HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 24 1994 PC Minutes2-24-94
FEBRUARY 24, 1994
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Thursday, February 24,
1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom BIue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; 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; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner
Imhoff.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
February 9, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended.
ZMA-93-15 Lloyd F. & Patricia Wood - Petition to rezone 0.53 acres from R-15, Residential
to C-1, Commercial in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Property, described as Tax
Map 61, parcel 124E (part of) is located behind Putt -Putt on Rio Road approximately 0.3
miles east of its intersection with Route 29N. This site is located within a dsignated growth
area and is on the boundary of areas recommended for office service and high density
residential (10.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre). Urban Neighorborhood II.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff can support rezoning the
area marked A on Attachment C as it provides a logical zoning boundary. The rezoning of
the area marked B on Attachment C is not supported by staff. Rezoning of this area
unnecessarily removes residential land and does not provide a logical zoning boundary. Staff
recommends approval of rezoning that area marked A on Attachment C. No proffers have
been offfered by the applicant and staff opinion is that none are needed."
Mr. Blue asked staff to explain its statement that the existing boundary between Cl and R15
was "somewhat arbitrary." Mr. Fritz explained that his research had been unable to uncover
any real reason for the way the line was drawn.
Mr. Blue interpreted that the applicant is "proposing to move the zoning up to the property
line." Mr. Fritz acknowledged that was the case. He added: "It removes what we perceive
to be an unjustified setback on this commercial property because there is no residential
development that is going to occur there." Mr. Fritz explained that the same reasoning was
applied to area B because "it protudes into the residential --you get a weirder shape in there --
you're losing residential land which could theoretically be used, at least in this area, without
intruding into the commercial."
In response to Mr. Dotson's question, Mr. Davis explained that the variance which was
granted applied to the property line next to the residential property "on that side."
56
2-24-94 2
The applicant, Mr. %bod!., addressed the Commission. He expressed no opposition to staffs
recommended boundaries. He related the history of the property and explained how the
existing designation had been decided. He explained that he has agreed to a 10-foot setback,
because that is what has been planned, "so it doesn't disturb our development." He noted: "I
assume we would be allowed to continue that setback on back to here, but that is something
that will have to be answered." He explained that he is trying to "build in a buffer" for the
future, using the 16 acres. He pointed out the location of future road right-of-way.
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Wood if he had considered a proffer to "continue that same agreement
that you have on the other residential." Mr. Fritz asked if Mr. Blue meant: "To amend the
line to reduce the setback?" Mr. Blue replied affirmatively. Staff explained that would have
to be approved by the BZA and could not be a proffer.
The Chair invited public comment.
Mr. Michael Kelergin, owner of Liberty Construction, and developer of the adjacent property,
addressed the Commission. (He noted that he had received no notification of the public
hearing.) He explained that he has just received site plan approval and recorded a plat for 139
units. He expressed opposition to the proposed rezoning based on the use that Mr. Wood
plans to make of the remaining commercial property. He explained that the proposed
expansion of the recreational facilities will be "to the end of what you are going to rezone."
He stated his buildings would be approximately 30 feet from that property line. It was his
feeling that the road "should be part of the residential and not part of the commercial." He
felt the proposed use of the property was a mistake because "it would discourage any further
residential development in this area." He clarified that he did not object to the applicant's
"squaring up the property, but he did object to the proposed use" for the property. He
confirmed that he had anticipated that the property under discussion would be developed in a
commercial use (e.g offices, restaurants, banks), but not what is now being suggested.
Mr. Michael St n1,;, .. a resident of Raintree and an acoustical engineer, addressed the
Commission. It was determined that his comments were meant for the special permit and he
was asked to delay his comments until later in the meeting.
Mr. Wood again addressed the Commission. He explained that the distance between the
property and MrAelergLn buildings would be approximately 100 feet and he offered to
"assist him in providing any additional buffers." In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr.
