardin said they are working to resolve the lighting situation.
Mr. Gilbert Salmers, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission, and mentioned the lights
are aimed directly at the streets, and are so bright they blind drivers, creating a hazardous situation. He
further stated that he is concerned about the possibility of alcoholic beverages being served on the
property and the number of cars on and around the site, and said that non -rescue squad events should not
be permitted because they will lose control of what happens on their property.
Ms. Delores Salmers, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission, and expressed concern
that the rescue squad built beyond their means and now must hold large events to pay off their loan. She
told Commissioners that it is their responsibility to preserve the rural character of the area.
Ms. Nancy Hill, a resident of the area, expressed concern over the bright lighting with very little tree
screening and the metal warehouse appearance of the building. She added that the added traffic caused
by the fundraisers will be a problem.
Mr. Nitchmann asked why the parking area needs to accommodate 400 cars, when the special use permit
only asks for events up to 200 people. Mr. Wade said the area proposed for payment could hold 60 cars,
with overflow parking in the adjacent open field.
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the history of the approval for the rescue squad building in regard to
fundraising events. Mr.,Wade said that when the squad obtained building site approval, the Board and
Commission asked them to come back for a special use permit pertinent to activities. Mr. Benish added
that the Commission and Board used caution in their initial approval, and wanted to entertain the
specifics of how the squad would handle special events.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Benish confirmed that the lights do not meet the lighting
ordinance and will be corrected as an enforcement issue. Mr. Morrisette, who worked on the site plan,
addressed the Commission, stating that the applicant initially addressed the ARB, which required that 5
or 6 large -caliber trees must be planted as a condition of a certificate of appropriateness; they have not
been planted yet, and have to be planted before a certificate of occupancy will be granted. He further
stated that screening trees — Leyland Cypress — have been planted in a double staggered row at the
ARB's request, but are currently only 4 feet in height. Under the zoning ordinance, there is one tree
required per ten parking spaces, which the County is requiring of the applicant.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the large room in the building would hold 200 people, and said "I'm trying to
get a sense of compromise here," and suggested that the squad might start with a 100-person limit to
measure the impact to the community, then possibly return for permission to increase the limit to be
increased to 200. He said that the rescue squad would probably be select in who they rented the facility
to, and added that the squad has to have some means of fundraising.
Mr. Benish clarified that the conditions as proposed do not place a limit on attendance because it would
be difficult to enforce, and added that staff is trying to ensure that the systems that support the building
are designed in such a way that the County is not forced to restrict it to certain sizes. Based on the level
of activity proposed for the site, Mr. Benish said the Health Department is comfortable with one activity
per week. Mr. Thomas asked if the squad's training sessions count toward that one event, and Mr. Wade
responded that they can have that type of meeting now with their present septic system.
I'll
Mr. Benish commented, "I think what really governs this is when the events are the types that would
generate catering or food service, and that's when the gallons per minute demand jumps three -fold and
goes from three gallons to ten... the Health Department had the concern about those events that you
normally associate with having a soda machine or popcorn machine or that might be catered by someone
preparing food in the kitchen. I don't think these normal types of events... generate a significant amount
of that type of activity."
Mr. Rooker suggested limiting the permit to two events per month to start, with a limitation on the
number of people as Mr. Nitchmann suggested, and added that there ought to be a limitation prohibiting
alcoholic beverage service on the premises.
Mr. Kamptner reminded him that the County is prohibited by state law from limiting alcoholic beverage
service.
Mr. Hardin readdressed the Commission, and said while the rescue squad has never had an event where
they serve alcoholic beverages, and stated that other rescue squads have had problems with alcohol -
related functions.
Mr. Rieley noted that the word "rental" was not included in the staff report, or in the previous comments
from the Board of Supervisors' initial approval of the facility. He stated that he assumed that the
activities mentioned would be run by the volunteer rescue squad as fundraising events. Mr. Rieley
stated that those uses seem reasonable, but expressed concern over the possibility of "wide-open" rentals
— particularly in light of the fact that the county can't restrict the use of alcoholic beverages. He asked
Mr. Kamptner if the county had the authority to limit the facility to rescue squad use and restrict rentals
to other people.
Mr. Kamptner said, "I think it's probably reasonable because it narrows the scope of these types of
events that can be held... what it really does is limits the nature of the events, and I think that's
reasonable in the land use context."
Mr. Rieley said, "I agree with Mr. Nitchmann. My immediate instinct is to not limit fundraising
activities of organizations like the rescue squad that does us all so much good, but it seems to me that
this is a situation in which the income that's generated from these rentals is very small relative to the
income that can be generated in a genuine fundraiser on the premises. It seems to me that the balance
falls toward the neighbors' argument on that front."
Mr. Hardin readdressed the Commission, and reported that the rescue squad at Monticello rents out their
facility every weekend for $300 a night, totaling $15,000 per year. "That would almost make our
payments on the building. It is significant....I just don't want to see us be limited in any way that might
really [not allow us] to meet our financial needs." He said they hope the building helps the squad
increase their manpower, and reported that they run about 800 calls per year for the community, and
need extra membership.
Mr. Hardin added that one of the reasons he designed the building the way it is, added insulation and a
generator is that it will be the only shelter for disasters in Southern Albemarle County with backup
power. He mentioned that during the blizzards several years ago, there was no heat in the shelter.
