Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP199500032 Action Letter n ,..., ~;1 r'i iJ Sf 'ts-3 'L. December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) Item No. 5.2c. Appropriatioli: C;:At,:p..el,~uQ';'vc 3~LV';'CeS Act (Po~." use..?). (Deleted from &qencla.) 000255 $1,633,374, Item No. 52d. statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional jail and Clerk, Circuit Court for the month of November, 1995, were approved by the above recorded vote. Item No. 5.3. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for November 14 and Novrneber 28, 1995, were received for information. Item No. 5.4. Abstract of Votes cast in the County of Albemarle, virginia, at the November 7, 1995, General Election, was received for informa- tion. Item No. 5.5. Copy of Albemarle county Service Authority's Capital Improvement Program for the period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 2000, was received for information. Item No. 5.6. 1994 Annual Report for the Albemarle County Planning Commission, was received for information. Item No. 5.7. Letter dated November 29, 1995 from the Honorable George Allen, Governor, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing notice that Jay Graves was reappointed to the Rockfish State Scenic River Advisory Board, was received for information. Item No. 5.8. Memorandum dated December 12, 1995, from Mr. Robert w. Tucker, Jr., county Executive, to the Board of Supervisors, re: Ivy Landfill Issues, was received for information. Item No. 5.9. 1994 Development Activity Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for informa- tion. Agenda Item No.6. SP-95-32. Tiger Fuel Company. Public Hearing on a request to establish a drive-in window on 0.9 ac zoned HC & EC on property located in NW corner of inters of Rts 250/20. TM78,P4. Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from November 15, 1995.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 30 and November 5, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg said at its meeting on November 15, 1995, the Board deferred action on this request to allow additional review of a design alternative for access to this site as requested by the applicant. This design.alternative makes use of a "slip ramp" off Route 20 onto the site allowing for right in only movements. originally the staff recommended keeping the Route 250 East entrances open, close the full entrance on Route 20 and have access through the McDonald's site for any of the Route 20 South and Route 20 North traffic that would want to come into the site from this direction. The county's Engineering Department and VDoT do not recommend the "slip ramp" as proposed and continue to support the original conditions of approval. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board also requested additional information on how vehicles exiting this site would access Route 250 East and Route 20 North without making use of the McDonalds site. All vehicles leaving this site and wanting to go east on Route 250 or north on Route 20 would need to exit the site, travel west on Route 250 to the River Road/Route 250 intersection and then make a U-turn. The Board requested information on any discussion which occurred during the review of the McDonalds site plan/special use permit which addressed the provision of access through McDonalds to this site. During the review of McDonalds, access to the property was required to aid future development. The layout of the drive thru at McDonalds is such that it allows for the access to the adjacent property to function. As part of site plan approval, there is an easement provided for this property to access through McDonalds to Route 20 North. A question regarding the adequacy of parking was raised by the Board. The site plan for this project has not been accepted for review by the site review committee. A determination of the required parking will occur with the review of the site plan. The parking calculations provided on the site plan are in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Revision to the ~ Il Spl'lS -3 '2. December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 000256 parking layout will likely occur if the entrance to Route 20 is closed/ modified and if access to the McDonalds site is provided. Mr. Cilimberg said staff continues to recommend the original concept of an access through McDonalds parking lot, the two access points on Route 250 East and closing the Route 20 North access. n Mr. Marshall asked why staff recommended denial of a new slip lane from Route 20 into the site. Mr. Cilimberg referred to a letter, dated December 6, 1995, from Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, which addressed this issue. The letter states that: "1) No exit is provided for northern or eastern destinations. Drivers would have to exit west, cross the Rivanna River bridge, and make a U-turn at the signal and return to the Route 250/20 intersection or make an illegal exit from the 'slip lane'. The design as provided will not prohibit illegal exits. A longer lane would be necessary in order to give the driver the sense of entering the wrong way into a one-way lane or 'ramp'; 2} It is not absolutely necessary for vehicles southbound on Route 20 to enter the site from Route 20 since the entrances on Route 250 could adequately serve this traffic." Mr. Marshall said he read those comments, but do not necessarily agree with them. He cannot make a right turn on red from Route 20 because it conflicts with traffic turning left onto Route 250 from the Pantops Shopping Center. At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. David Sutton, President of Tiger Fuel, said this proposal is to buid a combination Wendy's/Texaco gas station. He supports the staff's recommend- ation with the exception of the condition requiring the closure of the entrance from Route 20 South and requiring an entrance through McDonalds. It presents a severe hardship to them in operating this site. He does not believe the staff's depiction of the slip lane is accurate. He presented a picture of his perception of the slip lane. This lane is narrow and will