Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 24 1995 PC Minutes10-24-95 OCTOBER 24, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 24, 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 Keeler, Chief of Planning, Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioner Jenkins. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of October 3rd and October 10th were unanimously approved as submitted. ZMA-95-14 Dennis Rooker/Ivy Creek, Inc, et al - Petition to rezone 215.0 acres from PRD, Planned Residential Development to RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 59A1, Parcels 1-33 and B (open space). This site is the location of the Ivy Creek Subdivision and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Staff requested deferral to November 7, 1995, due to a notification error. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved that ZMA 95-14 be deferred to November 7. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 95-15 Peter Easter - Petition to rezone one acre of property created by the relocation of Route 631 from R-2, Residential to C-1, Commercial. Property, is adjacent on three sides to Tax Map 76, Parcel 46H and is remnant of Tax Map 76, parcels 46A (part) and 54Q is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 631 and 780 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 5. Deferred from the October 10, 1995 Commission Meeting. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval. The applicant, Mr. Peter Easter, was present but offered no additional comment. No public comment was offered. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that ZMA 95-15 for Peter Easter be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. /0 10-24-95 The motion passed unanimously. 2 SP-95-30 Crozet Church of God - Petition to establish a day care center on approximately 5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(7)]. Property, described as Tax Map 55, parcel 96A is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Route 250 and 1-64 near Crozet in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). Deferred from October 10, 1995 Commission meeting. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Keeler summarized the following additional information which was gathered after the last hearing: --Sewer capacity and limitations: "The current facilities can accommodate 20 children. This figure is dependent upon agreement between the church and the Health Department regarding other activities that may occur during the week and should not be deemed the final figure." --Water demands: "The Health Department calculations, based on metered observations, use a figure of 25 gallons/child/day water consumption by a 20 child day care center = less than 550 gallons, which is less than a 4-bedroom dwelling." --Virginia Department of Welfare Regulations: "There are a significant number of regulations which the church must comply with in order to maintain exemption. ... There are also Code of Virginia regulations which are applicable to a child day care center operated by a religious institution. (However) the church can seek normal licensure as a child day care operation. The Virginia Department of Welfare regulations apply to staff:child ratios, which varies depending on the age of the children. The Welfare Department requires annual Health Department approval and Fire Official approval and, with the initial exemption, requires Building Inspector approval. These three agencies are, generally, the agencies that limit the enrollment. " --Well testing: "The applicant, at the October 10th meeting, agreed to do well testing on an annual basis." Staff recommended a sixth condition be added to the approval: "Annual coliform tests results of water supply to be submitted to the Virginia Department of Health." --Maintenance of entrance sight distance: "... The first phase in the permit is to construct and maintain commercial entrance. Basically, VDOT's response as to maintenance responsibility --if VDOT was required to maintain sight distance at all commercial entrances in the County, that would be an overwhelming task. It is a safety matter. If there is a concern about the safety at that entrance, presumably the property owner would be willing to clear the vegetation and restore the sight distance." --Church's break-even point for number of children: Staff could not answer this question. (The applicant estimated the break-even point to be 20 children in the present building. He could not determine the break-even point for the new building because utility costs, etc. are not yet known.) 00'7 10-24-95 3 The applicant was represented by Rev. Rowsey. He said the Health Department had told him periodic testing of the well would not be required for less than 25 children. He asked for clarification. Mr. Keeler noted that the applicant had volunteered to do well testing at the October 10th hearing. The additional condition was merely to put this offer in writing. After Mr. Keeler's reminder, Rev. Rowsey confirmed the church would be willing to do well testing. Rev. Rowsey said a Class 2B well will be constructed, even though a 2B well is not required unless more than 25 children are served. Ms. Huckle asked the applicant to clarify the request --is it for 60 children as originally requested, or has that been changed? Rev. Rowsey said the request is now for 20 children. He explained: "If we go with 20 children, we don't have to do anything else with our septic tank. if we go with more than 20 children, we will have to have an engineer re -design our whole drainfield system." He understood that if approval is granted for 20 children, any number higher will require another special use permit. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that SP-95-30 for Crozet Church of God be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Administrative approval of site plan. 2. Seating capacity to be determined by adequacy of septic system, not to exceed a maximum seating of 250 persons. 3. Approval is for worship and related church use and day care only. Other uses will require amendment to this permit. 4. Day care enrollment to be determined by adequacy of septic system not to exceed 20 children. 5. Compliance with Section 5.1.6, DAY CARE- NURSERY FACILITY. 6. Annual results of coliform tests to be submitted to the Health Department. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion: Discussion: Ms. Imhoff said her change in opinion on this request had been influenced by the change in the scale. She said, however, that she had concerns about possible future /0 9 10-24-95 4 erosion and she felt any future expansion of the use should be seriously considered in terms of environmental impact to the area. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-95-17 Wendell Wood - Petition to amend the proffers of ZMA-93-06 to allow establishment of outdoor storage and display of autos on 11.3 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. [30.6.3.2b] Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcels 43 and 43A is located on the west side of Route 29 near Timberwood Blvd in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This is the location of the Maupin Store. This site is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead. and SP-95-31 Wendell Wood - Petition to establish outdoor storage and display of autos on 11.3 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. [30.6.3.2b] Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcels 43 and 43A is located on the west side of Route 29 near Timberwood Blvd, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This is the location of the Maupin Store. This site is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead. Deferred from the October 10, 1995 Commission meeting. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He explained the proffers attached to the original request "limit the use of the site to mobile home sales and there was a special use permit that was issued that authorized that particular use." He explained that the staff report which accompanied the original request "called for an overall plan of development and commercial development was not to occur until 100 units were in place in the mobile home park. Therefore, on its face, mobile home sales was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (However), we found, as an offsetting factor, because it was proposed for mobile home sales, it could be supportive of the mobile home park and we were, therefore, able to support the request and it was ultimately approved." Mr. Fritz explained this current request "removes that connection between this site and the mobile home park --there is no longer any use connection between the two sites and therefore it is our belief it is no longer consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and we are recommending denial of the rezoning request." On the special permit request the staff report concluded: "Staff and the ARB have reviewed SP-95-31 should the rezoning be approved. Based on the actions of the ARB staff is able to recommend approval of the special permit subject to conditions." 10-24-95 5 The applicant, Mr. Wendell Wood, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --The mobile home park is presently under construction. The present plan is to place units on the site, including landscaping, and then to sell the units from the park itself. This will avoid a lot of traffic movement of these units on Rt. 29 and is also advantageous economically, thus making these units more affordable. --The proposed use, a car sales operation, will be a more financially successful use for the site than the existing store and gas pumps. It will also create less traffic. --The proposed use will also result in landscaping improvements to the site. --This site is less than 1 acre. The mobile home sales lot would have been 11 acres. There was confusion on the part of the Commission as to why the request was being applied to 11 acres and not just to the 1 acre proposed for the use. Mr. Fritz explained the acreage referred to is the acreage of the parcels. Mr. Fritz confirmed that the request to amend the proffer would apply to the entire parcel. The special use permit, however, would be limited in area to just the 1 acre area referred to by Mr. Wood. Ms. Imhoff asked about the plans for the remainder of the 11 acres. Mr. Wood responded: "We don't have any plans for it at this time.... When we come back, it will be with a planned use for the whole 44 acres of HC zoning." Mr. Blue asked why the request had not been for just the 1 acre associated with the special permit. Mr. Wood said the 11 acres is already zoned HC. Mr. Fritz explained: "We looked at the area that was already zoned and amending the proffers that would allow this use to occur. We did not discuss removing zoning from property that was already zoned HC and rezoning just a smaller portion, but that is something we could talk to the applicant about." Mr. Wood said he was under the impression the property was already zoned HC. Ms. Imhoff explained: "But it is zoned HC with very stringent proffers so it a mistake to say it was zoned HC, because it was HC to allow, and only to allow, the sales of mobile homes." Mr. Fritz added: "And that is why we didn't look at taking it from the large parcel, down to that 1 acre around that (existing) structure." Mr. Cilimberg explained: "The key in the Comprehensive Plan, is that the commercial area, by the Plan, not only is designated Regional Service, but it is also specified that the commercial area should be developed under one application plan. I think that was the concern we had in the review --we're talking about taking out 11 acres that are not being shown under any kind of overall development plan, which the Comp Plan called for." Responding to Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Wood said: "That is why it is being requested for just the existing ongoing business." Mr. Cilimberg clarified: "By a rezoning action on the 11.3 acres, if the Board approves it, you will be changing the proffer that currently exists on 11 acres, which restricts it to //0 10-24-95 6 mobile home sales. So as an 11 acre request, with the proffer that is being offered, the whole 11 acres has changed, and not just the site where the auto sales are proposed. It would take a much smaller rezoning, with a special use permit, to accomplish just the auto sales without effecting the rest of the property. That certainly could happen, but that is not what the application called for." Mr. Blue recalled the mobile home sales had been approved because of the connection to the mobile home park. Mr. Blue asked if staffs recommendation would have been different if the proposal had been for 1 acre rather than 11. Mr. Fritz replied: "One acre or 11 acres, because of the proffers limiting the use of the site, the entire acreage, we had viewed it originally as mobile homes sales which was supportive of the mobile home park. This request changes that from mobile home sales to auto sales, which is not supportive. So 1 acre, or 11 acres, we were reviewing it as that and knowing that it was limited in scope by the conditions of the special use permit and by the proffers that were provided. So 1 acre or 11 acres does not change the recommendation." Mr. Wood confirmed the original proposal was for most of the 11 acres to be for mobile home sales. Mr. Dotson asked if the gas tanks would be removed. Mr. Wood said the gas pumps would be taken out which presently exist, though a pump might be installed to serve the car dealership only. He said he was under