Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 16 1993 PC Minutes3-16-93 1 MARCH 16, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 16, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:oo p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of February 18 and February 23 were approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the March 10, 1993 Board of Supervisors meeting. Addition to Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of two parcels totalling 156.953 acres on the east side of Rt. 671 near Millington. The existing district contains 10.922.14 acres. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval. There being no public or applicant comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Addition to Moorman's River Ag/Forestal District be approved. The motion passed unanimously. Addition to Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of two parcels totalling 14.572 acres on the east side of Rt. 231 near Cismont. The existing district contains 1,650 acres. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval. There being no public or applicant comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the Addition to the Kinloch Ag/Forestal District be approved. The motion passed unanimously. �7� 3-16-93 2 Addition to Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of 20 parcels totalling 1,519.396 acres on the north and south side of Rt. 614 at Sugar Hollow and on the east and west sides of Rt. 810 at Rt. 811. The existing district contains 3,269.69 acres. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval. There being no applicant or public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Addition to the Sugar Hollow Ag/Forestal District be approved. The motion passed unanimously. Withdrawal from Ivy Creek Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of one 55.17 acre parcel on the north side of Barracks Road (Rt. 654). The existing district consists of 578.03 acres. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Because of the unique circumstances of the situation, staff was recommending approval of the request for withdrawal. The report explained: "The proposed Rt. 29 Bypass route (Alternative 10) for the western bypass of Route 29 was altered due to the location of the Ivy Creek District and (as a result) the current alignment is proposed to take seven dwellings in Montvue Subdivision and adversely affect 22 dwellings. The alignment through the Kalergis property will not take any Montvue houses but will still affect the subdivision by its proximity." The owner of the property, Mr. David Kalergis, addressed the Commission and requested that the Commission approve the request. Mr. James Rovenack, President of the Montvue Homeowner's Association, addressed the Commission and expressed support for the request. (He read a letter of support for the request from Mr. Donald Holdren.) He expressed disagreement with the number of "displacements" reported in the staff report. It was his understanding that the "blue" option would result in 10 displacements; the "orange" option in 7 displacements; and the "green" option in 1 displacement (but this option was not considered viable by VDOT). There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. .07? 3-16-93 C MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the request for Withdrawal from the ivy Creek Ag/Forestal District be approved. Discussion: Ms. Huckle stressed that this was a unique situation and should not set a precedent for future withdrawals from ag/forestal districts. VOTE: The motion for approval passed unanimously. SP-93-06 Thomas -Cato. Inc. (applicant) GreenbrieftSquare Limited Partnership (owner] - Petition to amend SP-91-43 to allow food and alcohol sales at a billiard center [24.2.2(1)]. Property, described as Tax Map 61W-Section 1, Block A, parcel 5, is Greenbrier Square and is located on the north side of Greenbrier Drive just west of Rt. 29 in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is zoned HC, Highway Commercial [proffered] and is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 1) and recommended for Community Service. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff made no recommendation but offered conditions of approval should the Commission and Board choose to approve the petition. Mr. Johnson asked staff to clarify the current status of the establishment's food service. Mr. Fritz explained that the anticipated improvements included a snack bar and alcohol sales. He confirmed that the existing permit allows the sale of food. Mr. Johnson wondered if the sale of food on the property had been a consideration when the parking requirements were determined. Mr. Fritz stated it was the Zoning Department's role to establish parking standards. He also confirmed that the food issue is not presently before the Commission, and was one that would be addressed on a case -by -case basis for future tenants. Mr. Fritz also confirmed that the staff's statement to "allow food and alcohol" was "overly descriptive." He clarified: "The request is to amend condition No. 2 of SP-91-43 to remove the restriction on the sale of alcohol." Ms. Huckle asked what type of alcoholic beverages were in question --only beer, or also