Albemarle County Planning Commission

March 29, 2005

 

ZMA 2004-012 Luxor Commercial (Sign #86):  Request to rezone 3.523 acres from R-6 and R-15 (Residential) to PDMC (Planned District Mixed Commercial)and to rezone 1.377 acres from CO (Commercial Office) to PDMC to allow a 1,500 square foot bank and 80,000 square feet of mixed commercial.  The property, described as  Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (portion thereof) and Tax Map 78 Parcel 55D, is located in EC Entrance Corridor and the Rivanna Magisterial District on the north side of Route 250 East between Montessori School and Aunt Sarah's Restaurant. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density, recommended for 6-34 dwelling units per acre, in Neighborhood Three.

AND

SP 2004-038 Luxor Commercial Drive-in Window for a Bank (Sign #86):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a drive-in window for a bank in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses within PDMC. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (a portion thereof), contains 23.168 acres, and is pending a rezoning to PDMC (ZMA-04-12).

AND

SP 2005-001 Luxor Commercial Drive-in Window for a Coffee Shop (Sign #86):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a drive-in window for a coffee shop in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses within PDMC. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (a portion thereof), contains 23.168 acres.

AND

SP 2005-002 Luxor Commercial Veterinary Office (Sign #27):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a veterinary office in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary offices and hospitals within PDMC zoning. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D contains 1.377 acres. (Sean Dougherty)

 

Ms. Joseph asked if these items would be heard separately or all together.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission could hear these items as one public hearing, but the actions would probably be deferrals because of the advertising problem and would have to be done for each application.

 

Mr. Dougherty read the legal descriptions for ZMA-2004-12, SP-2004-38 (with waiver request for a reduction of the stacking requirement, SP-2005-01 and SP-2005-02.  Essentially in the legal he did not break down the two acreages, 3.523 and 1.377, into the different zoning categories.  Therefore, the legal ad was incorrect as it ran.  Therefore the potential to make a motion this evening is not possible.  After the items are readvertised they will have to come back at a later date to actually make the motion.  He stated that it was staff’s mistake and he apologized for that.  One of the parcels was originally rezoned to

allow for a veterinary clinic. The other parcel, 55A4, surrounds that parcel.  If you look at the colored drawing, there is another parallelogram inside the larger rezoning that is 55A4, which is where the veterinary clinic was approved in 1995.  What the applicant has done is joined with the owner of the land for the veterinary clinic and this other land to create basically a neighborhood service area here along Route 250.  As they all know the application is accompanied by requests for three special use permits. 

 

With a zoning classification of CO, R6, and R15, the property could be developed with commercial uses along Route 250, with medium density residences to the rear.  It would primarily be residences.  He spoke with the applicant and Kat Imhoff.  The point that he made to Ms. Imhoff was that if this was to go as all residential it would probably be less attractive from Monticello than what the applicant is proposing.  The Comprehensive Plan specifically requests that no retail be developed along this side of Route 250.  The approval of the Eckert stands in contrast to that. The rezoning would essentially stand in contrast also to the Comprehensive Plan. 

 

Mr. Rieley stated that since this is in direct contradiction with the Comprehensive Plan why we are not starting with a comprehensive plan amendment. 

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that very honestly he felt that there was a decision ultimately with Eckert that set a different design in motion for this area.  Of course, the County has an entire Pantops study going on, which is right now in a down period because of staffing.  It is an arguable point.  It could be subject to a comp plan amendment, but he felt that staff focused on the fact that Eckert was changed and this was an attempt to provide a little different type of development than just the stripping of Route 250 East, which was one of the things that the Comp Plan does recommend that we not do.  Staff made the choice here to go ahead and process this.  Staff really has no choice if the applicant wants to move forward with it anyway.  Staff made the choice to move forward with the rezoning and focus on the design aspects for something that would be different than stripping Route 250 East.  There is some mix of residential in the general area.

