1987-09-02 164
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on September 2, 1987, at 7:30 P. M., in the Auditorium of
the County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P. M., by the
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke,
seconded by Mr. Way, to approve 4.1 and 4.2 and to accept the remaining items
on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher,~ Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Request for a street sign to identify State Route 601 (Old
Garth Road), having been received from Mrs. H. Patricia Pedersen, the
following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS request has been received for street sign to identify
the following road:
Old Garth Road (State Route 601) at~ its intersection with
the U. S. Routes 29/250 south bypass ramp and Old Ivy Road
(State Route 601); i
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the
Office of the County Executive and conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Transportation: ~/
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the virginia Department of Transpor-
tation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain
the above-mentioned street sign. ~
Item 4.2. Statements of Expenses to theiCompensation Board for the
Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for
the month of July, 1987, were approved as pre~ented.
Item 4.3. Letter from 'the Chairman of t~e Board addressed to Mr. John A.
Sanderson, Greenwood Citizen's Council, in response to concerns about the
Greenwood Chemical Plant, received as information.
Item 4.4. A copy of the Planning CommisSion's minutes for August 11 and
August 18, 1987, received as information.
Item 4.5. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for the Month of
July, 1987, received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5.
1987.)
ZTA-87-4.
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Health Resort. (Deferred from August 5,
Before hearing the Supplemental Staff Report, Mr. Fisher said that what
is before the Board is whether or not the Rural Areas of the County as
presently defined in the Zoning Ordinance should be changed to allow health
resorts, and if changed, what conditions should be built into the Zoning
Ordinance to permit such health resorts. He said there will be a public
hearing after presentation of the Supplemental Staff Report, and the ground
that was covered at the previous meeting should not be gone over again. He
asked anyone who wished to speak to keep this in mind when making a presenta-
tion, and to confine any remarks that are made to the SupPlemental Staff
Report. At this time, Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horn, to give the Staff Report
developed pursuant to the meeting of August 5, 1987.
"On August 5, 1987, the Board of Supervisors deferred action on
ZTA-87-04, Blanka S. Rosenstiel, (HEALTH RESORT) with instruction to
develop regulations which would make 'health resort' available by
special use permit anywhere within the PA, Rural Areas. This report
will discuss all recommendations for ordinance changes received at or
after the August 5, 1987, public hearing.
Staff has prepared an alternative definition as well,as modifications
to proposed supplementary regulations. Section 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY
REGULATIONS is designed to insure consistent treatment of uses,
particularly in regard to objectionable aspects. The ordinance
permits the Commission and. Board to 'vary or waiver any provision
... as deemed appropriate in a particular case.'
SuRgestions for Ordinance Change Received from Others:
This portion of the report will discuss specific suggestions for
ordinance provisions received by staff at the August !5 public hearing
or afterward.
SugRestions to DisreKard: :
Since the Board has directed staff to develop provisions which would
make a special use permit accessible to all properties, staff has
eliminated the following suggestions from consideration:
The availability of public water and sewer to the proposed
development.
The availability of other sites in Albemarle County already
served by public water and sewer.
3. Must be located no more than two miles from a pmimary highway as
defined by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
4. No health resort shall be located within the waCershed area of
any public drinking water impoundment.
While these suggestions are not recommended as speciflic locational
limitations, any analysis of an individual proposal ~ill consider
similar factors in terms of appropriateness to the s~atement of
intent of the PA, Rural Areas, zone as well as relevance to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff position in regard to central utilities is outlined in Attach-
ment A (on file). Albemarle County Service Authority's current
position on sewage treatment plants is also in Attachment A.
SuRRestions to Consider:
The following discusses other suggestions. Some suggestions are
already adequately addressed by Section 31.2.4.1 and i0.5.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance which staff has recommended as criteria for review.
Some suggestions are foreign to current staff review procedures.
Some suggestions will be reflected in staff recommendations.
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Maximum Impervious Coverage: Several suggestions have been
received by staff regarding maximum building impervious
coverage, expressed as a percentage of site area. While certain
zoning districts directly or indirectly limit developed site
area, no such limitation is applicable to a particular use.
Intensity of development has histoyically been considered in
special use permit review and specSfically limited by the Board
through conditions of approval.
Increased Traffic: Traffic issues~are addressed by Virginia
Department of Transportation and staff in each special use
permit review.
?
Height, mass~ and scale of buildin~s~ outdoor lighting;
view of neighbors: These are primarily issues of compatibility
addressed under Section 31.2.4.1. Building height in the RA
zone is limited to 35 feet with exceptions as permitted by 4.10
of the Zoning Ordinance. Regarding building scale, 'country
store' in the RA zone is limited to a ground floor area of 4000
square feet which was deemed to he,appropriate to rural locations
and intended to avoid petitioning for larger supermarkets.
While no scale of building is offered by staff for 'health
resort,' alternate uses of buildings should be a consideration.
As to outdoor lighting, the Zoning'iOrdinance currently requires
lighting to be directed away from public roads and adjoining
properties (staff is currently preparing specific intensity
limitations).
Economic lmpact of project; financial stability: The
Comprehensive Plan recommends that lagricultural/forestal
industries be supported and in pas~ staff reports referral has
been made to this recommendation, iThe plan also emphasizes that
dissimilar development, if permitted, may have negative effect
on agricultural/forestal industry.~ Therefore, 'economic impact'
will be viewedunder ComprehensivelPlan guidelines (i.e. -
potential negative impact to agric~ltural/forestal).
As to financial stability, staff assumes this suggestion is in
regard to potential uses of the property should the project not
prove successful. (Please refer to Attachment B: Staff Report
for SP-85-86 which is on file).
Groundwater Depletion: Zoning restrictions for groundwater
usage are currently applicable to industrial uses based on
calculations for Village Residential consumption (i.e. - 400
gallons/site acre/day). Staff has analyzed other proposals
under this limitation. (Please refer to Attachment B: Report
for SP~85-86).
Setbacks~ Buffers: The purpose of setbacks/buffers in this case
would be to protect adjoining properties from negative visual
and other aspects. This assumes that on its face the use would
be inconsistent to other uses in the area, which may not be the
case in conversion of an existing dWelling.
Staff recommends these factors be addressed on a case-by-case
basis. This procedure is followed'for mobile homes and the
Board has frequently required that mobile homes be located/
screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties or
public roads.
Noise: Standards to control noise are applicable within certain
zones and to individual uses in the~Zoning Ordinance. The most
frequently employed standard in the Zoning Ordinance is a limit
of 40 decibels at the nearest lot line. This limit is compar-
able to noise levels in a residential neighborhood at night, as
opposed to a rural location. Such activities as aerobic dance
require amplified music. (Noise levels in a discotheque exceed
167
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
those of many heavy industrial uses.) Therefore, staff would
recommend that no outdoor use of sound amplifiers be permitted.
Population Density: A control on population density would be
consistent with the statement of intent of the RA that develop-
ment 'occur in locations and at scales compatible to the physical
characteristics of the land and to the availability of public
utilities and facilities to support such development.'
Such limit is proposed to correspond to residential development
of the property.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommendation for zoning text provisions is based on: the
Board's direction that 'health resort' be available by special use
permit anywhere within the Rural Areas district; and-that such use
would be reviewed under the provisions of 31.2.4.1 and 10.5.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Staff also assumes that the Board does not intend
to preclude locational considerations in any special-use permit
review. With this background, staff has prepared supplementary
provisions which are a combination of regulation and~performance
standards. Staff has provided alternatives in some cases for Board
consideration. Each provision will be followed by staff comment.
3.0 DEFINITIONS
HEALTH RESORT: One or more parcels of land on Which may be
located one or more buildings or structures and other improve-
ments where guests in residence are offered supeirvised exercise,
medical, wellness, and recreational activities together with
classes and professionally supervised educational activities
designed and intended to improve or maintain the physical
fitness and health of paying guests; but expressly excluding
hospitals, nursing homes, drug and/or alcohol rehabilitation
centers and other intensive health care facilities.
OR
RESORT An area or place frequented by people for relaxation
and recreation.
Comment: The first definition is intentionally narrow. The term
'guests in residence' would practically speaking exclude patronage of
area residents on a daily basis. The second definition is broad,
permitting local use and any type of resort (since this definition is
broader than that advertised, the County Attorney should be consulted
as to necessity for readvertisement). The second definition also
assumes that resort can be distinguished from other uses on a case-
by-case basis.
