Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP199200034 Action Letter __-- .-- ---..1!L-.-..-.- -Ill M.B. 42, Pg. 38 July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (page 38) a. Department of Engineering final approval; h. Water Resource Manager approval of water quality impact assessment plan; c. Compliance with all federal, state and local requirements pertaining to a perennial stream; d. Department of Engineering issuance of an Erosion Control Permit (Grading Permit) . r Agenda Item No. 10. SP-92-34. Townside East Limited Partnership. Public Hearing on a _l:'equest for:adrive-up window- on 2. 34 acs zoned HC & EC. Property on N side o~ Rt-250W in Townside East Shopping Center. TM60,P40Cl. Jack Jouett Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 1992. ) Mr. Cilimbe+g gave the staff's report as follows: "Character of the Area: The shopping center is completely con- structed and partially occupied. Adjacent land uses include the Shell gas station to the east, University Heights apartments to the south and the West Ivy shops to the west. Applicant's Proposal: existing loading space allow for the transfer the pharmacy through a The applicant is proposing to utilize for vehicular access to a kiosk which of prescriptions between the customer pressure/vacuum system. an will and Planninq and Zoninq Historv: (SDP-88-06l) Colonnade Center - A site plan to construct two buildings totalling 16,659 square feet of retail space to be served by 157 parking spaces. The plan was approved by the Planning Commission on October 11, 1988, and signed on June 8, 1989. '"""'" (VA-90-82) Mitchell, Matthews and Associates - variance request to reduce the parking requirements by 35 spaces from 192 to the 157 parking spaces which exist for a proposed rezoning to PD-SC. Denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals on January 8, 1992. (ZMA-90-25) Mitchell, Matthews and Associates - Request to rezone the 2.34 acre site from HC to PD-SC was withdrawn by the applicant. Other variances applicable to this site were for parking and building setback reductions from the scenic highway. Similar requests in the area include: SP-86-90 approved for a drive- through bank on Tax Map 60, Parcels 40Bl and 40B2 now occupied by F and M Bank; and SP-87-73 approved for a drive-through bank on Tax Map 60, Parcel 38. This project was never pursued. COmPrehensive Plan: This site is recommended for Community Service in Urban Neighborhood 6. Staff Comment: The Architectural Review Board (ARB) does not have any comments to offer for the review of this application. The dimensions of the kiosk referenced in the recommended condition of approval simply restates the size proposed by the applicant. Due to concerns regarding access and circulation patterns combined within high traffic volumes, uses involving a drive-through facility are permitted by special use permit only. The proposed facility is unique as compared to previous applications involving commercial uses having drive-in windows. r This facility will utilize a 21 inch by 10 inch kiosk located in an existing parking island adjacent to and facing an existing loading space (see Attachment C). A pressure/vacuum system will allow for the transfer of prescriptions in a closed container- between the customer and the pharmacy. The tubing for the system between the kiosk and the building will be located underground. The applicant has stated the system will be used for prescriptions which are ordered by telephone in advance. The applicant has also stated, 'The proposed kiosk addresses the public interest and safety by permitting pick up of prescriptions by patients who are non ambulatory or with impaired mobility.' Because a trip to the pharmacy for prescriptions is essentially a fixed destination, staff opinion is this use will not result in a substantial increase in vehicular traffic. Commercial uses such as a bank or fast-food restaurant depend on drive-through facili- ties for convenience and speed to attract customers who may not have otherwise patronized their establishment. This results in a significant difference in traffic generation between the use with .-11--- ..--..-.--..----..... rrI M.B. 42, Pg. 39 ...- ! July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (page 39) a drive-through facility versus the use without the drive-through facility. The proposed system will be used only by custo~ers phoning in orders in advance rather than the general publ1c, therefore staff does not anticipate a significant traffic volume impact ov~r the expected generation for a small pharmacy. Circulation through the existing shopping center is adequate, however, an exclusive lane or area for stacking of cars waiting to utilize the proposed system is not provided. It must be antici- pated that a customer approaching the kiosk when it is in use will utilize a separate parking space to wait or walk into the store. The Virginia Department of Transportation's (VOOT'sJ only comment was to state the existing commercial entrances are adequate. Staff opinion is the proposed drive-in system will not result in a significant increase in traffic and that the circulation on-site is adequate although not optimal. Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors find, in accordance with Section 31.2.4.1, the pro- posed use: (1) will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties; and, (2) will not change the character of the dis- trict, . and, therefore, the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the by-right uses within the district, and with the public health, safety, and general welfare. Staff opinion is this special use permit is consistent with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the follow- ing condition: SummarY and Recommendation: 1. The outdoor kiosk shall not exceed 21 inches in height and 10 inches in width." Mr. Marshall excused himself from the Towns ide East Limited Partnership discussion because he had a conflict of interest. He immediately left the room. r Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 23, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-34 subject to the condition recommended by staff. Mrs. Humphris stated that she had a different impression of a kiosk. She asked if the kiosk would only be 21 inches in height by 10 inches in width. Mr. Cilimbe+g answered affirmatively. He is assuming this places the kiosk at an adequate height for.someone in a car. He stated that eye level in a car is approximately at the three feet level. Mrs. Humphris asked if this would be a good height for reaching from a car window. Mr. Cilimberg an- swered, "yes." He said the kiosk would be at hand height. Mr. Bain asked if this window is not to be used for picking up prescrip- tions. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the window will be used for picking up pre- scriptions, and paying for them. Mr. Bain remarked that he would like to know how long it will take for a particular transaction. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that the staff report indicates that the kiosk is only for picking up pre- scriptions. She noted that a person would have to pre-order prescriptions before he or she got to the window. Mr. Cilimberg said he is unsure whether or not a person will pay at the window. He said the applicant can respond to that question. Mr. Bain commented that this is a concern. ...- I Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. Mr. Johnny Baughman, Business Manager for Marshall Pharmacies, stated the proposed kiosk is mainly going to be used for handicapped persons who cannot get into the building, or it would be difficult for them to exit their automobiles, and get into the facility to drop off a prescription. He said no one will be waiting for prescriptions to be filled, because there is not enough space, and he understands this is a concern. He added that there will be a handicapped space to limit the use of the kiosk, because more people are desired inside the store. He said this will be a convenience for handicapped people or people who cannot get inside. He mentioned mothers who have children in a safety seat who need to pick up a prescription. He said the prescription can be sent through the vacuum system and the payment can be sent back, or the prescription can be dropped off and picked up later. He reiterated that there will not be a waiting situation. He said that use of the kiosk will be restricted, because they cannot service a lot of people in that area. He said the intent is to get the prescription tb people who cannot easily get inside the building. Mr. Bain asked if a handicapped person could leave the prescription, and come back at a later time to pick it up. Mr. Baughman answered, "yes." He said this is the intent. He is unsure about the previous statement, because his literature does not say that this window is just for prescriptions to be picked up. Mr. Bain read from the staff report which indicated that the prescrip- tions would be ordered by phone in advance. He asked if Mr. Baughman is saying that the window can also be used for dropping off prescriptions. Mr. +------ 1Il M.B. 42, Pg. 40 ...- I I July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (page 40) Baughman answered, 'yes." Mr. Bain then asked if a person could stay and wait for a prescription. Mr. Baughman replied, "no." Mr. Bowerman asked if people would be advised that they cannot w';lit for the prescription when they place the order. Mr. Baughman answered aff1rma- tively. He gave an example of a person who has a disability, and that person has a new prescription or a refill that is sent through the vaCl;lum system. He explained this person would leave and then come back later to p1ck up the prescription. Mr. Bowerman asked when the person would pay for the prescrip- tion. Mr. Baughman responded the prescription would be paid for when it is picked up. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the prescription was phoned in, and the person comes by the kiosk -to pick up it up, would he -or-she pay for. ,j..t at the time of pick up. He next wondered if a person drops off a prescription, and comes back to pick it up, will it be paid for at that time. Mr. Baughman answered, "yes," to both questions. Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Baughman has a time estimate for the transaction when the prescription is being picked up and paid for. Mr. Baughman answered the time for someone to pick up and pay for a prescription would be no more than three to five minutes, at the most. He said it would depend upon the particular clerk who was at the window, and how many telephone calls she received during the time that she is waiting on customers. Mr. Bain asked if the other businesses located in that area have been notified of this proposed kiosk. Mr. Baughman replied, "yes". Mr. Bowerman asked if there will be a handicapped parking area within the space. Mr. Baughman answered, "yes." He has talked to the landlord and this is what they came up with as a restrictive measure to keep everyone from coming to the window. He added that the main purpose is to get more people inside the building. He said the part of the building which holds prescrip- tions takes up not quite 1,000 square feet, and there is over 3,000 square feet of other merchandise for sale. ,r--'I i ! Mrs. Humphris read from the staff report which indicated that prescrip- tions would only be called in and then picked up at the kiosk, which was an indication to staff that more traffic would not be generated. She said now the Board is hearing that prescriptions can be brought in and picked up later. She asked how the customers can be kept happy, when they are told that there may be a 15 minute wait, and the customer chooses to sit in the special place and wait. She wondered how the customer can be invited to leave. Mr. Baughman stated that this is a problem. He said