only be twelve feet in width which will only permit one car to travel through the lane. If necessary, it can be reduced to ten feet. It is at a steep angle. He believes the angle is such that if signage was provided that said "no exit", people would not try to use it as an exit. He does not believe drivers would try to make a left turn and he disagrees entirely with the concerns staff expressed. n Mr. Martin asked why it would be an inconvenience to turn into the site from Route 250 West. Mr. Sutton said he believes that if somebody wants to go east, they are not going to use this site; that is just the practicality of the site. There are several factors that are inconvenient. The first is the county would be forcing this person to come through a difficult intersection and make this turn as opposed to an easy and gradual access. If this access lane is opened up to McDonalds, Texaco would lose five parking spaces because the access comes through their parking lot. Without the five parking spaces, they cannot meet parking requirements for site development. In addition, there is no cooperation from McDonalds. McDonalds does not want this access. Texaco does not have the ability to require McDonalds to cooperate or install signage notifying people about access to the site. Texaco cannot mark this is a potential access to the property. Furthermore, it creates a great deal of concern to him that McDonalds customers might view the access as a thorough- fare and make it difficult for them to utilize the site. The staff report indicates that at the original hearings, there was no agreement nor consensus that this was the practical way to do things. The only agreement was the staff wanted to make sure the access was in place so it could be considered in the future. He thinks there was a great deal of dissent about whether that was the best way to handle access to these two lots. n " , Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would prefer to have only the two entrances from Route 250, if he could not have the slip lane. Mr. Sutton replied, "yes", which, as he stated previously, would make it difficult for them to be in compliance. The only other way they could comply would be to have a variance on the ten foot setbacks which then would allow the possibil- ity of creating parking in the area shown for the slip lane. The variance would allow them to replace the lost parking. This access creates an immense amount of problems for them. He feels the traffic created from this access is counter productive to what they are trying on the site. He thinks if they can keep traffic internal on this lot, it would flow smoothly. He does not see the benefits of forcing two adjoining property owners to do something neither wants to do. McDonalds is concerned about the safety of its pedestrian patrons. He thinks the slip lane is an opportunity to reduce accidents from occurring at the intersection. Furthermore, during negotiations with the Highway Department on this site when it took the additional right-of-way, it was represented by the Highway Department that these entrances would stay. That was a major part of negotiating with them as to what the compensation would be for taking part of the right-Of-way. The Highway Department repre- sented that the entrances would stay and they would reconstruct them. He has a problem with the Highway Department coming back at this time and saying this entrance is now unsafe. If it was unsafe, why did they rebuild it and put it back. Prior to this proposal there was a very intensive use with lots of traffic on the site. He has no problem with removing the entrance because it will cause problems if people are allowed to exit through it, but he thinks r--.--------.----.--~-- ._._____..,'__L-__._..__~__ __w________ __!..:....--_~ S'f qS--32 December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 000257 the slip lane, as designed with as a long narrow lane and proper signage, could easily provide the safety and ease of traffic the applicants desire. He urged the Board to approve the request without the condition that the entrance/exit to Route 20 be closed. Mrs. Thomas asked how traffic from both directions would be able to use the gasoline pumps. Mr. sutton said even with a car parked at the gasoline pumps, the pumps are far enough apart to allow a lane of traffic between the two cars. n Mrs. Thomas said she does not think she quite pictures the danger of turning right from Route 20 to Route 250 and going into the lot since it does have two entrances. Mr. sutton said when it is a corner site, there is the potential that traffic will cross through the lot to avoid the light, but that is not something that happens often. There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Martin said he understands some of the concerns that were presented, but he thinks the slip lane would create problems with people trying to make a left turn. The slip lane creates just as much of a through-way as access through McDonalds. He understands what Mr. sutton said about the parking and that it might prohibit him from doing more on the site. Mr. Martin asked about the rationale of maintaining the access between this property and the McDonalds site. Mr. Cilimberg said users could head back north on Route 20 or those that are headed east on Route 20 could come out to this intersection and simply have a right or left to take as opposed to coming down to the light on Route 250 and taking a U-turn. It does obviously give McDonalds customers an access to Route 250 without getting out onto Route 20. Mrs. Thomas asked if the County is requiring the access. Mr. Cilimberg said one of the conditions recommended by staff was to allow for access here in lieu of some traffic on Route 20 and U-turn movements. o Mr. Marshall asked about the parking requirements. Mr. Cilimberg said parking requirements are a site plan issue. Obviously parking, as everything in site development, has to be based on the ability of the site to handle the use. If this is provided as an access way between McDonalds and this site, the applicant will have to deal with the parking issue. A variance is available to him, if necessary. Mrs. Humphris asked if it was not a policy to have these properties connect. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff attempted to work more towards having cross easements. That was pointed out at the McDonalds site plan by the representative from McDonalds. The McDonalds property was purchased from Texaco and the contractual agreement indicates that an easement was arranged from both directions to both properties. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks the arrangement may be undesired by the owners now, but it is legal. Mrs. Humphris said in the discussion in the minutes of the July, 1992, the McDonalds representatives said they were not concerned about that connec- tion and they had no objection. There was nothing in that discussion to show they had any objections or problems. r LJ Mr. Bowerman said it has been a policy issue when there is a corner lot and an undivided highway like Route 20 North. It is problematic to have a full entrance/exit because, at certain times of the day, the traffic that backs up on Route 20 from the light cuts off that entrance/exit. The Highway Department has not been willing to agree with that. If you look at the Hardees at Rio Road and Route 29 North, there are four uses there served by two entrances. There are cross easements across all of those lots to allow access through those properties. Rio Road, in that vicinity, is a divided highway, but when that was done about sixteen years, it was a policy of the Board and Commission to try to limit the access points to all these types of major highways. That is the reason this was required of McDonalds. He thinks this is exactly what the Board contemplated. Mr. Martin said he agrees. He does not think it would be a great hardship and he thinks the Board would be following an established policy to maintain the connection between this site and McDonalds. He is concerned if it rises to the level that the person cannot do what he wants to do on the property because of parking regulations, since the Board has no control over variances. Mr. Bowerman asked if Texaco owned this corner lot when the other lot was cut off to McDonalds. Mr. sutton replied, "yes", but the reason there was such cooperation was that it would be a gasoline location, not a fast food restaurant. At that time McDonalds did not think it would be a competing fast food restaurant. ,--~-------------_.~----~---'-_.. Sf'QS--:32.. 000258 December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Mrs. Humphris said the Board is looking at a bigger problem than just the slip lane. The taxpayers just invested a lot of money in all the improve- ments to the bridge, Route 250 East and Route 20 North. She thinks the use contemplated for this property is too intense. The proposed uses are big traffic attractors. She thinks the Board needs to think about whether it should allow the drive-thru windows which are going to create that additional traffic and cause the extra parking problems. n Mr. Perkins said he is disappointed with VDOT if they negotiated to purchase property from this site, and said the property owner could have these entrances on Route 20 and Route 250, and now are saying they cannot have the entrances. Mr. Bowerman said he understands Mr. Sutton's desire to have the highest use of the property and his arguments. To a certain extent there is validity to those arguments, but he is not convinced they override the logic of having full access to this property by the connection through to McDonalds. He does not have a problem with this because he thinks Mr. Sutton will be able to utilize the site efficiently. He personally thinks it would be more to McDonalds benefit because their customers can come right through after buying gasoline. MOtion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-95-32 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. Mrs. Humphris. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1. No direct access to Route 20 shall be permitted; 2. Access to Route 20 through Tax Map 78, Parcel 4A (McDonald's site) shall be required; 3. Provision of a raised curb to separate the drive-thru lane from the travel lanes; n ~ I . 4. Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled "Pantops Texaco" dated August l4, 1995 (copy on file), except as the plan shall be amended to address the above conditions and the recommendations of the Site Review Committee. Agenda Item No.7. SP-95-34. virginia Electric & Power Company. Public Hearing on a request to establish an electrical substation on approx 7 ac zoned RA & EC. Property on S sd of Rt 53 approx 900 ft E of Rt 729. TM93,P47L. scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff opinion is that approval of this petition would satisfy a legitimate public purpose. The proposal adequately satisfies the criteria for issuance of a special use permit and staff recommends approval subject to three conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 28, 1995, unanimously recommended approval of SP-95-34 subject to the three conditions recommended by the staff. Mrs. Thomas asked if the substation makes any noise. Mr. Cilimberg said it hums a little bit. ,..., t Mrs. Humphris asked if the staff asks questions about magnetic fields when dealing with power substations. Mr. Cilimberg said magnetic fields are area still a learning process for staff, but staff does ask questions they are knowledgeable about. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jeff HutChinson, Regional Manager for the Piedmont Region of Virginia Power, said this proposal is to install a substation and two addi- tional circuits to serve Virginia Power's customers east of the City of Charlottesville. It is needed to relieve overloading of the circuits in that area. He then introduced Elizabeth Harper, Project Coordinator, and Don Koontz, Director of Transmission Standards and Technology, who were present. Mrs. Humphris asked what was the magnetic field reading at the substa- tion. Mr. Koontz said Virginia Power modeled the existing transmission corridor with the peak loads that have been on that line. At the edge of the