HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 09 90 PC MinutesOCTOBER 9, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, October 9, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins;
Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief
of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community
Development; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; Mr. Richard
Tarbell, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr.
Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
September 18th, 25th and 27th were approved as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA
High Mowing Agricultural/Forestal District and Addition to
Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District - The Commission was
being asked to receive the applications.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the
Consent Agenda be adopted. The motion passed unanimously.
Capital Improvements Program 1991-92 through 1995-96 - Mr.
Benish briefly reviewed the projects as prioritized by the
Commission during earlier work sessions along with notes on
particular projects.
He called the Commission's attention to two additional
requests which had been received too late for inclusion --one
from the Jefferson Madison Regional Library which involved a
change in the year funds were being requested and one from a
property owner in Oak Hill Subdivision requesting that
public utilities be extended to the area.
Public Comment:
Mr. Glen Parsons and Mr. William Raines, Principal of
Albemarle High School asked that the Field House Project for
Albemarle High School (Item No. 47) be reinstated as part of
the Albemarle High School Phase I Project (Item 8). Mr.
Raines stressed that the these projects should not be
separated because one depends on the other and in order for
one to operate without the other all the planning which has
taken place thus far would have to be changed. Mr. Raines
also pointed out that the citizen group working on the Field
House Project needs as much leeway as possible to proceed
with the funding that they will be providing on the project.
October 9, 1990 Page 2
(It was determined the citizen group would be providing
approximately one-half the funds ($300,000) for the Field
House.) Mr. Raines explained that an effort has been made
to join the planning for the three aspects of this project,
i.e. the previously planned addition, the replacement of
that part of the school destroyed by fire last spring, and
the new field house. He explained that if the projects are
separated, it will be difficult to keep the current plans
intact. He noted that the fire had destroyed part of the
athletic area.
Ms. Huckle asked if the citizen portion of this project was
guaranteed and what would happen if the pledged amount was
not raised. Though Mr. Raines indicated he felt this was a
very strong commitment, he was unable to definitively answer
Ms. Huckle's question. Mr. Parsons added that if the Field
House is not funded at this time, the citizen participation
will not be able to proceed.
Mr. Pat Crowley spoke in favor of Item No. 26 which was for
a boat ramp on the reservoir. He felt the facility was
underutilized because a boat could not be launched safely.
Mr. Jim Brewer also spoke in favor of the boat ramp project.
He noted the dangerous condition which exists at the present
launching area.
There being no further comment the matter was placed before
the commission.
Regarding the two additional items noted by Mr. Benish the
Commission made the following comments:
Wilkerson: He expressed no objection to passing these
two items along with the priority list as an addendum as
presented by staff.
Johnson: He was in favor of the library requests being
given a priority, "rather than just letting it dangle."
Huckle: She felt the Oak Hill Subdivision request
should be "put on the agenda for next year." (Mr. Cilimberg
noted that water and sewer projects have not historically
been funded through the CIP, but rather have been funded
through the County Service Authority.)
Rittenhouse: He noted that the current ranking of the
library items (49 and 63) does not differ from the
requester's priority, i.e. both the County and the requester
identified these in the "Necessary" category. He explained
that the Board would be allerted to the request, but it
/6
October 9, 1990
Page 3
would be noted that the Commission had not had the
opportunity to review it thoroughly. He concluded he was
willing to pass the addendum on as presented by staff.
The Commission made the following comments on the priority
list as read by staff:
Huckle: Regarding the boat ramp project (No. 27), she
indicated she would not be in favor of changing this
priority. She expressed concerns about providing easy
access and additional parking area in terms of potential
pollution of the reservoir. Regarding items 36, 48 and 41
(maintenance projects), she was in favor of giving these a
higher priority because she felt if these projects were
neglected, the cost would increase. (Mr. Rittenhouse
pointed out that those items had been moved up to the
"urgent" category though the requesters had classified them
as "necessary.") She also stated she was not in favor of
the Hydraulic Road sidewalk project. She felt this was an
unnecessary project and the money which has already been set
aside for this project could be put to better use on one of
the maintenance projects. She also noted that she did not
feel the improvements to the tennis courts at Albemarle High
School were necessary (part of Item No. 8). Ms. Huckle also
expressed concern because her questions about the citizen's
contribution to the Field House project had not been
answered.
