HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 30 1995 PC MinutesM
5-30-95
MAY 30, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May
30, 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. Ron Lilly, Senior Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior
Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr.
Bill Fritz, Senior 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 May 16, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended.
ZMA-95-05 Woodbriar Associates - Petition to request relief of proffer 12 of ZMA 91-
13 Woodbriar Associates in order to allow relief of phasing requirement and clarification
of phase completion. Zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development. Property,
described as Tax Map 32G Parcel 1 and Tax Map 32G, Section 3, Parcels A and 83, is
located on the west side of Route 29 North approximately one mile north of the North
Fork Rivanna River in the Rivanna magisterial District. This property is located in the
Village of Piney Mountain and is recommended for medium density residential (5-10
dwelling units per acre). Deferred from May 9, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the
modified agreement will allow for orderly development of the site without adversely
limiting the activities which may occur. The original intent of the phasing order appears
to have been to prevent uncoordinated development and insure orderly development of
the site. The revised agreement is consistent with that intent. Staff is able to
recommend approval of this amendment request subject to the modified language of
agreement 12."
Mr. Fritz noted the following additional change to the suggested wording for agreement
#12, which had been developed after the staff report had been prepared: "All public
roads shown in the phase have been given final inspection by the Virginia Department
of Transportation Charlottesville Residency, a complete assembly package has been
submitted to the Residency, the maintenance fee has been paid and the one-year
VDOT performance bond has been posted." He explained the reason for the change
was "to avoid any delay that might come about through the mailing process and the fact
that the Board meets on a regular basis."
Mr. Fritz later noted a further change to the proposed wording dealing with the phasing
order. He said the order should be changed from "4, 5, 6" to "6, 5, 4." If the
5-30-95
2
Commission were agreeable to that change, then all references to phase 6 in
agreement #8 would be changed to phase 4.
Ms. Imhoff asked: "Have we ever done that before? This seems like something I am
really reluctant to start doing." Mr. Fritz explained both the new language, and the
previous, had been proposed by the Engineering Department. He deferred Ms. Imhoff's
question to Mr. Kelsey.
Ms. Huckle asked how many phases the developer would be able to work in
simultaneously. Mr. Fritz explained that the proposed language explicitly states that
infrastructure improvements --roads, utilities and drainage --are not subject to the
phasing limitations, thus there is no limit to the number of phases that can have
infrastructure construction taking place. However, approved preliminary plats will be
required in order for there to be road plans. Ms. Huckle asked: "I was under the
impression it was important to clearly delineate the infrastructure which goes in each
phase so that the bonding can be kept current. How do you propose to do that?" Mr.
Fritz replied: "One, it is shown on the master plan, and, two, at the time of the platting
of any phase, the infrastructure necessary to support that phase will have to be shown
on the plat. Otherwise, the plat could not be approved, as is the case with all
developments currently."
Mr. Fritz completed his report: "We have looked at these modified agreements and are
of the opinion that they address the Commission's previous concerns." He said they
also address the applicant's concerns about how the development is proceeding.
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering (Albemarle County), addressed Ms. Imhof 's
earlier question. He asked her to repeat the question.
Referring to the change to the wording Mr. Fritz had read earlier, Ms. Imhoff said she
was concerned that this was an "over complicated approach... rather than what has
been accepted as standard operating procedure ... allegedly to save the applicant a
couple of weeks." She asked: "Have we done that before, and once we do it for this
applicant, is your department prepared to do it on all projects? What is special about
this that we are taking a new approach?"
