Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 01 1994 PC Minutes3-1-94 MARCH 1, 1994 I The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 1, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. .Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Brace 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. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of February 15, 1994 were unanimously approved as submitted. ZMA-93-14 Rio Associates Limited Partnership - Petition to rezone approximately 3.9 acres from R-b Residential to CO, Commercial Office and 0.58 acres from HC, Highway Commercial to CO, Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 93AI, 109C, and 109 (pt) is located at the western intersection of Berkmar Drive and Woodbrook Drive. This property is located in a designated growth area and is recommended for medium density (4.01-10 dwelling units per acre). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request, based on inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the fact that the development ties within the alignment of the Alternative 10 bypass. Mr. Blue asked if it would make more sense for Alternative 10 (rather than Berkmar Drive) to be the dividing line between commercial and. residential.. He noted that there did not appear to be much space between the revised Alternative 10 and Berkmar Drive. Mr. Cilimberg stated that was a question which could be addressed with the Comp Plan review. Mr. Fritz confirmed that the only difference in the staff report (from the one presented at the previous meeting) was the clerical change in the definition of the area of the rezoning. (Mr. Hurt, the applicant, later pointed out that Attachment H was added to the report.) Mr. Nitchmann asked if the property could be developed residentially as currently zoned, "today." ( Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively.) Mr. Nitchmann understood that if developed into residences, some of those could be in the path of Alternative 10, as currently defined, and even those not in the path would be impacted by noise, etc.. It was his analysis that the developer probably feels it is better to build one building on the property and have only that one building effected by Alternative 10, than to have many residences effected. (Note: The building would be positioned so as to have the parking area effected by Alternative 10_ Mr. Fritz noted that the building would then have virtually no parking area.) Ms. Huckle asked when a decision was expected on the Alternative 10 alignment. Mr. Cilimberg responded that there is currently no time frame. 70 3-1-94 2 Aside from the by-pass question, Ms. Huckle felt it "makes a Iot of sense to have children living close to a school." She stated she would "hate to see that residential lost so close to the school." office Mr. Dotson noted how little "blue" areas (commercialyare shown on the land use map in the Northern area. He expressed concern with the Comp Plan being so explicit that there be no commercial west of Berkmar. He was in favor of "looking at the possibility of additional office in that northern area as part of the Comprehensive Plan review." Mr. Charles Hurt, Jr., the applicant, addressed the Commission. He distributed to the Commission packets which explained the planned use (University of Virginia Credit Union) for the property in some detail, including hours of operation, etc. He read a prepared statement, a copy of which is filed with these minutes as Attachment A. Mr. Nitchmann asked the developer if he felt this property could ever be developed as residential given the question of Alternative 10 "hanging over it." Mr. Hurt did not answer Mr. Nitchmann's question immediately, but rather described the history of the property and problems with marketing. He stated that the UVA Credit Union found this to be a site they can afford and they feel that the alignment of Alternative 10 will probably be moved so that it will not impact the site. Mr. Hurt confirmed that the Credit Union is "willing to take the risk knowing the circumstances today." He finally stated that residential probably would not be built because of the displacement of families when the road comes through. He could not say for certain, though, that this would not happen. Mr. Blue noted (confirmed by Mr. Hurt) that the present alignment for Alternative 10 would also take part of the building, as it is presently sited on the property. Mr. Hurt confirmed that the Credit Union "is willing to gamble that the alignment is going to be moved back to the north. Referring to Mr. Hurt's earlier statement that a movement of Alternative 10 to the north would result in this property being "isolated" between Alternative 10 and Berkmar Drive, Mr. Dotson asked if that would be true "ail the way up to the river." Mr. Hurt was of the understanding that most of the land north of the Bypass is already zoned commercial. Mr. Fritz pointed out that commercial zoning goes from Wal-Mart to Rt. 659. (Mr. Blue noted that the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend that area for commercial development and that is probably the original zoning.) Mr. Cilimberg added that the rest of west Berkmar is Residential zoning and there is also some residential on the east side of Berkmar behind Kegler's. Mr. Cilimberg noted that a previous request for rezoning of this property was denied by the Board because of its location and the potential alignment of Alternative 10. Ms. Vaughan asked what the "expansion area" shown on the plan was intended for. Mr. Hurt replied that the area was for overflow parking. .