 

Mr. Dougherty pointed out that there was some residential towards the rear.  The other thing, too, is that what the applicant is proposing and what the rendering shows is that at least from the road that it is not going to appear as conventional strip development.  It is going to really be more active to the interior. Activity towards the front they have provided through the cut-through between the two buildings. But, essentially this would not be characterized as strip development. The Comprehensive Plan says limit strip development on Route 250 East by preventing commercial development.

 

Ms. Joseph asked what the land use designation in the Comp Plan was.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that the land use designation was urban density residential. 

 

Ms. Joseph how was the Eckert project processed.  She asked if that just came in as a rezoning or did that go through the Comp Plan process.

 

Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Eckert project was not unanimously recommended by this Commission either.  It was approved by the Board. But, it was a split vote by the Commission.  It was recommended for approval, but not unanimous.

 

Mr. Rieley stated that it was the same issue at that time concerning the procedure.

 

Mr. Thomas stated that their discussions at that time were leaning towards that it was an area of transition even though the Comp Plan did not state it. 

 

Ms. Joseph asked what kind of information does the County have from the people who have been meeting and talking about Pantops in terms of any particular land use.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that he did not think that they have gotten to that point yet.  There are some uses here that people in the Pantops area have said that would be desirable to have in the area.  The comments have been basically random at this point as far as who was attending and their thoughts.  But, they have not gotten to specifically identifying land use in specific areas.

 

Mr. Morris stated that what he had heard from residents at Westminster Canterbury and others in what they have brought forth is that there is virtually nothing commercial on the north side of Route 250 and it is very difficult to get across Route 250 to get to the south side.  Therefore, they were wondering when it is going to be our turn to get some commercial.

 

Mr. Craddock stated that was part of the argument on whether to keep the north side residential and having the entire commercial on the south side at Peter Jefferson, which is a campus like atmosphere as opposed to strip commercial.  He pointed out that whether this will look better than residential is subjective.  

 

Mr. Morris stated that he was stating what was mentioned in the planning sessions regarding Pantops.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that the next item was the principles of the Neighborhood Model and pedestrian orientation.  Essentially, the applicant has made it possible for people to walk from Eckert and get onto a sidewalk as soon as they cross over the drive isle between Eckert and the bank.  A pedestrian connection from essentially the passage way directly back between the two has been requested by staff.  Now the pedestrian would have to walk sort of around in a circle.  He felt that the applicant has done a fairly good job. But, ideally they would have the pedestrian connection this way.  At the very least it would be very helpful to have curb cuts in those islands and a cross walk established from the front to the rear, especially if this does become very popular among residents of Westminster Canterbury and the other elderly residents of the neighborhood. But that is something for consideration.  Also, the two parking spaces located directly in front of that passage way were requested to be eliminated or somehow buffered.  This can probably be taken care of at the site plan stage. But right now you walk from that passage walk directly into parking.  If those two parking spaces were not there, it would enable people to get directly from the center of the passage way out to the parking lot.  That is still an outstanding issue.

 

The next element is the parks and open space.  The area lining Route 250 and the two preserved mature trees, the plaza connecting the interior of the site to Route 250, essentially the passage between the front and the rear of the buildings along Route 250, and the outdoor space amenity shown adjacent to the coffee shop are excellent responses to the principles of the Neighborhood Model.  The dark green square to the right of the coffee shop is some sort of plaza that will be constructed in association with the coffee shop.  There is a green oval space in the front that is sort of in the middle of the sidewalk, which is the applicant’s representation of a park plaza or a green space that he has proffered to construct.  The applicant wants to enable himself some flexibility on what that will eventually be, particularly if there are restaurant uses located in these buildings.  There may be an opportunity for outdoor seating or something like that. 

 

The next element is the mixture of uses.  The area for rezoning in conjunction with the other residential uses around this area creates a mixture of uses.  By itself in the definition of PD-MC, it implies a mixture of uses and he felt that was what was going to happen here.  The other principles of the Neighborhood Model don’t necessarily apply that relates to housing and what not. 