Mr. Thomas asked if the squad would be willing to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors. Mr.
Hardin said the lights were recommended by their contractor, and the squad will shield them as
11?
requested by the building inspector. He suggested that the neighbors form a committee to meet with the
squad. "We'd like to be good neighbors too."
Mr. Finley asked what type of events take place at the Monticello area rescue squad. Mr. Hardin said he
..does not know the details, but says that wedding receptions, etc. are typical events that would be held in
their facility, and added he has already received requests for wedding receptions.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I think we can make it 100 — 150 maximum people and put in one of the
conditions that 12 months from when the certificate of occupancy is issued that we can review this
matter again, and if there's any problems at that time, the special use permit can be revoked." He
commented that 200 people is a lot of people for weddings, and said that just because there will be a
reception does not necessarily mean there would be alcohol served.
In response to Mr. Finley's questions, staff indicated that with events serving food and drinks, the septic
tanks would need to be enlarged and said that the parking lot would probably need to be paved because
events there would generate more than 350 vehicle trips per week.
Mr. Rieley said the limitation on the number of people that can be at the events may not be the best way
to approach the restrictions. "If I had this building next door to me and once or twice or three times a
year there was a huge... community event... it wouldn't bother me a bit to have a lot of people, even four
or five hundred people — I think that would be fine. But if I had weddings and parties with drinking on a
routine basis, it would bother me a lot. So I think if we limit not the numbers but this rental activity, I
think we could get at the heart of it. It seems to me it crosses the line from community organization
working together to raise money into a commercial operation that's benefiting an organization which is
a different thing. I'm not as concerned about limiting the numbers as I am limiting this rental operation,
which seems to me to be the one that's fraught with hazard."
Mr. Rooker added, "It seems to me if someone came in and proposed to build a facility for the purpose
of once a week having catered events and weddings and things like that in this location, we would think
long and hard about whether it was an appropriate location for that kind of activity , and we're being
kind of `bootstrapped' into that situation because we've got an organization that's a charitable
organization that does good work in the community that has a facility and would like to earn extra
income. But I think we've got to reach some kind of reasonable balance between their needs and the
fact that this is really not a good spot for a commercial activity. When you start renting out once a week
to third parties to have events, you're rising to the level of a commercial activity. ...a balance might be to
limit the number of activities to more like one or two a month, and we might arrive at the same thing."
He concluded that it might be better to impose a limit on the number of activities, rather than define the
kind of activity — third party versus rescue squad.
Mr. Finley cautioned that if the activity is limited to non -rental, then all the activities would have to be
conducted by volunteers. "That might get to be quite a drag over time, whereas if they're able to lease it
for a reception, they would not necessarily have to have their own people there."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved approval of SP 98-56 with the modified staff conditions, and limiting
the rental time to two times per month, with the Commission reviewing the permit again in 12 months.
He said that they should move the proposal forward to the Board of Supervisors, who would make the
final decision about it. He clarified that those rental activities could be external to their normal
operation.
111;
Mr. Benish stated, "I think what Mr. Nitchmann is suggesting [is] approval limited to not more than one
major event per week or limited to two per month, not more than one per week. The one per week ties
to how the septic system functions, the two per month is the cap on the number of events.
Mr. Kamptner clarified that the one-year review would be to possibly extend the special use permit or
modify conditions.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion provided the activities that are considered events `out of the scope of
the normal activities' are limited to two per month, irregardless of whether they are conducted by the
rescue squad or a third party.
Mr. Finley clarified that the motion included two rentals per month and two other major events.
Mr. Rooker said, "That's where we're different. They can have two events per month — it doesn't matter
if they're their events or rented to a third party."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I can't envision this rescue squad having four major events per month there, even
if two are rented and having two other ones in the same month. It goes back again to the definition of
what is a major event."
Mr. Rooker said, "Their own meetings don't count. The way this is defined, it's an activity that's not
incidental to the normal operations of the rescue squad, whether they conduct it or somebody else
conducts it. Their monthly meeting which has 60 or 70 people does not count against those events. If
they have training sessions there, it does not count against those events. But if they have BINGO, that's
one of the events per month whether they do it or somebody else does it, then they have one more time
that month they could rent it or conduct one of their own fundraising activities... "
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I guess that's not the way I had it in mind. I had it in mind that we would just
limit them to renting this out to two times a month to an outside party. That's how my motion was —
that all I wanted to limit them to was that you cannot rent it out more than two times a month, and if you
wanted to have a raffle or a BINGO, you can .... It's a small rescue squad in a rural area."
Mr. Benish stated that he initially misunderstood what Mr. Nitchmann was saying, but said they would
just need to modify his suggestion to "two events not sponsored by the rescue squad per month." The
existing limit of one permit per month practically limits it to 52 events per year. "You've got a cap of
one event per week anyway. Under the existing condition, you have one event per week; if you add the
two events related per rental, then you're saying of those that occur monthly, only two can be outside
rentals.
Mr. Finely clarified, "So it would be two rescue squad events, and two rentals per month."
Mr. Nitchmann said that accurately reflects his motion. Mr. Rooker withdrew his second of the motion.
Mr. Finley seconded the motion.