�r/ 3-1-94 3 In reply to Ms. Vaughan's question, Mr. Hurt confirmed that the Credit Union would have an ATM machine as part of the drive -through. The Chair invited public comment. Mr. Steve Runkle, a local developer, addressed the Commission. He expressed the professional opinion that the site would not be developed residentially given the proposed alignment of Alignment 10. He also stated he would not develop anything between Alternative 10 and Berkmar Drive in residential. He suggested that this parcel of land be treated differently than for residential use. Mr. Blue asked Mr. Hurt if the potential tenant (UVA Credit Union) will be lost if the matter were to be deferred until the Comp Plan review. Mr. Hurt was unable to answer this question. There being no further public or applicant comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Blue to clarify some of his earlier statements in regard to "what we're afraid of.". Mr. Blue responded. "If Alternative 10 comes through as presently shown, and we've rezoned this property, this person is going to move anyway. If we don't rezone it and Alternative 10 comes through, the land is probably going to stay vacant. Nobody is going to build on it for residential. it seems to me that it a serious enough issue that it might be worth waiting to study this at the Comp Plain revision and I realize that Alternative 10 might not even be resolved then." Mr. Nitchmann asked: "But we're not really afraid we're going to hurt the County or the citizens of the County. We're maybe more afraid that we've led the developer and the person putting the money into it down a primrose path and now they've lost it and they may come back and say 'Why did you let us do that?' There's really no impact, I don't think, on us, one way or the other." Mr. Blue: "Unless the alignment does change and maybe R15 is the best zoning for it after all." Ms. Imhoff added: "The one thing to be afraid of, I think, is that we always want to be as consistent as we can with ther Comprehensive Plan in case of other future decisions down the road. So I do think we have to look at the integrity of being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Nitchmann stated that he did not feel this is an ideal site for residential property because of it's close proximity to a shopping center, which would serve as an enticement for 3-1-94 neighborhood youngsters to cross the highway. He felt the property would be better in some use that would not place children in danger. He felt the nearness of the elementary school did not outweigh this concern. Regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, he noted that the Comp Plan is a "guideline and at the same time we are here trying to adjust that guideline and that plan as things change." He noted that even if the alignment is moved, this land could become a "dead man's zone." He felt it was inconceivable that the property would be developed with houses. He viewed the Comp Plan as "a list of strategies and goals, but with flexibility, and the goals and strategies need to be reviewed as time marches on and some need to be changed." He acknowleged that the Plan is updated every 5 years but noted that that is "a long time." Ms. Imhoff noted that the Plan is, in actuality, reviewed more often as requests for amendments are proposed. She felt the issue of Alternative 10 may result in much of the zoning for that area coming under question as to appropriateness. She agreed that the Comp Plan is a guide but in this area she felt it is "quite detailed in its guidance." She concluded: "I haven't seen anything yet in this presentation by the applicant that makes me comfortable enough not to follow the Comp Plan's recommendations." Mr. Jenkins felt that the thing which has changed in this area is that the County saw fit to go ahead and extend Berkmar Drive. He felt that rezoning this piece of property to Commercial would put pressure on the remaining R-15 property in the area to also go commercial. He also recalled that the Commission had recommended rezoning the property next to the school to R-15, but the Board had denied it. He concluded: "I feel like, in this particular case, it behooves us to stay where we are, and if the Board of Supervisors feels strongly about that side of the road going commercial, so be it." Ms. Huckle felt rezoning was premature. She expressed hope that a final resolution to the Alternative 10 alignment would be coming from VDOT soon. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-913-14 for Rio Associates Limited Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on those reasons stated in the staff report. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Blue expressed the "strong hope" this issue will be dealt with as quickly as possible in the Comp Plan review and possibly make a decision even before the Alternative 10 decision is made. He concluded: "It doesn't seem fair to hold it forever." Mr. Dotson again noted the small amount of commercial office designation is this area, when compared to the west, east and south. 