 

The relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the request zoning district is the next topic.  The PD-MC districts permit development of large-scale commercial areas with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified planned approach.  It is intended the PD-MC districts be established on major highways in the urban areas and communities in the Comprehensive Plan.  In recognition that such large-scale development may substantially reduce the functional integrity and safety of public roads if permitted with unplanned access, it is intended that multiple access to existing public roads be discouraged and that development and access be oriented toward an internal road system having carefully planned intersections with existing public roads.  The application conforms to the purpose and intent of the PDMC zoning classification.  The applicant has done a very good job of providing these roads and the circulation to make this work.

 

Public need and justification for the change:  As residential uses develop in this area as prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan, residents of the area and those who travel in from 250 East will have more options for services and retail in this area.  Additionally, Rolkin Road, which serves the site is a benefit and is proposed to eventually connect into Fontana and the proposed Cascadia Neighborhood Model District, providing a connection from the Darden Towe Park area of Route 20 to this area.  This will decrease the number of cars that currently travel to the intersection of Route 250 and Route 20 to head east on Route 250.  This route begins to develop some relationships that are not currently possible.

 

Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:  The proposed rezoning will impact schools less than if developed with existing residential zoning.  The construction of Rolkin Road, the roundabout and eventual connection to Fontana and Route 20 works to help mitigate some of the traffic impacts. 

 

He presented slides of the area to clarify the applicant’s request.  He pointed out that the one thing to be aware of is that it would be desired by VDOT to bring State Farm Boulevard up basically to where Aunt Sarah’s is and it would require the elimination of Aunt Sarah’s.  It would come up come and bend over towards the Luxor property behind Aunt Sarah’s, which was sort of the idea.  The applicant has proffered to make this connection possible if connections are to be made across the Aunt Sarah’s site.  That is a situation that is completely up in the air.  One feature of the application plan that is significant is the approvability of the stacking lanes next to the bank because they do not meet the zoning requirements.  The substance of this issue is discussed in SP-2004-38 later, but Jan Sprinkle is here and she is going to talk about that part of it as it relates to the special use permit and included in the rezoning. 

 

As far as our recommended action, staff believes that a front to rear pedestrian connection can be made with the revisions to the application plan with the pedestrian connection that he spoke of earlier.  Regarding the necessary reduction in stacking spaces, staff requests the Planning Commission and Board to review the comments of SP-2004-38.  Staff believes that the conflict with the Land Use Plan is more problematic than the pedestrian connection, the stacking requirements and the Eckert.  As mentioned previously, certain people within the Pantops Master Planning process have identified that these sort uses along Route 250, especially with the connection back to Fontana, may be appropriate. 

 

The next topic is the special use permits.  The special use permits for the bank and coffee are fairly similar.  Therefore, he reviewed those two special use permits in conjunction with each other.  The proposal is for a 59 square foot bank with a walk-in and drive-in facilities to be located along Route 250. The bank is proposed to serve as a branch for First Citizens Bank. However, he was not sure if that has been finalized.  It will include two teller drive-in windows and one ATM. The second proposal is for the coffee ship walk-in and drive-through facilities.  The coffee shop’s proposed location is interior to the west of the proposed mixed-use buildings at the back of the site.  The bank and coffee shop will be served by Rolkin Road, which will act as the rear access road for the entire development.  Motorists coming from the west along Route 250 will essentially have to pull in and access it from the rear.  Coming from the east they could come in the right in right out or they could come up to the intersection to go in. 