wine and mixed drinks? Mr. Fritz deferred to the applicant. He noted also that the ABC license would control what could be sold. Mr. Blue noted that it was his impression that the ABC Board would control this and would take into consideration issues such as public safety and welfare. He noted: "I fail to understand why the Planning Commission is involved in this when the issue is only whether or not they can serve a8o 3-16-93 4 alcohol. It is not involving parking, etc." Mr. Fritz explained that a specific condition of the original special permit had prohibited the sale of alcohol and must, therefore, be amended if such sale is to be permitted. Mr. Blue questioned why it had been an issue at that time, i.e. "why did the Planning Commission get involved and on what basis?" Mr. Fritz recalled that the applicant had offered to make that limitation and thus it had been included "to remove that possible concern." Mr. Keeler explained further that a similar question had been tried in the courts in another locality and it had been ruled that "just because the ABC issues a license does not prohibit the locality from exercising its police power as granted by the Zoning ordinance." Mr. Keeler added: "If the Commission and the Board would like to leave that issue to the ABC Board in the future, staff would like to know that so that it doesn't get addressed in future applications." Mr. Blue noted: "I'd like to go on record as saying that as a Planning Commissioner,I feel that this is not within my realm of responsibility. I think that perhaps the Police and the Board of Supervisors may have something to say about this, but I fail to see where we do." Ms. Huckle felt it was a safety and welfare issue. She noted that there is a lack of adequate parking for this site and "cooperative parking" between sites will be required. She felt this could invite conflict between persons whose judgment might be impaired by alcohol. The applicant, Mr. Jim Cato, addressed the Commission. His comments and answers to Commission questions included the following: --only beer will be sold; no wine or mixed drinks. --No definitive plans have been drawn for the snack bar but there is room in the back of the facility which can be arranged to accommodate the food service. No beer will be allowed around the billard tables. --It is envisioned that food and beer sales will begin at noon. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Brian Bickers and Mr. Mike dePhillips expressed support for the proposal. They described a very nice, well -run facility. Mr. Bickers stated he has never experienced any parking problems. They also described the owners as very responsible persons who can be trusted to address any problems which might occur. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. .ZJ/ 3-16-93 5 Mr. Blue stated he would abstain from voting on this request, not because he disapproved, but because he wanted to make the point that "I don't think it's any of our business." MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-93-06 for Thomas -Cato, Inc. (applicant) Greenbrier Square Limited partnership (owner) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Use shall be limited to 380 Greenbrier Drive. 2. The sale of alcohol shall require reapproval two years after the date of Board of Supervisors approval of this permit. 3. Hours of operation shall be limited to: Monday - Thursday 10:000 a.m. to 12 midnight Friday - Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Sunday 12 noon to 10:00 p.m. NOTE: A fourth condition was suggested by staff and agreed to by Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Jenkins after further discussion. 4. Co-operative parking is permitted in accordance with Section 4.12.4. Discussion: Ms. Huckle asked if it was the intent to limit the sales to beer only. Mr. Nitchmann stated he would be in favor of it being both beer and wine, but if the applicant chose to have beer only, he would "go along with what the applicant wishes." Regarding the issue of cooperative parking, Mr. Johnson stated he was not convinced the Zoning Administrator had performed more than a cursory review of this situation. He noted that the co-operative parking under consideration was "a block to a block and a half apart." He questioned, given the distance to the parking areas, whether cooperative parking was really practical. He questioned whether, in the absence of co-operative parking arrangements, there would be sufficient parking to permit the sale of food on the premises. Based on this question about adequate parking, he wondered if alcohol sales should be allowed if it should be determined that food sales are not allowed. He concluded that he could not support the motion as stated, but he would support "a reconsideration of the application for beer and wine once the serving of food was authorized and in being, 3-16-93 6 both by the owner and parking was authorized and identified by the Zoning Administrator." It was determined that the sale of food is already authorized for the use. Mr. Johnson acknowledged this but added: "But don't they have to go to the Zoning Administrator for the additional parking spots in order to exercise that right?" Mr. Fritz responded: "If the Zoning Administrator