5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
5.1.30 HEALTH RESORT
A.
This provision is intended to accommodate g~ests in residence
while such guests are participating in exer,:ise, educational
or recreational programs and classes but shall not be
deemed to permit the lodging of guests or transients not
participating in such programs or classes.
Comment: Again, patronage is limited to guests in residence which
would effectively exclude a local health spa. Also this regulation
attempts to.distinguish health resort from other lodging uses.
Health resort may include varied types of dwelling units
for guests together with related uses such as but not
limited to: medical clinics; recreational facilities,
administrative and professional offices; retail shops and
service businesses; and restaurants, cafeteria and other
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
food services. Such uses may be permitted as expressly
approved in special use permit review and shall be designed
and operated for the convenience of guests and employees of
the resort. As to recreational facilities, such uses and
improvements as equipped gymnasium, swimming pools, tennis
courts, hiking and/or jogging trails, bicycle and/or horse
riding trails, and like activities may be permitted con-
sistent with appropriate provisions of 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY
REGULATIONS and other provisions of this ordinance; but
expressly prohibited shall be: uses and activities
involving motorized vehicles except to the extent as
necessary for maintenance and normal operation of the
facility; and uses and activities involving discharge of
firearms. Other uses and accessory uses may be established
in accordance with the regulations of the applicable zoning
district.
Medical services shall not include surgical care or treat-
ment of disease or injury; provided that emergency first-
aid care and diagnostic services may be permitted;
Comment: Staff recommends combining th~ originally proposed 'B' and
'D' and deletion of 'C' Item C established a minimum of 100 acre
site area excluding many properties and =therefore has been deleted.
As written, 'B' permits 'varied types of dwelling units' which would
introduce dwelling types not currently found in the RA zone. (Please
refer to Attachment B: Report for SP-8~-86.)
Currently, the RA zone permits single family dwellings and
duplex units by right. Motels (whilch staff has recommended for
deletion) are generally multi-family type structures. Many
older motels in the County have been converted to apartments.
The County Attorney's office has stated an opinion that 'if you
can rent it, you can sell it.' Apartment complexes have, there-
fore, been converted to condominium ownership.
Permitting townhouses under health resort and not permitting
townhouses for sale as conventional dwellings may be difficult
to justify.
In the case of The Ridge, a propose4 apartment complex in the
Urban Area, staff was advised by the County Attorney's office
that review under the Subdivision Ordinance as well as the Site
Plan Ordinance was appropriate (i.e. - if you can rent it, you
can sell it). Therefore, roads, utilities and the like should
be sized/designed for units for sale. Also, any comparative
impact analysis should consider conversion to sale (i.e.
water/sewer demand; traffic; etc).
Restricting health resort development to dwelling types cur-
rently permitted (i.e. single family dwellings; duplex) may
not satisfy the applicant in all cases.
C. No outdoor public address system including phonographs,
radios and the like and including musical groups employing
amplified instruments shall be~permitted. No outdoor
activity shall occur from 10:00 P. M. to sunrise. The
foregoin8 not withstandins, in,no event shall noise
measured at any property line exceed forty (40) decibels.
Comment: This new provision is intendedlto address issues related to
noise. The first and second sentences assume that certain activities/
time of activities could be objectionab]~ even with noise limitations
(Noise would still be limited to 40 decibels if the first and second
sentences were deleted.).
169
D.lo
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Population density shall include the maximum (number of
people anticipated to be present on-site at any given
time) OR (number of people anticipated robe present
on-site on any given day). Population density shall not
exceed that permissible under residential development of
the property (by-right) OR (by special use permit).
OR
D.2o
Staff shall analyze the proposed development in terms of
residential equivalents as to traffic generation, water
and sewer usage, and other demands. Such analysis shall
also assume conventional residential usage of the proposed
development.
Comment: These are new provisions. Proposed D.1. simply measures
people density as opposed to actual effects in terms of demand.
Staff favors D.2., if the Board wishes to directly address this
issue, which not only analyzes proposed demands (i.e. water and
sewer, traffic, etc.) but also permits analysis of conversion for
sale. Since any application would be reviewed under 10.5.2, the
maximum permissible density equivalent would be 1.35 persons/acre,
which is equivalent to blanket approval of two acre lots. Prerequi-
site of such analysis would include demonstration by, the applicant as
to the number of conventional dwellings achievable under zoning
provisions.
E. In addition to criteria of 31.2.4.1, any health'resort
proposed on property located within the RA, Rural Areas,
district shall be reviewed in accordance with 10.5.2.
Comment: This provision remains unchanged, and is considered by
staff to be quite significant in the review of this type of use."
Mr. Fisher asked if the words "and recreational. .'3, under 3.0
Definitions on Page 4, is intentional because under 5.1.30 the wording is "or
recreational. " Mr. Home replied that this is not intentional, but it
might be more effective to make the wording "and/or." In determining what a
particular use is, to try to include all those uses to be present in each case
would put a great deal of pressure on the Zoning Administrator, and this might
arbitrarily exclude uses that could be reasonably called a health resort.
At this time, the public hearing was reopened.
Mr. David van Roijen came forward to ask the Board to consider the
question of "Conversion for Sale." He asked, if possible~ that the Board
incorporate it into the recommendations.
Mr. Fred Landess said because of limited time, the response to the
Supplemental Staff Report, a copy of which he handed to BOard members, sets
out in full the feelings of the applicant, the engineer, and the architect,
regarding the various items in the report and includes an .overall statement as
to what the applicant feels is necessary criteria. Mr. Landess said if a
zoning text amendment is adopted, it should be one that is economically
feasible and one which includes specific criteria so an applicant knows what
he is dealing with. He said the definition and regulations governing health
resort should be specific and clear enough that the Board~would be inclined to
grant the permit to any applicant meeting all the requirements. However, if
the Board puts such tight limitations on density that there is no way such a
resort can be economically feasible, neither the County nor any applicant will
benefit. Mr. Landess concluded by saying he and his staff have tried to help
in setting out what they feel is necessary criteria; if the Board does not
feel it can adopt something reasonable, it would be better not to approve the
zoning text amendment.
Dr. Warren Brown, a resident of the area for 32 years, addressed the
Board stating he has noticed a recent trend toward conservatism as to what is
allowed in the County. Mr. Fisher asked Dr. Brown if he ~ill be speaking to
the Staff Report. Dr. Brown said yes. He then continued ~y saying the
density of 1.35 persons per acre does not allow an economical operation of a
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
health resort. If a family is allowed on two acres, how can the Board limit
the number of that family to 2.7 persons. Dr. Brown said it seems to him that
there is an indication to allow a health resort as long as the number of
people who can attend the resort is limited. He said this is a contradiction
because a health resort will not be able to operate economically with a
limited number of people.
Mr. Dave Bass said he still feels the zoning text amendment is in viola-
tion of the intent of Rural Area District and the Comprehensive Plan, as the
staff has noted. He would prefer that the County not have an ordinance
allowing health resorts in rural areas. Mr. Bass said the Board will set two
important precedents if it approves this zoning text amendment: 1) approval
will be a direct violation of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) the zoning text
amendment is designed for a particular applicant; if special interests can
have ordinances passed by the Board, many more precedents and special type
applications will come up, which will make it harder to protect the rural
areas of the County in the future. Lastly, Mr. Bass said the population
density issue is the most important item to be addressed, and if the Board
must pass a zoning text amendment, the Boardishould address itself to para-
graph "D" in the Supplemental Staff Report. He said paragraph "D.2" gives the
Board an opportunity to listen to advice from the Planning staff.
Mr. George Gilliam said the specific language of paragraph "D" in the
Supplemental Staff Report creates problems. !He said D.1, population density,
must have an arithmetic formula to determine~!population density. In addition,
Mr. Gilliam read suggested language for paragraph "E," which concerns the
review in accordance with Section 10.5.2. of the County Zoning Ordinance. He
concluded by stating that his clients oppose the zoning text amendment.
However, if the amendment is to be approved, they hope it is adopted by an
ordinance that is tightly drawn without any ambiguities. Mr. Gilliam handed
Board members a copy of his proposed language for determining population
density.
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, an Engineer working for the applicant, said the
report should be addressed item by item, setting out a definition first and
then getting into specifics. Mr. Fisher asked if he will do this now. Mr.