Wood acknowledged that the road could be constructed as proposed regardless of whether the
property was R15 or Cl. He noted, however, that without the change in boundaries "we
would wind up with another little no-man's land that could not be used for anything."
Mr. Dotson asked if the Commission could rezone only a portion of what whas being
requested, i.e. make Commercial that portion up to the edge of the road and leave Residential
beyond that. Mr. Davis responded: "It's within your discretion to rezone any part of the
2-24-94
property that is before you to the zone that they request. So you could recommend that only
part of the property be rezoned and draw your own lines. That would be within your power."
Ms. Nancy Pugh asked if the Zoning Ordinance defines buffering between this type of
property and residential property. Mr. Fritz responded: "Yes. The Ordinance sets forth
regulations for buffering between commercial and residential property."
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the location of the 50-foot road and asked why it was not shown
on the plan. Mr. Fritz explained that there is presently no site plan, so it is not known
exactly where the alignment would be.
Mr. Blue noted that the road itself would be a "considerable break between the R15 and Cl."
Mr. Blue stated that based on the applicant's comments, the road was "going to be
considerably more than just what the book calls for from that property line." He pointed out
that "if you shifted the road, there wouldn't be room to get another potential business right
between the RI and this new road. So your recommendation to rezone A seems perfectly
reasonable to me, even if we don't know exactly where the road's going to be. We know it's
got to be there."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA-93-15 for Lloyd F. and Patricia Wood be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as recommended by staff, i.e. rezoning
of area A only.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
SP-93-34 Putt -Putt Golf & Games a licant LI_ ovd & Patricia Wood owner - Request to
expand the existing miniature golf course with additional activities (gameroom/clubhouse,
bumper boats, batting cages and go-kart track) [Section 24.2.2(1)]. Property, described as Tax
Map 61, parcel 124E1 and 124E (part of) consists of approximately 3.8 acres zoned HC,
Highway Commercial. Property is the current site of Putt -Putt Golf & Games and is located
on the north side of Rio Road approximately 0.3 miles east of Rt. 29 in the Charlottesville
Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area and is on the
boundary of areas recommended for office service and high density residential (10.01 - 34
dwelling units per acre). Urban Neighborhood H.
Mr. Fritz passed out additional information and the Commission tools a few minutes to look
over these documents.
6-8,
2-24-94
4
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff is able to support this
request based largely on the minimal impact to adjacent properties due to screening buffering
measures and distance to property designated as residential in the Comprehensive Plan and
due to the fact that this is an expansion of an existing commercial recreation establishment."
Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Carter. Mr. Carter's comments included the
following:
--The adjoining property owner to the east (residential property) has been contacted
and has no objections. That property owner will be submitting a similar rezoning request in
the near future.
--The property has been used commercially for many years though it has been zoned
residential.
--The property involved with this special permit (3.8 acres) is already zoned
Commercial and Highway Commercial. The property on which the Commission just
recommended approval of a rezoning, is not a part of this request.
--The character of the area is consistent with this request since most properties are
zoned and used as commercial property. (He listed surrounding commercial properties.)
--The property is currently developed in outdoor recreational use.
--Many by -right uses could be placed on this property which would be objectionable to
neighboring residential property.
--Concerns related to noise have been addressed by using a 6-foot privacy fence and
screening adjacent to any residential property. The barriers proposed will ensure that noise
levels stay within acceptable decibel limits.
--The go-karts are 4-cycle engines, not 2-cycle as indicated in the Raintree
Homeowner's Association letter. They use unleaded gasoline and meet all EPA and DEQ
standards.
--The 16-acre buffer between this use and the nearest house is heavily wooded.
--10 karts, 100 feet from the center of the track, produce 60 decibels of noise
(conversational level).
--The existing Putt -Putt has been in existence in this location since 1966. The
property is already zoned commercial.
--The Comp Plan calls for this property to be used commercially.