 

sp 2004-38 BANK DRIVE IN WINDOW SUMMARY:

 

Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to the request:

 

1.       The design responds well on many levels to the Neighborhood Model.

2.       In most cases, a reasonable system for vehicular and pedestrian circulation has been established.

 

Staff has identified two factors which are not favorable to the request:

 

1.       Drive-through windows, in general, do not promote pedestrian activity.

2.       Insufficient information has been provided to justify the bank’s request to modify the stacking requirement.

3.       The site’s interior pedestrian access has deficiencies

 

Staff finds that this request generally complies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.  The request, however, is dependent on approval of the requested rezoning.  The rezoning is dependent on an application plan that could be approved that meets zoning requirements.  In order to approve the special use permit for the bank and the application plan in general, the Commission needs to grant a modification to the stacking requirements.  At this time, staff is unable to support the applicant’s request for the drive-through at the bank without additional research or information showing that the County’s requirements are excessive.

 

If the Planning Commission believes that a waiver to the stacking requirements is warranted, then staff would recommend approval of SP 04-38 with the following conditions:

 

1.       Drive-through windows will be limited to three (3); including any to be used for an ATM (Note the change:  staff is not really concerned whether it becomes a personal teller or an ATM) and

2.       Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.

3.       Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the site plan. The crosswalk just beyond the drive-up window bays for the bank shall be identified with crosswalk signage on either side of the drive aisle. 

 

sp 2005-01 COFFEE SHOP Drive-Through SUMMARY:

 

Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:

 

  1. The coffee shop will include a landscaped patio and provide a walkable destination for residents of Westminster Canterbury and Pantops Place, among others.
  2. A reasonable system for vehicular and pedestrian circulation has been established.

 

Staff has identified the following factors, which are not favorable to this request:

 

  1. Drive-through windows, in general, do not promote pedestrian activity.

 

Staff finds that this request complies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of SP 05-02 for the coffee shop with the following conditions:

 

  1. Drive-through windows will be limited to one (1); and
  2. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
  3. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as by-pass lanes, signage, and pavement markings.

 

sp 2005-02 VETRINARY OFFICE

 

The proposed veterinary clinic will be located inside the mixed use building lining Route 250.  It will be confined to a soundproofed and air condition building.  The clinic shall conform to Section 5.1.11 (listed below) which puts forth specific requirements for veterinary clinics confined to building interiors.

 

Engineering and Zoning staff have no objections to the veterinary clinic. There is one condition that staff has drafted, which they can look at it at the end which Zoning and staff would like to add.

 

SUMMARY

 

Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:

  1. The veterinary use can conform to the requirements of Section 5.11.1.d.
  2. Veterinary uses can function well in shopping centers when outdoor facilities are not needed and when conflicts at entrances and exits are minimized.

 

Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to this request.

 

Staff recommends approval of SP 05-02 with the following conditions:

  1. A separate entrance and exit be provided for the clinic in accordance with Section 5.1.11d.
  2. No outdoor runs or outdoor exercise area is to be provided at this location.

 

Ms. Joseph asked if that was his added condition, Mr. Dougherty stated yes.

 

Mr. Rieley questioned if all of the animals had to stay inside.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that another potential condition is the conditioning the location of the veterinary clinic within the masses of the mixed-use buildings.  The situation is that the property that is owned by Nigral Bray is basically where the parallelogram is and that is where the veterinary clinic is proposed to be located.  Staff had indicated in the email that he measured 325 feet from Westminster Canterbury, but he felt that there was a problem on the scale on the larger plan.  The gray circles indicate 100 feet and 200 feet, and the requirement is that the enclosed kennels or the soundproofed and air-conditioned kennels be more than 200 feet away from any residential lot line.  That has been achieved there.  It needs to be conditioned that the veterinary clinic goes on the Nigel Bray property, which is the smaller parallelogram.  The only space that they would have a problem with locating the veterinary clinic would be in the three buildings towards the rear.  On the other side of Rolkin Road there are some proposed residential units.

 

Ms. Joseph stated that all of that was still zoned residential.