Wilkerson: He indicated he was in favor of reinstating
item No. 47 (Albemarle Field House) as part of No. S. He
felt the citizen group's efforts should be supported. He
also felt this met a student need and doing the construction
all at once would be more cost efficient. He felt this was
more important than some of the recreational items which
were ranked higher on the list (e.g. Beaver Creek parking,
Chris Green Lake Beach Shelters, etc.).
Grimm: He agreed with Mr. Wilkerson regarding the
Field House project.
Andersen: She stated she was not in favor of changing
the priority list which the Commission had spent many hours
discussing. (Ms. Andersen asked if anyone remembered why
the Albemarle Project had been divided. Mr. Rittenhouse
recalled that the Commission had envisioned that the other
aspects of Phase I had a greater priority, i.e. the field
house had a lesser priority than the classroom and
laboratory improvements and lesser importance than those
items which fell between item No. 8 and item No. 47.)
/7
October 9, 1990 Page 4
Johnson: Regarding the bookmobile project (No. 63), he
noted this was a very popular service and felt it should be
given comparable consideration. Regarding item No. 11,
Highway Revenue Sharing, he felt this should be given
priority No. 4 "with the other mandated projects."
Rittenhouse: He indicated he agreed with Ms. Andersen.
He felt that moving the field house project back to No. 8
position would be sending the message that the Commission
ranks that item above those which presently are ranked ahead
of it.
Ms. Huckle moved that the CIF Priority List be forwarded to
the Board of Supervisors with the priorities previously
determined by the Commission and as read by staff (See
ATTACHMENT A) and including the additional notes presented
by staff.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Wilkerson stated he would not support the motion because
he felt that project No. 47 should be included with project
No. 8 and also because he felt the bookmobile replacement
should be ranked in the top 48 projects.
Mr. Johnson stated that though he would support the motion,
he was in favor of the following rankings:
--Item No. 11 be moved to No. 4;
--Item No. 47 be included in No. 8;
--Item No. 63 be moved to No. 10.
Mr. Grimm noted that he too felt No. 47 should be included
with No. 8 because he felt this would be the most cost
effective.
The motion for approval of the CIP priority list passed
(5:2) with Commissioners Wilkerson and Grimm casting the
dissenting votes.
Northside Branch Library - Compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan - Review of the proposed Northside Branch Library site
for compliance with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
pursuant to Virginia Code 15.1-456. The site is located in
the Albemarle Square Shopping Center in the northeast
quadrant of the Rt. 29 - Rio Road intersection. The
property is described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 123 in the
Charlottesville Magisterial district. The site is located
within a designated growth area.
/f
iI
October 9, 1990 Page 5
Mr. Baker presented the staff report. The staff report
concluded: "This site meets the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds this site in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends favorable action
by the Commission."
The library was represented by Ms. Selly who offered no
additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Northside Branch Library site
be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins noted that the library would be a tremendous
"draw" for the shopping center and this fact should be taken
into consideration when the lease is negotiated.
The previously stated motion passed unanaimously.
Peacock Hill Section 3 Preliminary Plat - The applicant is
proposing to divide 18.51 acres into 11 lots with an average
lot size of 1.67 acres. Property is zoned PUD, Planned Unit
Development with ZMA-85-22. Property, described as Tax Map
73B, Section 3, Parcels 3 and 4, located on the west side of
Rt. 708 just north of Interstate 64 in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. The site is not located within a
designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Martha Hardy. She
offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the amount of critical
slopes and the fact that no building sites were delineated.
Mr. Fritz explained that there is adequate building area
shown on each lot and no construction will be allowed on
areas of critical slope.
/17
I X
October 9, 1990 Page 6
Mr. Johnson brought up the issue of the Groundwater
Protection Study. He wondered if the Watershed Management
Official had the expertise to implement this study. Mr.
Keeler pointed out that the Groundwater Study is not
directly related to the protection of groundwater pollution
but rather to the protection of the watershed. He also
noted that the Watershed Management Official is only one
person and it will take many years, and many people, to
compile the base information. He doubted that there would
be any regulations resulting from this study for many years.