Mr. Kelsey said this situation had not arisen before. It is the first project where "the
subject of completion has ever really become a major issue." He said that this
definition "allows us to draw the line as far as completion." He said this particular
development was "a lot more complex because of the wording that was in the original
proffer." He said "if there is another subdivision in the future which is subjected to a
similar kind of condition, we stand in a position to use the same kind of definition and
wording."
in
E9
09
5-30-95 3
Ms. Huckle asked what guarantees the County has that these phases will actually be
completed. Mr. Kelsey explained: "We are saying he can go ahead and put in the
infrastructure for additional phases, but he won't be able to build in any additional
phase until he has completed one other phase. So if he wants to build houses, he will
need to get a final subdivision plat approved and he can't get that approved until he has
completed one other phase ... plus, when he goes to get his final plat approved for a
particular section, he may have started building some of the infrastructure, but one of
the conditions of that final plat approval is that any remaining road work or utility work
would have to be bonded." Mr. Fritz pointed out that both the previous language and
the proposed language has not changed the incentive for completion of the project.
The only change is that the developer will be able to start constructing the roads in
Phase 5, before he gets the plat signed. The plat which would allow him to begin
selling lots will only be available in two phases at a time "with unfinished roads or
infrastructure." Mr. Fritz further explained: "For example, we wouldn't sign the plat for
Phase 5 until we have evidence that items 1, 2 and 3, that are in this new language,
were completed for either Phase 1A or 6." He said that is essentially the same situation
as presently exists.
The applicant, Mr. Wendall Wood, was present but offered no additional comment.
There was no public comment. The matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA-95-05 for Woodbriar Associates be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff, including
new wording for agreements #12 and #8 as described above, and the change in
phasing order as also described above.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed (5:0:1). (Ms. Vaughan had
entered the meeting late and abstained from the vote.)
Addition to Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District - The proposed addition consists
of approximately 64 acres located on the west side of Rt. 743 (Earlysville Road) in and
adjacent to Clover Hill and Ardwood Subdivision.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. She explained that the proposal had changed
after the staff report in that Ms. Rosenblum had withdrawn her application for all of her
parcels.
The applicant was not present. (NOTE: There is no requirement that the applicant be
present at the Commission hearing.)
1-0 , There was no public comment.
t5? 3 q
09
5-30-95 4
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Addition to Panorama
Agricultural/Forestal District be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
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.
and
ZMA 94-20 Jefferson National Bank - Request to change the zoning of approximately
13 acres along Fifth Street Extended from R-2 Residential to CO, Commercial Office,
with proffers. 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. This request is concurrent with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
request, CPA-94-04, to change the land use designation for this area.
lk%W (Citing a possible conflict of interests, Ms. Vaughan excused herself from participation
in these two items.)
Mr. Lilley presented a combined staff report, with the understanding the Commission
would take two separate actions on the two requests. Staff was recommending the
following action on CPA-94-04: "Amend the Comprehensive Plan to indicate an Office
Service land use designation for the subject area and to revise the Neighborhood 5
Profile as indicated below and in the attached text (Attachment D). Indication should be
given that the area across 5th Street Extended will be amended to reflect a commercial
core for Neighborhood 5 during the Comprehensive Plan update." Staff was
recommending the following action on ZMA-94-20: "If the issues of traffic volume
accessing this facility from Stagecoach Road, traffic reduction strategies, and adequate
provision for pedestrian access across 5th Street are resolved, staff recommends
approval with acceptance of the applicant's proffers." Staff was recommending
approval of necessary waivers for the site plan related to critical slopes, grading in the
buffer zone, and curvilinear parking. Staff further recommended the requirement that
the site plan specify raised islands in the service area parking and that lighting be
shielded from all adjacent properties.
Ms. Imhoff asked staff to explain why waivers were a part of a rezoning request. Mr.
Lilley responded: "We don't want to accept as a proffer a plan that still needs some
type of Planning Commission action. I am trying to point out that these are things that
r�2
In
6WIL411
5
need Planning Commission action before the plan would be accepted as a proffer. The
proffer is written such that it is anticipated that there may need to be some minor
changes based on staff review.... I'm pointing out the things that can't be handled
administratively for a site plan review."
Mr. Blue asked if the Commission's granting of these waivers means that staff could,
from this point on, approve the site plan administratively. Mr. Cilimberg explained that if
the Commission takes action on the waivers at this time, then, if the rezoning is
approved, those items will already be approved as the site plan process proceeds.