Gloeckner sat down and said a definition should be developed first.
Ms. Marilyn Fantino, resident of and teacher in Albemarle County, said
she is concerned about the direction of the growth of the County for young
people. She said she is having trouble with some of the definitions for
population density set out in the Supplemental Staff Report. Ms. Fantino said
the real issue is the impact of population density, not the actual numbers
involved. She does not understand why in determining population density
people on-site are counted. Ms. Fantino asked how people who work
on-site during the day, but who reside in another area, are ~ncluded in
population density, i.e., at their homes, where they sleep, or at their places
of work. She said she is having trouble with the numbers being used to
determine density, and she does not think the~ actual numbers are as relevant
to the issue as the actual impact of population density.
Mr. James Butler, representing the Alliance for Justice and Equity,
briefly summarized a prepared statement whichlurges the Board to improve the
Zoning Ordinance by the inclusion of some provision for health resorts in the
Comprehensive Plan. The letter stated that the provision should be compatible
with those things already included in the Comprehensive Plan, and that the
rural character of the rural areas should be maintained. A health resort
development should be accessible to public water and sewer and a density
criteria should be adopted. A statement is included on page 2 of the letter,
stating that the letter has been approved by The Jefferson Area Board for
Aging, the Charlottesville Chapter of The National Organization for Women, The
League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, and the
Virginia Law Women of UVA (with certain recom~endations). (A complete copy of
the statement is on file in the Clerk's office.)
With no one else coming forward to speak~ the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher asked for questions or con~nents from Board members.
171
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Way asked Mr. Horne if the language that is recommended in paragraph
2 of Mr. Gilliam's statement, is the same as paragraph "E" in the Supplemental
Staff Report. Mr. Horne said yes, excepting the first sentence setting an
absolute limit density; paragraph 2 is a combination of paragraphs "D" and "E"
of the Supplemental Staff Report. Mr. Horne explained that Section 10.5.2.1
is a method of review which the Board uses to determine criteria. Section
31.2.4.1 is used to make findings as to detriments, and is the mandatory
section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that before spending a great deal of time going
over such a complex set of regulations, it might be advisable to discover
whether a majority of Board members are willing to "tackle'' the issue again.
He said his concern is still the basic issue of the compatibility of a health
resort in a rural area. He thinks the reason for such complicated and debat-
able regulations is because of an attempt to make compatible something which
is incompatible; that a health resort is incompatible with the essence of a
rural area. Mr. Lindstrom said he has opposed the intrusion of other uses in
the rural area because he believes rural, agricultural areas are meaningful.
He is not willing to support the zoning text amendment, but he is willing to
work with other Board members if a majority are willing to go ahead.
Mr. Bowie agreed that it is in everyone's best interests to determine
whether the time should be spent discussing the issue again. He said the only
part of the Supplemental Staff Report he has a problem with is the section on
population density. Mr. Bowie said he thinks a health resort is a compatible
use in the rural areas. To cut off another source of tax,revenue, the develop
ment of jobs for future generations, or to tie the hands 6f future Boards with
burdensome regulations, is not right. ~
Mrs. Cooke said she feels it is worth the effort for ithe Board to try to
come up with suitable language and. find a way to have a m~aningful ordinance
which will allow health resorts in the rural areas of the iCounty. She feels
this is important enough for the Board to take the time to address the issue.
Mr. Way said he concurs with Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Henley said he had suggested that the staff devel!op recommendations
stating that this type of development be limited to the friinge area encircling
the urban area, where there is the possibility of water and sewer service and
growth potential for the future. He said something of the. magnitude of the
development under consideration will create a new community wherever it goes,
and he cannot support it anywhere in the rural areas.
Mr. Fisher said the issue of the compatibility of a health resort in the
rural areas is his main concern. A proposal of 400 or 500 people on 100 or
200 acres will be a significant change for the entire area:in regard to
traffic and water and sewer service, in addition to other impacts. However,
the issue of population density, with all its considerations as to who would
and would not be included, becomes a difficult issue to tie down and enforce
if an amendment is approved. Referring to a paragraph in the letter from Mr.
Landess regarding an appropriate use in the Rural Areas, Mr. Fisher said he
will not vote to approve a special permit for what he has seen, and it would
be unfair to induce an applicant or landowner to expend money and time when he
does not think he can vote for approval.
Mr. Henley said the proposed site for the development!is one of the most
rural areas in the County. He feels that if he votes for ~pproval of the
amendment, it might look as if he is saying it is a good idea, but he does not
feel as if it is.
Mr. Lindstrom said there does not seem to be a majority of Board members
willing to support the amendment. Since the Board seems to be in a "box" and
in order to move things along to a vote, he will offer motion to approve the
concept of an amendment of "Health Resort" with the understanding his motion
is a procedural measure, and if it passes, the Board can decide what kind of
amendment to approve. Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney if the motion is
in order. Mr. St. John said he did not think it should be worded like that.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not want to appear to be hasty. Mr. St. John said
the matter is one of approving the application and not just the concept. Mr.
'172
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Lindstrom then moved to approve ZTA-87-04. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Henley. Mr. Fisher restated the motion, and asked if there was any further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way.
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom.
After confirming with the Clerk that the vote is three to three, Mr.
Fisher said, under the Board's rules of procedure, any Board member may make a
motion for reconsideration. With no Board member doing so, Mr. Fisher said
the motion fails for a lack of majority.
Note: The Board recessed at 8:40 P. M. The meeting was reconvened at
8:56 P. M.
Mr. Fisher called Agenda Items 5a and 6 together because they are
related.
Agenda Item No. 5a. ZMA-87-10. Louise Putnam-Stoner. To rezone 3.976
acres from R-1 to PA. Parcel to be added to existing parcel in Sherwood
Commons. Proposed access through Sherwood Farms. Property adjacent to
Sherwood Farms Subdivision. Tax Map 76, Parcel 49 (part of). Samuel Miller
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 19 and August 25,
1987.)
Mr. Home gave the Staff Report for ZMA~87-10 as follows:
"Request: Request to rezone 3.976 acres of land from R-l, Residential,
to PA, Rural Areas.
Location: Property, described as a portion of Tax Map 76, Parcel 49,
is located to the west of Route 781 and south of 1-64. The 3.9 acre
portion subject to this request is located adjacent to Tax Map 76N-13
in the Sherwood Farms Subdivision.
Character of Areas: The site is presently undeveloped, and consists
of moderate to steep slopes and is wooded.
Staff Comment: The applicant wishes to'add the acreage to an existing
lot within the Sherwood Farms Subdivision. Approximately 0.8 acres
of this land may become a portion of a new lot adjacent to an existing
lot in Sherwood Farms (subject to approval of SP-87-63).
The applicant does not intend to develop the property at R-1 densities
and has purchased the property in part to improve the existing shape
and provide a buffer between the probable building site on the
existing lot and the remaining R-1 zoned land.
Staff has reviewed this rezoning request under 1.4 Purpose and
Intent, 1.5 Relation to Environment, 1.6 Relation to Comprehensive
Plan and Staff recommends approval of this request.
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, iat its meeting on August 18,
1987, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-87-63. Stephen K. vonStorch. To divide two
existing parcels of 7.68 acres and 21.25 acres into three lots of approxi-
mately 14 acres, 11 acres and 10 acres in size, zoned PA. Property located
within Sherwood Farms Subdivision on Chestnut Oak Lane. Tax Map 76, Parcel
49D (part of) and Tax Map 89, Parcel 73 (part of). Samuel Miller District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 19 and August 25, 1987.)
Mr. Horne gave the Staff Report for SP-87-63 as follows:
"Request: This is a request pursuant to Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance to reduce the lot size of a 21+ acre parcel (with no
173
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
further rights of division) and allow one additional lot to be
created. Access to the additional lot will be from Chestnut Oak Lane
in the Sherwood Farms Subdivision.
AcreaKe: The total acreage of the proposal is 35.05 acres.
Zoning: The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, except for 3.9 acres
zoned R-l, Residential. (The applicant is requesting that this
property be rezoned to RA, Rural Areas; ZMA-87-10 pending.)
Location: The property is located on Chestnut Oak Lane in the
Sherwood Farms Subdivision, approximately one mile south of the City
limits off of Route 29 South. Tax Map 76N, Parcels 13 and 14; Tax
Map 76, portions of Parcel 49D, and Tax Map 89, Parcel 73.