Ms. Huckle asked if the Health Department allows blasting of
rock for the installation of drain fields. Mr. Fritz did
not know the answer to this question.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Peacock Hill Section 3
Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final plat until tentative approvals for the following
conditions have been obtained. The subdivision plat shall
not be signed until the following conditions have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage -plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
C. Staff approval of documents adding Future
Common Ground shown on the plan to the existing Common
Ground agreements;
2. Staff approval of the final plat.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SUB-90-153 - Henley Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create
three lots averaging 18.7 acres with a 128.2 acre residue
from a 184.25 parcel. The lots are proposed to be served by
a private road. Property, described as Tax Map 40 Parcel
48, is located on the south side of Route 811 approximately
1/2 mile west of Route 680. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, in the
White Hall Magisterial District. This property is not
located within a designated growth area.
Before the staff report, Mr. Jenkins noted that though he
has been friends with this applicant for many years, he has
no financial interest in this proposal, nor is he related to
Mr. Henley and therefore the County Attorney saw no conflict
of interest in his hearing this item.
90
J,
October 9, 1990
Page 7
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Rip Thomsen. He stated
Mr. Henley has agreed to dedicated the right-of-way along
Rt. 811 to public use--25 feet from center line on the
subdivision side and approximately 15 feet on the other
side. He stated also that it is the applicant's intent to
create no more than two additional lots to be served by the
private road, both lots to be in excess of 21 acres. He
stated that the applicant would be willing to put these two
provisions on the plat if the Commission approves the
private road.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson described Rt. 811 and concluded that it was
"significantly dangerous." He also noted that the terrain
of three of the lots was such that they will drain directly
into the reservoir. He stated he was not satisfied that the
reservoir has been adequately protected.
Mr. Tarbell explained that though staff had encouraged the
applicant to tie down the building sites, he had not wanted
to restrict potential owners in this regard. He added that
the usual setbacks from the reservoir will be required and
the Subdivision Ordinance did not allow any more than that.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Henley 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 road and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation issuance
of a commercial entrance permit;
d. Staff approval of a private road maintenance
agreement.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with
Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
I-641250 East Exxon Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to
construct a 2,160 square foot gas station/convenience store
.9/
October 9, 1990 Page 8
on 2.22 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property,
described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 33B, is located on the south
side of Route 250 approximately 750 feet west of its
intersection in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site
is located in a designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. David Sutton. He
stated the Commission's previous concerns had been
addressed, i.e. the "exit only" had been eliminated and the
site had been rearranged so as to accommodate a better
traffic flow and landscaping and screening have been
significantly increased. He stated also that existing trees
of significant size would remain undisturbed. He noted also
that there would no problems in obtaining the offsite
drainage easement.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. David Wood, representing the Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Foundation, addressed the Commission. He asked that for
other applications on the remainder of this tract the
Commission consider Monticello and its viewshed.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson brought up the question of whether or not this
site would come under the Entrance Corridor provisions. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that question is yet to be decided by
the County Attorney. He noted that even if it is decided it
does come under these provisions, that is a separate
process. He added that the Architectural Review Board is
yet to be created and once it is created it must act on
plans within 50 days. Mr. Cilimberg did not think the
provisions would have any material effect on this
application. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that this did not
have any effect on the Commission's action at this time.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that though the Comprehensive
Plan designates this as rural areas, the zoning is in place
and the Board has chosen not to downzone the property.
Ms. Huckle stated that though she appreciated the changes
made by the applicant, she still had concerns about the
proposal, particularly about the location on Rt. 250 at a
point where the road is beginning to narrow, and also about
the lack of public restrooms which are naturally expected to
be a service of this type of facility.
as
October 9, 1990
Page 9
Ms. Andersen moved that I-64/250 East Exxon Preliminary Site
Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the
final site plan for signature until tentative approval for
the following conditions have been obtained. The final site
plan shall not be sitned until the following conditions have
been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation issuance
of commercial entrance permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of right-of-way improvements;
e. Department of Engineering approval of drainage
easement plats;
f. Staff approval of final landscape plan.
2. A certificate of occupancy -will not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
3. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed (5:2) with
Commissioners Huckle and Johnson casting the dissenting
votes.
SDP-90-52 Walmart Store Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to
construct 114,513 square foot retail store served by 727
parking spaces on 13.28 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D1, is located
in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Rt. 29 and
Hilton Heights Road in the Charlottesville Magisterial
District. This site is located within a designated growth
area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. The report
summarized staff's position as follows:
"Due to a lack of a definite recommendation from the
VDOT, staff will not be able to make a comprehensive
assessment of transportation issues related to this
project and therefore cannot fully provide the
.9.9
October 9, 1990
Page 10
Planning Commission with a comprehensive staff
report and recommendation. However, staff will
present three alternatives available to the Planning
Commission in the review of this preliminary plan as
follows:
Alternative 1: Approve the preliminary site
plan with the condition the applicant agrees to
provide all traffic improvements as recommended by
VDOT with Planning Commission review of the final
site plan.