However, the Commission can review the site plan if it so desires. He pointed out that
the three waivers were "part and parcel to the proposal."
Ms. Imhoff understood it was staffs position, on the rezoning, that they could support it
only if certain issues were addressed, i.e. traffic volume, traffic reduction strategies, and
pedestrian access across 5th Street. She felt staff was saying: "We're ready for the
Comp Plan Amendment, but we're really not ready for the rezoning, because not all
issues have been addressed."
Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I think what the report says is that there were issues that
needed to be addressed and we were anticipating that the applicant was going to
provide proffers addressing those." Ms. Imhoff asked: "Has that happened?" Mr.
1440W Cilimberg responded: "I think the applicant wants to speak to that tonight."
Mr. Blue concluded: "So if we're not willing to grant those waivers, we'd be foolish to
approve the rezoning and accept this as a proffer." Mr. Lilley responded: "Right. That
would be a problem because without these waivers the site plan would have to be re-
worked substantially."
Regarding staffs recommendation for a raised island in the service area, Mr. Lilley
explained staff feels such an island would offer protection for parked cars. He
confirmed this was staffs recommendation, but no waiver was required.
Ms. Huckle asked questions about the buffer areas. Staff explained that they would be
"normal" buffer areas. Ms. Huckle wondered if a "substantial" buffer should be required
to protect neighboring residences from lighting. Mr. Lilley said "a fair amount of
landscaping" is proposed in the area referred to by Ms. Huckle. He did not know that
car lights would cause a problem. (NOTE: Later in the meeting an adjacent property
owner said car lights would not shine into residences.] Mr. Lilley did not know for sure
what type of landscaping was proposed.
Mr. Lilley concluded his report by saying that: "A couple of the proffer issues that still
need to be worked out, that the applicant has been willing to address, are the amount of
traffic that will access off of Stagecoach Road, some sort of pedestrian coordination
�41
In
5-30-95
E.
long the frontage, and some type of traffic reduction program, probably a carpool
program that would be helpful for reducing the traffic.... Assuming that (these) issues
can get worked out O.K., staff is supportive of the rezoning."
Recalling previous discussions, Ms. Imhoff thought that the issue of lighting was
supposed to be addressed through proffers. Mr. Lilley said he had addressed that
issue in the staff report. [NOTE: Page 4 - "Shielding of outdoor lighting such that the
light source is not visible from adjacent properties....] Mr. Lilley pointed out that the
Zoning Ordinance will require this, in any event, but because it had been discussed at a
previous work session, staff made an effort to point out that it would need to be
addressed on the site plan. Ms. Imhoff said she wondered if the applicant was going to
"go beyond" what was normally required by the Zoning Ordinance. She recalled
discussions about the use of "more innovative practices on the property."
Ms. Huckle called attention to a letter from the Fan Mountain Observatory which
Commissioners had received. The Observatory representatives were very anxious to
discuss lighting and to "identify the necessary area of protection around the
Observatory." She asked if staff had been in contact with the Observatory. Mr. Lilley
replied: "I don't think so." He did not know if the applicant had been in contact with the
Observatory.
'%ft' Ms. Huckle called attention to a discrepancy in the projected vehicle trip count, i.e.
staffs projected 92% increase vs. the applicant's projected 26% increase. Mr. Lilley
said he thought that was the result of a "math error on the applicant's tables." He felt it
was a caused by not taking into consideration the "year 2003 employee loading that is
expected." He said, also, that the table was based on 100 multi -family units, but the
formula staff would use would only allow for 80 multi -family units.
Noting that the designation for this property may ultimately be the new Transitional Area
which is being considered, Mr. Dotson asked the following questions about the Comp
Plan Amendment:
--"Does Transitional carry with it an implication of more attention to details and
development standards and site planning than a more standard Office Service
designation?" Mr. Cilimberg answered: "A transitional designation is going to imply
you're moving from a higher intensity of uses--e.g. commercial uses into residential
uses. So in that transitional area you would want to be particularly careful about
making sure that the uses provide for transition and provide buffering to the residential
uses that would probably be adjacent to them. So detail would be in things like the
buffering, in this particular case because there are residences in the adjoining land
use."