determines that a zoning clearance is required, then there would have to be verification of adequate parking." Mr. Cilimberg did not know if that question had ever been asked of the Zoning Administrator, i.e. will the sale of food require more parking spaces? Mr. Bowling pointed out that the analysis made by the Zoning Administrator was the same as it is for any change in a permitted use. Mr. Johnson asked: "They could go ahead and serve food now, irrespective?" Mr. Bowling replied: "That's my understanding from what the staff tells me. But this is the same analysis the Zoning Administrator goes through whenever there is a change in a particular use, which may be a matter of right in a commercial area which has certain parking requirements." Mr. Grimm felt there may be a need for observation of the situation by the Zoning Administrator to determine whether there would be a change in needed parking. He felt this was best left in the hands of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Johnson agreed, but noted: "But if it's not allowed and in the meantime we authorize or the Board authorizes liquor --I think the food and the beverages go together, in my estimation." Ms. Andersen asked why Mr. Johnson found co-operative parking so objectionable. Mr. Johnson explained that he did not found it objectionable provided the parking is physically located so that it actually is cooperative. Mr. Nitchmann stated he felt the Zoning Administrator would have been aware of any complaints which would have been made about parking. He did not think approval of this request would result in any large increase in the facility's business. Mr. Nitchmann expressed no objection to the addition of the condition related to co-operative parking (as stated in the motion). (Mr. Jenkins, who had seconded the motion, expressed no objection to the addition of the condition.) Mr. Grimm stated he could support the motion. He felt the request was appropriate for this type of activity. JSt � 3-16-93 7 Ms. Huckle stated she would have no objection to the request if she could be convinced there would be no problems with parking. She had contacted adjacent businesses and found there were concerns about co-operative parking. VOTE: The motion passed (4:2:1) with Commissioners Andersen, Grimm, Jenkins, and Nitchmann voting for the motion; Commissioners Johnson and Huckle voting against; and Mr. Blue abstaining. SP-93-04 Gordon Zimmerman, Jr. (applicant) Raymond Spradlin (owner) - Petition to establish a church on 6.3 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(35)]. Property, described as Tax Map 115, parcel 11E, is located on the west side of Jefferson's Mill Road (Rt. 618) approximately 2.1 miles south of Rolling Road (Rt. 620) in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Gordon Zimmerman. He asked the Commission to approve the request. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Pauline Zimmerman expressed support for the proposal. She stated that she had contacted adjacent landowners and found no opposition. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-93-04 for Gordon Zimmerman (applicant) and Raymond Spradlin (owner) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Administrative approval of the site plan. 2. This permit is for worship related activities only. Any future or expanded uses, including day care, shall require an additional special use permit. 3. Seating capacity shall not exceed a maximum of 150 people or such lesser number as determined by the adequacy of the septic system. VOTE: The motion passed unanimously. SP-93-05 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation - Proposal to construct a telephone substation on 53.5 acres -IJ? 41 3-16-93 8 zoned CO, Commercial Office and EC, Entrance Corridor [23.2.2(3)]. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 17B and 17B1, is located on the south side of Fontaine Avenue approximately 0.3 miles east of the bypass. Access to the substation will be on Rt. 782. This site is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 6) and recommended for Community Service. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Wooster. He offered to answer questions. He stated the structure would be similar to the one at Forest Lakes. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-93-05 for University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of site plan to include landscape plan. 2. Restroom facilities shall be connected to public utilities. 3. All equipment, maintenance gear, and the like to be stored within the building. No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted. 4. Structure shall be similar in design to the existing Centel Substation located in Forest Lakes, and shall be located approximately as shown on the attached sketch initialled WDF dated 3/2/93. VOTE: The motion passed unanimously. SUB-93-012 Maple Ridge Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create five lots averaging 2.87 acres and a 23.5 acre residue to be served by a private road. Property, described as Tax Map 62, Parcel 75, is located on the east side of Rocky Hollow Road (Route 769) approximately 3/4 of a mile east of Stony Point Road (Route 20 North). Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2). Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. .?86' 3-16-93 9 Mr. Blue stated he would abstain from discussion and voting on this item because of a possible conflict of interests. (His family is an adjoining property owner.) The applicant was represented by Mr. Greg Baldwin. He offered to answer questions. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Maple Ridge Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of road and associated drainage plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; d. Department of Engineering issuance of an Erosion Control Plan; e. Staff approval of road maintenance agreement; f. Health Department approval. 2. Administrative approval of final plat. VOTE: The motion passed (6:0:1) with Mr. Blue abstaining. Mr. Johnson noted that once again a 50 foot right-of-way has been required to serve 5 or 6 lots, whereas a State road, with a traffic count of 200, only requires a 40 foot right-of-way. He concluded: "Here again, we are requiring more land to be devoted to a non-servicable item." Mr. Johnson also asked that VDOT be asked to present (either in person at the Commission, or in writing) its justification for not allowing mountainous terrain standards in Albemarle County. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Blue requested that individual staff reports be stapled separately. Mr. Johnson called attention to County employment statistics, noting that employment dropped 17.9% in 1990-91 and 12.9% in 1991-92 (among major employers). 3-16-93 10 Mr. Johnson called attention to a letter from Kobby Hoffman, dated March 8 (related to the affordable housing issue). He felt the letter should be "taken under our direct consideration." It was decided this letter would be addressed further during consideration of the Building Code. Mr. Johnson also called attention to a letter from Mr. Embry which noted "complications" associated with accessory apartments. Ms. Huckle called attention to a document published by the Dept. of Economic Development/Division of Industrial Development which described the Community Certification Program. NEW BUSINESS Easement/Entrance into Comdial: Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to establish an entrance on Commonwealth Drive from Comdial property and to close existing entrances to Rt. 29N in conjunction with improvements to Rt. 29N. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He explained that because an objection had been raised to the modification, the matter was referred to the Planning Commission. The report concluded: "Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission determine the most suitable access in terms of safety to this site in accord with Section 32.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance." The applicant was represented by Keith Johnstone. Significant comments and answers to Commission questions included the following: --The business is high-tech, non-polluting, and makes very few demands on the social service network of the County or the City. --This proposed modification is the result of the 29N expansion plans which called for a "curving road for trucks to access the shipping docks at an 18 degree grade." The applicant felt this was "excessive." --The County and VDOT were not aware of the existence of this easement at the time the 29N plans were developed. --Discussions had led to a "mutual agreement that a tradeoff could be made whereby we would relinquish our 29N access in excchange for developing the Commonwealth ( entrance) . 11 --"We are voluntarily closing the 29N access though it does cause some hardship to us but we believe it is something we can live with." --Four of five semi -trailers serve the site daily. At particularly busy periods (end of a month or a quarter), that number may increase to 10 or 12. Most truck traffic is alit 3-16-93 11 between 4 and 8 p.m. (NOTE: He later stated that most truck traffic occurs between 3 p.m. and 6 or 7 p.m..) --Without the Commonwealth entrance, all trucks would have to enter from Greenbrier Drive as the Peyton Drive entrance is unacceptable. The Greenbrier entrance would cause the trucks to cross the pedestrian walkways and make several turns. The trucks would also have to leave by Greenbrier and some would make left turns, which would cause further congestions to an "already bad road." --If a truck were to break down and block the access to Greenbrier, there would be no emergency access to the plant. --Once work on Rt. 29 begins, there will be an increase in traffic on Commonwealth. --If the Rt. 29 entrances are closed, "trucks will be on Commonwealth whether they come in on Greenbrier or not." --The proposed easement was part of the applicant's original property and was shown on the original site plan and pre -dates any development on Commonwealth. --Peyton Drive is currently used as an access to the employee parking lot. It does not connect back to Greenbrier as the connection was blocked. --The Peyton Drive access is not acceptable for truck traffic because "the trucks would be competing with employee traffic and would be operating against traffic since they would be arriving, generally, at the same times employees would be leaving." He did not think