Alternative 2: Defer the preliminary site plan
until VDOT makes a definite recommendation on the
traffic improvements after review and approval of a
traffic study.
Alternative 3: Deny the preliminary site plan
as it has not been demonstrated to provide safe and
convenient access to the public roads serving the
site.
Mr. Tarbell also distributed to the Commission an
alternative set of conditions which were submitted by the
applicant's engineer. He noted that approval with the
applicant's conditions "may allow the issuance of a grading
permit before a building permit is obtained." He explained
that the applicant has stated that the project will not
proceed if a traffic signal is required at the Hilton
Heights Road entrance, and with the applicant's proposed
conditions, the site could conceivably be graded and never
be built on. He added, however, that the applicant has
stated they will not begin grading until VDOT's
recommendations are definitive.
There was some discussion about the difference between the
applicant's proposed conditions of approval and staff's
conditions. Mr. Cilimberg noted a main difference is that
staff's conditions require Commission review of the final
site plan and the applicant is requesting, because of time
considerations, that the final be given administrative
approval. He added that under the applicant's request,
grading could begin before a decision is made about the need
for the traffic light, and under staff's conditions the
applicant would know if this traffic light is going to be
recommended because all tentative approvals must be in hand.
Mr. Keeler stressed that it is VDOT's position that it is
not known at this time what the requirements for Hilton
Heights road will be, i.e. it could be additional
recommendations in addition to the light. It was determined
-2�1
J.
October 9, 1990
Page 11
VDOT has not estimated when the traffic study will be
complete for this area. Mr. Cilimberg stated it would be
partially determined by when the applicants present their
study.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Wendall Wood addressed the Commission. Mr. Wood spoke
at length. He stressed that the main issue was the lack of
a VDOT transportation analysis and the fact that VDOT will
not respond in a timely fashion. (Mr. Tarbell confirmed
this was the only unresolved issue.) He stated that
Wal-Mart has gone beyond what has been required of any other
applicant. He stated: "We will do anything that we are
required to do in accordance with Wal-Mart and the traffic
study, but we can't wait any longer for them to tell us what
to do." He offered to bond improvements. (It was later
noted that a bond amount could not be determined because it
is not known what the improvements are to be.) He explained
that the applicant had commissioned a traffic study
(prepared by Wilbur Smith) for the entire section of Berkmar
Drive Extended from Rio Road to the Sheraton. (The County
had agreed to provide funding for this study, but because of
the time factor, the applicant had paid for the study.) Mr.
Wood had that study in hand, it having been received October
8, 1990. (It was later noted that it is the Commission's
policy not to consider information which the staff has not
had a chance to review.) He noted that though this project
does not need Berkmar Drive, it has set aside, in a proffer,
a right-of-way to build it, but "no one will tell us what to
build." He stressed that Wal-Mart has agreed to all the
improvements related to the road EXCEPT the traffic light at
the Hilton Heights Road intersection. He stated the cost of
that light would "kill the deal" and Wal-Mart would withdraw
from the project. He pointed out that the traffic study
prepared by Wilbur Smith states that Wal-Mart will not cause
the need for the disputed traffic light, though a light will
be required at the time Sam's is approved. He stressed that
the applicant has been most cooperative and done all that
has been requested. He stated he would be delivering the
traffic report to VDOT and the County later in the week.
Because of the time of the year, he stressed the importance
that the project be allowed to move forward with grading of
the site. He felt that the time involved with getting
other approvals would allow time for this traffic issue to
be resolved and approval as requested by the applicant at
this time would allow the applicant to move forward with
making preparations to grade. He stressed that no grading
would take place until final VDOT comments are definitive.
He stated that Mr. Roosevelt (VDOT) had told him that he is
required to submit comments within 45 days. (Mr. Wood
questioned whether this had ever actually happened.)
October 9, 1990
Page 12
In response to Mr. Johnson's effort to understand Mr. Wood's
position, Mr. Wood confirmed the two items of contention
were the light on Hilton Heights Road and the lack of
definition of the improvements for Berkmar Extended.