— "Is there any sense in Transitional that it is a bridging designation? Not only is
it buffering by separating, but it is linking things on either side of it?" Mr. Cilimberg
answered: "It can be.... It was the idea that there are certain areas that can fit for both
q,-
In
5-30-95 7
higher scale residential as well as office uses and some light commercial. And they can
mix together well. So there truly is a mixed category that is also a transition, in which
you are not expecting a shopping center, or you are not expecting a high rise office
building there either. In a transitional area, due to the basic size of the ones we've
looked at, you would not expect major office research park development."
--"Would your position tonight be that we should be considering Office Service
rather than Transitional?" Mr. Cilimberg responded affirmatively, explaining: "Because
that is the only use now in the Plan that anybody has ever approved. Yes."
Mr. Dotson wondered if staff was thinking that the property across the highway from this
property might be appropriate for Regional Service, whereas the area toward Old
Lynchburg Road might be more Community Service. He said the future use of that
property (across 5th Street) would influence his thinking about this site. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that staff did not want to imply (with the recommendation of Office Service or
Transitional) for this site, that everything on the other side of 5th Street will be Regional
Service. He said that even though that is shown on this map, it was just a "first run at
getting some basic land use designations up there." He said there is already office use
on Old Lynchburg Road (the Mountainwood facility). He explained: "It may be that Old
Lynchburg Road should be offices, should transcend from that into Community and
eventually Regional services as you get closer to the Interstate. That could be the way
the Commission wants to go. I don't think this approval sets any of that in stone. That
'` side of the road is still open for discussion by the Commission. What we did want to
indicate is that we see that side of the road as being basically commercial and the scale
of commercial still needs to be decided by the Commission." Mr. Dotson asked:
"Would you be thinking that, basically, from Old Lynchburg Road up to the Interstate
should be commercial? There is a lot of housing in there now, actually closer to the
Interstate." Mr. Cilimberg replied: "It would be on that side, between the Interstate and
the new location of 5th Street, down to Old Lynchburg, would be in an office or
commercial designation." Regarding the topography of the property, Mr. Cilimberg said:
"Topography always is an issue for where we are in our land use designations because
a lot of the good land has been used. "
Mr. Dotson asked: "How firm is the staff that some commercial designation would be
recommended on that side of 5th Street Extended?" Mr. Lilley responded: "I think it is
fairly firm. As you look at the southern neighborhoods, there isn't much in the way of
commercial opportunities. Being in an Interchange and having a proposal on the board
led us to think about it seriously. I think the thinking is that it does make some sense
and, in fact, this particular proposal is sort of tied to that in terms of its sensibility for this
area. I think the Community Development staff is feeling it is probably a firm position
that it is a sensible direction to go for that area."
Mr. Nitchmann questioned staffs position, given the fact that there is a sizeable
lsk commercial area only a block away, though it is not in the County. He felt this would be
5-30-95 8
"mirror imaging something that is right across the road." Mr Lilley said staffs position is
based on the feeling that there will be more of a need for commercial area as the urban
area is expanded southward. Staff feels there is the potential for enough growth so
that there will be a need for more commercial area than already exists. He also pointed
out that it is an Interstate Interchange area.
Ms. Imhoff felt Mr. Nitchmann's point was a good one. She felt staff would need to
prove to the Commission that there is not sufficient commercial capacity within the City.
She said if this property is so important, in terms of Interchange access, "then it doesn't
seem it should be an area where you put Food Lions, and some of the local service for
the community." She suggested: "If you want to do some small scale commercial to
serve the residents, far better to do much smaller acreages and have some scatter -
shots within the expanded residential area."