Mr. Kampnter asked that the motion include SP 96-50, requiring that the development be in general
accord with the attached plan. He said that would ensure there are not substantial changes to the
development as approved by the SP. Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Finley agreed that their motion will
include SP 96-50.
In a 3-3 vote, the Commission failed to recommend approval of SP 98-56. In the event the Board of
Supervisors approves SP 98-56, the Commission recommends that Condition #3 modified to state that
approval is limited to no more than four major events per month, with no more than two of those
iza
permitted to be events not sponsored by the rescue squad; the motion included Condition # 1 of SP 96-
50, requiring that the development be in general accord with the attached plan.
Staff agreed to work with the applicant to address lighting and screening/tree buffer issues.
Public Hearinv.
Review of Buck Mountain Aaricultural/Forestal District
Proposal to continue the buck Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District for ten years. The Buck Mountain
Agricultural/Forestal District is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on State Routes 664 and
671. Buck Mountain Agricultural Forestal District is located in the Rural Area, as designated by the
Comprehensive Plan, and consists of approximately 660.243 acres.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report, and reported that the Buck Mountain district was the first one
created, in January of 1989 for ten years, and said that this is the first time it has been reviewed. She
said the district contains 649.942 acres in eight parcels, and staff recommends continuation of the
district for a ten-year time period. Ms. Scala indicated that one request for withdrawal from the district
(Gibson property) has been submitted, changing the size of the district to 488 acres. The advisory
committee recommended continuation of the district for ten years, and that the Gibson's be allow to
rejoin the district before the review goes to the Board of Supervisors if they desired.
Public comment was invited; none was given.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of continuation of the Buck Mountain
Agricultural/Forestal District for a ten year time period. The motion passed unanimously.
+, Review of Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District
Proposal to continue the Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District for ten years. The Yellow
Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District is located in the White Hall and Samuel Miller Magisterial
Districts near the intersection of Interstate 64 and Route 250 West along State Routes 637, 692, and 691.
Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District is located in the Rural Area, as designated by the
Comprehensive Plan, and consists of approximately 700 acres.
Ms. Scala reported that the district was creating in March of 1989 for ten years; a by -right withdrawal of
the center parcel occurred in 1996, when one of the property owners died and the heirs decided to sell
their parcel. She said that while that parcel is no longer a part of the district the 17 remaining parcels
comprising approximately 704 acres continue to make up the district. Ms. Scala presented a letter from
an adjacent landowner who owns three parcels bordering the district (Attachment "A"); she is in favor of
continuing the district and would like to join, but the county has a policy prohibiting subdivision lots
from joining Ag/Forestal Districts. Ms. Scala said there has been a lot of interest in an addition to this
district, and said that staff recommends continuance of the district for ten years.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of continuation of the Yellow Mountain
Agricultural/Forestal District for a ten year time period. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-059 Pegasus Motorcar Company
Petition to establish an automobile dealership within a designated Entrance Corridor [30.6.3.2] located
on 1.75 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property, described as Tax
Map 78, Parcel 15, is located on the southern side of Route 250 East [Richmond Road], approximately
ills
1,000 feet east of State Route 20 intersection. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and
is recommended for Regional Service Use in Neighborhood 3.
SDP 98-147 Pep-asus Motorcar Company Preliminary Site Plan
Proposal to demolish three existing dwelling structures to construct two retail auto dealerships, totaling
approximately 18,500 square feet building coverage. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 15,
is located on the southern side of Route 250 East [Richmond Road], approximately 1,000 feet east of
State Route 20 intersection. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is recommended
for Regional Service Use in Neighborhood 3.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, stating that the applicant is proposing to demolish the three
existing dwellings on the property to build in two phases: Phase I to construct a 1,700 square foot auto
dealership with parking, and Phase II to construct a second dealership building of 17,000 square feet.
He reported that the exterior storage and display of automobiles in accord with Section 30.6.32 of the
zoning ordinance requires Board of Supervisors approval of a special use permit; the applicant is also
seeking approval of a waiver for construction on critical slopes, and a waiver to allow for cross -slope
parking grade in excess of 2%. Mr. Morrisette said the use is by -right in the underlying Highway -
Commercial District; the Architectural Review Board has reviewed the request for its impact on the
Route 250 East Entrance Corridor, and their action expresses no objection to the proposed use, and
indicated that the conditions of the special use permit should not limit the ARB review of the final
certificate of appropriateness.
He said that with the ARB's approval, the use is consistent with the intent of zoning ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to the request, and finds that the
proposed use is an acceptable an expected accessory of an automobile dealership, and recommends
approval of the special use permit with conditions as set forth, with alterations to Condition # 1 to read
that "Outdoor storage and display parking shall be limited to all areas designated as such on the site plan
dated November 23, 1998." Mr. Morrisette referenced the ARB's conditions for the issuance of a
certificate of appropriateness as attached to his report.
He said that staff recommends administrative approval of site plans subject to the critical slopes and
cross -slope parking grade waivers. He reported that the critical slopes were created during grading of
the existing site, and improvements to the Albemarle County Service Authority property, which is
located in the rear. The engineering department has reviewed this request and recommends approval;
planning staff has reviewed the request and finds no aesthetic resource to he manmade slopes that are
not visible from Route 250 East, and hence recommends approval to the critical slope waiver. Mr.