Mr. Rittenhouse determined the applicant was in favor of
staff's Alternative 1, but with the applicant's suggested
conditions of approval. Mr. Wood stressed that the
conditions were not different than those recommended by
staff, but the difference was in the timing of the
conditions.
Mr. Richard Pace, site engineering consultans for Wal-Mart,
addressed the Commission. He noted that the applicant is
making no objection to the traffic light on Rt. 29 or to the
decel lanes on Rt. 29. The applicant clearly recognizes the
need for those improvements. He stated that the applicant
feels, based on the current traffic analysis, that the
Wal-Mart site is within the original proffered agreement.
He also pointed out that until Berkmar is completed, a
traffic light at the intersection with Hilton Heights Road
will make no difference, and at that time actual data will
be available rather than theoretical data. Mr. Pace stated
that at the time Sam's is built, the traffic light will be
needed. He stated the applicant would pay "the full load"
at that time. He concluded that Wal-Mart is a good
corporate citizen and wants to locate in Charlottesville.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
The Commission attempted to understand the differences in
the applicant's proposed conditions and the staff's
conditions. Mr. Cilimberg explained that staff's conditions
would allow a grading permit AFTER all tentative approvals
have been received; the applicant's conditions would allow a
permit either after tentative approvals have been received
OR improvements have been bonded. He stated that the "real
kicker" between staff's position and the applicant's is "in
getting the traffic study approved before we proceed at all
on issuing a building permit based on road improvement
needs."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked what would be the disadvantages to the
County if the applicant were issued a building permit before
VDOT comments regarding improvements have been received.
Mr. Keeler responded: "The absolute worse case scenario is
where they are ready to move into the building but they are
not prepared to do the improvements that VDOT has outlined."
.26
October 9, 1990
Page 13
It was noted that at this time there is nothing to tie a
bond to. Mr. Keeler explained that a bonding company
requires a detailed estimate of what the money is being
taken for.
Mr. Wilkerson asked if anything like this has every been
done before. Mr. Keeler could not recall a similar
situation under the current Ordinance.
Regarding precedent, Mr. Bowling stated this was a difficult
question to answer because "you're not going to have that
many commercial developments of this nature."
Mr. Tarbell noted that staff was sticking with their
position based on past actions, i.e. "where there is an
unresolved transportation issue, we see it again." He added
that the applicant feels this is a unique situation and that
is a determination for the Commission to make.
Mr. Keeler stated he was finding it difficult to understand
"if Wal-Mart is not going to pursue the site if VDOT's
recommendations based on the traffic study are adverse, then
it doesn't seem that Wal-Mart would be seeking a building
permit before they knew that."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked the applicant how he proposed to
arrive at a bond amount for yet unspecified improvements.
Mr. Wood first addressed Mr. Wilkerson's question about
precedent. He pointed out that this is the first case where
the applicant has been asked to supply so much off site
data. The applicant has now provided that data and is
simply asking for a decision. (Mr. Wilkerson noted this is
the first application where VDOT has no recommendations yet
the Commission is being asked to make a decision.) Mr. Wood
pointed out that the reason is not related to this site and
that makes it unfair. Regarding the bond question, Mr. Wood
stated that a proffer made in 1986 commits the applicant to
"build Berkmar Extended in any location which I assume has
now been set by our site plan and it has been accepted by
the County in a 50 foot right-of-way." He stated that he
would be willing to bond for the "worse case
scenario --blacktop from right-of-way to right-of-way, 50
feet wide, category 6 with 12 inches of stone and 6 inches
of blacktop, stormsewer, sidewalks."
Mr. Rittenhouse continued to try to pin down what the
applicant would be willing to bond for. He concluded: "I
think the potential rub here is what happens if the
applicant has a grading permit and a building permit with no
strings that would bind the applicant to a potential
stoplight or other improvements that may yet be determined."
.2-7
October 9, 1990 Page 14
Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Wood if he would be willing to
forego the building permit until after VDOT review has been
received if he is allowed a grading permit. Mr. Wood
responded: "No." Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "You don't want
to give VDOT a blank check and from our standpoint, the
question is can we give you a blank check?"