the impression the tanks will have to be removed, or replaced with new ones, to comply with EPA regulations, by 1998. Mr. Joe Lombardo, who will be operating the car sales business, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --His plans have always been for a small site, no more than 1 acre. --This use will create less traffic than the existing store and gas pumps. --A mobile home sales operation, as originally envisioned, would involve three times more paving than will this proposal. --Mobile home sales on this property could result in mobile homes being moved up and down Rt. 29 because it is not possible to restrict sales to just the residents of the mobile home park. --The proposed use is not significantly different from a mobile home sales operation, except it will result in much less traffic and environmental degradation. --The proposal involves an extensive makeover of the site, which has already been supported by the ARB. --The proposal: "(1) Is the best choice given the likely alternatives for this small parcel; (2) Is in line with the previous approval for outdoor storage and display; (3) Beautifies a site that desperately needs rejuvenation; (4) Blends in well with the new businesses established in the area; and (5) Fits in solidly with the community vision 10-24-95 7 statement to ...have a strong diversified economy with opportunities for local businesses and meaningful jobs." Public comment was invited. Mr. Bob Watson, President of the Forest Lakes Community Association, addressed the Commission. He expressed neither support nor opposition to the request, but voiced the following concern: "This is the first commercial development on the west side of Rt. 29, north of the Rivanna River until you get to Forest Lakes, so our major concerns are that the Architectural Review Board recommendations be very stringently enforced, i.e. signage, building renovations and vegetation. If you are going to approve this, I hope you look very carefully at the ARB's recommendations and feel free to add to those if you feel needed." In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that the staffs recommended conditions of approval "match" those of the ARB. Ms. Denise Kirschner addressed the Commission. She expressed concern about the plans for the in -ground gas tanks. She asked if there was any monitoring planned to ensure that the tanks are not leaching into the soil. Mr. Wood explained the EPA checks the tanks 4 times a year. Ms. Kirschner asked if the tanks will continue to be inspected even after the gas pumps are removed. Mr. Lombardo said the tanks will be drained and sealed. Ms. Kirschner was still skeptical because she was personally aware of tanks which had been drained and sealed and continued to leach into the soils. Mr. Blue said he would ask staff to research this question. Mr. Fritz said he would bring that information back to the Commission as soon as he had an answer. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kamptner to comment on the fact that the basis for the approval of the mobile home sales use previously --because it was connected to the mobile home park and supportive of affordable housing --was "no longer viable." She asked: "Does that have anything to do with the rezoning from RA to HC?" Mr. Kamptner replied: "The fact that this particular parcel will not be used for mobile home sales, may just mean that a particular proffer is moot." Ms. Huckle asked: "And the HC zoning remains. It doesn't revert back to RA?" Mr. Kamptner replied: "No. Any type of reversion back to a previous zoning would require an affirmative action by the County. There is no automatic reversion back to a prior zoning." Mr. Blue pointed out that the proffer proposed by the applicant still includes mobile home sales, even though the applicant has said there is no plan for that use. Mr. Fritz responded: "He would need to apply for a new special use permit (for mobile home sales), but he could still do that." 10-24-95 8 Ms. Huckle commented: "It seems to me we have been 'had.' In trying to do something for affordable housing, we have been sold a bill of goods." Mr. Nitchmann asked if the existing use --the store and gas sales --could remain if this request were to be denied. Mr. Fritz said the original proffer had been for mobile home sales and the existing grocery and gasoline sales. Mr. Fritz said: "I would have to consult the Zoning Administrator for a final determination, but it would appear the grocery store and gasoline sales use could remain." Mr. Dotson pointed out that the revised proffer is imprecise, because it says "The mobile home sales lot will be limited to...." Mr. Kamptner said there will be a revised proffer submitted which will incorporate the remaining proffers from the 1993 rezoning, which will continue to run with the land, plus a revision to proffer No. 1. The Zoning Administrator had also been concerned about the vagueness of the mobile home sales lot. Mr. Nitchmann asked when that revised proffer would be clarified. Mr. Cilimberg said staff had received it just prior to the meeting. Staff has not had a chance to review it. Mr. Nitchmann asked how the Commission could act if the proffer had not been finalized. Mr. Dotson suggested the Commission complete its discussion, but defer action. Mr. Kamptner explained the law requires only that the proffer be perfected and submitted in writing to the Board of Supervisors prior to their hearing. Ms. Imhoff said she had understood, from her reading of the minutes, that "there was a sort of deal --that you got this rather specialized HC use but only because of its link to the mobile home park. Now, this request for a special use permit on a small portion of this property is opening up the door, in my mind, to what might happen, not only on the remainder of the 11 acres, but also, in the bigger picture, as to what is going to happen in that entire area. My feeling is I would like to see the applicant come in with a unified plan that addresses the entire area. ... I don't think Regional Service, as described by the Comprehensive Plan, necessarily equates Highway Commercial, or all the uses you have under Highway Commercial. It's a very open zone. So my feeling is that I don't think this is the mature time to be talking about this zoning change and I agree with staff. I think it should be denied." Mr. Nitchmann asked how a unified plan could be presented if the applicant does not own all the HC property. Mr. Fritz said the property is under the unified ownership of the applicant (unless portions have been sold since 1993). Mr. Wood confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Fritz's statement. 10-24-95 9 Mr. Blue said he shared some of the feelings of the other Commissioners. He was surprised that the ARB had approved the plan but said he was inclined to view the request more favorably because of the ARB's comments and also because it is only on 1 acre. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the ARB only looks at the visual impact of the plan, and not the rezoning issue. If the main concern is about access points onto Rt. 29, Mr. Dotson wondered what more would be accomplished through an overall development plan. He pointed out that the proffers make "this amenable to an overall development plan if the main concern is access." He said, however, that he was not yet willing to support this request because "we do not have precise enough language and map to make it clear what we would be acting on." He concluded: "But I could see supporting this as long as we are not making it more difficult to get an overall development plan in the future." Responding to Mr. Dotson, Ms. Imhoff said: "I think it does. Though it's easy to say 'we'll close that entrance (later)', I rarely see it happen because the property is often under different ownership by that time. I think the value of a unified plan is not only with points of access, but it is also unified signage, unified landscaping, unified building design. It tends to work a lot better and there is a good opportunity, on the west side of Rt. 29, to avoid the errors that we have made on other parts of 29. 1 just see it as an opportunity for this part of the community to function a lot better. Ms. Huckle recalled Commission discussion about limiting curb cuts on Rt. 29, parallel roads, and requiring contiguous access between parcels. Mr. Blue noted that the car lot would not require a lot of capital expenditure and might be easy to combine with a unified plan later. Mr. Nitchmann indicated the proffers address some of his concerns about access points, etc. He said this particular site could remain with its present use, which produces more traffic than would the proposed car sales. He said he could support the request with the understanding that the applicant would finalize the proffer prior to the Board hearing. On the issue of the underground tanks, Mr. Dotson said he felt the tanks should be removed at the same time the pumps are removed. He feared that these tanks are easy to forget once the pumps have been removed. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA 95-17 for Wendell Wood be denied. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. 10-24-95 10 The motion for denial failed to pass (2:3:1) with Commissioners Huckle and Imhoff voting in favor of denial, Commissioners Blue, Nitchmann and Dotson voting against denial and Commissioner Vaughan abstaining. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA 95-17 for Wendell Wood be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers and with the understanding the proffers would be clarified, as discussed, prior to the Board hearing. This motion failed for lack of a second. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that ZMA 95-17 for Wendell Wood be deferred to November 7, 1995, with the proffer to have been clarified by that meeting. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. The motion for deferral passed (5:0:1) with Commissioner Huckle abstaining from the vote. The Chairman asked for a motion on the special use permit. Ms. Keeler noted that Mr. Lombardo had mentioned 45 cars, but the request was for 36 display cars. Mr. Fritz said the conditions of approval state the cars will "be limited to the area shown on Attachment D (for 36 cars)." MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-31 for Wendell Wood be deferred to November 7, 1995. Ms. Vaughan seconded the motion. The motion for deferral passed unanimously. It was clarified that these two items were scheduled for Board hearing on November 8th. ZMA-95-13 University Real Estate Foundation - Petition to rezone 5 acres from R-1, Residential to R-10 Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 60, parcel 45 is located on the north side of Ivy Road on the access road to University Village in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density Residential (10.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 7. and /i S 10-24-95 11 SP 95-27 University Real Estate Foundation - Petition to establish a professional office on 5.0 acres zoned R-10 (ZMA 95-13 is pending). [17.2.2(11)] Property, described as Tax Map 60, parcel 45 is located on the north side of Ivy Road on the access road to University Village in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density Residential (10.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 7. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval of the rezoning request, but denial of the special permit. Staff did not support the special permit because the use was not supportive of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Mr. Kamptner explained that the applicant will be submitting revised proffers. Referring to Attachment C of the staff report (the applicant's proffers), he explained the County Attorney's office is recommending that proffers 3, 4 and 5 not be included. Some changes.to the introductory language have also been recommended. He deferred to Mr. Fritz for further explanation of envisioned changes to proffers 1 and 2. Mr. Fritz explained: "Number one remains as stated. In number two, items 1 and 2 talk about access being provided to other roadways or limitations on use of the site being lifted at such time as Old Ivy Road is upgraded to some point. There is no identification as to who would determine that or at what point, or what alternative access is contemplated as proposed." In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that Crestwood Drive, referred to in Proffer No. 1, is the road which serves the University Village site. Mr. Blue said: "But you can also get out through the apartment." Mr. Fritz replied: "It has an easement over the Crestwood Drive site." He confirmed Crestwood Drive is the main road to University Village. Mr. Blue pointed out the plat shows a grass right-of-way (unused) all the way to Old Ivy Road. Mr. Fritz confirmed the envisioned revisions to the proffer do not change the intent, rather the "mechanism," with one exception: "Proffer No. 2 has an automatic triggering mechanism for the lifting of the 3,500 square foot building site use. Those triggering mechanisms we are not supportive of and they are not clear to us." The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Blain. He said the Foundation sees this as an opportunity to meet its office needs and at the same time preserve a unique asset. He gave a slide presentation showing pictures of the property and surrounding properties. His comments included the following: --The proffer on the limited density makes the property virtually useless as an R- 10, multi -unit residential property. The density limitation of 3,500 square feet is not going to generate more than 60 car vehicle trips/day over that which is allowed by right. 