Morrisette reported that the engineering department has determined that parking slope modification is
not greater than 5%, and staff has found no conflict with the waiver.
The applicant's representative, Mr. John Gorman, addressed the Commission, and presented additional
drawings which illustrated the context of the proposed site on Route 250, and explained that the use
proposed on the site is consistent with the district and adjacent land uses. Mr. Gorman said the project
has been presented to the ARB twice; at the preliminary conference, they unanimously voted that they
had no objection to the exterior display area. He mentioned that the landscaping for the site conforms to
the design guidelines promulgated for Albemarle County in the Entrance Corridor; the exterior display
areas have been dispersed along the front of the site, so that there are not continuous rows of parking.
Buffers on the east and west ends of the site have been created to help buffer the Entrance Corridor from
the display areas. Mr. Gorman presented a rendering of the proposed building, and said the drawing is
the same one presented to the ARB.
iz�
In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Gorman said the new facility will not replace the Stony Point
Road facility, but the BMW and Porsche dealership would move to the new location, while the Audi and
Kia dealerships will remain at the old site.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of SP 98-059 with conditions as
recommended by staff, changing Condition # 1 so that it reads "Outdoor storage and display parking
shall be limited to all areas designated as such on the site plan dated November 23rd, 1998." The motion
passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded SDP 98-147 the preliminary site plan including a
waiver to allow for construction on critical slopes and waiver to allow for cross -slope parking grade in
excess of 2%. The motion passed unanimously.
A brief recess was taken. The meeting reconvened.
CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, and referenced two recent letters from the City which have been
distributed to the Commission (Attachment `B"). Mr. Loewenstein acknowledged the presence of City
Planning Commission members, and thanked City officials for their input and information regarding the
proposal.
The applicant's representative, Steve Blaine, addressed the Commission, and stated that they wish to
focus their presentation on the matters that were left open at the worksession last June, and address them
in the context of the criteria for the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that as the Commission had
requested additional information on market demand for a large discount retail store at this location, and
mentioned that Frank Cox would present results of a formal market analysis survey that was conducted.
Mr. Blaine said that Mr. Cox would also address concerns raised previously regarding possible
environmental degradation as a result of developing the site.
Mr. Blaine also introduced their traffic engineer, Ray Kemp, and two noted new urbanist design
planners, Mr. Robert Gibbs and Mr. Michael Morrissey. Mr. Blaine said that Mr. Gibbs has extensive
experience in retail planning, and said Mr. Morrissey's international design consulting form is highly
regarded in the field of design through the public process. Mr. Blaine indicated they would show
several preliminary design alternatives to begin a design process to work through the Comprehensive
Plan through to a rezoning and ultimately the site plan.
Mr. Cox of Charlottesville's The Cox Company, addressed the Commission, stating that their
presentation attempts to address the questions and concerns posed by the County and the City, as the
project is of crucial importance to the city. Mr. Cox proceeded with a thorough slide presentation.
Mr. Cox's report illustrated the location of the proposed site, and its proximity to I-64 and 5`h Street, and
to Willoughby. He emphasized that they have focused on a plan for regional service that can satisfy
each of the milestones appropriate to comprehensive planning, rezoning and site plan; Mr. Cox
emphasized that their planned land uses strongly correlate with the realities of the marketplace, and
perhaps the light industrial does not in this environment. He said that based on their analysis of the
county's Comprehensive Plan, the project as conceived fulfills a number of the plan's objectives for
infill development, and interstate interchange initiatives. Mr. Cox added that the project would strongly
117
support the County's underlying desire for adequate public facilities on and off -site, including off site
transportation concerns.
Mr. Cox said that this project would give the opportunity for a unified site development program, and
'- the impact of water quality and stormwater management issues can be dealt with in single-phase effort
with a very strong focus on quality control. He said that their project will include some plans to address
the shared concern of this property's frontage on Moore's Creek. Mr. Cox said that this site affords
them a rare opportunity to create "new urbanism" around an anchor facility that will have some
complimentary retail shopping for the community.
He said that while the site is currently zoned light industrial, they are of course hoping to move the site
into the Regional Service category, and provided a recap of the previous zoning of the property. Mr.
Cox said the previous rezoning has allowed for manufacturing, distribution, fabricating, and processing,
and informed the Commission that his firm has done schematic site planning over the years for clients
who have tried to evaluate the property for light industrial use. Mr. Cox mentioned the convention
center idea, and said that it could be foreseeable under Regional Industrial or Regional Service
designation.
Mr. Cox stated they would ultimately seek PD-SC zoning, which would allow them to maximize the
property's use, although they will not use all 700,000 square feet that would be allowed, and will proffer
an urban design guideline to ensure that it becomes a quality development. Mr. Cox said a more
appropriate organization of building spaces would yield no more than 300,00 square feet. He said that
their plan, while cutting building coverage by more than half, will also reduce the building heights from
the 65 feet allowable to under 50 feet, and possibly even 40 feet. Mr. Cox stated this opportunity would
allow them to achieve significant amounts of permanent open space; they have developed 6 concept
plans which could preserve as much as 29 acres, or 55% of the site.
