Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 02 1996 PC Minutes4-2-96 APRIL 2, 1996 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 2, 1996, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chairman; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair; Ms. Babs Huckle, Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. William Finley; and Mr. David Tice. Others officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. CONSENT AGENDA: Shopper's World Minor Site Plan Amendment - Request for one-way circulation in accord with Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fruit Growers Complex Site Plan - Request for cooperative parking in accord with Section 4.12.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commission Annual Report - 1995 Referring to the Annual Report, Ms. Huckle thought it would helpful to have follow-up information on zoning text amendments so as to monitor their effectiveness. No other comments were offered about the Consent Agenda items. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 95-21 Cathcart Properties and Denico Development - Petition to rezone approximately 11.6 acres from R-1, Residential to PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Property, described as part of Tax Map 91, Parcel 2, is located on the east side of Avon Street opposite the entrance to Mill Creek North, Mill Creek Drive, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density Residential (10.01-23 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 4. Deferred from the March 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to agreements. Staff answers to Commission questions included the following: 6q 4-2-96 2 --The eastern portion of the property was previously subdivided from this 11 acres and is the site for the new County high school. --Regardless of the action taken on this request, signalization of the intersection will be required for the Avon Street/Rt. 20 connector road. The improvements to Avon Street will be the same whether this development is approved or not. Staff did not know if there will be a lined crosswalk at the signal, though that seems reasonable given the location of the school. --The adjacent church has, in writing, expressed no opposition to the removal of the buffer. Neither the Service Authority nor the Engineering Department have expressed any concerns about encroachment in the buffer area. --The applicant has been alerted about the high shrink -swell characteristics of some of the soils on the property. Mr. Keeler said the County has no greater liability in terms of construction on poor soils than it does for construction on any other of soils. --The applicant's traffic study is acceptable to VDOT and is very conservative because it does not assume any "captured" traffic, i.e. traffic which already exists on Avon Street and Rt. 20 and it also assumes all these uses will operate independently, i.e. it does not assume multi -purpose trips by individuals. Staff feels the 12,000 vt/day cited is much higher than will actually occur. Mr. Keeler said VDOT always prefers that the traffic study address the "worse case scenario." Staff feels this study reflects a "worse case x 2" analysis. --It is believed the traffic signal at Avon Street will adequately address school bus accessibility. The applicant was represented by Ms. Denise LaCour. She described the project in detail. Her comments included the following: --6.7 acres will lie north of the connector road; 4.9 acres will lie to the south. --This development did not necessitate the need for the connector road. It has been a planned improvement for many years. The location of the new County high school has precipitated its construction. --The property will have two entrances close to Rt. 742 and two at the rear of the property. Two are restricted to right -turn only movements. The applicant is responsible for the development of the median which will prohibit left -turn movements. --Most of the buildings will be at the rear of the property, 10-15 feet below the grade of Rt. 742 (Avon St). There are no exits or entrances onto Rt. 742. All access is from the connector road. --There will be a 35-foot vegetative buffer along Rt. 742, and along the connector road. Trees will also be planted within traffic islands within the parking lot. --The goal is to "develop a community shopping center that will serve the needs of residents along Rt. 742 and Rt. 20." The applicant has purposely planned the shopping center so as not to attract residents from other areas of the county. Uses which might draw people from other areas have been proffered out. Envisioned are a grocery store, a drug store, pizza delivery, video rental, a dry cleaner, a bank and professional offices. 