the customer would have to be informed of the use of the kiosk. He added that this could be done through advertising or at the time the prescription is ordered. Mrs. Humphris noted that if the special place is a normal handicapped parking space, there is nothing which would indicate the customer would have to leave it. Mr. Baughman responded that there would have to be wording on the handicapped sign. He said it would not be just the basic handicapped. sign. Mrs. Humphris asked if the applicant has the right to designate a space that is the applicant's alone for this particular purpose. Mr. Baughman answered, "yes." He said the landlord of the shopping center chose this spot for the kiosk. He said it was originally designated as a loading spot for trucks to unload goods for whoever was occupying the various buildings. Mrs. Humphris then wondered if there is another loading zone there. Mr. Baughman replied that, to his knowledge, the landlord has not designated any other loading zone, other than the normal parking spaces. Mr. Cilimherg stated that the staff reviewed elements to make sure loading was still adequately taken care of on the site, and it was. He said this request does not remove a loading area which was critical to the site plan approval. Mr. Tucker noted that this space is in excess of the normal requirement for handicapped spaces. Mr. Cilimherg agreed. He said handi- capped requirements have already been met with other spaces at the shopping center. ....... , Mr~. Humphris wondered, if there is a problem with this situation, will the publJ.c blame the owner, and not the supervisors. Mr. Baughman replied that the owner will be blamed for problems. There being no other public comment, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bain stated that he thinks there will be some administrative control difficulties which will have to be addressed, and he does not think the supervisors can do much in the way of addressing them, other than limiting the size,of the.area. He added that if the kiosk gets to be a problem, the appl1cant w1ll hear about it from the other businesses and the landlord so he thinks that it will be a private matter. ' At this time, Mr. Bain moved approval of SP-92-34 subject to the condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Humphris .econded the motion. -+-- f!l 'i ;,j M.B. 42, Pg. 41 July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (page 41) Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Marshall. r I (Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below:) 1. The outdoor kiosk shall not exceed twenty-one (21) inches in height and ten (10) inches in width. (Mr. Marshall returned to the meeting at this time.) Agenda Item No. 11. SP~92-38. Charlottesville Aquatics (applicant); United Land Corp of America (owner). Public Hearing on a request for outdoor storage & display of outdoor furniture items on 9.934 acs zoned HC & EC. Property on E side of Rt 29 S of & adjacent to South Fork Rivanna River in Federal Express Shopping Center. TM45Bl,PlB,Sec 6. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 1992.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report: "Character of the Area: This site is developed with a shopping center. Slopes between the river and the northern edge of the shopping center are in excess of 25 percent and are heavily wooded. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to locate a 10' x 50' deck display area on the building side closest to Route 29. Items to be stored shall be limited to patio furniture. (Attach- ment B) . - , i I I Backqround: Originally, this proposal envisioned a pool as well as a deck for outdoor display. On May 5, 1992, the Zoning Admin- istrator informed the applicant and property owner of four viola- tions on this site (see Attachment C). The applicant has with- drawn the pool proposal and has removed it from the site. Approv- al of this special use permit should be conditioned to rectify the remaining violations. Planninq and Zoninq Historv: The following outlines histo+y relevant to this application. The original site plan, (SDP-84- 067) Federal Express and Retail Office Building Site Plan, was approved on December 20, 1984, by the Board of Supervisors. Subsequently, additional phases were approved by the Planning Commission on December 17, 1987, and December 13, 1988. Present- ly, the owner is reconfiguring the northern entrance in accordance with SDP-9l-085. None of the approved site plans show the im- provements subject to this request. Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in 'Urban Neighborhood 2 and designated Community Service. SummarY and Recommendations: This request is being reviewed because of its location in the Entrance Corridor District. This use is by-right in the underlying district. The Architectural Review Board has granted a certificate of appropriateness subject to conditions. (See Attachment D). Staff has reviewed this special use permit for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Given the Architectural Review Board's recommendation, staff opinion is that the use should not otherwise be of detriment to adjacent properties nor will the character of the district otherwise change. Given the size and location of the deck, this use should be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-92-38 subject to the following condi- tions: - I I I r Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit and a Certifi- cate of Occupancy within thirty (30) days of Board of Super- visors approval or this special use permit approval shall terminate. Until the applicant has obtained a Certificate of Occupancy for the deck and a Certificate of Appropriate- ness, there shall be no use, storage or occupancy of the deck; 2. Staff approval of site plan amendment; 3. Compliance with Architectural Review Board action as out- lined in letter dated May 19, 1992; 4. Expansion of or addition to the outdoor storage uses, activ-