Character of the Area: The properties are presently vacant. The
site is rolling with moderate, and some steeper slopes located on the
site.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: The plan shows this property in
Rural Area IV. The recommended density for this area is one dwelling
unit per five acres. This area is located immediately adjacent to
Urban Area 5. The property is bordered to the east by property zoned
R-l, Residential.
Staff Comment: The applicant has purchased, or is the contract
purchaser of 3.9 acres of adjacent property zoned R-l, Residential,
and 2.2 acres (with one division right) of adjacent ~and zoned RA,
Rural Areas. With these additional lands, and the two existing
parcels in Sherwood Farms, the applicant is proposing the following:
An existing 7.7 acre parcel (Tax Map 76N, Parcel 13) would be
increased to 11 acres;
o
The existing 21.25 acres parcel (Tax Map 76N, Parcel 14) would
be decreased to 14+ acres;
A new lot will be created from the remaining land. This lot
will be 10 acres and would be comprised of 0.8 acres of R-1
land, seven acres of Tax Map 76N, Parcel 14, and'2.2 acres from
Tax Map 76, Parcel 73.
This proposal has been reviewed in regards to the criteria provided
under Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for requests for
additional lots in the rural areas, since neither of the added
acreages (the 3.9 or 2.2 acre parcels) could stand on their own as
individual parcels due to the lack of frontage on, or access to an
existing road.
Special Use Permit Criteria:
The following is a review of this proposal for appropriateness of
development as set forth in the nine criteria of the Rural Areas
district. (The applicant has responded to #1, 2, 3 and 9.)
1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetat%on of the
property.
Only exiting Tract 1 conforms to the size requirements of a
forestal tract and the viability or desirability of having
forestal land accessed through a neighborhood seems
questionable.
The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal
production.
The predominant soil types are Culpeper (2lB) and Louisburg
(48E) with some Albemarle (3C, D). These soils are all composed
of weathered rock and because of the slope conditions none of
the land under consideration is suited for crops or pasture
usage. With tree production suitability at moderately high,
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
.1.74
these soils present some forestal potential. The soils of the
Louisburg formation (the predominant soil type) are suited to
the production of loblolly and Virginia pine. There are only a
few pines remaining on the property so the value of this lumber
is almost none.
The Culpeper (2lB) is considered prime farmland soil. These
other dominate soils on site are not considered important
farmland. Less than one-third of the site is in the Culpeper
type soil.
The historic con~nercial agricultural or forestal uses of the
property.
To the best of the applicant's knowledge, the property has been
timbered once since 1950.
e
If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable
effect. .
(I-64 and Route 29 were utilized as a boundary.)
The property currently lies within an agricultural/forestal
area. Approximately 1568 acres, or. 65 percent of the area is in
either agricultural or forestal use.
The probable effect to the character of the surrounding
agricultural/forestal area is not anticipated to be significant.
Access from the additional lot would be from the existing roads
serving Sherwood Farms directly to Route 29. The building site
for the additional lot will not be near property lines bordering
on active farm operations. The lots (and probable building
sites) are located along a ridge which serves to divide these
properties from the agricultural areas.
The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural
areas.
The majority of land within this area is in lots of five acres
or more. Approximately 12 percent, or 280 acres, are in lots of
five acres or less. Most of these lots are in the Sherwood
Farms Subdivision. There are presently 53 lots platted in
Sherwood Farms.
Other lots less than five acres in size are located primarily
along Route 631 and Route 781, east of this proposal.
This is not considered to be developed rural area, however,
Sherwood Farms and this site are, to an extent, physically
separated from the major areas of agricultural activity by the
topography of the area.
The relationship of the proposed development to existing and
proposed population centers.
o
The site is located approximately one-half mile south and west
or Urban Neighborhood 5 and is within one mile (east) of Urban
Neighborhood 6.
The probable effect of the proposed~development on capital
improvements programming.
Public utilities (water and sewer) are not available to the
Sherwood Farms area. Fire protecticn is provided from the City
and North Garden Fire Stations.
Additional enrollment of one student would be expected from the
additional lot.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development.
Z75
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
The additional traffic generated by the proposed lot would be on
average of seven vehicle trips per day. Route 859 presently
carries an average of 421 vehicle trips per day and is rated as
tolerable.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has commented that
'Route 859 is currently tolerable, and this request would not
make Route 859 non-tolerable. A private street~ commercial
entrance has already been constructed at the access location for
this property on Route 859.'
Route 859 is presently a narrow winding road with an at-grade
railroad crossing. While this road is rated as tolerable by
Virginia Department of Transportation, and the additional
traffic generated by this request would be slight, there
are portions of the road where the need for safety improvements
may be aggravated by the additional traffic.
9. With respect to applications for special use permits.
This proposal is not located within the boundaries of a water
supply watershed.
Summary and Recommendation: This request adequately complies with
the Special Use Permit criteria for requests for additional lots in
the Rural Areas District. Further, the Comprehensive Plan recommends
a density of one dwelling unit per five acres within~areas of active
agricultural, horticultural or forestal use. The prqposed would be
one dwelling unit per 11+ acres. The staff, therefore, recommends
approval of this request. ~
Access to this site will be from Chestnut Oak Lane, Which was approved
by the Planning Commission as a private road. The r~ad has been
graded, but paving of the roadway has not been completed. (The road
is bonded for full construction to private road standards.) The
proposed lot will be the fifth served from this road~ The previously
approved road design is adequate for a road serving UP to five lots.
The Commission may wish to grant administrative approval of the final
plat. ~
Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve th~s request, staff
recommends the following:
1. Administrative approval of the final plat."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 18,
1987, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Administrative approval of the final plat.
2. County Attorney approval of amendment to existing road maintenance
agreement to include all lots as finally approved.
In addition, Mr. Horne said the conclusion in the Staff Report is that
SP-87-63 meets the criteria for granting a special permit in the RA zone, and
ZMA-87-10 is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Home to indicate the area on the map, and Mr. Horne
did so, explaining the division of the parcels.
At this time, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing, and asked the appli-
cant to come forward to speak. Mr. Stephen vonStorch saidthe reason for the
rezoning request is to develop the area as three single-family lots. He said
he has contacted his neighbors on Chestnut Oak Lane and on'Overlook Road, and
no one has expressed any concern about the conversion.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
176
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve
SP-87-63 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval for SP-87-63 are set out in full
below:)
1. Administrative approval of the final plat.
2. County Attorney approval of amendment to existing road main-
tenance agreement to include all lots as finally approved.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to
approve ZMA-87-10, as recommended by the Planning Commission. (Mr. Lindstrom
noted that the correct spelling of the name is "Putnam" and not "Putman.")
Roll was called andthe motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion: Berkmar Drive Extended - Review for
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Fisher said Agenda Item Nos. 7 and 8 will be heard together.
Mr. Horne gave the Staff Report for Berkmar Drive Extended as follows:
"Attached is a staff report on a proposed relocation of the Berkmar
Drive Extended Road, which is a proposed road in the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan. This report was reviewed by the Planning Commission
in conjunction with ZMA-87-07 Jefferson ~Square Shopping Center. The
Commission unanimously found this road relocation to be in general
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan subject to the rezoning of
four commercial lot remnants west of the proposed relocated Berkmar
Drive Extended. The Board of Supervisors will be reviewing ZMA-87-07.
State Code does not require that the Board directly address the
Commission's finding on the road relocation, but I feel that the
Board should be aware of their determination should they wish to take
action to either conform or overturn the Commission's action on the
road extension itself.
Background
On September 4, 1986, the Board of Supervisors amended the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan to describe a roadway network to be con-
structed from Rio Road to the Hilton Hotel site on the west side and
parallel to Route 29 North. An alignment for this roadway was
identified at that time. In addition to intersections at Rio Road
and Hilton Drive, two other connectors would be provided to U. S.
Route 29 North:
- Carrsbrook Drive would be relocated to the north and a new crossover
established on Route 29.
Sight distance at the existing Woodbrook crossover would be improved
and connection to Berkmar Drive Extended established.
The northern +750 feet of the roadway is committed to be cOnstructed
by the developer of the remainder of the Hilton site.