 

Ms. Higgins asked if there was any residential use proposed in the three building on the rear of this site.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that there was no residential use proposed on the site at all.  Therefore, the closest residential use would be at the corner of Westminster Canterbury.  He felt that the best way to condition it would be that the veterinary be located in one of the buildings towards the front, which was the way the applicant would prefer to have it done.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that the administration of the Zoning Ordinance was not going to allow that facility to be within 200 feet.  If there is a more particular location that they want to see the veterinary in within the building it would be fine to delineate it. That has been done before. If they were concerned about distance it was located from residential that has already been taken care of. Therefore, it would be for other reasons that they might want to locate it within a specific area of the building.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that one of the other reasons might be the issue that was raised about customers of veterinary clinics potentially taking a little pit stop before they went into the business.  The area along Aunt Sarah’s Road to the massing on the right hand side would probably be appropriate for that sort of thing.  He stated that he would not want to encourage it, but if that were to have to happen, then our other concerns would have to take place on the interior of the veterinary clinic. 

 

Ms. Higgins stated that the outdoor runs is a separate issue to what she was talking about having a separate entrance to avoid animal conflicts. It says in the cases of shopping centers of other urban density locations you may want to require this to confine it to an area versus it is going to happen outside unrestricted.

 

Mr. Craddock stated that they were talking about a pit stop area.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that the other one says area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or other means.  She pointed out that when you get out of your car the veterinary has a sign that says this is where you go.

 

Ms. Joseph stated that this is different because it is outdoor exercise runs. It is more formal.  She was talking about an informal area.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that she was saying that it was going to happen anyway at the ingress.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that it might be appropriate to locate these places adjacent to the entrance or something like that.  A lot of times when you get into the strip mall situation there is no opportunity for this sort of thing.  Therefore, it becomes sort of a default.  He stated that he was not sure whether that is something that they want to encourage or discourage.

 

Mr. Craddock stated that the current veterinary clinic at Pantops does not have an outside area.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that actually falls under a special use permit that the Board reviewed a few years ago at Pantops Shopping Center.  It was expressly not provided for because there was not place for it.

 

Ms. Joseph asked Ms. Sprinkle to clarify the stacking issue because there was a request from the applicant for a waiver or modification from staff for that.

 

Ms. Sprinkle stated that she received a letter from Michael Weston of First Citizens Bank who requested to reduce their required number of stacking spaces for the proposed First Citizens Bank.  She thought that the request did not really explain very thoroughly a good reason for staff to grant the modification.  He quotes only that the bank would be one of the smaller models of 1,500 square feet.  It is a satellite to the main branch on Route 29.  It is their experience that they don’t need 5 stacking spaces.  However, in granting a special use permit we are granting a special use permit for a bank drive through window.  They are not granting it for this particular bank with this particular bank’s experience.  They need to look at all of our experience in Albemarle County.  Staff found when they wrote the parking section of the Zoning Ordinance with the stacking that 5 was the number that they thought was appropriate.  Without any further explanation that this one bank’s experience staff did not feel that it was needed to grant this modification.  There are only 3 clear stacking spaces for each lane. Beyond those 3 it goes into 1 lane.  Staff did not feel that was a great design for reducing the modification.  That is staff’s position.  She was not sure if there has been a formal request for the Commission to appeal our decision.

 

Ms. Joseph noted that there was a formal request made.

 

Ms. Higgins asked if a coffee shop with a drive through window an eating establishment or a fast food restaurant.

 

Ms. Sprinkle stated that it does not matter.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that it did because under Section 22.0 fast food requires a special use permit and under eating establishments it is a by right use.

 

Ms. Sprinkle stated that she thought that they had changed that in the Zoning Ordinance so that the definition says that fast food and eating establishment is the same thing.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that under Section 10.13.04 it requires a special use permit under fast food restaurant.  She pointed out that if this changed to a fast food restaurant it could be a problem.

 

Ms. Sprinkle stated that staff would like to have that clarified. 