17-3 3-1-94 5 Mr. Nitchmann stated he would not support the motion. He noted that the owner of the property has an opportunity to put a very viable, community -serving use on the property. He suggested that perhaps "this could be the cornerstone for being office space on Berkmar instead of rezoning it for Highway Commercial" which could put more intense uses on the property. The motion for denial passed (6:1) with Commissioner Nitchmann casting the dissenting vote. --------------------------------------- SP-93-36 McDonald's aUorest Lakes/Forest. Lakes Associates - Petition to allow a drive - through in a commercial zone [24.2.2(13)] on 9.536 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Property, described as Tax Map 46134, Parcel 1, is located at the southeast quadrant of the Rt. 29/Timberwood Blvd. intersection in Forest Lakes. This property is located in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and is recommended for community service. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to one condition. Staff was also requesting administrative approval of both the preliminary and final plans together with administrative approval of the subdivision plat of the 9.536 acre parcel. Mr. Keeler explained the traffic movements for asccessing the site for either nouthbound or northbound traffic. It was clarified that the request was for one drive -through function, to be served by three windows. It was also clarified that the facility will be approximately the same size as the one on Pantops with the exception that there will be no "playland" area at this facility. The applicant was represented by Mr. George Gilliam, attorney, He confirmed that the playland had been eliminated in response to ARB concerns. Accompanying Mr. Gilliam were Ms. Lisa Harnett and Mr. Bill Savage from McDonald's Corporation. Mr. Gilliam confirmed that the applicant had no objections to the ARB's conditions. Ms. Imhoff complimented McDonald's on the facility on Pantops. She felt it was one of the nicest she has seen. Mr. Blue agreed. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-93-36 for McDonald's at Forest Lakes/Forest Lakes Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition and also that staff be granted administrative approval of the preliminary and final plans and the subdivision plat of the 9.536 acre parcel.- 7 Y 3-1-94 6 I. The site shall be developed in general accord with the preliminary site plan identified as Sheet SP-1 and further identified as "Presented to Planning Commission, March 1, 1994," initialed RSK. The motion was seconded by Mr. Blue and passed unanimously. WA-93:119Wenmne Associates Limited Partn rshi /Mari n Belts L_ona - Petition to rezone 8.028 acres from RA, Rural Areas to PRD, Planned Residential Development. Rezoning shall amend the Glenmore PRD (ZMA-90-19) Frank Kessler (Glenmore). Property, described as Tax Map 93, parcel 61A, is surrounded by the Glenmore PRD and is east of Paddington Circle in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is located in a designated growth area (Village of Rivanna) and recommended for Village Residential (maximum 1 dwelling unit per acre). Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff recommends that this petition satisfies the requirements/findings required by Sec. 19.5.1 and Sec. 8.5.4 together with other rezoning criteria." Staff recommended approval. Mr. Blue asked staff the "ultimate development potential between what is already in the PRD-Glenmore and what is in the Rivanna Village growth area called for in the Comprehensive Plan?" Mr. Keeler responded: "The PRD was approved for 750 units and this will take it to 758." He thought the entire village was 825 or 850. (This was later corrected to be 883 units which may include some existing units.) Mr. Blue asked if the roads were designed to acccomodate the traffic if the entire growth area went into the PRD. Mr. Keeler responded: "The utilities are adequate to serve the entire village. This road was sized to serve all the properties that would reasonably have access to it which, i believe, is almost the whole village though there may be some other properties here (he noted on the plan) which could have access to it." The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. He offered no additional comment. He confirmed that there are still two parcels which the Glemnore property surrounds, but does not own, as well as some adjoining properties which are not part of the PRD. Mr. Blue asked if the fact that the legal ad had stated the property was within the Scottsville District (rather than the Rivanna District) effected the legality of the ad. Mr. Davis responded that the property was reasonably described in the ad so as to be sufficient. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. 757 3-1-94 7 MOTION: Mr. BIue moved that ZMA-93-19 for Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership/Marion Belts Long be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following agreements: L The Planning Commission recommends to the Board that this petition satisfies Sec. 19.5.2 and Sec. 8.5.4 together with other rezoning criteria. 2. Continuing modifications pursuant to Sec. 8.5.4 (d) as set forth in ZMA-90-19. 3. Acceptance of the revised proffers dated February 24, 1994. 4. Submittal of revised Application Plan pursuant to Sec. 8.5.5. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously_ ---------------------------------------- MISCELLANEOUS Informal COMP PLAN Work Session - The Commission decided to hold an informal work session to begin preliminary work on the Comp PIan at 5:00 on March 15. Mr. Blue emphasized that these informal sessions were not to take the place of staffs regular work sessions. Mr. Jenkins briefly reported on the Crozet community meetings which are taking place in relation to the Comp Plan review. It was agreed that it would be helpful if other Commissions could attend these meetings from time to time. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. -a)'..,_..(d� V. Wayne Plimberg, 7(10