10-24-95 12 --Revisions to the proffers related to future development will be submitted to staff. --There are many examples were office uses exist harmoniously with residential uses. The applicant disagrees with staffs restrictive interpretation of the Ordinance. --The applicant feels this is the best approach --to seek a special permit with the R-10 zoning, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan --rather than to seek commercial zoning of the property, which is inconsistent with the Plan. Mr. Blain asked that conditions No. 1 (subjecting the property to the commercial zoning section of the Ordinance) and No. 3 (the requirement for a site plan) not be placed on the special permit. He said the property is not being rezoned and that there is no need for a site plan. Ms. Huckle asked what use is envisioned for the property once one or the other of the roads have been upgraded. Mr. Blain replied: "There is no vision for the property other than what you see in the slides. To preserve the value of the property, the proffers have been written flexibly to allow a change if the conditions warrant. If Ivy Road is improved, to allow additional traffic and safe traffic flow, then the property can be reexamined for other use." Ms. Huckle asked what type of other use. Mr. Blain replied: "Under the existing zoning, it could be converted to four dwellings, single-family detached. The existing dwelling is not economically feasible for use as a residence.... The alternatives would be to raze that lovely structure and put four single-family dwelling units by right. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the type of use we see at Ivy Gardens and University Village. That is not what the University wants to do with the property." Ms. Imhoff asked if there is a chance the property would be "cycled back to high -density residential' if the bridge is eventually improved. Mr. Blain repeated: "There are no current plans." Mr. Blain confirmed that the sketch submitted was the 'old physical survey" and the Commission had received nothing showing the parking. He said the parking area and the changes to the entryway to comply with ADA requirements are the only physical changes planned for the outside of the building. He had a copy of a plan showing the parking area and offered to submit that plan to the Commission. Ms. Imhoff asked what would be lost by not requiring compliance with Section 21 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fritz replied: "Section 21 is general regulations that apply in commercial districts dealing with minimum setbacks, buffer zones, etc. The building meets the minimum setback.. The purpose of that (condition) in this case is largely to ensure that any additional parking that was established on the site would meet the same setbacks as if it were zoned commercial because there is no parking setback between residential properties." 10-24-95 13 Public comment was invited. Ms. Opal David, President of the University Village Owners' Association, addressed the Commission. She asked that action be postponed on the request. She said the residents of University Village had not received notification of the proposal, nor had the owner of at least 1/2 of the University Village units. [NOTE: The issue of proper notification was addressed after Ms. David's comments. It was determined proper procedure had been followed in the notification process. The University Village residents had not received notification because they are not adjacent property owners and the adjacent property owner (C-CAT) had been notified, with notice being sent to the address currently of record in the County Real Estate Department.] The major concern of the University Village residents was the use of their road. She read the following statement from what she called the "original Deed of Easement": "There is no intention by this grant to create a public right-of-way over such Crestwood Drive or the 20-foot wide road." She said the residents wonder why the applicant cannot use its own right-of-way instead of their road. She said it was clear the easement which was originally granted was clearly intended to be used by only one family. She also expressed concern about ""what will happen when the road comes through from Darden." She said: "Unless the university will promise that they will, at that point, cut off access over our road, this becomes a through -way from the Bypass...." She said University Village would like some assurance, when the Darden connection is made, the University will stop using their road." She concluded: "And we would rather they use their own road right away." In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Ms. David said the University Village residents maintain the road in question. Mr. Blue pointed out to Ms. David that "from a traffic standpoint," it is probably preferable to have the applicant use the University Village road than it would be to have another entrance so close to the road. Ms. David said she understood that point. Referring to the statement read by Ms. David from the Deed of Easement, Mr. Blue asked: "If that restriction, because of the traffic on Old Ivy Road is lifted because of improvements and this property is R-10 and it could be built on, does the easement mean that whatever is built on that property could still use your road?" Ms. David replied: "That is, apparently, the way it is being interpreted." Ms. Huckle thought Ms. David's concerns were valid and that the Commission should defer action. Ms. Kimberly Holmstrum, representing the management company of University Village, addressed the Commission. She said C-CAT had not received notification. She explained the property had changed owners in March 1995. (Mr. Blue wondered if the // Y 10-24-95 14 Real Estate Department had been notified of a change in ownership.) Ms. Holmstrum said C-CAT has received tax bills. She confirmed that the University Village Owners' Association does pay for the maintenance of the road. The University does not contribute to maintenance at this time. She pointed out that this is a retirement community and many residents use this road as a walking path. Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern, as he has several times in the past, about notification problems such as this. On the issue of notification, Mr. Kamptner explained that in the case of a condominium the Code requires notification to the Owners' Association. However, in this instance, the Owners' Association is not an adjacent owner so notification was not required. And though formal notification to the Owners' Association was not required, their representation at this meeting shows "they have received notice to at least satisfy the minimum notice requirements." Mr. Dotson said this is one of the reasons for requiring that signs be posted on the property and those signs apparently worked in this case. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. *AW Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kamptner to comment on the road usage question. Mr. Kamptner said he would need to review the entire document before he could offer an opinion as to its intent. Ms. Imhoff said she is always concerned when the county loses the opportunity for high -density residential development in areas which are convenient to shopping, etc. However, she has been able to view this proposal more favorably because the use proposed for the existing building seems to be an appropriate one which fits into the area. She said: "If it is ever redeveloped, though, I would really like to see this come in as residential, whether it is a condo -building or some combination of condo and townhouse development. I would hate to see this area become an office or commercial property. But somewhat peculiar circumstances seem to fit with the existing structure. But, right now, with this much shadow on the access (issue), it would be impossible for me to vote positively for it." Mr. Blue asked: "But other than that, you would favor it?" Ms. Imhoff replied: "I think so." She said, however, that should would not support the deletion of condition No. 1 as requested by the applicant. She felt it was needed to ensure clarity of the parking requirements. She was not sure, at this time, whether she would agree to delete condition No. 3. Mr. Keeler explained condition No. 3 could be satisfied though a site plan waiver process, i.e. "when part of the site is already developed and a full-blown site plan is not needed, but an application is made with a justification." He said a plan is still provided, 117 10-24-95 15 because a grading permit cannot be issued for the parking tot until a plan has been submitted. He concluded: "This use requires a site plan because it is an office use." He suggested the applicant should immediately submit their application for a site plan waiver and submit their justification. After having heard the reasons for conditions 1 and 3, Mr. Blain said the applicant was not opposed to complying with those conditions and that should not be a basis for deferral of the item. He also said the applicant plans to meet with the fawners' Association prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting. Ms. Huckle thought the plans to share the University Village road would create a very difficult situation for the elderly residents. She hoped something else could be worked out. Mr. Blue said there was no room, on the applicant's property, to provide an alternative access which would not cause "serious conflicts" on ivy Road, so any alternative plan would result in the proposed use being unworkable. Mr. Cilimberg said a real effort has been made to consolidate access points onto ivy Road and he did not think VDOT (nor staff) would support another access point so close to an existing one. He added, however: "As to coming through the University as opposed to Old Ivy Road, that is a whole other issue." Alas. Huckle did not think the residents of University Village "should have to suffer because somebody doesn't have an access." Referring to the unfavorable aspects of the request listed in the staff report, Mr. Dotson said he found the most significant one to be that "it will change the character of the district." After visiting the site, he said he disagreed with staff. He did not think the proposed use would change the character of the area and might actually add some diversity of uses in the overall residential theme and could be an asset. He explained: "This is not the usual intensification of use; if anything the surrounding uses almost impact this site rather than the opposite." Regarding the concern about walkers on the road, he suggested an office use, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., would result in less traffic than residential usage. He concluded: "Under the particular set of circumstances, this is not like a spot zoning but an appropriate allowance in an overall residential district." He said, however, he had not anticipated the private road issue which has been raised and he is somewhat confused as to "rights and obligations." Mr. Blue said he had visited the site and arrived at the same conclusions as Commissioner Dotson. He said he does not feel there is any other alternative means of access possible so the question becomes: "Is that unfair to the residents of University Village, or is it unfair to the University Foundation to not allow them to have that use which I think is an improvement to the area." Ms. Huckle pointed out she had no objection to the proposed use. 10-24-95 16 Ms. Vaughan asked Mr. Kamptner to comment on the legal implications if the County were to approve the request, thereby allowing the applicant the use of the road, and is this an issue the Commission should consider in making its decision. Mr. Kamptner replied: "If it is a private road, the County cannot say who can or cannot use it. The applicant needs to work out their access rights." Mr. Blain also addressed this question: "You cannot amplify or detract the rights in a private agreement. If the agreement doesn't give the owners of the McGavock property what we are seeking, the owners of the Birden property would have private rights of action to block it." Mr. Blue questioned whether a deferral would accomplish anything because it will not change the facts of the situation. Ms. Huckle said a deferral would be a courtesy. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-95-13 for University Real Estate Foundation be deferred to November 7, 1995, based on the questions raised about notification. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Imhoff said she felt an approval at this point, with the question about the road NOW access unanswered, would "send the wrong message" because it gives the appearance the County has not done all its homework. She also said the answer to this question would effect her view of the appropriateness of the rezoning. Mr. Keeler said the Commission has, in the past, deferred an item to allow time for residents to meet with an applicant to work out issues of dispute prior to County action. He stressed, this does not mean the Commission will further delay action if the issues have not been resolved at the time of the next hearing. The Chairman confirmed the Commission did not anticipate that further notification would be sent. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-27 for University Real Estate Foundation be deferred to November 7, 1995. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. SP-95-32 Tiger Fuel Company - Petition to establish a drive-thru window on 0.9 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. 10-24-95 17 [24.2.2(13)]. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 4 is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 250 and 20 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 3. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to conditions. The primarily topic of discussion was access to the site. Staff did not support the Virginia Department of Transportation's recommendation for consolidation of the 2 entrances on Rt. 250. Mr. Fritz explained: "We typically have incorporated two entrances on uses which have gasoline sales to provide for adequate and good circulation for both passenger vehicles and for gasoline trucks, to avoid strange turning movements and provide continuous flow." Staff was also recommending no direct access to Route 20 from this site, but rather that access to Route 20 be achieved through the usage of the existing Rt. 20 access on the adjacent site (McDonald's). Mr. Fritz explained the applicant is requesting a right -in -only access from Rt. 20 (referred to in the applicant's presentation, as a "slip -lane"). VDOT has said, verbally, they will not support such an access because it still results in congestion of the Rt. 20/Rt. 250 intersection. It was determined the McDonald's special permit approval had included a condition requiring access to this adjacent site and the site plan shows this connection. Mr. Blue wondered if the county could legally require McDonald's to allow this connection. Mr. Kamptner said that the condition on their approval means they have, in effect, consented. Mr. Blue feared requiring this connection, without some assurance McDonald's is aware of the situation, could be creating a serious conflict. Staff confirmed McDonald's was notified of this hearing. Describing the dangerous traffic pattern which exists at the corner of Hydraulic Road and Rt. 29 North (site of a 7-Eleven), Ms. Imhoff said she thought VDOT might have a legitimate point that there should be one unified entrance. She thought double entrances on Rt. 250 at this location would result in the same stacking and turning problems as exist at the Hydraulic Road location. She said the County has a significant investment at this Rt. 20/Rt. 250 intersection, but "it seems to me we are decreasing the public value of that intersection." Mr. Fritz again explained staffs recommendation for maintaining two separate entrances is to provide for "a more recognizable flow of traffic on site and to ease access for gas tankers." Mr. Dotson described the access situation at two similar uses: --The Exxon station at the corner of Barracks Rd and Emmett St where there are two entrances and if one is congested, then the other is available; 10-24-95 18 --The Burger King on Rt. 29 North in Ruckersville where there is a constructed median preventing left turns off Rt. 33 into the site. He felt this was a far worse situation because it invites illegal U-turns beyond the median. The applicant was represented by Mr. David Sutton, President of Tiger Fuel. His comments included the following: --The project will be a Wendy's Restaurant with a small convenience store and Texaco gas pumps (similar to Burger King at Zion Crossroads and Ruckersville). --The applicant disagrees with staffs concerns about the direct access to Rt. 20. Those concerns can be addressed through a right -in, entrance only access (a slip lane) from Rt. 20. A slip lane would not cause stacking or circulation problems on site because vehicles could not exit the site at this access point; a left -turn from Rt. 20 into the site would not be possible because the angle of the slip lane would not allow such a turn; and the curbing constructed with the slip lane would not allow it to be used as an exit. This entrance is "crucial" to the property and Wendy's has indicated they may not develop the site without this access from Rt. 20. --One unified access onto Rt. 250 will result in internal cross -traffic movements as cars try to exit the site. --Requiring access across McDonald's site will invite vehicles to come from McDonald's, crossing on -site traffic, to exit onto Rt. 250, and will also eliminate 3 essential parking spaces. --Allowing a right -in only entrance from Rt. 20 will reduce traffic moving through the intersection of Rt. 20 and 250. --There is plenty of stacking room at the pumps so as not to cause a congestion problem on Rt. 250. --VDOT represented to the applicant, at the time of the condemnation proceeding on this property, that the 2 entrances onto Rt. 250 would be allowed for this property. He did not think it was equitable for the Highway Department to now take one of those entrances away. Mr. Sutton concluded: "I would ask that you endorse staffs recommendation to approve this request, but that you eliminate conditions No. 1 and 2, replacing those with a requirement that the Rt. 20 entrance be an angled slip lane, marked 'Entrance Only'." Expressing concern about the U-turns which take place on Rt. 33 at the Ruckersville Burger King, Mr. Dotson asked if a median could be constructed on Rt. 20 (if sufficient right-of-way exists) so that it extends to a point where the only left turn possible would be into the McDonald's site. This would prevent the temptation to make a U-turn and enter by the slip lane. Mr. Sutton did not think a median would be necessary if the slip lane was angled properly. Mr. Blue questioned whether the site was large enough for what was proposed. Mr. Sutton assured him it was. 140 10-24-95 19 Mr. Joe Harris, the Wendy's franchisee, addressed the Commission. He confirmed Mr. Sutton's statements. He said the entrance from Rt. 20 will eliminate a lot of problems which will result if Wendy's and McDonald's share an access. Mr. Dotson pointed out that McDonald's could benefit from a connection to this site because it would allow vehicles to reach McDonald's without having to get onto Rt. 20. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann guessed that McDonald's, given a choice, would not want this connection to be made because of liability considerations. He said he thought the idea of a slip lane was a good solution. He also agreed with staff that two entrances on Rt. 250 were needed. Some Commissioners were unclear as to how a slip lane functions. Mr. Jack Kelsey, Assistant County Engineer, said he does not have specific detail for a slip lane. Specifications are determined on an individual basis. As an example, he cited a recent right -in slip lane on Rio Road which serves the Berkmar Crossing site. He said there are right -in and right -out lanes, but he said he has not seen any that work really well. Mr. Nitchmann thought problems could be prevented if the lanes are designed so that they cannot be driven over top of or around. Mr. Kelsey thought it would be difficult to design one in such a way that it could not be violated. He thought it would take a lot of room to be able to accomplish what Mr. Nitchmann envisioned and he did not know if it was possible in this particular case. As to whether or not the site is large enough for what is proposed, Mr. Kelsey said staff had considered that question and feels it is possible to resolve the internal traffic conflicts, but feels the disallowance of an entrance from Rt. 20 helps to resolve those conflicts. Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Fritz if VDOT's position on a right -in only entrance from Rt. 20 is known at this time. Mr. Fritz replied: "They could issue a permit but they are not recommending approval of that concept. They did not say they would prohibit it." Mr. Blue wondered if the applicant has a right to use both the entrances onto Rt. 250, given the fact that VDOT built them. Mr. Kamptner could not answer this question without being more familiar with the history of the situation but he said: "The practice has been that they are not going to take away access rights unless the owner of the property is compensated as part of the Eminent Domain proceeding. Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that if a right -in -only lane is approved, it should be as far north as possible to avoid internal conflicts. Ms. Huckle said she thought the site was too small for what was proposed. 10-24-95 20 Ms. Imhoff suggested that a study needs to be made, generally, of on -site requirements. She felt it is common for applicants to try to maximize the use of this type of site, given its location on a major road. For this proposal, she said she thought staff had found a "middle ground," i.e. allow the two entrances on Rt. 250, but none onto Rt. 20. She said she agreed and she would only be able to support the request as recommended by staff, including the requirement for the connection to the McDonald's site. She said she felt this intersection needs to be guarded zealously because though it is working now, "we are making all the moves to make it non- functional in the future." Mr. Nitchmann questioned whether the applicant could be forced to use the connection across McDonald's. He said there was nothing to prevent the applicant from putting parking spaces where the connection was located. Ms. Imhoff agreed. Mr. Blue said that would mean the Rt. 20 traffic would have to turn onto Rt. 250 before entering the site. Mr. Nitchmann said: "I guess I could support that because my feeling is when this gets to the Board of Supervisors, they'll agree to put in a slip lane." He again said he favored a slip lane, one that is engineered so that it can't be driven over. Mr. Dotson said both County Engineering and VDOT have recommended very careful treatment of this site. He said he agreed with Ms. Imhoff, i.e. to support staffs recommendation. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-32 for Tiger Fuel be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. No direct access to Route 20 shall be permitted. 2. Access to Rt. 20 through Tax Map 78, Parcel 4A (McDonald's site) shall be required. 3. Provision of a raised curb to separate the drive-thru lane from the travel lanes. 4. Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled Pantops Texaco dated August 14, 1995, except as the plan shall be amended to address the above conditions and the recommendations of the site review committee. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Cilimberg noted that condition No. 2 will require access through the McDonald's site. Mr. Nitchmann did not think such a requirement should be imposed on either property owner. He thought the matter should be left to the property owners. He also thought this connection would result in an unsafe situation traffic -wise. 10-24-95 21 Though Ms. Imhoff said she did not feel strongly about the condition and could go either way, Mr. Dotson disagreed. He explained: "I think it is a practice we are going to see more and more in the future. We've gone half way; I think we ought to go the rest of the way." Ms. Vaughan thought the condition should remain. She noted that there are other situations where competitors share entrances. Ms. Imhoff did not amend her motion. Condition No. 2 remained. Mr. Nitchmann said he would vote for the motion, but he recommended the applicant "draw up a slip lane before he goes to the Board of Supervisors so they thoroughly understand what you're talking about." Ms. Huckle said she would not support the motion because she thought it was an overdevelopment of the site and will result in a dangerous situation. The motion for approval passed 4:2, with Commissioners Blue and Huckle casting the dissenting votes. MISCELLANEOUS *taw Ms. Imhoff asked if a reason must be stated when abstaining from an action. Mr. Kamptner said a reason does not have to be stated. However, if a conflict of interests exists, under the Conflict of Interests Act, that conflict needs to be divulged, A general abstention for other reasons does not require an explanation. Ms. Huckle asked staff if there was a schedule for the repaving of the Shopper's World parking lot. Mr. Cilimberg said the only requirement had been for the establishment of 2-way circulation, but there was an understanding there was a master plan for parking which would be submitted for the whole site. A plan has not yet been submitted. Mr. Keeler said Mr. Fritz has been dealing with this issue and some variances are going to be needed. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that it has been policy in the past that the Commission will not consider changes to a proposal which are presented by an applicant at the public hearing, and which have not been reviewed by staff or VDOT. He said the language in the Site Plan Ordinance actually prohibits that from happening. He said the situation tonight was somewhat different because it involved a special use permit, but he said "I don't think we want to slide back into that situation again because it defeats the whole site review process." Mr. Blue added: "That's not what we intended to do and don't what to do, but also it works both ways. I've heard some lad 10-24-95 22 complaints from the development community, which I know you are addressing, that the site plan review process is sometimes open season --that engineers and surveyors will submit a site plan and staff will return it with various comments and they re -submit it with those items addressed and then you find some others. That shouldn't happen either." Mr. Keeler said the situation described by Mr. Blue was being work on "pretty seriously." There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. %A V. V. Way Cilimberg, cretary IA ,