Ms. Huckle referred to a letter from the City's Director of Planning (Mr. Huja), wherein
he expressed concerns about increased traffic on the City's streets. She felt this might
address that concern because people would not have to drive into the city.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff is trying, with this Comp Plan Review, to cluster commercial
uses. Here is a cluster that has started, and the question is "how much is necessary to
complete it?" The answer is based on "where you are trying to serve." He said: "Our
144W point here is that we see from Old Lynchburg Road to the Interstate on that side as
being the opportunity for the extent of that cluster. It shouldn't go any further than that;
maybe it shouldn't be in all of that area; maybe some of it should be office. We don't
see that as being residential. That is the other point that needs to be made.... In
looking at it as non-residential, it seems that office and commercial would make sense,
for the reasons we have stated, because it is near the Interstate, ... and as an extension
of the commercial core to the City that has developed on that side of town as well."
Referring to one of the display maps which showed an enlargement of Neighborhoods
IV and V, to the south, Mr. Dotson asked staff: "If that plan was put into effect, do you
have any approximate idea how much additional residential development potential
would exist in that southern area?" Mr. Cilimberg said that had already been covered in
a report discussed with the Commission, but he could not recall the acreage nor the
dwelling units. Mr. Nitchmann, referring to the report, said the acreage was 1,652 in
Neighborhood V (total developable residential area). Mr. Dotson felt the Commission
needed to start thinking of this area as being "quite different than what it is today," He
continued: "A lot of area is being added and as we think about the commercial we need
to factor that in and we need to think about the kinds of pedestrian and other kinds of
access. There are going to be a lot more people down there than it would appear today
and the things that don't necessarily look like they make sense today, in light of a plan
like that, they might well make sense."
OR
5-30-95 9
en
Mr. Dotson said it was evident that much of the usefulness of this site was created by
the realignment of the road. He noted that there appears to be a very wide, paved
shoulder. He asked if that was a bike path. Mr. Cilimberg said there had been no
approved bike plan at the time the road was built and VDOT will not provide for a bike
path if there is no approved plan. However, staff had "pressed" that issue with VDOT
and, the paved shoulder, which can easily accommodate bikers, had been built. Staff
does not know if their pursuit of the issue with VDOT was the cause of that paved
shoulder. He said "a separate pathway" had also been provided on the north side. Mr.
Dotson concluded that "a lot effort has already gone into taking care of alternate
transportation modes."
The applicant was represented by Mr. W.A.Pace. (He was accompanied by
representatives of the applicant's architectural firm and engineering firm.) His
comments included the following:
--The applicant agrees staffs concerns are important issues but do not feel they
should be made part of a proffer.
--Approximately 74 vehicle trips/day are anticipated at the Stagecoach Road
entrance. Future changes in traffic count will not effect this entrance because that
traffic will be employees who will come in the main entrance.
--Jefferson National owns no property, in its statewide operations, which has
restrictions about traffic count and does not want such a restriction here.
--The applicant encourages carpooling, will have spaces allocated for carpooling
and will do everything possible to try to reduce traffic.
Mr. Mark Keller, the applicant's engineer, offered the following information:
--There are few critical slopes on the site. Most of those on the western edge,
and almost all those along Rt. 631, are man-made. He explained how some of the
slopes were created. The only "native" steep slopes are two small areas in the
southeast corner of the warehouse area. Less than 200 square feet of those will be
underneath the building.
--The grading in the buffer zone is in the southern area where the building most
closely abuts with the neighbors. He explained the buffering plans. He said few trees
in the 20-foot buffer area will have to be removed. Vegetation replacement will be done
at the direction of each individual landowner, across the front of their property.
--The curvilinear parking is a result of the shape of the building. The
architectural design of the building is echoed in the site work.
--It is hoped that extended lighting periods will not be needed in the front of the
building. The main entrance may be secured at night so late shift workers will be
entering from the rear. If the front facility is lighted, consideration is being given to
minimal fixtures, minimal acceptable foot candles, under 20 feet in height, sharp cut-off,
state of the art fixtures.