Mr. Cox illustrated possible building organization and presented line of site views into the property from
I-64 and other points nearby, highlighting the opportunities for significant setbacks and mentioning the
possibility for public elements along the Moore's Creek lowland area. He said that the view from
eastbound I-64 would be almost completely buffered by the existing vegetation on the contiguous
property, and said that the line of site from westbound I-64, while visible in the winter, would be above
the maximum building height they are contemplating.
Mr. Cox provided a market analysis, and stated that they performed an exhaustive analysis of the
regional, primarily, secondary, and tertiary retail development opportunities. He addressed the question
previously posed by the Commission about the need for any more retail in the area, and presented that
their analysis, which has been reviewed by appraisers and outside economists, has confirmed that the
Charlottesville -Albemarle MSA has a considerably higher retail sales strength above the state average.
Annual retail sales in 1997 were $1.4 billion; projected retail sales for 2010, that figure would be $1.8
billion.
Mr. Cox presented a retail sales need model based solely on population growth, which showed a need
for 1.7 million — 2.1 million square feet of gross leaseable area; he said some retail consultants feel that
estimate is low. He said they adjusted the figures taking vacancy and replacement factors into account
to change the figures to 1.8 — 2.2 million square feet. Using the market analysis, Mr. Cox told
Commissioners that there would be a need for 155 — 321 acres of land put into use for new retail
development, based on population -driven growth.
He presented survey results from 1,000 shoppers, including Wal-Mart on 29 North, K-Mart, Fashion
Square Mall, the 5 Street Shopping Center and Downtown Mall:
1'iR
Wal-Mart: 52% local resident shoppers; 48% outside the area .
58% shop there 4-10 times per month, but go downtown less than 6 times per year
78% said they would prefer to shop at the Willoughby location over the 29 North site
63% said they would be more likely to shop/visit downtown if a discount superstore was
downtown
Fashion Sguare K-MartWal-Mart composite
60% said they would prefer to shop at Willoughby rather than the Route 29 retail corridor
for super discount retail stores
50% said they would spend more downtown time if there were a large superdiscounter
there
88% wanted larger stores, and 12% wanted smaller specialty stores.
Downtown shoppers
79% use 29 shopping corridor frequently
70% shop the downtown mall more than 6 times a year
80% said a large discounter would bring them downtown more frequently than specialty s
stores
The results further indicated that almost all 5`h Street Food Lion shoppers surveyed would prefer to shop
at a the Willoughby site if a superdiscount retailer were there, rather than travel the 29 north corridor.
Many shoppers interviewed felt that the downtown mall shops did not fit their needs or socioeconomic
capabilities.
Mr. Cox said they want their facility to be inviting to pedestrians as well as drivers, and presented
possible walking areas, and concepts for a soccer field as a public improvement, and a pedestrian bridge
to allow access from the 5ffi Street sidewalk. He said that their proposal would allow them to drain as
much as 70% of stormwater from I-64 and Willoughby back to a natural ravine, and treat the runoff
before it reached Moore's Creek through a standing water impoundment that would provide water
quality results for pollutant reduction as recommended by the state's Best Management Practices. It
would also provide an opportunity to treat a portion of the runoff from Grand Piano & Furniture.
He emphasized the current problems presented by the off -ramp from eastbound I-64 onto 5t' Street, and
said their plan brings an opportunity to improve the intersection by introducing signalization at this ramp
and at the ramps located just to the north.
Mr. Cox presented the possibilities their plan would bring for improvements along Moore's Creek that
would not be required as part of a site plan, including landscape enhancements, bioengineering
improvements, upgrading the channel, and improving eroded slopes, thus saving some trees. He
mentioned that 10 acres of existing landscaping could be preserved, with new landscaping adding a
minimum of 250 trees and increase the canopy ratio three -fold over the minimum requirement. Mr. Cox
mentioned designs to enhance median buffering to protect existing sensitive edges along parking lots,
and to introduce interior BMP's to the planting islands to supplement the larger site -specific BMP's.
Mr. Cox concluded that through their unified development program, they could improve the PD-SC
standards for the county.
Mr. Raynie Kemp, transportation engineer for the applicant, addressed the Commission, and presented
slides of areas along 5t' Street and Bent Creek Road. He said that Brass, Inc., has already agreed to
provide signalization at the intersection of I-64 and 5t' Street, and an additional turn lane on the exit
i't9
ramp. He said that Brass, Inc. is committed to extension of the left turn lane on 5t' Street to allow
adequate turning into the site, and a continuous right turn lane from just north of Moore's Creek up to
the entrance to Bent Creek Road. Mr. Kemp said they agreed to meet with Hardee's and Exxon about
possibly widening the road to provide additional pavement width as the city desires.
Mr. Robert Gibbs, urban planner, addressed the Commission. He said his firm has been leading the way
in the movement to create a "Main Street" environment, which has been driven by tenants who indicate
their customers are turning away from inside malls and strip malls. Mr. Gibbs reported that 65% of all
sales this year occurred at discount stores such as Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and Sears. He said that while
formats change rapidly, they are using the old ways of building towns and marrying that with the new
ways of shopping, including ample parking and loading facilities. Mr. Gibbs presented three sketches of
possible scenarios for the Willoughby site, based on a "town square" concept.
Mr. Gibbs mentioned that the developer is proposing a soccer field for the property, and a walking
bridge to link the shopping with the recreation. He said that their firm has been working in all 50 states
on the town settings, which he described as the future of retailing.