--He quoted the following statements from the staff report: "Due to distance, no
impact on existing dwellings is anticipated." "No adverse (traffic) impact is anticipated.
VDOT agrees."
--"When VDOT determines that a traffic light is needed, one will be installed and the
applicant will pay for it."
--Reasons to support: (1) It is a modification of an existing use, not an establishment
of a new use; (2) The Comp Plan calls for property to the east to be used commercially; (3)
The BZA considered all these factors when they approved a setback variance from 50 feet to
10 feet; (4) There will be minimal impact on the surrounding environment because of
screening and buffering; (5) This will be family -oriented facility with no alcohol served; (6)
2-24-94
A full-time manager will be on the premises at all times; and (7) The parking lots will be
monitored at all times.
The applicant offered additional information and answered Commission questions including
the following:
--A maximum of 20 go-karts will be in use at any time, with only 10 be in use most
of the time.
--Anticipated hours of operation are 9 am. to midnight. Buisness usually slows down
around 10:00 p.m.
--No alcoholic beverages will be sold.
--Putt-Putt is a "family entertainment" franchise. All those activities proposed with
this facility are found at other Putt -Putts across the nation.
--The nearest comparable facilities are located in Raleigh, North Carolina and
Maryland.
--There will be a heavily wooded buffer between the facility and Raintree.
--A wrought -iron fence will be constructed around the entire perimeter of the facility.
(Mr. Wood also pointed out the location of the wooden fence suggested in the staff report.)
--The bumper boats will also be motorized but the noise will be muffled by the water.
--Water from the bumper boat pool will require no special treatment; will be recycled;
and any discharge will be to the public sewer. No industrial discharge permit will be
required.
--Karts will be radio -controlled and can be stopped ("zapped") at any time. The
speeds will be governed, with a maximum speed of 22 mph.
--In addition to the current intercom system, there will be an intercom system in the
starting area for the go-karts. The speakers will be directed directly over the karts. There
will be no public address system to serve the entire facility.
--The facility will employ 38 to 40 people.
--The track will be 1,250 linear feet and cover approximately 1 to 1 and 1/2 acres.
--Maintenance of the karts will take place on site.
--The bumper boats and go-karts will not be active during the winter months. (The
present operation is open from the third Thursday in March through October.) The go-karts
cannot be operated during wet weather conditions.
The applicant presented photographs of a similar facility in Texas and described the karts and
the track in detail.
Mr. Wood expressed the feeling that the there is a misconception on the part of the neighbors
about the noise. He compared the go-kart noise to a lawnmower, which creates 90 to 100
db's at 100 ft. He compared this to the 60 db's created by the go-kart's at 100 ft. and stessed
that there was 700 feet between the track and the nearest property line. Mr. Shields believed
that the noise does not increase expotentially with the number of karts. Both Mr. Shields and
Mr. Wood stressed that the facility would be able to conform to the noise restrictions.
a
2-24-94 6
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the applicant would object to a condition limiting the engine size to
4-cycle motors (similar to the Honda motors previously described). Mr. Wood replied that he
would "welcome" such a condition.
The Chair invited public comment.
Mr. Donald Lyon, President, and Mr. John McGow, Vice President, of the Raintree
Homeowners' Association, addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the
proposed special permit. They expressed concern about lack of notification to the Raintree
homeowners about the proposed facility. Their reasons for requesting denial of the request
were as follows:
--Noise and light pollution will create a nuisance which will detract from the tranquil
and peaceful environment of the adjacent residential neighborhood.
--It will drive wildlife from the area.
--It will increse the potential for crime.
--It will ultimately diminish real estate value.
--Any such facility should be in an exclusively commercial or industrially zoned area.
--More information should be provided on the proposed facility and its impact on the
community prior to granting a Special Permit.
--This facility should not be considered an expansion of an existing use as what is
proposed is very different than what presently exists.
Additional information presented by Mr. Lyon and Mr. McGow:
--Presently, the homeowners can hear noise from the Putt -Putt facility.