OR
M
5-30-95 10
--Raised islands are not a good idea in the back parking lot because they will
make delivery truck maneuvers more difficult. Paint strips are preferable in that area.
Few cars will be parked in the back lot during the day.
--Regarding a proffer addressing pedestrian circulation, he said the obvious way
to get pedestrians across 5th Street from this facility would be through a controlled
intersection. "We are having a hard time placing a pedestrian access in the form of a
sidewalk or a path from point A to point B across our property, with it going nowhere at
this point." The connection of the building to the intersection at 5th Street and Old
Lynchburg Road is a good idea, but the applicant would like to wait to see what
develops across the street. At that time the applicant will be thinking about the
development of the residue of this tract, and that would be across the frontage of where
the sidewalk would be placed. At that point, signalization of the intersection would
make crossing very safe. "The bank will be responding to the needs and desires of its
employees.... We are very amenable to providing that sort of access when there is
something to get to." (Ms. Imhoff said: "But no guarantees.") Mr. Keller responded:
"No guarantees other than you will be having a site plan come before you to develop
that residue and could require it at that time."
(Regarding the development of the residue, Ms. Imhoff thought the plan had been for
that area to be part of the open space. Mr. Pace said it had been stated that was
possible future development. Mr. Keller pointed out the site plan shows it as possible
future development. )
Ms. Huckle asked if the applicant would be willing to participate in the cost of the
signalization at the intersection, when one becomes necessary. Mr. Keller deferred to
Mr. Pace for an answer to this question. Mr. Nitchmann questioned whether this issue
should be addressed at this time. Mr. Blue said it was more a site plan issue, but Ms.
Imhoff said it could be addressed at the time of the rezoning. (The applicant never
answered this question.)
Mr. Dotson asked if the City bus service comes as far as this site. Mr. Keller said "it
comes very close to the Food Lion." Noting that this facility will employee 300 people in
the future, Mr. Dotson said it might be that it has "future bus service possibilities."
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Kenneth Wade, 480 Stagecoach Road, expressed support for the proposal. He
stressed that traffic on Stagecoach Road is not a problem because the present traffic
count is very low. He also said the lights from the service road would not be a problem
because they will not shine into the residences. He said all the residents of Stagecoach
Road which back up to this property have signed a petition of support for this proposal.
He also said his neighbors were looking forward to the convenience of having a bank
close by.
en
5-30-95 11
Mr. Carl Handy, owner of the property adjacent to the access road, expressed support
for the proposal.
Addressing Ms. Imhoffs earlier comment about the residue parcel, Mr. Pace stressed
that there are no plans at this time for any building on the property, but that does not
mean that a request may not be made at some future time. Mr. Pace said the
applicant has not asked the County for any favors in this proposal and has always been
a good citizen. He stressed that the applicant needs to take title to the property and put
the project out to bid, so it is important to move forward with this plan. He asked the
Commission to approve the CPA and ZMA.
Mr. Dotson asked the applicant's architect to show the different access points for the
facility. Mr. Trane explained that this is a high security building with only three main
access points. Using the model, he described the pedestrian flow. After hearing Mr.
Trane's description, Mr. Dotson said: "So you have provided for people to get from the
parking lot into the building on a path, but not from some future bus stop." Mr. Trane
said: "Not at this point."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The Commission discussed the Comp Plan Amendment first.
Ms. Imhoff said staff had convinced her that this is a very appealing project in terms of
its design and seems to fit as a transitional use She said she "could live with this Comp
Plan Amendment, noting that we haven't bought in yet to the scale of residential or
some of the other issues in Neighborhoods IV and V." (Ms. Imhoff then expressed her
concerns about the rezoning. Those comments are included later in this record as part
of the rezoning discussion.)
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that CPA 94-04 for Jefferson National Bank be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff. Ms.
Imhoff seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Dotson noted: "That includes the indication about the commercial across 5th Street
Extended as indicated here tonight."
The Commission then discussed the Zoning Map Amendment.