Current Proposal
In order to accommodate Jefferson Square Shopping Center, the applicant
proposed relocation of a portion of Berkmar Extended about 450 feet
to the west of its original alignment as well as realignment of the
Woodbrook connector road between Berkmar Extended and U. S. Route 29
North. Also, Jefferson Square would:
177
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
- Construct the Woodbrook connector road (~1300 feet) to Virginia
Department of Transportation standards and provide signalization
improvements at Route 29 North.
Continue the Colonial Pontiac roadway from Route 29 North to
Berkmar Extended (~750 feet) initially as a private road with
provision for realignment to public road standards. (This improve-
ment may be bonded.)
- Construct Berkmar Extended from station 8+00 to station 23+00 (1500
feet) and provide temporary turn-arounds at each end.
Staff has reviewed the proposed relocation in two regards:
- Additional costs to develop remainder of roadway.
Implications for future land uses in the area.
Costs: The Engineering staff has calculated a total increase in
costs for the relocated portions not proposed for construction by
Jefferson Square to be about $85,250. Staff opinion is that the
relocated northern portion of the roadway could be built by
developers, however, the southern 800 feet including intersection
improvements at Rio Road would likely become a County project. Costs
for this southern portion would increase about $42,250. The vast
majority of this increased cost ($33,000) is based on assumption that
roadway fill would need to be imported. Possible cost increase to
the County should be weighed against the fact that J~fferson Square
Shopping Center would construct one-quarter of the tdtal length of
Berkmar Extended as well as the Berkmar/Woodbrook connector.
Land Uses: In development of the original alignment,, effort was made
to locate along property lines where possible to avoid extensive
property damage costs and relocation of uses. The original alignment
skirted the developed area of the Greenfield Mobile Hume Park while
the new alignment proposed by the applicant would displace several
units and possibly result in discontinuance of the park.
Also attempt was made during development of the initial alignment to
have the Berkmar Extended roadway serve as a boundary between
residential and commercial zones. This was not viewed as practical
for the southern portion of the roadway due to extensive depth of
commercial zoning. Therefore, the southern portion of the roadway
was aligned through these deep parcels to split commercial develop-
ment into reasonably dimensioned areas. The applicant's proposed
alignment would leave four commercial lot remnants on~ the west side
of Berkmar Extended. (While not subject to the current rezoning
petition, the properties are controlled by the seller~ of the shopping
center properties.) These lots would consist of about 6.5 acres with
1200 feet of frontage on Berkmar Extended. Whether developed individu-
ally or as a unit, strip development would likely occur. A matter of
concern to the Commission and Board during discussions of the Berkmar
Extended roadway was increased pressures for commercikl zonings in
the area. ~
Summary and Recommendation: While the proposed realignment would
increase cost for a short section of Berkmar Drive Extended, construc-
tion costs were not a major consideration in determining current
alignment. These increased costs (when viewed in theioverall context
of the entire roadway) are not a serious problem. Th~ proposed
realignment would displace several mobile homes and possibly result
in discontinuance of Greenfield Mobile Home Park. Due to rising land
values in the area, staff would recommend that Greenfield park not be
viewed as a permanent use. (Staff is unaware of any plans to discon-
tinue the park.) For reasons stated earlier in this report, staff
recommends that the four commercial lot remnants crea~ed by road
realignment be rezoned from Commercial to R-6, Residential.
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Staff, therefore, recommends that the Planning Commission find this
realignment to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, subject
to the above rezonings."
Mr. Horne said that during its review, on August 18, 1987, the Planning
Commission found the realignment, with the proviso of the rezoning of the
commercial lots, to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
At this time, Mr. Home pointed out the original alignment and the
realignment on the map. Mr. Fisher asked what the relocation of the road
accomplishes. Mr. Horne said the realignment will provide the applicant with
additional enclosed acreage for development; the applicant and the public will
benefit by the provision of alternate access to Route 29; the public will
benefit by the accommodation of a large-scale development, which can finance a
large portion of the roadway.
Before giving the Staff Report, Mr. Home said the Planning Commission
found the request in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. If the Board
wishes to take separate action, it can.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-87-7. Jefferson Square Shopping Center. To
rezone 37.5 acres from HC to PD-SC for a regional shopping center. Plan a
total of 274,986 square feet in separate buildings served by 1512 parking
spaces and three entrances onto Route 29. Property located on west side of
Route 29N, in the southbound lane adjacent to Colonial of Charlottesville
(development under construction) across from~'Woodbrook. Tax Map 45, Parcels
93A, 93C, 94, 94A, and 108. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on August 19 and August 25, 1987.)
"PETITION: First Interstate Development Company petitions the Board
of Supervisors to rezone 34.6149 acres to PD-SC, Planned Development
Shopping Center, to permit establishment of a 274,986 square foot
shopping center on land on the west side of U. S. Route 29N just south
of the Woodbrook crossover in the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
This property is further described as follows:
Parcel A is an undeveloped 1.7254 portion of Tax Map 45, Parcel
93C which currently houses a veterinary practice which would
remain. Property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
Parcel B is a 6.2213 acre portion of Tax Map 45, Parcel 93A
zoned HC, Highway Commercial with a proffer as to access.
Parcel C is a 14.1798 acre portion 'of Tax Map 45, Parcel 108
zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
Parcel D consists of 8.9684 acres and is the residue of the
Colonial Pontiac site. This property has access and traffic
generation proffers.
Parcel E consists of 3.52 acre portion of Tax Map 45, Parcel 94,
currently zoned R-6 Residential.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL-APPLICATION PLAN
The applicant proposes construction of a 274,986 square foot shopping
center with five major stores, 27 shops, and three outparcels (to be
developed with such uses as fast-food restaurants or banks):
USE (TENTATIVE)
BUILDING AREA
Major Retail A (discount department)
Major Retail B (drug store)
Major Retail C (food store)
Major Retail D (clothing store)
Major Retail E (garden shop)
Retail Shops
Outlot A (fast food)
78,823 square feet
40,000 square feet
30,000 square feet
24,000 square feet
36,063 square feet
51,600 square feet
5,000 square feet
179
Outlot B (bank)
Outlot C (fast food)
GRAND TOTAL
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
5,000 square feet
4,500 square feet
274,986 square feet
The shopping center developer would construct a portion of Berkmar
Drive Extended to the rear of the site. The access serving the
Pontiac dealership to the south would be continued to Berkmar Extended
and the Woodbrook connector on the north would also be constructed.
Therefore, the shopping center would be physically surrounded by
roadways. The main portion of the shopping center would be L-shaped
located primarily on grading cut while the parking area would be
located primarily on fill.
The Jefferson Square Shopping Center compares with other County
shopping centers as follows:
Building Area Site Area
Sq. Feet Acres
Building/Acreage
Sq. Feet/Acre
Fashion Square 578,456 57.0 10,148
Jefferson Square 274,986 34.6 7,948
Pantops 177,762 17.6 10,100
Albemarle Square 168,695 22.8 7,399
Shoppers World 140,842 12.6 11,178
While Jefferson Square would be the County's second largest shopping
center, building coverage would be comparatively low, This has
permitted design flexibility to accommodate landscaping/buffering,
logical building pattern, and a sound internal circulation pattern.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - INTRODUCTION
Of the 34.6 acres proposed for rezoning, 3.5 acres is currently
residential while 31.1 acres is already zoned commercial. Benefits
to the applicant in seeking PD-SC zoning include:
A more favorable floor area-to-parking standard; and
A broader range of commercial uses
Benefits to the general public derive from the opportunity to address
the proposed development in broader terms than are realized under
conventional zoning and site plan reviews. Historically, in the case
of shopping center development, attention is focused on transportation
concerns. U. S. Route 29N has been a roadway of considerable community
concern, therefore, in approaching this zoning petitiOn, staff has
employed the following framework for review:
- Traffic generation under PD-SC zoning should not represent an
increase over potential traffic under existing zon'~ng. Since 1979,
staff has employed this approach for several rezonings along
Route 29N;
Since 1976, it has been County policy that staff recommendations
reflect the best transportation and access improvements for each
development review with the Commission/Board exercising discretion
regarding actual required improvements.
The remainder of the report will deal with issues of ~hysical development
and rezoning criteria with particular emphasis on transportation issues.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The area proposed for rezoning has a depth of about 1400 feet. With
650 feet of frontage on Route 29N, the property would broaden to a
width of about 1350 feet to the west.
