Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 02 1995 PC Minutes09 nn 5-2-95 MAY 2, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 2, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr. Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Jenkins. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of April 18, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended. CONSENT AGENDA Addition to Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of approximately 63 acres to be added to the Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District. Located on the west side of Rt. 743 (Earlysville Road), in and adjacent to Clover Hill and Ardwood Subdivisiori. The Planning Commission must take action to refer the application to the Advisory Committee. SDP 95-018 Stop -In at Route 29 and Greenbrier Drive Preliminary Site Plan - Modification of Section 4.2 to allow activity on slopes of 25% or greater and modification of Section 4.12.6.5c to allow parallel parking. Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 3, Parcel 12, is located at the southwest quadrant of Route 29 and Greenbrier Drive. Charlottesville Magisterial District, this property is located in a designated growth area and is recommended for community service Cooperative Parking at Rio Hills Shopping Center - Request to authorize cooperative parking under Section 4.12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SDP-94-067 Virginia Oil Minor Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to locate a car wash to be served by a new entrance. Property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 73A, is located on the Southeastern corner of Rolkin Court and Route 250E in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 3. Deferred from April 18, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. Klo cm 5-2-95 2 Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. The issue of primary concern was the proposed third entrance onto Rolkin Court. Neither the County Planning staff nor the County Engineering staff supported the proposed new entrance for the following reasons: --Placing another entrance on Rolkin Court will move on -site circulation problems onto the private road. (The site is already served by two oversized entrances.) --The new entrance would eliminate direct access to the rest of the site. In order to reenter the existing developed area, a driver must enter onto Rolkin Court and then re-enter the site. --Rolkin Court may become part of a system of internal roads in this area. Virginia Department of Transportation has met with representatives of South Pantops to discuss construction of an internal network of roads which includes extending Rolkin Court. It is not desirable to introduce one more access to Rolkin Court for this individual property. Staff had discussed three possible alternative designs with the applicant. (Those alternatives are described in the staff report, a copy of which is filed with these minutes.) The applicant was not agreeable to any of the alternatives. The staff report concluded: "Staff can support a modification of section 4.12.6.2, but cannot support the circulation as presented in this design. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the Virginia Oil Minor Site Plan Amendment as proposed by the applicant." Ms. Hipski answered the Commission's questions about the various designs. Mr. Blue felt the future plans for Rolkin Court (whether or not it will be upgraded) had significant bearing on this request. He asked staff to comment. Ms. Hipski explained that the future of Rolkin Court is still under consideration. (Mr. Don Franco, representing the Engineering Department, addresed this question later in the meeting.) Ms. Imhoff asked about uses on surrounding properties. Ms. Hipski said this property is zoned Planned Development -Mixed Commercial (PDMC). She was not aware of any site plans on adjacent properties. There was a recent request for a bank on the corner property (Parcel 72). Mr. Cilimberg offered additional information on traffic restrictions. He said there is presently restricted traffic allowance at the crossover on Rt 250 for this cul-de-sac. He explained the applicant is seeking relief from those traffic limitations. (Ms. Hipski explained that the traffic limitation is an agreement between the developer of the remainder of the property and VDOT. It is not a County imposed restriction.) lm 5-2-95 3 Mr. Blue asked Mr. Cilimberg the same question he had asked Ms. Hipski regarding the importance of the future plans for upgrading Rolkin Court in relation to this request. Mr. Cilimberg explained this request had previously been deferred to allow time for resolution of that issue. However, that has not occurred. He said that the owner of the residue of this property would like to see Rolkin Court upgraded, and if that happens, then it will have a real bearing on this site plan consideration. The applicant was represented by Mr. Frazier White. He explained the history of this request. He was uncertain as to why the process has taken as long as it has. Regarding the plans for Rolkin Court, he said: "I don't think VDOT is real serious and neither is the developer because my property goes out to the center line of Rolkin Court and I would think if they are serious they might