Ms. Imhoff said her concerns were about the rezoning request. She explained: "This is
such an important step for this neighborhood. I feel it really is our first big rezoning and
changes our ideas about what we should be doing in those two neighborhoods so
perhaps I have held it to a higher standard in hoping that (the applicant) would go
11140W forward and address, more specifically, pedestrian concerns on site. It wasn't that
,� �'7
M
5-30-95 12
was expecting this applicant to be responsible for constructing a pedestrian bridge over
5th Street Extended, but (rather) this idea of having some pedestrian access --looking
forward a little more. I know the applicant says when it is needed it can be built in the
future, but we don't have any assurance of that. I wish this rezoning would take it a
step further and say 'for this community and this area of the county we are going to start
making those pedestrian links; we are going to try to get a reduction in vehicles; we are
going to address, more aggressively, lighting." She said she was not comfortable with
the rezoning because pedestrian access and lighting had not been definitively
addressed by the applicant. Given the fact that this will be the "new community south
of town," she wanted to see it get off on the right foot. Ms. Imhoff expressed no
opposition to the waivers, and said the applicant had convinced her that the raised
islands are not necessary in the back area.
Mr. Dotson agreed he had no problem with the waivers and he could see no compelling
reason for the raised islands, given their location. He said his principal concern was
how to put this in the "middle of a community and link it to the community." He noted
that this is a very central area in the growth area. He said it was difficult to envision this
development without curb, gutter and sidewalk, given the future plans for the area. He
said he would like to see, "ideally," a pathway following the entrance road, and some
indication of a possible future bus stop which would permit a loop on Old Lynchburg
Road, and, possibly a stairway which would shorten the walking distance. (He pointed
%W out where the stairway would be located.) He did not know how to require those items,
but he hoped the applicant would recognize their advantages and offer to consider
them further in connection with the site plan. He felt the facility could be an asset to the
Community but he did not want to think of it as "an island."
Ms. Huckle noted that the plans for the opposite side of 5th Street are still unknown at
this point. She agreed that it would be an asset to the community and felt the applicant
should not be "held hostage", at this point, to what might happen in the future.
Ms. Imhoff commented: "Somebody always has to start. What happens is we never
get things started, then everything is all developed and we say, 'gosh we should have
put that in and now the County is going to bear the cost of doing it,' when every project
along the way added the requirement for it. And the time to address this is not at the
site plan stage, it is at the rezoning stage. That's when you should be talking about the
impacts of a project."
Mr. Dotson said: "Much of the value of the site comes from the public work done on the
road, so I am thinking 'public -private partnership, on site. I am not talking about
anything off site."
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that this is a "secure facility," and thus he thought the
'+14.. applicant would want to limit the entrances to and from the facility.
M
In
5-30-95 13
Mr. Blue felt the comments about a sidewalk along 5th Street had merit. However, he
wondered if a sidewalk might be needed more along Old Stagecoach Road, along the
back of the site. He pointed out that the applicant has been very forthcoming and has
gone to the point of getting all the neighbors' support. He could not recall that having
happened in any previous proposal. He pointed out that the point of zoning is to protect
the people, and the people who live near this property have expressed their support.
He said that though he would welcome a proffer on the sidewalk across the front, lack
of such a proffer would not prevent him from supporting the rezoning.
Mr. Nitchmann said the applicant had addressed the lighting question to his
satisfaction. He felt they were really looking into the matter and were not just "paying
lip service to it."
Ms. Huckle said the lighting issue was of greatest concern to her, not only for the
neighbors but also the overall sky lighting. She said there are certain kinds of lights
that do not light the sky and she hoped the applicant would use that type of lighting.
Mr. Nitchmann noted that most of the lighting would be at the back of the facility.
Regarding the sidewalk, he said "it would be nice to have it" but he felt it could be
addressed at the time the residue is developed. He felt the applicant goes a long way
to try to be a good neighbor. He concluded he could support the rezoning.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA-94-20 for Jefferson National Bank be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the
applicant's proffers. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson asked of staff: "What is the authority at the site plan level? The Comp Plan
says that for both arterioles and collectors in the designated growth area and urban
area we would have sidewalks provided. Is there authority in the Code for
implementing that provision of the Plan?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Not for a site
plan. That would need to be addressed as part of a rezoning." Mr. Blue added: "With a
proffer."