Elevations vary from about 470 feet near Route 29 to 540 feet along
the western border of the property. A major swale rubs through the
middle of the site which would be partially filled to!accommodate
development and reconfigured near Route 29 for stormwater detention.
While current elevations vary by 70 feet, finished grades would vary
180
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
by 30 feet (front to rear) to achieve appropriate parking area and
roadway grades.
Soils on the site consist of Elioak loam, Glenelg loam, and Hazel
loam. Elioak loam is a deep well-drained soil with depth to bedrock
in excess of five feet. Limitations for development include Clayey
subsoil, low strength, and frost action. Excess fines and thin
layers limit usage as a source of roadfill. Hazel loam is a
moderately deep, excessively drained soil with depth to bedrock at 20
to 40 inches. Rapid surface runoff results in severe hazard of
erosion. This soil is a fair source of roadfill. Glenelg is a deep
well-drained soil with depth to bedrock in excess of five feet.
Hazard for erosion is severe due to rapid surface runoff. Seepage,
low strength, and frost action are limitations to development.
Glenelg is limited as roadfill due to low strength and excess fines.
See the Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of Albemarle County,
¥irsinia, for comments for building site development. Several small
areas of the site exceed 25 percent slope. Special approval by the
Planning Commission is required to grade these areas.
Droughty soil conditions were encountered during development of the auto
dealership to the south. In regard to jefferson Square Shopping Center,
the project would be constructed at one time as opposed to phased
development. Given soil restrictions and field experience combined
with significant grading, special attention needs to be given in develop-
ment and review of grading plans to avoid excessive soil erosion and
runoff problems. (Several sites in this area may be subject to
grading at the same time compounding dust and other problems.)
WATER AND SEWER; FIRE PROTECTION
This site is within the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdic-
tional area for both public water and public sewer. Public water is
available from an eight-inch line at the site. Fire flows in the
area are 2500 GPM at 20 PSI. Required fire flow will depend on
method of construction. Public sewer is available at an eight-inch
line. Capacity is available for the Jefferson Square Shopping
Center. Based on projected flows, it appears that the line will be
at capacity and that an additional parallel line will be necessary to
serve other properties in the area.
AIR POLLUTION
The State Air Pollution Control Board has stated that individual
stores are responsible to apply for boiler and incineration permits,
if applicable.
STORMWATER
Stormwater from this site would drain through the Woodbrook area
which has been an area of historical complaint. The applicant has
agreed to special detention measures including detention/discharge
design for the two, ten, 25, 50, and 100-year storm (County ordinance
requires detention measures be designed for the ten-year storm).
This will require an increase in storage volume of about 60 percent
over a facility designed to meet current ordinance requirements. The
County Engineer has stated that 'we fully approve of this approach.
[The applicant's] methodology provides for an improved means of
stormwater management above that required by our ordinance. This is
of particular benefit considering the intensity of development
downstream of the site's location.'
SCREENING~ LANDSCAPING
Due to building layout, staff was concerned about exposure of
building rears to Route 29, the Pontiac dealership and Berkmar Drive
Extended. Through a combination of grade difference, landscape
screening, maintenance of vegetation and!earth berming the applicant
has demonstrated that these concerns can lbe adequately addressed at
time of site plan review.
TRANSPORTATION: INTERNAL CIRCULATION
Substantial revision has been made to the parking and circulation
layout since initial submittal. To an extent, building pattern
18i
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
remains as a restriction resulting in angular but acceptable layout
toward the front of the site.
Major improvements include:
- improved and more predictable parking layout
reduced friction by eliminating parking spaces along major access
aisles
reduced points of conflict by protecting intersection approaches of
major access aisles from minor intersections
- better internal flow of traffic
TRANSPORTATION: EXTERNAL CIRCULATION
TRAFFIC GENERATION
During planning for Berkmar Drive Extended, staff developed general
traffic generation figures for the area. For the properties involved
in this rezoning, staff has used the figures from the Berkmar study
which assume that at least three acres would be devoted to such high
generators as banks, fast food restaurants, and gasoline service
stations. Credit was also given for road right-of-way which is to be
dedicated under this proposal.
Staff estimates that under existing zoning this site could generate
about 17,000 vehicle trips per day while the projecte~d traffic by the
applicant under PD-SC zoning would be about 16,000 vehicle trips per
day. Staff offers the following observations (pleas~ review staff
report for relocation of Berkmar Drive Extended):
Traffic generation figures for Outlots A, B, and C are based on
sit-down, fast-food restaurant and walk-in bank. A change to
drive-in restaurant or bank could increase traffic above existing
zoning levels;
Staff has recommended rezoning of properties west of Berkmar
Extended from commercial to residential which would reduce
traffic generation from those properties. To offset the zoning
change, additional traffic could be allocated to the shopping
center or other properties. If all traffic were allocated to
the shopping center, a total of 2600 additional vehicle trips
per day could be generated (i.e. - 18,600 vehicle trips per
day). This would provide additional flexibility in the future
to the developer in regard to uses for Outlots A, B and C.
(Note: Uses involving a drive-in window require special use
permit approval.)
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
Wilbur Smith and Associates has worked with staff in developing a
transportation plan including generation and distribution figures.
Initially the study reflected distribution based on t~affic patterns
contained in the CATS Study. Staff recommended that the distribution
study be modified to more closely reflect distributioh patterns
projected for Fashion Square Shopping Center.
Under current conditions, 80 percent of traffic to the site would
approach from the south, 16 percent from the north, and 4 percent
from the east. At time of completion of Berkmar Drive Extended, that
roadway would accommodate 21 percent of the traffic, ~educing burden
to U. S. Route 29N.
WOODBROOK CROSSOVER
Sight distance at the Woodbrook crossover for the southbound lane of
Route 29 does not meet normal VDOT standards. With adjustment to
signalization, VDOT will permit a commercial entrance ~t this location
under three circumstances:
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
i82
Reconstruction of the southbound lane north of the crossover to
obtain sight distance;
No right-turn on red from the new entrance to the southbound
lane of Route 29;
Construction of a third lane south of the crossover to serve as
an acceleration lane to accommodate right-turn on red from the
new entrance.
The applicant proposes construction of a third lane to permit right-turn
on red (Alternate 3).
POINTS OF ACCESS
Three points of access to Route 29N are proposed by the applicant.
One access would be at the Woodbrook crossover, another would the a
shared access with Colonial Pontiac-Cadillac, and a third access
would be located about 3,000 feet north of the Colonial entrance,
just north of Outlot C and will be referred to as the 'middle
entrance' in this report.
The Planning staff, County Engineer, and VDOT recommended that the
middle entrance not be permitted. VDOT has stated that:
The Department believes this acreage can be adequately
served by two access points. We will allow access only at
the Woodbrook crossover and at the existing entrance
planned to serve Colonial Cadillac. The [middle] entrance
proposed infringes on the southern entrance turn lane and
will not be allowed.
Following a meeting in the field involving several people including
the VDOT District Engineer for the Culpeper District, the applicant
verbally modified access proposals as follows:
1. Full access at Woodbrook crossover and Colonial Cadillac;
Close existing entrances to veterinarian and provide internal
access for veterinarian;
3. Ingress only to middle entrance.
Regarding the middle entrance, the Planning staff, County Engineer, and
YDOT continue to recommend its deletion. Staff offers the following
comments:
The middle entrance would intrude on the deceleration lane for
Colonial Cadillac-Pontiac.
The middle entrance would foreshorten the right-on-red
acceleration lane.
Traffic entering by the proposed middle entrance could access at
the Colonial entrance located 300 feet to the south.
It is County policy that access points (particularly to U. S.
Route 29N) be limited to the minimum necessary to provide safe
and convenient access to property which in staff opinion would
be provided at the Woodbrook crossover and at the Colonial
entrance.
The applicant cites as justification for the middle entrance:
1. Extensive road improvements/new road construction;
2. Closing access to the veterinarian as a safety improvement;
Only three percent or 240 vehicles Would enter the site by the
middle entrance on a daily basis;
183
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page~20)
4. The applicant does not consider the Woodbrook or Colonial
entrances to be direct access to Route 29N and notes other
shopping centers in the area with direct access to Route 29N.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
At 275,000 square feet, Jefferson Square would be the County's second
largest shopping center, approaching regional scale. Section 25.1 of
the PD-SC regulations states that shopping centers are 'intended to
serve areas not conveniently and adequately provided with a broad
range of commercial and service facilities.' In current
Comprehensive Plan work sessions, staff has proposed that this
general area of Route 29N be viewed as appropriate for regional scale
uses. In combination with Fashion Square, Albemarle Square, and
Shoppers World, approval of Jefferson Square would result in 1.16
million square feet of shopping center in the immediate area.