Mr. Nitchmann asked what happens to nearby shopping when a new facility such as this is opened. Mr.
Gibbs replied that the older facilities usually improve the appearance of their stores by installing more
landscaping, adding new facades, or improving signage.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's and Mr. Rooker's questions regarding the surveys conducted, Mr. Cox
said approximately 1,000 people were included in the broad based questioning about shopping patterns,
with 300-400 included in the attitudinal survey. The survey was conducted by The Cox Company, with
the interviewing done by college students.
Mr. Loewenstein asked about the impact of traffic on the portions of 5t' Street farther into
Charlottesville resulting form the additional traffic generation. Mr. Kemp said the traffic study looked
at the intersections of 5t' Street with Harris and with Cherry, and said that's as far north as the city asked
them to go. When they provided results to the city, they commented that they did not want to see the
improvement recommended for Cherry, and did not want to see any improvements go further north than
Bent Creek Road. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question about the Cherry improvements, Mr. Kemp
said they looked out to the year 2008, and projected the need for an additional lane; the only area that
was available, as their proposal recommended, where there was right-of-way was that area adjacent to
the park.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Kemp if he agreed with the letter to Ms. Susan Thomas from Michael Fontaine,
City Transportation Engineer, (Attachment "C") which states that "the development will significantly
degrade traffic operations at the several intersections in the city in the future..." Mr. Kemp responded
that the average delay at the intersections as pointed out would increase, and said that's typical any time
you add more traffic to an intersection. He added that he agreed with the numbers.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Cox if the attitudinal surveys had asked shoppers if they would go to the 29
corridor to shop after shopping at the proposed development. Mr. Cox said they did not ask that
question, but the response was overwhelming that the shoppers' perception was that the Willoughby site
would be a better place to shop from their residences.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if they took into account the possibility of substantial growth areas on the Route
20 South corridor; Mr. Cox responded that did not assume that there would be substantial additional
retail development around 5 street, but did consider the range of uses that Southpoint was projecting,
and some of those were complimentary. Mr. Nitchmann restated that his question pertained to the
140
extension of residential areas, which would use the shopping center and alleviate those cars going up 29
north. Mr. Cox said that they did not consider those factors. Mr. Nitchmann asked if a percentage of the
shoppers at the new discount store indicated they would possibly do more shopping in the city area, and
asked if he felt it would cut down on traffic going through the city in an attempt to get to 29 by having
the regional area there. Mr. Cox said based on a synthetic model, they think the new site will be a more
convenient location, and again referenced the survey results showing 70% indicating the downtown site
as preferable.
Mr. Rooker asked if anything in the study indicated how many of the shoppers drawn to the site would
be local residents, and how many would be from outside the area. Mr. Cox cited their study results
indicating a 550/o/45% split local/outsiders. Mr. Rieley asked what the total square footage would be for
the large discount store on site; Mr. Cox replied that the maximum size would be 200,000 square feet,
with total retail space at 300,000 square feet.
Mr. Finley asked how the development evolves. Mr. Cox stated that there are a lot of retailers chasing
this particular piece of property. Mr. Gibbs responded that the architecture needs to look authentic to
the region, and would include codes and guidelines developed for the building's construction. However,
each building will have an individual identity to capture the main street look.
Mr. Finley asked who pays for the soccer field and walkway and streambank improvements, and who
maintains them. Mr. Blaine said that the developer would be responsible for installing those
improvements. He explained the steps in the process to Mr. Finley as the Comprehensive Plan, the
rezoning, the planning process through staff and Commission, the Architectural Review Board. Mr.
Blaine said they would like the opportunity to develop in the Comprehensive Plan Process a "new
urbanism" design guideline for this project.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Gibbs how many other retailers would be included in the site. Mr. Gibbs
responded that 30,000 to 100,00 square feet of other retail (10-25 stores, cafes, etc.) could be supported,
and said that in these developments, the more building faces, the more complete the square is, versus the
strip center where the more storefronts included, the less pleasant it is. "The anchor brings people there,
and the anchor needs them. It's a really interesting relationship. You couldn't have those stores
without the anchor; they wouldn't have the draw."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "We need to keep in mind what our goals are. This is the third work session that
we have had on Brass, Inc. We need to give direction both to the staff and to the applicants as to how
we feel we want to proceed in the future." Mr. Loewenstein referenced the minutes from their June
meeting where Brass, Inc. was discussed, and said that some of the questions raised then have been
answered.
Mr. Thomas expressed concern about the traffic coming off the ramps of I-64, and asked how the traffic
signalization would help infrastructure there. Mr. Kemp said that VDOT recommended a signal on the
ramp coming off of westbound 64 because of the traffic turning left onto Bent Creek Road and going
south toward Southpoint; VDOT recommended to the county that that be the responsibility of the
Southpoint development. Mr. Thomas asked if a traffic light was installed on the eastbound ramp, if
VDOT would have to extend the approach lane coming off of 64 eastbound. Mr. Kemp said Brass, Inc.
has agreed to do that; the westbound ramp would be Southpoint's responsibility.