have asked me to some of these meetings. I've not been invited to any of the meetings concerning Rolkin Court or any of those improvements. When the developer sold me this land he knew very well there was a restriction on traffic count and my operation was going to take a large portion of those (vehicle trips). He went into it with full knowledge, and to come back now and change that doesn't seem either right or fair." He explained why he felt the applicant's design (with a new, third entrance) is preferable. Addressing staffs concern that there is no way to re-enter the site once you have left the car wash, he explained that the car wash is the last thing a customer will be doing so there should be no need to re-enter the site. It is anticipated that 3% to 5% of total business will use the car wash (maximum = 1 car/10 minutes). The applicant proposed that the additional parking be designated for employees. He described the problems with staffs 3 alternative designs: --Concept 1 - Traffic flow works very well at the present time. "If it's not broke, let's not try to fix it." --Concept 2 - This will require that the dumpsters be relocated next to Rt. 250. --Concept 3 - Going to one entrance will "get very tight and it will be very congested." Mr. Nitchmann questioned the purpose of Concept 2. He noted that the turn radius appeared to be very tight. The Commission discussed staffs three alternative concepts and the applicant's proposal at length. Being a frequent user of this site, Mr. Nitchmann said he thought the current traffic flow on the site is very good. He felt Concept 3 was not acceptable because it would greatly impact the ability to enter and exit the site safely. He questioned Concept 2 because of the dumpster relocation and also because he did not think it had a wide enough turning radius. (Ms. Hipski was unable to say definitively whether the radius was adequate.) He felt Concept 1 was a safety hazard because it invited "cut across" situations. Given the type of car wash that was proposed, he did not think a third entrance onto Rolkin 5-2-95 4 Court was a major concern. He felt the applicant's proposed design "made good sense." Ms. Imhoff, also a frequent user of the site, agreed that the current traffic pattern works well. However, she felt exactly opposite from Mr. Nitchmann on the three alternatives. She did not support the applicant's proposed three entrances, which, if allowed, she felt would then make it difficult to turn down three entrances for the property across the road. She concluded: "If they want to do the car wash, and it is on a very attractive, well landscaped, works -well site, I think it would help traffic flow --long term, safety wise- -to have a more constricted entrance.... I think a mistake was made early on that this landscaped area should have been a lot broader (which would have) made it impossible to have that kind of traffic circulation. So my feeling is, if they want the car wash, they should have to go with Concept W' Ms. Huckle expressed support for one entrance (Concept 3). Mr. Cilimberg explained staffs safety concerns related to having three access points so close together. He said: "It does create more potential turning movements for the motorists coming in and out of all the businesses that might use this entrance." He said that the two entrances which were allowed (and exist) should probably have been one. He explained that the site is large enough to allow good on -site circulation. The turning radii are more than adequate to funnel people in and out of one entrance. He concluded: "This site functions well, but if it functions as it does now with two entrances, it can function with one entrance for the existing business activity. But (2 entrances) were already approved with a prior site plan, so it is not something --if this just remained as it is --which could be corrected. That is the issue that we are trying to address with the Department of Engineering regarding circulation on a lot of development that not only has happened but will be happening in the future, i.e. how do you reduce the number of potential turning movement conflicts, and the more entrances you have and the wider they are, the more potential movements you get coming in and out of the business." Mr. Dotson felt it was important to consider that there is a market associated with this use car wash use. He was concerned about pedestrian safety when mixed with the vehicular movements on the site. He wondered whether the Commission had the authority to approve this request with the stipulation that this (the applicant's design) would be acceptable as long as Rolkin Court is a court, but if it becomes a through street, then Concept 3 would have to be implemented. He asked Mr. Trank to comment. Mr. Trank responded: "I think tying your recommendation for approval to future plans for changing the configuration of Rolkin Court, something which may not be possible for the applicant to comply with in the future, is problematic. Forcing the owner to take M 5-2-95 5 different action in the future based upon a contingent event which he may or may not have any control over, I think is problematic." Mr. Blue commented: "I think if VDOT were to make that change later, and we approve something that is unsafe, VDOT, I believe, will either