Major improvements offered by the applicant include:
- Design of stormwater detention facilities to accommodate the two,
ten, 25, 50, and 100-year storm which exceeds County standards,
providing additional protection to downstream areas;
- Construction of one-quarter of Berkmar Drive Extended, the full
length of the Woodbrook connector, and continuation of the Colonial
Cadillac entrance to Berkmar Drive Extended;
Revision of Application Plan to reflect all comments of Site Review
Committee (except for middle entrance).
Among the purposes of a zoning ordinance as set forth in the Code of
Virginia and cited in the County's ordinance are:
To provide for adequate...convenience of access: Staff and VDOT
recommend that convenient access can be provided at the Woodboook
and Colonial entrances.
- To provide against...danKer and congestion in travel and transpor-
tation; to reduce or prevent conKestion in the public streets:
Staff opinion is that approval of the middle en~ran~ce would be
contrary to these purposes. The applicant maintain~s that among
other considerations, closure of the veterinarian e~trances to
Route 29 offset or overcome problems of the middle entrance.
Under planned development regulations, the developer and County are
to come to agreements as to development of property. Therefore,
unless the developer agrees to delete the middle entrance, staff
recommends disapproval of this zoning petition. While staff acknow-
ledges several improvements offered by the applicant,~the position of
the Planning staff, County Engineer, and VDOT is thatithe middle
entrance is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION
Section 8.5.4 (a) and (b) require the Commission in its findings to
determine:
The suitability of the tract for the general type-of PD district
proposed in terms of relation to the Comprehensive plan; physical
characteristics of the land; and its relation to surrounding area;
Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services.
Section 8.5.4(d) permits the Planning Commission to recommend approval
subject to stipulated modifications. The staff recommends that the
Planning Commission make a positive finding that the proposed Jefferson
Square Shopping Center is consistent with the required findings of
8.5.4 (a) and (b) subject to the following modifications and
agreements:
.t84
September 2, 1987 (Regular'Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Modifications to Application Plan:
Delete middle access to Route 29N and access from veterinarian
to Route 29N. Show internal access for veterinarian.
Note that Outlots A, B and C are not approved for uses involving
drive-in window.
Asreements Made by the County and the Applicant:
Agreement to develop property in general compliance with modified
Application Plan. Variations may be permitted as provided in
Section 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Staff approval of subdivision plat to include dedication of
right-of-way on Route 29N as recommended by YDOT; property line
adjustment or easement to insure access for property to north
opposite first access off of Woodbrook connector. Notes on plat
restricting access to Route 29N. Plat shall also carry notation
as to dedication of right-of-way for new roads upon demand of
County. Right-of-way for Woodbrook connector shall be a minimum.
of 60 feet. Right-of-way for Bermkar Extended and Colonial
Pontiac shall be determined by VDOT.
Agreement to construct Berkmar DriVe Extended and Woodbrook
connector to ultimate VDOT standards. Agreement to construct
Colonial Pontiac roadway to privat~ road standards.
Agreement to rezone four commercial lot remnants on west side of
Berkmar Drive Extended to R-6, Residential.
Agreement to construct stormwater detention facilities to
accommodate the two, ten, 25, 50, and 100-year storms.
Mr. Horne said on August 18, 1987, the Planning Commission met and
unanimously recommended approval of the petition, with certain changes to the
staff's recommendations. Under "Modifications to Application Plan," No. 2 was
changed to read: "Note that any use involving drive-in window on Outlots A,
B, and/or C is subject to special use permit approval. Under "Agreements .
.," the last sentence of No. 2 was changed to read: "Right-of-way for Wood-
brook Connector, Berkmar Extended, and Colonial Pontiac shall be determined by
the Virginia Department of Transportation," and No. 5 was changed to read:
"Agreement to construct stormwater detentioni!facilities in compliance with
state and local code requirements. Design storm recurrence interval shall be
for the two and ten-year storm. Design shall be sufficient to prevent over-
topping of U. S. Route 29 for a design storm'with a one-hundred year recur-
rence interval. The applicant shall provide~as much additional detention as
is feasible within the capacity available at the site in the vicinity of the
proposed basin shown on the Application Plan;"
With no questions or comments from the Board, the public hearing was
opened.
Mr. George Gilliam said only one and one-half issues remain to be
resolved between the applicant and the staff; He said the one-half issue
reZates to a small piece of land north of the property line. He pointed out
the particular piece of land on the map and said the land is not property the
applicant is acquiring. However, in fairness, he asked that this piece of
land be excluded from the Board's action so °nly the property the applicant is
acquiring is rezoned. Mr. Gilliam said the other issue concerns the Woodbrook
Crossover and Dr. Atkinson's two entrances onto Route 29. He said the appli-
cant's reason for wanting ingress from Route 29 is that as traffic comes down
Route 29 North, it is very easy for someone to go beyond the entrance to the
shopping center before they realize it. He said the applicant believes cars
can safely enter the shopping center at this point, without having to go any
further. Mr. Gilliam said the applicant also believes that to eliminate any
concern about cars weaving, there should be no right-turn on red or an acceler-
ation lane. Mr. Gilliam said these ar~ not "do or die" issues, although they
are important to the applicant. On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Gilliam then
made two suggestions: 1) the Board eliminate the right-turn on red and the
acceleration lane; or 2) the Board approve the rezoning, but agree to allow
_ .85
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
the remaining issues to be resolved at the site plan stage, to allow discus-
sions to continue with the Highway Department and Engineering and Planning
staff. Mr. Gilliam concluded by Showing Board members a colored map depicting
the various parcels owned by different people. He said if the parcels were
developed individually, it is possible more traffic entrances would be allowed
which he pointed out on the map. He said the applicant does not feel as if he
is asking a lot from the Board, but the applicant does ask that the suggestions
made be considered. ~
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public ihearing was closed.
Mr. Horne returned to the map to emphasize the Planning staff analysis on
the ingress issue and the third, acceleration/deceleration, lane. He said the
staff prefers that traffic enter the site at a signalized intersection, given
the amount of anticipated traffic generation. He said the staff feels a
preferable alternative to the applicant's proposal, is a right-turn on red and
two access points. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Home if he thought the recommended
two entrances provide adequate access for the amount of cox~ercial development
proposed. Mr. Home replied in the affirmative. Mr. Ron Keeler said the two
parcels of land that have not been purchased by the developer are subject to a
traffic generation zoning proffer. He said it is a very lbw generation figure
on a per acre basis. Mr. Keeler said he cannot see any loss to that particular
property owner if the property is rezoned to R-6, with the difference in
traffic generation added to the remaining commercial property.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with the applicati6n. However, she
agrees with Mr. Gilliam that the road frontage problem should be determined at
site review stage so further discussion can take place beforehand. Mr. Fisher
asked Mr. Horne to speak to this suggestion. Mr. Home saSd he believes there
has been sufficient analysis of the issue. He does not feel further discussion
will be productive from the Planning staff point of view in that there is no
additional information that can be provided to convince the staff that the
third lane is a necessary, safe, and convenient access point.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt his opinion on whether the Highway
Department will approve the third entrance. Mr. Roosevelt lsaid he did not
know. He said the Highway Department's Minimum Standards bf Entrances to
State Highways states, under Special Permits, that applications for such a
permit for large commercial and industrial sites need special evaluation and
the-sites should be reviewed on an individual basis. He-ssid the Department
has not had sufficient time to study the new proposal so h~ cannot advise what
will happen. Speaking for the District Engineer and himself, Mr. Roosevelt
said they feel the two entrances recommended previously are still the best
recommendation. He said the new proposal would require compromising the
comfort of those people using the public roads to give a mare convenient
access to the shopping center. Mr. Roosevelt said, in his ~pinion, that is
not a position the Highway Department should support.
Mr. Way asked if discussions had taken place with the owners of the
property where the road will be realigned. Mr. Horne said ~he owners are
aware of the plans, but no direct discussion has taken place. Mr. Keeler said
Mr. Preston Stallings, who controls the property, was preseht at the Planning
Commission meeting and said he has no objection to the realignment, provided
he will be permitted to relocate the mobile homes.