Mr. Benish commented that staff is in the process of reviewing the Southpoint rezoning request, and said
the Commission's approval of the Comprehensive Plan indicated that the issues of traffic improvements
at that interchange may be a factor in the decisions on rezoning. He said the county is also looking at
what its commitment will be in participating in that project to upgrade the intersection. "Both ramps and
141
intersections need to be lighted, and double lanes need to be provided for that. The question is the
distribution between these two proposals as Southpoint moves forward, and should this one move
forward... "
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Kemp what would happen if they could not get access to widen the road. Mr.
Kemp said in a few weeks, they would be able to answer that question, and indicated that they have had
some very good conversations with Exxon and Hardee's.
Mr. Rooker asked what the additional right-of-way needed is. Mr. Kemp responded that the city would
like to have a roadway extend from 5t" street over to Route 20, and would like for the developer to build
a five -lane section up to the bridge with 11-foot lanes.
Mr. Rieley asked staff to provide the Commission with as much information as possible relative to the
real Comprehensive Plan issues — how much retail and where can it best be accommodated, and an
evaluation of this site on the south side of the city relative to other potential areas that are currently
designated in the Comprehensive Plan or that might be designated. "I would like to focus on it within its
broader context rather than simply as a reaction to a proposal before us."
Mr. Rooker said, "I think that makes a lot of sense. The issue here is [whether] we change the
Comprehensive Plan, regardless of whether this proposal is being made. I think we need to look at the
broader issues and whether or not this particular piece of property at this particular spot should have its
designation changed. I don't know how you can evaluate that without looking at the other available
retail sites in the county that are already zoned retail and the potential uses that may be made of those
properties - how from an infrastructure standpoint and other impacts how this site stacks up with those
sites."
.: Mr. Benish said, "It really boils down to a fundamental decision of do you introduce this use in this
corridor, and what the impacts are. That was the basic question you had. I think with the applicant's
work, you're beginning to see what the impact might be, what the possibilities for design are, what the
traffic implications are. There is an opportunity to address environmental issues, but it still gets down to
the fundamentals — where do you want this basic type of service within the context of the development
plan. Recognizing that we don't have a committed plan or footprint as of yet, I think that's the best we
can do based on the best work that they've done today."
Mr. Benish asked the applicant to clarify if there may be more than one anchor, to which Mr. Blaine
responded there should not be an assumption that there would be only one anchor, but that question
would be answered before the site plan would evolve.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Benish said the 29 Wal-Mart is approximately 130,000 square
feet.
and
9 North. Mr.
Mr. Nitchmann asked where there is anyhides 145 000 zonedretail land square feet of reta other than 1 pace, and added thatBenish
replied that Peter Jefferson Place also
primary undeveloped corridor is 29 North in the Hollymead area.
Commissioners commended the applicant on the presentation.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff would need to provide text language if the Commission decided this is a
place where they will make a change. He asked them to consider what they saw tonight in terms of
concepts and impacts and decide if it's what they want to see if the property is Regional Service
property. In response to Mr. Rooker's question about changing zoning text, Mr. Cilimberg stated that
14?
the Commission did this with Southpoint and would happen again here in terms of language that would
be fairly specific to the area being covered by the land use designation.
Mr. Rooker asked if the zoning ordinance presently would accommodate this development. Mr.
.. Cilimberg said that it would under a planned development approach.
Mr. Nitchmann said this development would take a great burden off of 29 North, and would provide
better service for the residents of the southern end of the county. "In looking at what could be there by -
right and what we could expect to get with this type of development and all of the things that come
along with this in regard to repairing Moore's Creek and doing more landscaping and making that whole
site better than what I think it would look like industrial....this is a much better plan."
He continued, "My feeling is if you can gather the information the next step would be just to go to
public hearing with it and not have another work session... "
Mr. Finley said, "I agree. Reservations that I had personally pretty much are cleared up. [The applicant]
has come forward with what I was expecting... so what else does he have to do before we have
something before us for public hearing....if we go too far in trying to get impact analysis and so forth,
we've got a long time frame and cost... this broader issue, what does that entail? We need to move
forward and take some action so people will know where they stand."
Mr. Rieley said, "From my perspective, I think we saw a lot of brand new material tonight. It's a
completely different concept than the previous two worksessions, and the one thing that it has in
common is that it has a huge `big box' retail component, which we have still not heard in any concrete
way how it will impact this piece of rolling topography. We saw lots of things about the fringes and
how they would be treated. We couldn't even read this document in the amount of time we've have here
tonight... I think it's an enormously important decision. I would like to have staff input on the
Comprehensive Plan ramifications of this; I don't think we should rush it to a public hearing on the basis
of an hour -and -a -half presentation. I personally would like to see another session and not necessarily
request anything of the applicant."
Mr. Thomas said, "I agree with Mr. Rieley. I wasn't here in June when it was presented originally, but I
did meet with the parties, and I was very impressed with the way they presented the site, I was very
impressed with the proffers that they were putting in automatically — just adding them in and putting the
piece of property together so it would work for the county. But I think we need a little longer to look at
rt.
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I think it's important for us to articulate for the benefit of staff precisely what it
is we would like them to do. I agree that we've seen a lot tonight that's different. I think there have
been some notable improvements... I think the applicant has gone a long way toward satisfying our
requests for additional information in the areas that we asked about. I would feel more comfortable
having specific staff reactions to what we have here, specifically in connection with the appropriateness
in terms of the Comprehensive Plan. I think this is probably the most important undeveloped piece of
land remaining in the urban ring, and I think we need to do the right thing with it. This may turn out to
be the right thing, but I don't know yet."