--The homeonwers are presently considering the installation of a nature trail.
--The Texas facility requires drivers of go-karts to be licensed drivers.
--Mr. Lyon questioned the need to change the ordinate from 40 db's to 60 db's (which
was his understanding of what was being suggested). [NOTE: This issue was addressed later
in the meeting.]
Dr. Michael Shaw, an acoustical engineer, (also representing the Raintree Homeowners'
Association) addressed the Commission. He described how different sounds are received in
different manners. He expressed the feeling that a fence could possibly amplify the sound
under certain conditions. He pointed out that atmospheric conditions have an effect on sound.
He demonstrated how sound is amplified with increasing numbers, e.g. 30 people clapping
produces more noise than one person clapping.
Mr. Blue asked if the Raintree neighborhood could hear traffic noise from Rt. 29 and Rio
Road. Mr. Lyon responded that the noise was more noticable at certain times than others.
Mr. McGow felt the noise under consideration was of a different type and would be more
constant.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the proposal:
Tommy Edwards (Raintree resident); Mr. Gordon Yager (Northfields resident); Rick Johnson
6t
2-24-94 7
(Raintree resident); Ms. Chris Stutzman (Raintree resident); Wayne Remmington (Raintree
resident); Ernest Pugh; and Sharon Bellucci. Their reasons were similar to those already
noted by Mr. Lyon and Mr. MCGow's presentation. Additional information included the
following:
--Young people who frequent this type of facility are of the age where they enjoy
making as much noise as possible.
--There is no such thing as a quiet gasoline engine and the persons operating these go-
karts will want to run them "wide open.".
--A serious lack of definitive information on noise has been provided. Much is
speculation.
--The property is very close to Merridale Day Care and Pre -School.
--Mr. Johnson was familiar with two other similar Putt -Putt facilities. He stated that
the go-karts could be heard 1,000 feet away, even though there were behind trees and
buildings.
--The existing Putt -Putt is visible from some residents as it currently exists. (Mr.
Wood later disputed this statement.)
--At one time, Mr. Wood led the neighborhood to believe that electric motors would
be used.
Mr. Michael Kelergin, owner of the adjacent property, expressed opposition to the proposal.
He explained that had Mr. Wood made him aware of his plans for the expansion of the
property as currently proposed, he would not have purchased the property. He explained his
plans to construct a $5,000,000 apartment facility on his property, but questioned whether he
will proceed with those plans if this permit is granted.
Ms. Carol Luck, manager of the Putt -Putt facility, expressed her support for the proposal.
She stressed the good record of Putt -Putt Golf Courses of America.
Mr. Wood was offered the opportunity to respond to public comments. Having visited
Raintree residences recently, he strongly believed that Putt -Putt was not visible from those
residences. In reply to Mr. Blue's question as to whether or not the applicant would consider
electric motors, Mr. Shields stated that if the applicant could conform to County noise
regulations, he could see no reason to consider electric motors. Mr. Shields also pointed out
that the Homeowner Associations' noise expert had not addressed the issue of noise levels at
the property line; rather his comments had been in relation to noise at the site.
There being no further applicant or public comment, the public hearing was closed and the
matter placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson asked staff to clarify the issue of 40 decibels vs. 60 decibels. Mr. Fritz explained
that 40 decibels is referenced in Section 5.1.16 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Dotson
interpreted that staff had cited this section of the Ordinance, which relates to swimming, golf
and tennis clubs, because of the similarities of outdoor recreational activities. Mr. Fritz
confirmed it is "the nearest thing we've got," to address the issue. ( Mr. Keeler explained
Ga
2-24-94
that the 60 decibels comes from the Police Department's noise ordinance which refers to a
maximum level of 65 db's for this type of situation.)
It was Mr. Blue's understanding that if the applicant can present evidence that they can
comply with that section of the Ordinance, the request could not be turned down on that
basis.