Mr. Fisher said two issues are before the Board: 1) approval of
ZMA-87-07; and 2) a finding that the change in the location of Berkmar Drive
Extended is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if ,there is any legaliimpediment to
rezoning the four commercial lot remnants on the west side of Berkmar Drive to
R-6. Mr. St. John replied that he questions whether the Board can make a
contract tonight to rezone that property in the future. He said there is no
one at the meeting to enter into an agreement at this time. In addition, the
adjoining neighbors to the property in question have a right to notice and to
be heard on the issue. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John to .explain what is
before the Board concerning the Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. St.
John said one of the conditions of the rezoning is that there is an agreement
in existence at the time of the rezoning that the four remnant lots will be
rezoned in the future; however, the rezoning for those lots was not advertised.
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
for this meeting. Mr. Horne confirmed this and said the rezoning was not
intended to take place tonight, just the agreement to rezone. Mr. St. John
said tonight the applicant is to agree to make application for the rezoning.
Mr. Gilliam said Dr. Hurt, the owner of the parcel, has signed the rezoning
petition. He said, legally, action can be taken which would bind Dr. Hurt;
and the Board can act tonight conditioning approval on all necessary parties
entering into any agreements Mr. St. John may feel are necessary. Mr. Gilliam
said on behalf of all the Owners, he can represent that this will be done.
Mr. Fisher said if the recommendations staff made are to be accomplished,
then the Board should not act until things are right. Mr. St. John replied
that everything that must be done should be completed at the same time, i.e.,
advertising for the rezoning, etc. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about
all five of the agreements listed in the recommendations, and he wants to
understand what the Board's conditional approval of ZMA-87~-07 will mean, based
on the agreements. Mr. St. John said he has no question or problem with the
agreements that involve any phase of construction. Mr. Horne saidunder PD-SC
zoning, the ordinance calls for the agreements to be made; he is not sure,
however, if the agreements should be in the form of proffers. The agreements
are considered part of the rezoning. If any~one of the agreements is not
done, then the zoning is not legal. Mr. Giltiam said he is authorized to go
on record as saying that if a future application for rezoning of the "orange"
outlots is required, the applicant agrees to make such application within the
next seven days or as promptly as possible. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Gilliam if
he is authorized to make this representationlto the Board. Mr. Gilliam said
yes.
Mr. Fisher said the Chair will entertaih a motion at this point. Mrs.
Cooke said she was going to make a motion, but after all the "lawyer" talk,
she has no idea how to state the motion. Mr. Lindstrom then made a motion to
approve ZMA-87-07 as recommended by the Planning Commission. which includes
the following modifications and agreements; with the understanding that the
orange parcels on the map displayed at this meeting will be subject to a
rezoning application in the next seven days, or as close to that as possible;
and that the middle entrance be deleted.
Mrs. Cooke asked if that covers it; all that has been said is covered by
the motion Mr. Lindstrom has made. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that by
stating the motion this way, it means that the orange parcels will be subject
to a rezoning application within the next seven days, or as close to this as
possible, and the middle entrance will be deleted. He said he is in favor of
deleting the middle entrance. He thinks it would be easier for Board members
to continue to talk about this, and he would be in favor of more discussion if
he was in favor of the applicant's position, but he is not. Mr. Lindstrom
said he thinks there will be a problem and the less entrances the better. He
said he understands that what the Planning Commission staff recommended in
their report includes all those things. Mr.~.Horne replied affirmatively.
Mr. Fisher asked for a second on Mr. Lindstrom's motion. Mrs. Cooke said
she was going to second the motion, but has a problem with the entrance
requirements. She feels the applicant and the Highway Department should be
given more time to discuss the issue if that seems to be important to them.
She said that would not have been part of her motion if she had made one. Mr.
Fisher said he wants to see if there is a second to the motion before any more
discussion. Mr. Lindstrom said it is important that if Board members feel the
third entrance is a bad idea and that safety is an issue, as do the State
staff and the County staff, the item should not be deferred. This might allow
for a "someone in the State hierarchy" to agree to the third entrance even if
it will not be any better from a safety standpoint. Mr. Lindstrom said the
Board members should stand up and vote on the issue now. He said it is not
logical to sacrifice the public benefit to private enterprise.
Mr. Way said he understands that the applicant's latest proposal has not
been fully studied by the staff. Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission
staff has, and they still do not recommend it, along with the resident staff
of the Highway Department. Mr. Lindstrom said based on the staffs' recommend-
ation, he thinks they made a good point.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Roosevelt if he had reviewed the applicant's latest
proposal concerning the third entrance. Mr. Roosevelt replied that the
.:187
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
proposal had been reviewed at the local level and to an extent at the district
level; however, he believes it has not been reviewed beyond that point.
At this time, Mr. Fisher said he would relinquished the gavel to the Vice
Chairman, Mr. Way, so he could second the motion because he thinks it is
proper for the Board to approve the petition with the conditions that have
been proposed by the staff. Mr. Way asked if there was any further discussion.
With no one speaking, roll was immediately called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Modifications to Application Plan:
Delete middle access to Route 29 North, and access from veterinarian
to Route 29 North. Show internal access for veterinarian.
Note that any use involving drive-in window on outlots A, B and/or
C is subject to special use permit approval.
Agreements Made by the County and the Applicant:
1. Agreement to develop property in general compliance with modified
Application Plan. Variations may be permitted as provided in
Section 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Staff approval of subdivision plat to include dedication of right-of-
way on Route 29 North as recommended by Virginia"Department of
Transportation; property line adjustment or easement to insure
access for property to north opposite first access off of Woodbrook
connector. Notes on plat restricting access to Route 29 North.
Plat shall also carry notation as to dedication of right-of-way
for new roads upon demand of County. Right-of-way for Woodbrook
Connector, Berkmar Extended, and Colonial Pontiac shall be deter-
mined by the Virginia Department of Transportation;
Agreement to construct Berkmar Drive Extended and Woodbrook
Connector to ultimate Virginia Department of Transportation stan-
dards. Agreement to construct Colonial Pontiac roadway to private
road standards.
4. Agreement to rezone four commercial lot remnants on west side of
Berkmar Drive Extended to R-6, Residential. (Note: Verbal agree-
ment made by the applicant's representative at tAe September 2,
1987, meeting, and included in the Board's motion of approval.)
5. Agreement to construct stormwater detention facilities in compliance
with state and local code requirements. Design Storm recurrence
interval shall be for the two and ten-year storm~ Design shall be
sufficient to prevent overtopping of U. S. Route~:29 for a design
storm with a one hundred year recurrence interval. The applicant
shall provide as much additional detention as is feasible within the
capacity available at the site in the vicinity of the proposed basin
shown on the Application Plan. ~
Mr. Lindstrom also made a motion that the Board accep~ the Planning
staff's recom3nendation concerning the realignment of Berkm~r Drive Extended
with a specific stipulation that in actually determining the specific location
of that realignment, at the south end where it intersects with Berkmar Drive,
every effort be made to leave the mobile home park as intadt as possible, even
though this might create a slightly different alignment from the alignment
shown on the sketch presented at this meeting. Mr. Way seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
:[88
September 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs° Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item Noo 9 had been renumbered as Agenda Item No. Sa.
Agenda item Noo 10. Approval of Minutes: March 18, 1985; October 1
(Night) 1986; March 11, June 10, and July 15, 1987.
Mr. Way had read pages 1 through 6 of March 11, 1987, and found them to
correct.
Mr. Henley had read October 1 (Night) 1986, and pages 14 through 22 of
July 15, 1987, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowie had read March 11, 1987, page 14 to the end and found them to
be in order.
Mrs. Cooke had read pages 7 through 14 of March 11, 1987, and found them
to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve
the minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. lla. Appointment: Agricultural/Forestal District
Advisory Committee. There was no name offered for this vacancy.
Agenda Item Noo llb. Appointment: Library Board. There was no name
offered for this vacancy.
Agenda Item No~ 12. Executive Session Personnel. At 10:35 Po M.,
motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs~ Cooke, to adjourn into
executive session for the stated purpose. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 10:45 P. M., and immediately
adjourned.
CHAIRMAN/
(NOTE: It was announced to the press in~ediately following this meeting
that Mr. Fisher had submitted his resignation as a Board member during the
executive session.)