not allow Rolkin Court to change, if it makes this entrance unsafe, or, they are going to require, in their change, that it go back to something different. In other words, I am confident if VDOT is going to change this to a through road, they are going to make some recommendations about this now. I got the impression from the applicant that he doesn't think it is very likely, and I am inclined to agree with him." Mr. Nitchmann understood Mr. Dotson's suggestion to be: "Go with the applicant's design and as such time as VDOT makes this a through road, then the applicant is required to go back and do some version of Concept 3." (Both Commissioner Imhoff and Commission Blue questioned the legality of such an approach.) Mr. Cilimberg said that he did not know if it is anticipated that Rolkin Court will be a public road if it does become a through road. Mr. Blue asked Mr. Franco to comment on his discussions with VDOT about the plans for Rolkin Court. Mr. Franco said he believed that the road will be made a through road and that it will be a public road. He said VDOT is "looking at it seriously." The traffic study has been amended once, but VDOT is still not satisfied with the technical aspects of the study. So it has been given back to the developer and to his agent to redraft, taking into consideration the bigger picture. He concluded: "I don't believe VDOT would do that if they weren't seriously considering a through road concept. With that in mind, the biggest question I ask is what is it going to look like if it becomes a through road? If a through road, it will probably have a traffic light, and, if so, it will probably have a divided median. If you divide it and you protect that median, what are you going to do with multiple entrances into that site and that is where the questions start to come in. If there is no median at the location of the middle entrance, you will probably have stacking, so it will take only 6 or so cars before traffic is stacked on Rt 250 (turning left into the site). That is not a condition VDOT would find acceptable." Mr. Blue said: "So you are basing your recommendation on the belief that Rolkin is going to become a through road. If it weren't, would you find the concept the applicant has proposed acceptable?" Mr. Franco replied: "I think what our staff report said was if there is no potential for the change in the 4,000 trips/day, it doesn't become a through road, while we don't really like it because of the number of access points and the potential conflicts there, it is something that we feel is O.K. because they are using 3,500, or so, of the 4,000. That severely limits restaurants going in on the opposite side or anything else. So with that 17L� In 5-2-95 6 mind, it really effects the development of the rest of those properties. There can't be but so much that goes in there, in which case this is almost like a private entrance into the Amoco site. I don't really see it as a big safety issue." Mr. Franco confirmed that this applicant, because he owns half of the road, will have to be a party to whether or not Rolkin Court becomes an upgraded through road, or a public road." Mr. Bill Roudabush, the applicant's engineer, addressed the Commission. He said the applicant has not been included in any discussions about the possibility of the road extending any further than what is shown on the subdivision plat at the time he purchased this land. He explained: "The original site plan configuration and layout was based on the approved subdivision plat and this amendment is based on what is on record and what was approved at the time he acquired this property. If this were made a through road, the traffic volumes will be much larger and the whole width, configuration and all the other design details for that road are going to change. But I don't think he should be required at this point to comply with something that is conjectural. He has not been included in any of the discussions. We understand the County has met with the seller of the property to discuss these things, but this applicant is the only user of the road and he has not been included in any of those discussions." Mr. Roudabush commented on Concept 3, which he said would cause a lot of back-up and conflict on the site. He pointed out that when this request was first discussed with staff the only issue was whether or not there could be a one-way traffic lane through a car wash. The issue of the extension of Rolkin Court had not been mentioned. He noted that the addition of the car wash will not cause any increase in traffic count because the people who will use it will be those who have stopped for other reasons. Mr. Nitchmann again expressed the opinion that the applicant's proposed design would work well. He said the owner owns to the center of the road and is not aware of any planned changes to the road, and if VDOT does make the road a through road at some future time, then they will address the safety issues related to the change at that time. Ms. Imhoff felt the site works well now, with two entrances. She said: "I think it is a real mistake for us, every time we have the opportunity to use two entrances and keep it two entrances, not to hold the line. Once you get a third, or fourth, or fifth entrance, it is very hard to close them. So I am just not