Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-14(May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 14, 2003, at 5:45 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 5:48 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Mandy Burbage was present to state her opposition to the Hollymead Town Center request which is on the agenda later tonight. She has concerns about traffic on Route 29 North. Mr. Steven Bach said he hopes the Board will ask the applicant to come up with a better way to allow citizens a way to use their bicycles. This would help reduce the traffic pressure on Route 29. Mr. Perkins said at the Board's last meeting, three of the five people who spoke under "Matters Not Listed on the Agenda" actually spoke about matters which were part of the official agenda. The Board needs some way to clarify what these people will be talking about. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Item 5.3 on the Consent Agenda, to accept Items 5.4 and 5.5 as information, to leave Item 5.1 for another meeting, and to take up Item 5.2 later in the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: February 5, 2003. No minutes had been read. Item 5.2. Resolution to Deny Napier Claim. (Note: This item will appear at the end of tonight's agenda. Item 5.3. Proclamation recognizing May 18 through May 24, 2003, as Emergency Medical Services Week. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following proclamation: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK Whereas, emergency medical services is a vital public service; and Whereas, the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in need twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week; and Whereas, access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; and Whereas, emergency medical services providers have traditionally served as the safety net of America's health care system; and Whereas, emergency medical services teams consist of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, educators, administrators, and others; and Whereas, nationally, approximately two-thirds of all emergency medical services providers are volunteers; and (May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Whereas, the members of emergency medical services teams, whether career or volunteer, engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills; and Whereas, residents of our community benefit daily from the knowledge and skills of these highly trained individuals; and Whereas, it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week; and Whereas, injury prevention and the appropriate use of the emergency medical services system will help reduce national health care costs; Now, Therefore, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, in recognition of this event, do hereby proclaim the week of May 18 through May 24, 2003 as EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK and encourage the community to observe this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. Item 5.4. Notice from the State Corporation Commission of an Application of Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power for Approval of Retail Access Pilot Programs (Case No. PUE-2003-00118), was received as information. Item 5.5. Copies of draft Planning Commission minutes of March 11, April 8 and April 22, 2003, were received as information. (Note) At 5:57 p.m., the Board recessed in order to attend the Albemarle County Police Department and Care and Support Enforcement 2003 Community Candlelight Service (Police Memorial Week) on the front steps of the County Office Building. The Board reconvened in Room 241 at 6:36 p.m. and continued with the agenda. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2002-063. CVS Pharmacy, Store #1554 Drive-In Window (Sign # 35). Public hearing on a request to allow drive-in window to serve retail pharmacy in accord w/Sec 22.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32, Ps 41A & 41D1, contains 1.85 acs. Loc on US Rt 29 N across the street from Timberwood Boulevard intersec. Znd C-1. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on April 26 and May 5, 2003.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the stafff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to develop the site as a CVS Pharmacy with a drive-in window at the corner of Route 29 and Timberwood Boulevard. He said the Planning Commission had a work session in November, 2002 to discuss this request along with the Hollymead Town Center request. Staff was concerned about how aspects of the design were affecting the ability to achieve certain principles of the Neighborhood Model. The applicant insisted that they use their standard prototype for the building. At the time, staff expressed a concern that this could set a precedent for future decisions, most notably on the out parcels proposed to be located adjacent to Route 29 North at the Hollymead Town Center. Mr. Cilimberg said the Architectural Review Board found no objections to the request. They recommended approval subject to conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 8, 2003, by a vote of 4:3 recommended approval subject to conditions. The Commission did change Condition No. 2 recommended by staff in order to be sure that certain infrastructure improvements would be provided along Timberwood Boulevard. Ms. Thomas said on Page 1 of the staff's report it is noted that there is no pedestrian connection to the public right-of-way. She said that seems to be strange. She asked if that can be required. Mr. Cilimberg said there will be a sidewalk along Timberwood Boulevard. With no further questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak. Ms. Jo Higgins and a representative from Kimley-Horn were present for the applicant. She said there is a CG12 ramp shown and a section of sidewalk that will run parallel to Route 29 to tie