Mr. Blue stated that there appears to be two conflicting sets of facts in relation to the noise
issue (that of the applicant vs. that of the adjacent neighbors). He asked if there was any
procedure for revocation of a special permit once it has been issued. Mr. Fritz confirmed
that there is a provision in the Ordinance which deals with revocation of permits.
Mr. Nitchmann asked the applicant if it might be possible to place one of the go-karts on the
site for a test. (There was no response to this question.)
Ms. Huckle expressed the feeling that this is not an expansion of the existing, "quiet," Putt -
Putt golf course. She expressed concern about the possible discouragement of residential
development on the adjacent property. She concluded that she could not support the request.
Mr. Dotson expressed no concern about the game room, bumper boats and clubhouse. He
was unfamiliar with batting cages. However, he was concerned about the noise issue. He,
too, wondered if there were not a way to test the noise level by using some type of artificial
noise generator. He was reluctant to support the request without some type of test.
In response to Ms. Vaughan's question, staff listed many of the uses which could be placed
on the property by -right. (Mr. Blue noted that none of those uses listed by staff would be
as noisey as the go-karts are perceived by the residents of Raintree to be.)
Mr. Nitchmann recalled some of the history of recent proposals for similar facilities. He
stated that it's one of those situations where "everybody wants it but nobody wants it in their
back yard." He explained that he anticipated there would be resistence from residential
neighborhoods, but he expressed surprise that the owner of the undeveloped property had not
been made aware of the plans for this site when he purchased the property from Mr. Wood.
He felt there is a need for the type of residential development that Mr. Kelergin plans to place
on the adjoining property. He stated that he was "torn" on this issue. Regarding noise, he
was of the opinion, based on experience, that it is often something "you get used to after a
while." Regarding the impact on wildlife, he pointed out that this is an urban area, not a
rural area. He strongly felt that the young people of the area need this type of recreation, but
he questioned whether this is the right place and expressed a desire for more information on
the noise issue. He concluded: "My assumption is that I am going to have a very difficult
time in supporting it." He stated he was swayed by the potential loss of 142 apartments
which might not be built because of this facility.
2-24-94 9
Mr. Jenkins stated that he had known Mr. Wood a long time and was confident that he would
go the "extra mile" to produce buffer zones, etc. However, it is very difficult to disregard the
concern of the citizens.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Vaughan, that SP-93-34 for Putt -Putt Golf
and Games (applicant) Lloyd and Patricia Wood (owner) be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for denial.
Discussion:
Mr. Blue expressed agreement with concerns about the fact that the adjacent property owner
did not know of this plan when he purchased the property. He, too, felt that the proposed
expansion was a "big difference" from the existing Putt -Putt Golf Course. He was also
concerned about the possible lose of the adjacent residential development. He concluded that
he would support the motion.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
ZMA-93-16 Robert Clark - Petition to rezone 14.24 acres from RA, Rural Areas to VR,
Village Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 88, parcel 6 is located on the south side
of Route 29 approximately 1/2 mile west of the Route 764/Route 29 intersection in the
Samuel Miller Magisterial'District. This site is located within the Village of North Garden
and is recommended for Village Residential use (maximum 1 dwelling unit per acre).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to acceptance of the
applicant's proffers. He noted that if the Board approves the rezoning request, staff will
process the subdivision plat administratively.
Mr. Blue pointed out that "if this total parcel had been created 3 years earlier, this would be
by -right." He also noted that even though the request could be for 1-acre lots, it is for 2 and
3 acre lots. He concluded: "So, essentially, if we approve this, we are not changing the
character of the area unless you assume that all rural areas couldn't be divided." Mr. Fritz
responded: "That's correct. The lot sizes are consistent with that which is permitted in the
rural areas."
Mr. Blue concluded: "As you know I have some problems with this 5 development rights by
right. So, if that happened anywhere in the County that was in a planned village residential
area as far as the Comprehensive Plan is concerned, that is the way you accomplish it --just do
what they have done. They request Village Residential even though they have used up all but
2 development rights." Mr. Fritz noted that the applicant could also request a special permit
for additional development rights, but staff would recommend against such a request. Mr.