the concerns could be addressed through rearrangement of the parking lot. --The new entrance on Commonwealth will be truck traffic only. "We have no plans at all for any other use but trucks, but I can't conclude that sometime down the road that might change. But we have no plans to have anything but trucks use that entrance." A small fence is envisioned to keep casual traffic off the road. --The applicant feels this is the best solution of a bad situation and will work with the County to resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. John dePasquale, representing the VDOT, addressed the Commission. He distributed information on the safety of the Rt. 29 area in the vicinity of the Comdial entrances. He described VDOT's plans for closing the entrances and made the following comments: --The project to close the northern entrance will begin in July and "this entrance, at this time, will be proposed at 18% which creates an extremely difficult turning movement for any large vehicle coming into this area." --The remaining Comdial entrances will be unaffected by this project. --"The more direct route would be for the proposed entrance off of Commonwealth; it's a straight shot down to the loading bay." ;21g 3-16-93 12 --The projected volume of traffic on Commonwealth Drive is 12,700 vehicles/day, 10% of which represents truck and bus traffic. The current level of service on the road is an acceptable level "C," and it will remain a C if this entrance is allowed. --The benefit of closing the northern entrance is that it will remove two points of conflict: "As a semi -trailer is trying to make this movement, they are going to have to belly -out (?) to get up this entrance. In addition to the 18% grade, they are going to have slow down and they certainly won't make this turn from that right -most lane. They tend to have to swing out and when they do they will be coming into the second and possibly the third lane. With the amount of traffic coming down 29, that's not a very safe condition. They same holds true if they were to come out this entrance if this was to remain open. They've got an 18% grade they are going to shoot down out of and cross one lane, two, possibly three lanes before they can actually make that movement out." [Ms. Johnson was skeptical that this was truly an alternative, i.e. "would VODT approve an entry for trucks with an 18% grade and a turnout such as described?" Mr. dePasquale responded: "This is certainly not an ideal condition. Under the situation we have, we would look where to find an alternate -type solution. Mr. Johnson interpreted: "In other words, that's not even a viable situation; an alternate has to be invoked when you make your changes." Mr. dePasquale: "If there's a better solution to the problem, we would have to consider that." --"The bus turnout will allow a bus to pull into this area and not create a point of conflict for traffic if it's off the main thoroughfare." --The pavement design of Commonwealth is adequate to support this additional use. --VDOT feels that any hazard being created on Commonwealth is negligible in comparison to that which is being offset on Rt. 29. Ms. Tammy Kaufmann, Site Manager for Hunter's Creek apartments, addressed the Commission and expressed concern about pedestrian safety. She called attention to the large number of children in the area. She did not think the proposed landscaping would have much effect in screening the residences from the road, nor would it address the noise issue. She concluded that her main concern was to keep the semi -trailers out of the residential neighborhood (off Commonwealth). Mr. Bob Cross, a property owner on Commonwealth Drive, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about Commonwealth being open to even more traffic in the future and effect on property values. Mr. Johnstone again stated that Comdial does not feel Peyton Drive is an alternative for the truck traffic. 3-16-93 13 Mr. Nitchmann suggested an alternative: "Has anyone looked at taking this entrance and coming in from 29 past that bus lane and putting a de -acceleration lane that ramped up the side of the hill and then possibly having the exit out of that building come down in the same way so that, in other words, you've got a 'wish -bone' there on 29?" Mr. dePasquale indicated he understood Mr. Nitchmann's suggestion, but noted: "you're still going to have to get up to that elevation and I venture to say that (the grade) is still going to be pretty excessive." (Mr. Roosevelt added that the new highway was going to be lowered to match the northbound lanes, so the incline from the highway will be greater than it would be today.) Mr. dePasquale admitted that the suggestion made by Mr. Nitchmann had not been studied. Mr. Blue concluded that VDOT did not feel the safety issue on Commonwealth was as grave as residents of the area believe it to be. In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Cilimberg explained that this request could have been handled administratively as a site plan amendment, but because public concern was expressed, it was brought to the Commission. Mr. Blue noted that in most circumstances VDOT is considered to be the expert on issues of traffic safety. He added, however, that it