in with the sidewalk which is part of the condition added by the Commission. Mr. Kirk Cooper with Kimley-Horn Associates was present for CVS Pharmacy and REPKE (May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) Company. He said they have worked diligently with County staff to develop a site plan which addresses the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. It meets the needs of CVS Pharmacy. They have been before the ARB and Commission on several occasions. After listening to the concerns, they addressed many of them by making revisions to the site plan to address the Neighborhood issues. He said the ARB did not object to the request, and the Commission recommended approval. One row of parking was removed from the front of the building, and moved to the rear of the building. The building was moved 15 feet forward toward Route 29. This will allow CVS to work well with all of its neighbors. Approval of the drive-through on this site allows for a reduction of parking. In addition to moving a row of parking on the site, they took several other steps to insure that parking does not dominate the site or the building. They provided an unique, custom exterior for the store. It is not the prototypical exterior and it helps the building to become a focus while fitting into the scale and character of the existing area. He said it is critical for this retail use to have a single, controlled access front door with parking in close proximity. They understand the County's struggle with the new way of looking at parking, so they made significant changes to this site to address those concerns. They agree with the recommended conditions of approval. He is present to request approval of a special use permit for a drive-through window which is the primary reason for relocation of this store from its existing location at the Forest Lakes Shopping Center. Mr. Rooker asked if there has been discussion of a third lane being added to Route 29 and how that would impact the design of this property. Ms. Higgins said there is additional right-of-way along Route 29 to accommodate another lane. There being no further questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Ms. Thomas said the ARB wants the shrubs to be 36 inches high. Is there any way to be sure they are maintained at that height? Mr. Davis said if the site plan shows them at 36 inches in height, because that is a requirement of the ARB, the site plan will take care of that. Ms. Thomas asked if it is possible to make sure there is a pedestrian connection. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks the applicant has offered to do that. These are improvements which are not specifically part of the plan. Mr. Rooker said one of the ramps appears to be shorter than the other. Mr. Cilimberg said they all come up the north side going to Seminole Commons. Ms. Higgins said the ramp is shown, but not the crosswalk. Mr. Cilimberg said if that is going to be added to the written condition the pedestrian access could also be described. Ms. Thomas said it is covered if it is part of the March 3 plan, and then the Board could add to that. Mr. Davis asked when that would be constructed. Ms. Higgins said the crosswalk could be put in without any delay; it would be done with the painting of the parking lot to tie it to Seminole Commons. Mr. Rooker mentioned the March 3 plan and the cross-hatched area to the south that aligns with the sidewalk, and asked if that is the ramp being talked about. Ms. Higgins said there is a ramp at the curb for wheelchair access. Mr. Dorrier asked if there are any benches located outside of the store. Ms. Higgins said there could be, but in the City they had a problem about loitering in front of a store. She thinks a place to sit could be added. Mr. Dorrier said he mentioned it because the County is trying to get pedestrians to use the area, so there needs to be some place to sit, particularly if waiting for a prescription. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Davis had any language to add to the condition about the crosswalk. Mr. Davis said he thinks the Board is talking about the condition "A crosswalk shall be required to provide access across the parking lot to provide connection to parking shown on the site plan." Mr. Cilimberg said it might be better described as a connecting northern ramp. He said a ramp is at the end of that sidewalk. Mr. Davis asked if saying "Provide an access across the parking lot to connect to Seminole Commons" would be better language. At this point, Mr. Martin offered motion to approve SP-2002-063, CVS Pharmacy, Store #1554 Drive-In Window, with the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and an additional condition that would provide for a crosswalk between the ramp on the north side of the building, crossing over to Seminole Commons. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) The site shall be developed in general accord with the attached plans, entitled CVS/Pharmacy Site Plan, dated March 3, 2003, CVS Pharmacy Landscape Section, dated February, 2003, and CVS Pharmacy Landscape Perspective, dated February, 2003; Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the applicant shall either post a (May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) one (1) year term bond subject to the approval of the County Attorney and the Director of the Department of Engineering and Public Works for an amount sufficient to cover the cost of full frontage improvements along the Timberwood Boulevard extension, to include the construction of a one hundred (100) foot taper and one hundred (100) foot turn lane, the permanent entrance, street trees, and a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk or complete these required improvements. The bond may be extended annually, based upon the County Engineer's approval of a completion schedule for the proposed Timberwood