going to be able to support a third entrance." Ms. Vaughan expressed concern about safety in relation to the addition of a third entrance. She wondered if there might be additional problems caused if people want to pull off to dry off their cars after exiting the car wash. Mr. Dotson again asked the County Attorney to comment on his earlier suggestion of possibly "approving the applicant's plan, with Concept 3 as a back-up plan." Mr. r 5-2-95 7 Dotson asked: "You think that probably exceeds our authority?" Mr. Trank responded: "I think it does." Mr. Blue said he was satisfied with the applicant's design, provided Rolkin Court does not become a through road. He said he was inclined to favor a deferral until the Rolkin Court issue has been resolved, but he understood the applicant was probably anxious for action. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SDP-94-067 for Virginia Oil Minor Site Plan Amendment be approved as presented by the applicant. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion failed to pass because of a tie vote. Commissioners Blue, Dotson and Nitchmann voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Huckle, Imhoff and Vaughan voted against. Staff confirmed that the request could be appealed by the applicant to the Board of Supervisors, if the appeal is made within 10 working days. Mr. Roudabush asked the Commission to state the reason for denying the request. Mr. Blue replied: "I think the reason is because it is felt that the traffic circulation and adding an extra entrance would be dangerous and it would be better to either go to one entrance as shown n Concept 3, or one of the other concepts." Mr. Cilimberg advised the Commission that a motion for denial would be in order so that the reason for denial could be stated for the record. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SDP-94-067 for Virginia Oil Minor Site Plan Amendment be denied "for the reason that we wish to minimize the number of entrances on Rolkin Court, because of concerns of both on and off -site circulation and that there was a preference for Concept No. 3." Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Nitchmann said he could support this motion and a preference for Concept No. 3, if it were certain that Rolkin Court was going to be a through road. But to use that as a basis for denial at this point, he felt was an "undue hardship on this applicant, for no other reason than we want to maintain two entrances there and we think that in the M M 5-2-95 g future --within the next five or ten years --that road may go through. I just don't think that's fair." Ms. Imhoff clarified her position: "My concerns about entrances have absolutely nothing to do with whether that road is a state road or a through road. My concerns would be as relevant if it stays a private cul-de-sac for how the entrances are going to work." Mr. Nitchmann said: "So it's not a safety reason." Ms. Imhoff responded: "Oh it is very much a safety reason, but none of my safety concerns are related to whether it is a through road or not a through road, or a private vs. state road. I think it will be a concern for me if there is a third entrance added for the very traffic that the site generates itself, on and off (site)." The motion for denial passed 4:2, with Commissioners Dotson, Huckle, Imhoff and Vaughan supporting the motion, and Commissioners Nitchmann and Blue opposing the motion. MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Imhoff complimented staff on their report on the Fall community meetings. Ms. Imhoff asked that staff arrange for the Commission to visit the Ivy landfill. (Mr. Blue noted that at least two Commissioners had received invitations from an Ivy citizens' group to visit the landfill.) Referring to a recent article written by Mr. Bob Watson, Mr. Dotson asked if any member of the Commission had any recollection of the Commission either supporting or adopting a "no -growth policy." All Commissioners agreed that no such policy had been adopted. WORK SESSION CPA-94-04 Jefferson National Bank - Request to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of approximately 13 acres along 5th Street Extended from Medium Density Residential to Office Service. This area, encompassing parcels 54 (part), 54N1, 54P, and 54Z on Tax Map 76, is located on the east side of 5th Street Extended, between Stagecoach Road and 5th Street Extended, about 1/3 mile south of Interstate 64, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. /6l cm 5-2-95 9 Ms. Vaughan explained that she had a possible conflict of interests on this item. She excused herself from all discussions and actions. She left the meeting. Mr. Lilley and Benish presented the staff report. Staff felt that an expanded and/or more intensive commercial/office core area for the southern Urban Area is warranted, "in light of the possible expansion of Neighborhoods 4 and 5 to the south, the upgraded nature of 5th Street Extended and the Interstate Interchange Development Policy, and the lack of substantial service areas for the southern Urban Area. Given that, a transitional use such as offices on the subject site would be appropriate in conjunction with the area across 5th Street being redesignated for a more intensive commercial use." Mr. Dotson asked that the next staff report (for the next meeting) include a discussion of the City land uses on surrounding properties. Ms. Imhoff also requested a development plan from staff showing how this area is going to work with the regional service center. She felt it needed to be very descriptive and detailed. It should also address the question of how the residential area will be replaced. 