Ms. Nancy Damon, Chair of the City Planning Commission, addressed the County Commissioners.
"We would just like to request that given that this is new information that you would also allow us to
give you some input."
1 XA
Mr. Rooker suggested another worksession that doesn't require any significant input from the applicant,
to give us time to digest what has been presented.
Mr. Finley asked how much analysis was given for Southpoint. Mr. Loewenstein replied that the
Southpoint application initially came to the Commission in a far greater stage of completion than this
proposal, and pointed out differences in the size of the parcel and other factors.
Mr. Loewenstein said it's important to tell staff exactly what the Commission wants them to do for the
next worksession.
Mr. Benish said, "I think what [you want us to do] is back up and look at the big picture and maybe go
back and look at the current opportunities available for regional service, what supply we have, where
that's located, what's the anticipated demand for that."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "That's a pretty limited thing, because we know that there's not a lot of land
available that we can compare this to. That should be a fairly easy analysis."
Mr. Benish continued, "I think related to that is the applicant's provided market analysis which indicates
maybe a bigger picture of the regional demand and you haven't really had our precise comments on that,
so that kind of wraps into the supply/demand big picture analysis."
Mr. Rooker stated it would be helpful to get a copy of the questions used in the applicant's survey, and
the various numbers of responses in each category.
Mr. Rieley asked if the presented materials were also new to staff.
Mr. Benish replied, "Some aspects of it are, some are not. The summary of the market analysis we've
looked at before, but the survey information seems vaguely familiar. The site development aspects and
components are relatively new."
He added, "I think it is important to give the City an opportunity to provide their comments on this
information, too. We'll organize with Mr. Higgins to get refined comments. We can try to synthesize
the traffic comments; we've given you a couple other comments from the City and from VDOT, and
we'll try to put that in the context of the big picture and maybe iron out a few of the remaining details
that our critical to this site development — the additional right-of-way, and certain design issues, if this
were to move forward, and make sure that what's being proposed is in fact doable in terms of some of
those site improvements."
Mr. Rooker said, "I think something which basically shows the improvements that would be expected
with Southpoint, and the improvements that would be expected with respect to this development based
on the proffers, and whether or not there any holes after the proffers from those two proposals are put
together."
Mr. Loewenstein added, "I think some clear-cut discussion with some practical resolution about the uses
of the site under its current designation as opposed to the recomened and we don't wantto lose tges. That rack of thatlti tmhaaely s the at
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is all about,
fundamental issue here before us."
,,.�. Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to have some information about the available industrial sites in the
county, not just the retail sites. "I don't know if we have any information on the expected traffic that
would occur on these roads if it were developed as principally an industrial site..." He added that there
ldd
is an issue of how that site would impact the surrounding area and the environment if it were developed
as an industrial site.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the holiday period might make it difficult to get full staff input until
January. Staff agreed to draft language for a plan amendment based on the proposal to provide a
framework for the Commission's considerations. Staff will work closely with City officials to get their
comments on the proposal. Commissioners asked for as early a response as possible from the City.
Mr. Rooker said, "We would like to avoid pursuing projects that would have direct detrimental impact to
downtown Charlottesville."
Mr. Loewenstein said it would be appropriate for City planning staff to investigate that.
Mr. Thomas said he has had three phone calls in the last week from residents who do want that service
in the area.
Mr. Blaine said they have met with representatives of the Ridge Street neighborhood, Orangedale
neighborhood, Willoughby, and Star Hill, and " those folks are interested in an option to 29 North, and
they're not shopping for their daily shopping needs on the downtown mall."
In response to Mr. Rooker's questions about the meetings, Mr. Blaine replied that residents were
presented with a plan for the shopping center, and supported the concept. He added, "Naturally,
neighbors have expressed the same kinds of questions that you have about the impacts, and we've made
the same commitments to them as we've made here tonight to address those. They support the concept
and they support this use at this location."
Mr. Nitchmann commented that most residents of the southern portion of the county would be in favor
of a shopping facility in this area, to avoid traveling the 29 North corridor.
Staff said they have not received any public comment on the proposal, and mentioned that that would be
an advantage to a public hearing. Mr. Blaine agreed.
The Commission agreed to hold a final worksession on the CPA for Brass, Inc. early in 1999. Staff will
simultaneously advertise the public hearing for the CPA, so as not to impede the process.
At the Commission's request, staff will provide a "big picture" analysis of this site in the context of the
county to include market information and copies of the questions of the survey presented by the
applicant, information on the availability of other retail and industrial (regional service) sites in the
county, a synthesized report of specific traffic issues and impacts including comments from VDOT and
the City (highlighting improvements expected with Southpoint and the Brass development's proffers),
and information on uses of the site under its current designation versus uses under the proposed change.
New Business
As this was his last meeting, Mr. Loewenstein indicated that a new chairman will be selected at the
Commission's January 5 h meeting. He read a statement (Attachment "D") thanking his fellow
Commissioners and Planning Commission staff for their fine work during his tenure.
There being no further business, the meet in was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
V. Wa ne Cilimb rg, etary
145