Boulevard extension and the frontage improvements and upon adjusting the amount of the bond to cover the then current estimate of the amount necessary to complete the improvements, as shown on the CVS/Pharmacy Site Plan, dated March 3, 2003; Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, and review and approval of a revised landscaping plan to include the following: a. Provide alternative ground cover, shrubs that are suited for embankments, and replacement trees along the 2:1 slope area to the rear of the site. A blank slope with only ground cover is not appropriate; b. Revise the buffer shrub planting heights from twenty-four (24) inches to thirty-six (36) inches at time of planting; and c. Add one shade tree in each parking island east of the building, at the ends of the parking row fronting the building. Shade trees with fifteen (15) foot to twenty (20) foot maximum heights are appropriate. Revise the parking as required for adequate island width in those two (2) areas. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as by-pass lanes, signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the site plan; and A crosswalk shall be required to provide access across the parking lot from the ramp at the end of the sidewalk on the northeast corner of the CVS/Pharmacy building to the sidewalk on the southwest side of Seminole Commons. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-2001-019. Hollymead Town Center, Regional Service Area B (Sign #87). Public hearing on a request to rezone 24.7 acs from RA & HC to PD-MC to allow for shopping center. Portions of TM 32, Ps 41 D, 42B, 42C, 42D, 42E, 43, 43A & 44. Loc on Rt 29 N approx 1/4 mile S of Timberwood Boulevard/Rt 29 intersec. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as the Hollymead Town Center in the Hollymead Community & recommends Mixed Use/Regional Service uses.) Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on April 26 and May 5, 2003.) Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2001-063. Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In A". Public hearing on a request to allow drive-in window in accord w/Sec 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32, Ps 42B, 42C, 42D, 42E, 43 & 43A, is 24.7 acs. Loc on Rt 29 N approx 1/4 mile S of Timberwood Boulevard/Rt 29 intersec. Znd RA & HC. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on April 26 and May 5, 2003.) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2001-064. Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In B". Public hearing on a request to allow drive-in window in accord w/Sec 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32, Ps 42B, 42C, 42D, 42E, 43 & 43A, is 24.7 acs. Loc on Rt 29 N approx 1/4 mile S of the Timberwood Boulevard/Rt 29 intersec. Znd RA & HC. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on April 26 and May 5, 2003.) Mr. Tucker said the applicant has requested that these petitions be deferred until June 11,2003. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer these petitions to June 11, 2003. Mr. Rooker said he would like to know if there is anyone present who came to speak at the public hearing on these petitions. Before voting, he wants the Board to hear public comments. Mr. Martin said if the Board hears comments from citizens tonight, he thinks the applicant would want to speak also. Mr. Rooker said he has no objection if the applicant wishes to speak tonight. Mr. Davis said that procedurally, because there is a motion on the floor which has been seconded, unless the person making the motion consents to withdrawing the motion, the Board needs to take a vote unless there is a substitute motion. Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board can vote on the deferral, and then let the public speak. Mr. Rooker asked if the Board would open the public hearing. Mr. Davis said "no", it would just be taking public comments. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. (May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) NAYS: None. Mr. Dorrier asked if any member of the Board wanted to make a comment at this time. Mr. Jim Grimes asked if the applicant will be making changes between tonight and June 11. Mr. Martin said he assumes the deferral was requested to allow the applicant to have time to modify the plan or proffers. Ms. Thomas said the public should have access to whatever is given to the Board. Mr. Tucker said the public will have the information by June 6 when it is sent to the Board members. Mr. Rooker asked if the Board is going to hold a work session tonight on these requests. Mr. Dorrier said he had the Clerk send the Board members copies of all of the minutes dealing with the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Hollymead Town Center. At this time, Mr. Cilimberg briefed the Board concerning these petitions. He said it would be helpful for both the staff and the applicant to know of any issues the Board members may have. He said there are four areas which are in some stage of review at this time. Area []B[] would have been the subject of the public hearing tonight, which is the Dierman Realty proposal. Area "A" includes a large amount of the main street, as well as additional retail/commercial at the regional service level. That was deferred by the Commission at the applicant's agreement, to further define it. It is not scheduled yet for reconsideration by the Commission. Area "D" and Area "C" are two other applicants, and both of those proposals will be before the Commission on May 27. Mr. Cilimberg said that on Page 3 of the Executive Summary, staff identified some outstanding issues. He will not go over those in detail, but they are items staff felt should be addressed. Staff also provided recommendations of things which they feel, at a minimum, the applicant should make a commitment to if the Board approves this rezoning proposal as it currently stands. Mr. Cilimberg said that last week a letter was received from Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, which states that VDOT does not support the new median cut and signal on Route 29 proposed for the development at the existing cemetery entrance. Improvements proposed at this entrance are not sufficient to mitigate the impacts to the transportation infrastructure. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that is the reason the applicants asked for a deferral. Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Cilimberg expects the applicant to address that issue with a change in design. Mr. Cilimberg said he did not know. He said there were a series of transportation improvements adopted into the Comprehensive Plan by the Board before the amendment concerning the Hollymead Town Center was adopted. Area "B" fronts on a location on Route 29 where one of the recommenda-tions in the Comprehensive Plan had bearing on this project. That recommendation was that a crossover may be required if traffic conditions warrant. It left the decision as to the crossover to the result of a traffic study. In the Hollymead Town Center amendment that was listed as a critical ingredient for the main street concept. It will be a significant factor in consideration of this project. Mr. Cilimberg said there are other improvements on Route 29 North which were identified as part of the Comprehensive Plan change two years ago that bears a relationship to the project, but which does not address the frontage. Staff noted the possibility of getting a connection from Area "B" northward to Airport Road through the proposed main street. It is not in their development, but staff noted that it is an important factor. Since the Comprehensive Plan amendments were adopted, there are other transporta-tion system improvements which need to be considered (under review by CHART are ideas such as taking the main street from the town center and extending/connecting it to Hollymead Drive, and also going south and crossing the River and potentially connecting it to Berkmar Drive. That idea is not in any plan, but is part of the transportation improvements which have been before the Board for the last three years, and which are now under review by CHART). He said Areas "A", "D" and "C" are just as important to the overall picture and the overall relationship to Route 29. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Rooker noted a statement on Page 2 of the staff's report: "Unexpected changes include additional square footage for the big box, elimination of trees internal to the parking lot, elimination of tree- lined pedestrian interconnections, and addition of a loading dock adjacent to Route 29". He asked if that statement is still accurate, and if the trees internal to the parking lot were eliminated. Mr. Michael Barnes, Planner, said that statement refers to the difference between the plan the Commission reviewed and the plan before the Board this evening. Mr. Rooker asked the difference in the size of the big box between the time the Commission saw the plan on March 11,2003, and split 3:3 on the vote to approve ZMA-2001-010, SP-2002-064 and SP-2002-064, Area "B" proposals, and what the Board received in its materials for this meeting. Mr. Barnes said that previously the big box was 142,000 square feet. They added a little to the plan (85 feet by 178 feet). Mr. Rooker said that is 16,000 square feet. (May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin both asked that the applicant be allowed to speak. Mr. Rooker said he wants to understand the nature of the changes made by the applicant, and why they were made. From the public's perspective, if you look at Comprehensive Plan criteria, he thinks they are negative changes. He asked why the Architectural Review Board (ARB) should not review this proposal before this Board does. Other than that, hopefully the seven issues raised by staff (see Page 4 of staff's report) will be addressed by the applicant in the proffers. Ms. Thomas said there is also the question of whether Area "A" has been so impacted by the grading that it makes it difficult to complete Area "A". The Board needs to be sure that the decisions being made do not preclude other things assumed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rooker said he has concerns because Area "A" did not come forward with the rest of the proposals. He said the inducement for the Board to approve the change in the Comprehensive Plan, included all of the areas at one time and the building out of the town center. Looking at the map, Area "A" is the heart of the town center. What the Board has before it now is Area "B" and he does not think the Board would have approved Area "B" as a separate item in the configuration presented today. It is a different matter to look at Area "A" and not know if it will ever develop in the form being looked at on the map. He thinks that is a significant concern; the Board ends up getting the shaft, and the goal never gets produced. Mr. Martin said Areas "B", "D" and "C" are all coming to the Board on June 11, and "A" has to take place. When it does, the Board will get a chance to review it just like it is reviewing the other areas. "A" then becomes more critical and is like the Comprehensive Plan expects it to be. He thinks the Board knew that Area "B" would come first. Mr. Rooker said in reading the minutes of the Commission, the developer talked about Area "A" and said it might develop out in ten years, or maybe it would be 15 years. He envisioned that this whole thing would move forward as a single application plan, and when the Board acted on a rezoning for this property it would be acting on it as a whole so the Board would be assured that the plan was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For example: Area "B" by itself has no open space. Mr. Bowerman said all the pieces fit together. The Comprehensive Plan amendment said the whole thing stands as a whole, or falls individually. Mr. Tucker said he understands the proffers will address what Mr. Rooker said in terms of Area "A". Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to have proffers for this development. Ms. Thomas said she wants to be sure that nothing is done which precludes or makes it difficult for Area "A". She assumes the applicants are making notes today of what the Board members have said, and that the Chairman will give them an opportunity to speak. Mr. Dorrier said the master plan by Daggett & Grigg is also part of the Board's materials today (Attachment G-5). He asked if that is still the overlying master plan for the project. Mr. Cilimberg said that is a Comprehensive Plan reference. There are some changes from that master plan based on their closer look at how to provide for roads and development. Mr. Rooker asked about the road shown across the middle of the property. Mr. Cilimberg said that road is shown in the location where the big box will be located. Mr. Rooker said an important feature of the road network was to have a series of roads parallel to Route 29 through this property, so there could be walking in the area. Now, instead of having a road which parallels Route 29, there is a building in the middle of the property. Mr. Cilimberg said within their shopping center is where they are providing the connection that otherwise would have been provided through the road shown on the master plan and in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Martin said they also pulled the stores closer to that road and put parking over to the side. Mr. Rooker asked where the road connects on the south. Mr. Cilimberg said the movement provided by the road shown in the master plan is along this part of the center, and then down to the front of the supermarket. Mr. Rooker asked if that is considered a road in front of the supermarket. Mr. Cilimberg said they are considered accessways. There are also travel aisles. Mr. Rooker said there is a difference between a travel aisle and a road. Mr. Martin suggested having the applicant answer Mr. Rooker's questions. Mr. Steve Blaine said he was present to represent the applicants. He said as to the size of the Target Store, they did not intend to increase or change the size of the store. They tried to address some of the comments from the Commission and from the ARB. One of the comments was to increase some massing on the frontage along Route 29. An earlier plan showed much smaller stores fronting on Route 29, with not so much of a sense of place and a streetscape. To address that, they moved retail to another location and increased the size of other buildings. This was in direct response to Commission comments. As a result, in order to accommodate parking for these structures and Target, the Target store was thinned down so it appears to be a longer frontage. It was also done to reduce the frontage on Route 29. When the site plan is done, and the store measured, it should still be about 143,000 square feet. It was not the intent to eliminate trees from the previous plan. An application plan was submitted, but not a landscaping (May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) plan. They will put in the landscaping plan, which will be critiqued by the ARB, and the preliminary site plan, and will add trees along the drive aisles where sidewalk improvements will be located. If necessary, sidewalk grates. In terms of the road network in the Comprehensive Plan, what was done with the landowners was to adapt uses to basic grid patterns. The idea was to provide a grid pattern and through access, and where possible, to provide that pedestrian streetscape. He then explained some of the parking patterns, two-thirds of which will be relegated. He said that in terms of a through nature, the road was always designed to connect to Timberwood and then access Route 29. Its essence is the same as in the Comprehensive Plan, but the road evolved to accommodate the particular uses and grades. In terms of Area "A", Mr. Rooker raised a point which was discussed in numerous work sessions with the Commission. He said the owner submitted an application for rezoning of this area which depicts just the plan the Board wishes to have implemented. His application was deferred by the Commission, and he encourages the Board to advance that plan. Mr. Rooker said he understood it was a joint decision to defer the application for Area "A". The Commission did not think they had adequate information in order to take action on the request. Mr. Blaine said Mr. Rooker expressed concern about making sure Area "A" is developed. The Board has a willing landowner putting forth land to be developed. It is proposed to be developed as the Board wishes. If the Board, on its own motion, decided to rezone the land in conformance with that plan that would not guarantee that it would be built. Just rezoning and planning does not bring the actual buildings. The market will dictate that. Mr. Rooker said the applicant could have provided the necessary details for Area "A" so the Commission could act. Mr. Blaine said those details will evolve right down to trees in the street and proffers that will address those. That is what is left on Area "A". He said the Board holds the entitlements (the cards) for that. Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant has a binding commitment from Target at this time that they will locate in this area. Mr. Blaine said that is proprietary. Target has indicated by letter of intent that they will locate in this center. The rezoning has to happen first. Mr. Rooker said it has been mentioned several times that it is a Target center, but a rezoning is not retailer specific. Mr. Blaine said that is correct. The applicant hopes the Board will consider this rezoning based on its merits and not based on a store name. Ms. Thomas said staff indicated the ARB has not completed its review. Mr. Blaine said as part of the preliminary site plan approval, a certificate of appropriateness must be obtained. A preliminary site plan was submitted, but they were told the plan could not be processed without having the land rezoned. Mr. Bowerman asked how the Board can get the ARB's input when the land has not been rezoned. Mr. Cilimberg said, the plan, in an earlier form, was before the ARB. The plan given to the Board tonight was received shortly before this meeting. Ms. Thomas asked if the ARB could complete its review before these petitions come back to the Board on June 11. Mr. Cilimberg said not for a certificate of appropriateness, but they could make comments. Mr. Tucker said he understood Mr. Blaine to say the applicant amended the plan to accommodate what the ARB recommended in terms of the massing of the buildings on Route 29. Ms. Thomas said the grading appears to make it difficult to develop Area "A". Mr. Blaine said the grading is to accommodate this site and Area "A". The owner of both areas is the same, and is proceeding with a plan of development. The design has been done in a way so there could be shared parking behind the two retail stores which will front on access Area "A". The grading and design is in concert, so they don't understand that comment by staff. Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful if that were worked out so staff understands it in the same way as the applicant. Mr. Barnes said a couple of things are taking place. Significant grading is required on Area "A", removal of as much as 20 feet from the top of the hill. Grading plans were provided to staff, but it is not clear whether some of the road grades are feasible. There are questions about what type of retaining walls might be needed on the ridge. Mr. Rooker asked if there are retaining walls between Area "A" and Area "B". He asked if Mr. Blaine had an idea of how the grading is taking place. Mr. Blaine said the change in grade between Route 29 and Ridge Road is significant. The way that has been addressed on the Area "B" site plan is to step up and use grade arms and landscaping bays to break that up so it was not a single five percent, or seven percent slope in the parking lot. There have been deliberate landscaping techniques using small retaining walls and berms between Area "A" and Area "B". There is a plan on Area "A" to use structured parking and two-story buildings to adapt to that terrain differential. For Area "A", the applicant is designing to address the change in grade. It will accommodate the type of development this developer of Area "A" anticipates. Mr. Martin mentioned stormwater detention, and the fact that staff said there be may some inappropriateness, although Mr. Blaine said it has been worked out. Mr. Blaine said the statement is that on-site stormwater management cannot be accommodated. That is not true. It is being accommodated using a 30-foot berm that is located behind the Target store. That is not shown on the Application Plan. On the preliminary site plan which was submitted, but which no one is reviewing, it shows that it can be accommodated. That will be an engineering exercise on which the Engineering staff will make recommendations as to how to use additional on-site stormwater management. He would rather the staff comment be "It does not appear from the Application Plan that it is being accommodated". That would be (May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) an accurate statement. Mr. Rooker asked if the detention area mentioned is only on Area "B". Mr. Blaine said that is another matter. He was only talking about the comment about on-site management. The off-site facility which will accommodate the southern third of the project is a regional facility which is what was contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. The one-third of the site which drains to the south will be accommodated by that area on Area "A". There will need to be easements and accommodations to address that. Mr. Rooker asked how that is covered in the Application Plan if it is off-site. He thinks it should be dealt with in a proffer. Mr. Blaine said it is a fairly standard thing with an off-site facility in a site plan, but he does not see a problem with adding a proffer. Ms. Thomas said she is more nervous about stormwater than just a few months ago. The County must now treat stormwater. The County and the taxpayers will be responsible for stormwater which is not done right in the first place. This will be the first big plan coming to the Board after the County submits its NPDES Plan. Most of what is read about stormwater calls for a stormwater plan for the whole area ahead of time. She asked if that is being done in this case. Mr. Rooker said to the extent that the applicant controls the area which is the primary stormwater treatment area for Area "B", he should be tied to doing that as part of this plan. Mr. Tucker said the applicant cannot get approval of a site plan unless they can accommodate stormwater. Mr. Davis said the issue is whether or not the Board wants to guarantee that the regional facility is located in some particular spot. At the site plan stage, the applicant will have to either accommodate all the stormwater on site, or have a reasonable alternative to accommodate it offsite. The site plan does not guarantee it will be in any particular location, so if that is an issue for the Board, then it needs to be dealt with at the zoning stage. Mr. Rooker said there is no plan for Area "A", but they seem to be making that facility large enough that it is somewhat of an amenity. He thinks it is important to assure that for Area "B" stormwater detention takes place. Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, said his office is still working with the applicant on the large basin on Area "A". Not all the issues are resolved. There are issues about the amount of intrusion into the stream buffer. Whether the facility can be sized to serve the entire area is still a concern. He said Mr. David Hirschman has been advocating for more source control, capturing the stormwater with some infiltration, some bio-swales and things at the source, rather than relying strictly on an end-of-pipe solution. He said that not all of this has to be resolved as part of the rezoning. They would like to have a concept that they are confident can go forward. Ms. Thomas asked if staff could have a concept for the public hearing that they feel would be workable. Would that suffice for the other concept of having a stormwater plan for a development this big? Mr. Graham said in an ideal world there would be a comprehensive stormwater management plan for this as a single development, but that is not what is happening. It is being dealt with on an application-by- application basis. Originally, they considered a sizeable regional facility down in the upper end of the stream, but the State has recently changed their criteria for protection of streams, and the State said the County cannot get a permit in order to have a true regional facility. Staff is working with a solution which has a lot of compromises. He has not seen anything with the rezoning that would restrict staff's ability to insure compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance at the time of site plan. Mr. Rooker asked if the large basin on the southern part of Area "A" will end up being part of the overall stormwater treatment for this property. Mr. Graham said it will be for a good portion of the property. There are issues which must still be resolved, but not necessarily before the time of rezoning. Ms. Thomas asked what this proposal does to Route 29. She said the Rio Road intersection has 30 lanes in it now; it is the largest intersection in the State. According to her calculations, that same size intersection would be at Woodbrook Drive and at Timberwood Boulevard and at Proffit Road. Of course, the State does not have the money needed to do any improvements. The Comprehensive Plan, and work with the Eastern Planning Initiative, and other work with CHART, suggests that some alternative roads be done, some true city blocks be made so that people can get around without every single trip having to go on Route 29. Mr. Martin said one of the things he said to the applicant yesterday, was to use a CDA to suggest some kind of partnership with the County and VDOT to get a bridge across the River so this road might connect to Berkmar. Mr. Rooker said if the Board approves this development, he is in favor of having a proffer in hand that they would participate in a CDA. As Ms. Thomas said, there are probably over $100.0 million of needed road improvements from Wal-Mart northward on Route 29. Mr. Bowerman said all of those improvements are not necessitated by this development. Mr. Rooker said the need for the improvements is greatly accelerated by this development, and a number of these improvements might never be required without this development. (May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Ms. Thomas said it is a regional attractor, so it has a different level of traffic than a neighborhood shopping area. Mr. Rooker said in terms of the package of improvements that will ultimately be decided upon for the Route 29 corridor, cost/benefit studies are needed to assure that whatever package of improvements will be implemented, the County gets the most for its money. There is talk of a bridge over the River, and the bridge on Route 29 was just widened. He does not disagree that it is an improvement that should be looked at. What would the adding of that crossing do for traffic in that corridor, and what is its cost? Hopefully CHART will get some rough estimates of cost and also have traffic models run to see what they do to improve the traffic flow. Mr. Martin said it would make this into a great parallel road such as Berkmar Drive. Everything is moving more and more toward the possibility of the County having to share in the cost of any improvements. Another CDA has been mentioned, and now there is the idea of having one for this project. Mr. Bowerman said Berkmar was started privately behind Wal-Mart and Rio Hills Shopping Center, and the County came in and finished the road. Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would probably cost $30.0 million or more for a bridge to cross the River. Mr. Dorrier said he thought a CDA would come back to the Board at a later date. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the Board is encouraging these developers, and the developers of Albemarle Place, to at least proffer to participate in a CDA. They may or may not be reviewed concurrently with a development. That is not necessary. There is still a lot of transportation planning needed along the entire corridor, even from the Route 250 Bypass northward to the area in question. Maybe the City might even be a part of this as a solution to some traffic problems. Ms. Thomas asked if there were a proffer for a CDA and then the cost of putting in a bridge and dealing with other transportation impacts adds 50 cents to the tax rate. Mr. Davis said there is a 25-cent maximum on the tax rate unless all property owners agree to a higher rate. It has to be unanimous agreement. Ms. Thomas said hypothetically, can a proffer still hold if the cost were more than originally thought? Mr. Davis said the proffer envisioned is a proffer where the applicants petition for and stay in a CDA once it is formed by the County within the framework of the statute. Mr. Rooker said the Albemarle Place developer has already said they would participate in a CDA. Mr. Martin said North Pointe is the group that first brought it to his