440, Mr. Dotson suggested: "One option would be something less than regional service, and preserve the medium for residential, for instance." Mr. Benish explained that one of the justifications for commercial in this area is that it would relieve some of the traffic which must go through town to reach the commercial areas on Rt. 29. He said: "I think one of the reasons that we stayed with regional service, is that there really is no other regional service opportunities, except on the 29 North corridor. So this is an opportunity to provide, south of town, the broadest commercial land uses in a location at an interchange." Ms. Imhoff cautioned: "I think you want to be careful on scale. To me it might be better to have the size of the commercial area smaller, and maybe not have all iof t right here, but in some other areas in Neighborhood 4 or further down in Neighborhood 5. 1 guess I don't want to put all our eggs in one basket." Mr. Benish explained that the only modification from what the Commission has seen previously, is the addition of a few acres west of Rt. 631 Ms. Imhoff asked why there was a transitional use to low density residential. Mr. Benish replied: "It would be transitional to a regional service." Ms. Imhoff suggested that the transitional use concept needed to be revisited by the Commission. 1%W In 5-2-95 10 Ms. Imhoff said she had spoken with Faquier County staff and they are going to a minimum of 4 du/acre to 12 du/acre in their service districts. It appears they are not going to allow anything below 4 du/acre except by special exception. Comment was invited from the applicant. Jefferson National Bank was represented by Mr. W.A. Pace. He was accompanied by Bill Garman, Bob McKee, Mark Keller, Curt Trane and Tom Keto. Mr. Pace said the applicant had not prepared a formal presentation. He described the history of the proposal. Mr. Pace said the Architectural Review Board has seen the proposal and has endorsed it. He offered to answer Commission questions. Ms. Imhoff asked if the area designated for future development was intended to be used by the applicant. Mr. Pace responded: "Yes. We do not intend to build buildings and rent to people. The applicant presented a model of the proposed new facility. The location of various aspects of the facility, including access points, etc., were pointed out to the Commission. Mr. Dotson asked how stormwater would be handled. The applicant explained the proposal presently provides for stormwater to be stored in oversized, underground pipes. There is also the potential for a regional detention facility, in cooperation with the developer, as part of bringing utilities to the site. The applicant confirmed they had obtained statements of support from all the adjacent property owners. Mr. Dotson asked if any microwave facilities --dishes or towers --were planned. The applicant responded: "None." Ms. Huckle asked about outside lighting. The applicant said very little lighting will be used and it will be "controlled within the yard." Mr. Blue asked about internal night-time lighting which would be visible from the skylights. The applicant pointed out the areas of the building which will be used at night. He did not feel there would be a problem. Mr. Dotson expressed the hope that there would be pedestrian walkways and possibly bus service serving the property. Mr. Blue asked if there were any plans for carpooling or bussing to get employees from town to the site. The applicant said that as the facility expands, there might be the In 5-2-95 11 possibility for the site to be served by public transportation and other JNB programs might also be in place. Mr. Gorman said the applicant is very aware of traffic considerations. Mr. Dotson suggested that the applicant might want to think about how pedestrians from this site can get to the property across the street, i.e. "thinking beyond the site." Ms. Imhoff felt it was important that the County begin looking at some type of parallel pathway systems to the roads. She hoped that the staff would begin to consider parallel bikeway/pedestrian systems in the larger context for the County. Ms. Imhoff felt it would be helpful for the applicant to put in writing some of the intentions in terms of lighting, parking, landscaping, airconditioning units, etc., prior to the public hearing. Ms. Huckle hoped the applicant would look into the possibility of using the type of lighting which Mr. Leback had described at a previous meeting, a type which has "no spillover to the atmosphere." Ms. Imhoff said she was less concerned about the applicant's proposal than with how this will connect with this entire area. She wanted staff to address issues such as "" greenways, signage, landscaping, pedestrian/bike pathways, etc.. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that CPA-94-04 for Jefferson National Bank be scheduled for public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. 9. M V. Wayne C,fmberg