Mr. Wood responded: "Our position is --we don't have to do
any of this. ... We have agreed to build this road, and
we're willing to agree to it ... we're reaffirming that,
within that 50 foot right-of-way, but if somebody comes back
and says 'No, you're going to build a 4-lane divided
highway,' then we will be in court. ... We are due the right
to build on this property within that proffer." He
explained that he had built Hilton Heights Road based on
8,000 vehicle trips per day and now Berkmar Drive comes
along and the applicant is being told that something else
may be required. He added, however, that because Wal-Mart
wants to be a good neighbor, there are additional things
they will do off site, beyond what is required, if it is
also for Sam's. He stated that it is not known what is
going to be required on other sections of Berkmar and this
applicant "should not be asked to pay that price."
Mr. Cilimberg explained why the traffic study is of crucial
importance, i.e. until this road is built to VDOT's
satisfaction, it will not be in the State system and
therefore if a road is not constructed which VDOT is willing
to accept and improvements at the entrance which they are
also willing to accept, then neither VDOT nor the developer
are "out any roads," but the County is. He explained this
was the County's interest in this situation. He advised
that the Commission needed to keep this uppermost in their
minds.
Mr. Wood asked if Mr. Cilimberg was saying that nothing
could be built on this site. (Mr. Cilimberg responded
negatively.) Mr. Wood asked if something could be built on
the site "within the proffer that has previously been made
on this site for 8,000 cars?" Mr. Cilimberg responded:
"There's a proffer for 8,000 cars; there's a proffer for
dedicated right-of-way; and there's a proffer that at time
of approval of any site plan the proffer would be in effect.
That's the issue before the Commission tonight --whether or
not they are going to approve a site plan and if they do
approve it they have to make sure the conditions are set up
to advise you as to exactly what has to be built." Mr.
Bowling confirmed this was accurate. He added that staff
and the County Attorney feel the key words are "approving
the site plan." He explained: "In approving the site plan
you must protect yourself and the applicant because they
have a right to be able to say what's going to be required
as improvements."
.,V
October 9, 1990 Page 15
Mr. Wood indicated he felt it was unreasonable for this
application to be held up waiting for VDOT "to tell us some
day" what the recommended improvements will be. Mr.
Rittenhouse noted that the Commission had no control over
VDOT's timing.
Mr. Wood stated that if that was the case then "you're back
to the alternative in the original proffer --we're not bound
to do any of Berkmar." Mr. Cilimberg responded: "And we're
not bound to approve a site plan."
Mr. Keeler clarified that the improvements in question were
those which provided safe and convenient access to the site
itself and not general improvements to bring this road into
the state system. He stated that staff could request that
VDOT "segregate their review and respond to that aspect
first." He noted that Mr. Wood could be required, according
to his proffer, to pave the whole 50 feet right-of-way, but
he could not be required to dedicate any additional
right-of-way. He added, however, that the proffer did not
address entrances to individual sites and the very heart of
site plan review is safe and convenient access from the
public roads. He stated that staff feels this is the issue
which should be resolved before issuance of a building
permit.
Mr. Wood stated the applicant has known that they must wait
for comments related to their site, but their concern has
been that they would have to wait for recommendations
related to the southern end of Berkmar at Rio Road.
Mr. Keeler stated they would ask VDOT to isolate this part
of the study and make recommendations related to this
project, but there was no guarantee VDOT would comply with
this request. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff has
already asked VDOT to isolate this particular entrance but
they have not done that to this point possibly because they
did not have the traffic study in hand. He stated they may
be willing to comply with this request once they have the
study.
Ms. Huckle suggested that a deferral might be in order to
allow staff time to review the traffic study.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the Commission was willing to
consider staff's Alternative 1, i.e. conditional approval of
the preliminary site plan before VDOT traffic studies, and
if so, how is a set of conditions to be arrived at?
Mr. Jenkins felt that it was the consensus of the Commission
that such an approval was not the preference of the
Commission at this time.
a9
October 9, 1990
Page 16
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was in favor of a deferral to
allow for the traffic study to be submitted and if it is
found that the issue cannot be rapidly resolved, then
consideration of Alternative 1 could proceed with conditions
developed that are agreeable to both the applicant and the
County.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Wal-Mart Preliminary site Plan
be deferred to October 23, 1990.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
The applicant indicated he was agreeable to a deferral.
The motion passed unanimously.
Montdomaine Cellars - Request for extension of trailer
permit - request for new hearing.
The applicant was requesting that this item be reheard
because of lack of notification of the applicant.
Though there were mixed feelings about this request on the
part of some Commissioners, it was finally decided the
Commission would rehear the request.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the
Montdomaine Cellars request for extension of the temporary
trailer be reheard. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
11:00 p.m.
FOR
30