attention. Ms. Thomas said they want a different sort of CDA. Mr. Davis said the key to the rate is the cost of the improvements and the assessed values of the properties that are included to pay for the debt service. Ms. Thomas said at this stage of the zoning process, it is the Board's responsibility to be sure it is not bringing about something that will essentially be an attractive nuisance, that is to cause the failure of the transportation system on Route 29, which is what the application does at this point. If the Board makes its decision based on the assumption that it can keep the transportation system from failing because there may be a CDA, she wants the Board members to be clear about what a CDA can do and how these applicants can be bound to that CDA. Otherwise, the Board will have put upon the community a failing transportation system. The Board's responsibility under the State's enabling legislation for zoning is not to do that. That is the reason she is asking what a CDA can do. Mr. Martin said he is not pining his hopes to a CDA. He thinks Ms. Thomas is. He is saying it is a plausible solution and gives the Board better ideas and more opportunities. In his opinion, since the Board first told these applicants to go forth and bring back a plan for this area, with the County working on a master plan for Crozet, with the County trying to increase densities in the growth areas, the Board has known that traffic problems would be created. The Board is doing this with the purpose of keeping residential development out of the rural area. To him, the Board knows there is a traffic issue. He said VDOT was supposed to be in the process now of building extra lanes on Route 29 along with parallel lanes to Route 29. They shut down that process. He is not willing to base everything on one issue. The question is whether the Board is willing to protect the rural area. If this request is voted down, what will happen to the residential areas. Ms. Thomas said she wants to be sure the Board knows as much as possible about how to solve what is otherwise a failure of the County's main transportation link. Mr. Rooker said this proposal by itself increases the traffic in the Route 29 corridor by one hundred percent. The Board needs to have its eyes open when reviewing these requests. Mr. Martin agreed. It sounds like the Board would like to be able to convince these developers to provide a Grade A travelway in that area when it is not good during rush hour at this time. Ms. Thomas said the staff's report and VDOT only talk about not making it worse. Neither says it has to be raised in service level. (May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Martin said it is an issue that the Board needs to work through. Mr. Dorrier said between now and June 11, the transportation issues will be studied by staff. He asked if Board members had further comments tonight. Agenda Item No. 10. Appoint Georgina Knisley as Senior Deputy Clerk. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to appoint Georgina Knisley as Senior Deputy Clerk through December 31,2003. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Bowerman said the Board has a resolution to deny a claim against the County which the Board discussed during closed session. Motion to adopt the following resolution to deny a claim asserted by Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM ASSERTED BY CAROLYN NAPIER AND STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY WHEREAS, Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, by counsel, have asserted a claim for damages in the amount of $121,059.06 against the County of Albemarle, as specifically set forth in a letter dated April 7, 2003, arising from alleged damages to property in connection with certain storm drainage improvements that occurred in 2000; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors previously denied a claim asserted by these parties in May, 2002 for these same damages; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the present claim is, again, not supported by the facts or by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, denies the claim of Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company for alleged damages in the amount of $121,059.06. Ms. Thomas said the public is just becoming aware that the County will no longer be offering the Blue Bag Recycling Program. Ms. Diana LaSauce, who is a member of the RWSA Citizens Advisory Committee pointed out that the Advisory Committee wrote the Board a letter over a month ago with suggestions. Ms. Thomas said she has encouraged Ms. LaSauce to update that letter and resubmit it. She said the County's Engineering Department will be working on some plan. It may be something to be publicized because some of the problems with recycling are national problems. Mr. Mark Graham said this is a Strategic plan objective. Staff is looking for a steering committee team now. One of the first things to do is to work out a schedule. Staff anticipates that during the Summer it will be a staff effort assembling materials. In the Fall, there will be a number of public forums. One of the things which they would like to do is bring in the various focus groups, one at a time and make sure the County understands their concerns and issues. Mr. Rooker said at the MPO meeting this morning cost estimates were given for the Hydraulic Road triangle traffic study and its package of projects, the cost is estimated at $170.0 million. Mr. Bowerman asked what the package of projects is. Mr. Rooker said the study recommends an overpass at Hydraulic, connecting Hillsdale to Angus Road and running Angus Road under Route 29, a whole package of improvements. Mr. Dorrier said the Virginia Work Force Strategic Planning session is on June 4 in the evening in Alexandria. (May 14, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 08/06/2003 Initials: GKS