Blue commented: "You would recommend against it even though he is going to come up
with the same plan he has here. Yet because he is going for Village Residential, you
&y
2-24-94 10
recommend for it." Mr. Fritz explained that VR zoning would be more consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan than would RA with a special use permit, though the end result would
be the same.
Mr. Nitchmann noted that he had been unable to locate this property when he had attempted
to visit the site.
Ms. Huckle asked what standards would be required for the pump tests. Mr. Fritz explained
that the Engineering Department will monitor the tests. Mr. Fritz pointed out that this
amended request does not have the same requirements, in terms of verification of water
supply, as did the earlier request because it does not propose more lots than could be
achieved by -right as the previous request had done.
Mr. Dotson asked about planned improvements for Rt. 760. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the
section of 760 from Rt. 29 to Rt. 712 was in the Six -year Plan. He stated he would have to
check with VDOT because it is possible that they may have split the project into two pieces.
The applicant, Mr. Robert Clark, addressed the Commission. He offered little additional
comments.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Clark if he felt this property would support more lots than he has
requested, i.e. does he feel there is more water in this area?. Mr. Clark could not answer the
question. He did state, however, that he had never actually known of a well going dry in the
area.
Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Clark about his intentions for the property. Mr. Clark responded: "I
presume that it will be sold by lots or there is the possibility that I might consider building
and then sellling." In regards to the price range of the homes, he stated it was his intent to
build "nice homes," though not mansions.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. John Waring, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He commented
on his personal experience with well problems. He felt there were "pockets which are lacking
in good flow." He expressed no objection to the proposal, but wanted his concerns about
water to be a part of the record.
Ms. Messina, a resident of North Garden addressed the Commission. She felt that the
Zoning Ordinance often "fails to support the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan." (Mr. Blue
pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan recommends this property for Village Residential)
She did not object to the rezoning but asked if there would be any required screening from
Rt. 29. (Mr. Nitchmann stated that the Commission could not require screening, but he felt
the value of the property was such that the applicant will want to develop it in such a way as
to achieve its ultimate potential. Mr. Blue pointed out that the ARB has no authority to
A
2-24-94 11
review residential property. Mr. Cilimberg added that these lots are "rural lot size which is in
character with the Comp Plan approach on Rt. 29.)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed the opinion that this "is an excellent use of this land."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved tht ZMA-93-16 for Robert Clark be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Mr.
Dotson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the request. She cited the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendation that there should be evidence of sufficient water supply. She did not think
such evidence had been provided. She noted that some counties require that each lot have
evidence of sufficient water. She stated that once the property has been rezoned the County
has lost the control to require such evidence. She felt that a lot of people "build their house
and then look for water later."
Mr. Nitchmann felt that the individuals purchasing these lots would "be astute enough" to
realize they have to have water and he did not think the County could be "mother hens" to
everybody who buys a piece of property.
Mr. Blue stated that he shared the concern about the water. However, in this case, he did
not feel there was any real basis for denial. He pointed out that the property is recommended
for Village Residential, has adequate building sites and the lots will be larger. He felt the
North Garden water issue should be addressed again during the Comprehensive Plan review.
Mr. Dotson felt this request signals some issues which should be addressed during the Comp
Plan review. He noted the following concerns about issues which were separate from the
zoning, i.e. the two lots at the bottom will be impacted by the noise from Rt. 29, achieving
sight distance may be a problem, and there are power lines which cross the property. He
suggested that the applicant might want to consider placing two, more valuable, homes on the
property (2 lots), which might be more profitable than five smaller ones.
The previously stated motion for approval passed (5:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the
dissenting vote.