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the applicant could "choose" to address some of those
issues at the time of site plan review.
Ms. Huckle said she had no problems with any of the waivers. She also agreed the
raised islands were not necessary.
Ms. Imhoff said she would not support the rezoning request because she did not feel
the applicant had satisfied her concerns about pedestrian access, traffic reduction
12�,y
In
5-30-95
14
strategies and tieing down the lighting. She said she was "hopeful" based on the
applicant's description of the lighting, but she would have preferred that the plan be
more definitive.
Ms. Huckle asked if the lighting issue could be addressed at the time of site plan
review. Staff explained that it could only be addressed to the extent of what is required
by the Ordinance.
Mr. Blue said the applicant has the opportunity to address the Commission's concerns
prior to the Board hearing, if so desired.
Mr. Pace was allowed to comment. He said he had thought that lighting would be
addressed at the site plan level. He had not realized the issue would be raised at this
meeting. Had he known, he said he would have made sure the problem would have
been solved. He said: "I am as concerned about the lights as you are and the only
thing I can tell you, ... I am positive you will be pleased with what we have done when
we finish with this plan." Regarding Mr. Dotson's suggestion about a possible staircase
which would make pedestrian access easier, he said: "I do have a concern about
opening up more holes, or places for people to come to our parking lot." He also said
he intended to work with the Observatory to make sure that the lighting plan is
acceptable.
The motion for approval of the rezoning request passed (4:1) with Commission Imhoff
casting the dissenting vote. (Ms. Vaughan did not participate in the action.)
The Commission then took action on the waivers.
Though Ms. Huckle originally expressed the desire for the Commission's review of the
site plan, it was decided (with Ms. Huckle's concurrence) that administrative approval
was acceptable.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that Jefferson National Bank be granted waivers to allow
encroachment on critical slopes, grading in the buffer zone, and curvilinear parking. Mr.
Dotson seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
There was consensus that raised islands in the back parking area were not required.
SDP-95-030 - Berkmar, Lot 11, Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 4,032
square foot building on 0.408 acres zoned C-1, Commercial. Property, described as
�,, Tax Map 61 U, Section 01, Parcel 11, is located on the western side of Berkmar Drive
G
In
M
cm
5-30-95
15
approximately 500 feet north of the Berkmar Drive/Route 29 intersection in the Rio
Magisterial District. This site is recommended for community service in Urban
Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He explained that staffs recommendation had
changed from denial to approval. Staffs recommendation had changed after a visit to
the site confirmed that turning movements are possible. All that was required of the
Commission was a determination on a request for a waiver to allow grading closer than
20 feet to residentially zoned property (Section 21.7.3).
The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. He offered no additional
comment.
There was no public comment.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Berkmar, Lot 11,
Preliminary Site Plan be approved, including a waiver of Section 21.7.3, "subject to staff
approval of a tree preservation method for the two trees."
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
Miscellaneous
Ms. Imhoff said she had received several calls regarding the addition of commercial
stables as a by -right use in the Rural Areas. She asked Commissioners to consider
the initiation of a zoning text amendment which would add this use. She said she
would bring it up again at a future meeting.
There was a brief discussion, initiated by Mr. Nitchmann's questions about the Roanoke
watershed, about Inter -Basin Transfer regulations. Mr. Cilimberg said there has been in
place for some time a Water Study Commission which is supposed to develop a State
Water Plan which would address that issue. Ms. Huckle said it is this type of problem
which emphasizes the question "Is it right for a community to keep growing past its
water supply capacity?" Mr. Nitchmann said he was interested in knowing the "true
facts."
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
-2 %
5-30-95 16
m
On
m
V. Wayne Cjfimberg, S
�2 E-;-,L-