4-2-96 3 --It is planned the shopping center will be open by 1998. It is anticipated there will be 1,400 dwelling units in this area (Neighborhood IV), where there is presently no commercial activity of this type. --This site has been recommended for commercial activity in the new land use plan which is currently under consideration by the Board of Supervisors. --It is believed not only that the traffic impact in this area will be minimal -- because most of the traffic will be captured traffic --but there will also be a positive impact on traffic in other parts of the county because Neighborhood IV residents will no longer have to travel across town for shopping. --The developer is committed to making a quality development and would not build something which would negatively impact his $1,000,000 investment in the Lakeside development adjacent to this property. --This project will come under the purview of the ARB. Because Rt. 742 is at a higher elevation than property on either side, the visual impact to neighboring properties will be minimal because this property slopes downward, below Rt. 742, as do all the residences which are on the opposite side of Rt. 742. The buildings will be only one-story in height. High density residential development of this property would result in much greater visual impact. --Light pollution will be addressed with light fixtures which will direct lighting down onto the parking lot. Being below grade level will also address this concern. --This development will greatly increase the tax base of the County without burdening the school system. --The project will create many new jobs. --If VDOT determines that a signal is needed on the connector road when the property on both sides have been developed, the developer will be required to pay for the light. VDOT may also, in the future, require the developer to construct a left -turn lane to serve the northern parcel on the rear entrance. --Very little cut -and -fill will be required on the site. Ms. LaCour offered to the Commission a petition of support which contained the signatures of 174 Neighborhood IV residents. Public comment was invited. The following members of the public addressed the Commission and expressed their strong support for the development: Phil Strong (Lake Reynovia); Scott Wosky (Mill Creek North); Charlotte Rigg (Mill Creek); Barb Shepherd (Mills Creek South); Gary Sarcosi (four miles south of the development); Lisa Peters (Lakeside Apartments); John Bush (Mill Creek South); Mary Bunn (Mill Creek North); Jean Abbott, (Lake Reynovia); John Mason (Mill Creek); William Florence (Mill Creek South); Dave Shaw (Mill Creek); Tom Lashundro; Phil Anrosini; Trey Steigman; Mike Brown; and Steve Olson. Their reasons for support were as follows: --There is a need for a neighborhood shopping center in this community. 6161 4-2-96 4 --This development will be a fulfillment of an expectation the community has had for several years. --It will eliminate many vehicle trips on Rt. 29. --It will not negatively impact views from the neighborhoods on the opposite side of Avon Street. --The developer's reputation, as evidenced by the Lakeside development, makes the residents confident this development will be of the same high quality. [NOTE: Mr. Sarcosi said he had polled all his neighbors and all 26 expressed support for the proposal.] The following members of the public addressed the Commission and expressed their strong opposition to the development: Polly Delovit, Glen Reynolds and Theresa Reynolds, all Mill Creek residents. Ms. Delovit questioned the need for all communities to have shopping no more than 2 minutes away. She felt residential neighborhoods should be "sacroscant," and that the County should be encouraging the development of more recreational areas which encourage family interaction. Mr. Reynolds, whose home is directly across Avon street from the proposed development, expressed concerns about light pollution. [Ms. LaCour later addressed this concern and said the ARB is very sensitive to this issue. They will require a "shoebox" type light which shines directly down onto the site. Spillover should not be a problem.] Ms. Reynolds asked the following questions about the project: What is the anticipated buildout time for the projec--is it still 6-15 years as the applicant indicated at a former hearing? [Ms. LaCour answered this question later and said this will be determined by market demand but that a shorter buildout time is envisioned.] Was the Willoughby neighborhood included in the count of residences? What happened to other potential commercial sites in this area? [Mr. Fritz later answered this last question saying: "In Neighborhood IV there are no other commercial zonings that could accommodate this type of use." Mr. Cilimberg added this was the only area in Neighborhood IV recommended for commercial use in the Land Use Plan recommendation which the Commission recently passed on to the Board. No other areas are being considered for commercial designation in Neighborhood IV.] Mr. Sam Bydler, a resident of Mill Creek, did not indicate either support or opposition, but expressed the hope that there will be a buffer on the Mill Creek side of this development. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. For the benefit of new Commissioners, Mr. Nitchmann related the history of this project. The Commission had recommended approval of the request previously, but the Board had denied it. He noted the following conditions which are different than when the ,► proposal was first made in 1994: (1) The site for the new high school had not yet been (o I 4-2-96 5 selected at that time; and (2) There is now a recommendation before the Board that the urban ring be expanded into this area. In addition, he said the County is trying to work toward having complete communities and is encouraging in -fill development. He also pointed out that his development will result in a reduction in traffic through the City. Mr. Tice expressed agreement with Mr. Nitchmann's comments. He said he could support this request because it is a logical place to locate commercial development to serve this community. He said he had been impressed with the neighborhood's support. He thought the fact that this project will result in reduced traffic through the City and on Rt. 29 is a compelling factor. He pointed out that not only does this mean reduced traffic in these areas, it also translates into an environmental advantage in terms of gasoline saved and reduced air emissions. He calculated, based on 1000 residences in this area, one fewer 10-12 mile trip per month will result in a reduction of 1 ton of hydrocarbons, 9 tons of carbon monoxide, 1,200 lbs. of nitrogen and 70 lbs. of benzene into the atmosphere. Mr. Finley said he had been impressed by the public hearing and the trust that the residents expressed in the reputation of the developer. Mr. Dotson quoted comments made by a member of the public: "We need a complete community. We may not always be able to drive. Conservation is important." Noting that he had supported this proposal the first time it was before the Commission he said it still makes sense so he will support it again. Ms. Huckle said it is obvious the neighbors feel this is needed and it makes sense because it will reduce traffic in other areas. She said she was sorry the development was divided by the connector road. She hoped the developer would attempt to put businesses most -used on one side and less -used ones on the other so as to reduce movement across the road. (Mr. Nitchmann said he had understood the applicant to say the southern section of the property would probably be used for professional offices.) Ms. Washington said she had received a significant amount of supportive mail on this project. She complimented staff on the report and the applicant on her presentation. She said she would support the request. Mr. Loewenstein said the term "community" must be taken into consideration. He said that though he shares concerns about "creeping urban sprawl" in this community, he feels, given the clustering of high -density housing in this community, there is a need for a small-scale commercial development such as this. He, too, was impressed by the residents' support for the developer. He said he had received a great deal of mail also and all was supportive. He noted that shopping was originally planned for this area and there is no alternative site. He concluded he would support the request. 68 4-2-96 [: Mr. Nitchmann expressed an understanding of those persons who spoke in opposition to the proposal, but he said the Commission must make the decision it feels is best for the majority of the community. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that ZMA-95-21 for Cathcart Properties and Denico Development be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following agreements (the first one of which will be in the form of a proffer from the applicant): 1. The following uses shall be prohibited: 22.2.1.a.3 Department store 22.2.1.a.7 Furniture and home appliances (sales and service). 22.2.1.b.9 Indoor theaters 22.2.1.b.22 Automobile, truck repair shop excluding body shop 24.2.1.2 Automobile, truck repair shop 24.2.1.4 Building materials sales 24.2.1.9 Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric 24.2.1.20 Hotels, motels and inns 24.2.1.21 Light warehousing 24.2.1.22 Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental 24.2.1.23 Mobile home and trailer sales and service 24.2.1.24 Modular building sales 24.2.1.25 Motor vehicle sales, service and rental 24.2.1.32 Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles 24.2.1.34 Wholesale distribution 2. Acceptance of the plan title "Avon Street Retail Development" initialed WDF, 3/27/96 as the plan of development. The motion passed unanimously. The Chairman then called for a motion on the request for a modification of Section 21.7.3 to allow for grading in the buffer area. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that a modification of Section 21.7.3 be granted. The motion passed unanimously. M G9 n EVZO i MISCELLANEOUS 7 Monticello High School Site Plan - Mr. Tice asked that the site plan be brought before the Commission for review. Recognition of Former Commissioners - After a brief discussion it was decided, by a vote of 4:3, that Jefferson Cups, along with Certificates of Appreciation, will be presented to former Commissioners, as has been the tradition. UREF Hearing - April 9 - There was a brief discussion as to the format to be followed. It was decided action would not be taken at the April 9th meeting. Commissioners who miss the April 9th hearing can listen to the tape prior to the April 16th meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. 0I e,e, V. WayrV Cilimber ,"ecrtary DB ?a