-----------------------------------------
SP-93-38 Wal-Mart #1780 - Petition to allow outdoor storage display and/or sales of garden
center merchandise within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District [30.6.3.2(b)] on 13.284
acres. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the
Charlottesville Magisterial District. Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 68D5, is
ME
2-24-94 12
located at the southwest intersection of Rt. 29 and Hilton Heights Road. This site is located
within a designated growth area and is recommended for regional service (Urban
Neighborhood I1).
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. He
clarified that the item was before the Commission because it is for outdoor sales display and
storage and is in the Entrance Corridor. He stated that since the ARB has indicated it has no
opposition, staffs review will berelated to access and circulation matters.
Mr. Nitchmann asked why there was a condition limiting usage from February 15 to July 5.
Mr. Keeler explained that was what the applicant had requested.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Randy Carl. He explained how the location of the
display had been decided upon. He explained that a fence is being considered, at the
suggestion of the ARB, which would shield the display area from Rt. 29. The exact type has
not yet been decided. (Wal-Mart favors one that can be "put up and taken down," but the
ARB favors something more permanent.) Regarding the limited time frame, he was certain
that February 15 to July 5 was sufficient.
Ms. Huckle asked if the applicant would have to come back to the Commission if the ARB
does not approve this location. Staff responded negatively.
Mr. Dotson interpreted that "the approval is to have this activity on the site, not this specific
location necessarily." (Mr. Keeler explained that staff has reviewed two locations, but no
condition was included related to location because the issue has not yet been resolved by the
ARB.)
Ms. Vaughan asked if the fence would be anchored. Mr. Carl stated that even though it will
be free standing, it will be anchored.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-93-38 for Walmart
#1780 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Issuance of certificate of appropriateness by the ARB which shall require any measure
deemed appropriate to maintain aesthetic integrity of the site.
2. Site Review Committee approval of amended site plan to include:
a. Verification of applicant's recalculation of parking requirements by Zoning
Administrator.
67
2-24-94 13
b. Travelways and parking to be maintained for safe and convenient access. Staff
may require discontinueance of parking spaces deemed inadequate as to sight distance.
C. Resubmittal of revised copies (and sepia) of Sheet C-3 of the site plan showing:
- Proposed storage/display area;
- Recalculation of parking;
- Replacement of existing Note 7 with the following;
Display/Storage/Sales to be confined to area shown on plan;
- Amendment of Note I as follows:
The 30,000 square feet future expansion is not approved at this time. Future
development to be limited by availability of parking.
3. Usage to be limited on an annual basis from February 15 to July 5. All materials
including greenhouse shall be removed from view of U.S. Route 29 North between these
dates.
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Yoder Administrative Subdivision Plat (2 residential lots) - The Commission was being asked
to determine whether public water and sewer are "reasonably accessible" to this property.
Staff was of the opinion that they are not. (Mr. Keeler explained that the closest water line is
1,800 feet distant; the closest sewer line is 1,400 feet distant.)
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Commission determine that
public water and sewer are not reasonably accessible to the Yoder property. The motion
passed unanimously.
Hollymead Professional Center Preliminary Site Plan - The Commission was being asked to
waive the application of critical slopes requirements under Section 4.2.5.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Keeler explained that all the slopes are the result of either road cuts or
overburden which was removed during the construction of State Farm and stored on the site.
He stated staff was asking the Commission "to simply look at this as an overall phasing of
development plan...." Mr. Cilimberg added: "There is a section of the Ordinance which says
that you can waive requirements when they do not further serve the purpose of the Ordinance.
That is what we are essentially telling you, that the purpose of the Ordinance really isn't
served here and we are asking for that waiver as part of a phase development."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that the Commission find that the
strict application of the critical slopes provisions, in this case, do not further the purposes of
the Ordinance. The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
,;9
2-24-94
14
Appointment of Route 29 Interchange Study planning Ad�Committee - Ms. Imhoff was
appointed to serve on this Committee.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff could provide information on the cost of extending public water
and public sewer, per mile.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
W•
4y