appears that VDOT has not studied the option described by Mr. Nitchmann to see if it is technically feasible. He didn't know if it was proper for the Commission to request that VDOT make such a study, or "does it just boil down to the issue of whether we want to consider the safety on the access to 29 more important than the safety on Commonwealth?" Mr. Johnson felt such a study could properly be requested. He added that another issue had been ignored, i.e. "the effect on these properties of the truck traffic up until 8 or 10 p.m. and the interference of the truck traffic, limited as it is, on Commonwealth." He concluded: "I would be in favor of taking the position that as of now any exit onto Commonwealth would be unacceptable with the assumption that, based on Mr. Pasquale's comments, which are very reasonable, that really no entry is going to be acceptable on 29. It's back to the drawing boards to figure out another way either through Peyton Place or through Greenbrier, to get trucks and the automobile traffic in and out of the area. It's up to them to design it; they're the experts. But I don't think we can ignor the people who live adjacent to the easement and along Commonwealth." Mr. Blue agreed that it could not be ignored from a safety standpoint. He pointed out, however, that all that residential development took place after Comdial was in existence and after the access was shown. He again noted ago 3-16-93 14 that VDOT is the safety expert and they are saying "That's not a problem." Mr. Jenkins questioned whether the Commission's input into the traffic problems on Rt. 29 were "that significant." He didn't see that there were many choices. He noted that truck drivers have excellent driving records and felt there would be very conscious of safety. He concluded that there was no good alternative. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that the Comdial request for an entrance on Commonwealth Drive, and the closing of existing entrances to Rt. 29N, be approved. (Added later to this motion was the stipulation that the Commonwealth entrance to Comdial be used for truck traffic only.) Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Huckle expressed regret at the effect this will have on the lifestyles of those living on Commonwealth Drive, but she noted that "their lifestyles have already been changed by the fact that Commonwealth already goes all the way through." She felt that the safety factor on Rt. 29 was much the greater danger with the possibility of trucks slowing down and making wide turns. Ms. Huckle recalled Commission discussions in relation to supporting existing area businesses. Mr. Blue and Mr. Nitchmann expressed agreement with Ms. Huckle. Mr. Johnson stated he would not support the motion because "the exit using Peyton Avenue as an access to Commonwealth has not been adequately explored to my knowledge and that is certainly preferable over going through the backyards of people who live in those complexes." He noted that the concern about the conflicts between cars and trucks centered around only 5 - 10 trucks for a few hours a day. He agreed that continuing the entrances on Rt. 29 was undesirable. In relation to Mr. Grimm's question, Mr. Johnstone explained that use of Greenbrier was unsuitable for truck traffic because (1) it would require that trucks cross two pedestrian ramps; and (2) turning trucks would block traffic on Greenbrier. In answer to Ms. Andersen's question, he stated that it is believed that 75% of trucks will be coming in on Hydraulic and leaving on Hydraulic. 991 3-16-93 15 Ms. Huckle asked if the maker of the was willing to add a condition that entrance would be limited to trucks responded: I certainly would.") motion (Mr. Jenkins) the Commonwealth only. (Mr. Jenkins Mr. Johnstone responded: "It's in our best interests to keep trucks and cars separated. So we will have some method of keeping trucks in their lanes and keeping cars out of those lanes going into the loading docks." He indicated he would prefer not to be tied to a condition because things may change in the future. He concluded: "But we will certainly give every consideration to keep cars out of that access road." Ms. Huckle noted that the applicant could ask to be relieved of the limitation at some future time. Mr. Johnson noted that the information supplied the Commission shows that there is already a mix of truck and car traffic on the road and there is already significant truck traffic out of the Greenbrier entrance. It was Mr. Blue's understanding that the applicant's concern was about mixing car and truck traffic on the property. Mr. Johnstone explained that currently trucks come across the visitor parking area, but not employee parking. He explained that with the proposed modification, the visitor parking area will be closed so that no cars will be present. Mr. Grimm stated he could support the motion with the limitation of truck traffic only "in that proposed right-of-way." The previously stated motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Johnson reported briefly on a meeting attended by himself and Mr. Blue -of the Southern Charlottesville Transportation Study Entry Corridor Plan. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. DB 019A