 

Mr. Kamptner stated that what Ms. Sprinkle was saying was that a couple of years ago the definition of eating establishment was amended under the definition section. 

 

Ms. Sprinkle stated that staff would get that worked out before it comes back to the Commission.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that the stacking was okay for what is proposed for a single drive through window and the parking, of course, is a conglomerate of the gross areas in the PD-MC zoning.  Under the PD-MC zoning there is a perception of gross parking requirements.  The parking adjacent to that bank if you went to the specific requirements for a bank there is more spaces in proximity to that bank.  With three drive through you can reduce it by 75 percent so it could be required for 3 parking spaces.  She was trying to approach this one if more than adequate parking spaces are required are we as concerned about decreasing the stacking.  In other words, if they are parking spaces short on the stacking is it okay because if she saw the line full she might pull into a parking space.  She asked if that has ever been done before.

 

Ms. Sprinkle stated that it has not been brought to their attention and they have not considered that.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that in a PD-MC zoning she could see where it would make sense.

 

Ms. Joseph asked if there were any other questions for staff.  There being none, she opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to come forward and address the Commission.

 

Michael Barnes stated that he worked for C.W. Hurt Contractors and represents Virginia Land and Nigral Bray with this rezoning.  They were basically happy with the plan that they have developed.  They think that it is buildable and it would marketable.  They were happy with the positive staff comments that they have received to date. They were happy with the ARB comments that they have received to date.  They were happy with the proffers as they have provided them.  They were happy with the conditions and even with the ones that have been added on tonight.  He felt that they could work around the one about the distance from the residential dwellings themselves.  It was always the intent that Nigral Bray’s veterinary clinic would be on the Nigral Bray’s property, which is the one in the front where the buildings are.  Therefore, that should not be a problem. They believe that this plan represents most if not all of the Neighborhood Model elements.  They have worked hard to try to incorporate those.  They have relegated the parking from not only the Entrance Corridor, but from the streets that are going to be behind it through the use of buildings and landscaping.  They have brought the buildings up to the front and the streets.  The larger buildings are all two stories, except the one in the rear.  They have provided pedestrian access along 250 and the connection over here to whatever ends up happening with the Aunt Sarah’s parking lot.  They are proffering to put a sidewalk up to our property line with Westminster so that they connect down into our site.  They have sidewalks along the roads on the exterior and they have sidewalks in front of all of the buildings as well as sidewalks connecting the coffee shop.  One of the challenges that they face is trying to front all of these roads with buildings they need square footage.  Square footage is a function of parking.  They are very close on the amount of parking. Right now they have two or three extra spaces.  Obviously, that does not show handicap spaces and they will have to incorporate those where they make sense at the site plan stage.  They are going to lose a couple of those spaces.  As far as the connection up the middle they are not opposed to that and will even try to work that in at the site plan stage if they can.  They also believe that the plan helps with the transportation concepts for this area.  They provided staff with a larger scaled plan that he had folded up.  It shows that this area is a component of a larger area.  This Rolkin Road continues on back to tie into Fontana, which will eventually tie into the Lakeridge Subdivision that they are working on. That will eventually tie back into Franklin, Cascadia, Avemore and all of the neighborhoods that are in the northeast quadrant of the Route 20/250 intersection.  They will have the capacity to come through here and come to the light at Rolkin Drive and if there is redevelopment of Aunt Sarah’s they have proffered to extend this road down to our boundary with Aunt Sarah’s so that it can be continued around Aunt Sarah’s and tie it in with State Farm.  That would give you connections over to the new hospital and State Farm itself.  It really will start to build a parallel network in this area.  Therefore, he felt that there were a lot of advantages that they were working on.  He presented the first plan that they brought in, which he would call strip development.  That would be something if they could get passed that there were plenty of clients that would love to go into something like that.  He believed that the Comprehensive Plan was saying that it was trying to limit strip development.  The intent is to prevent the stripping out of the rest of the corridor.  They have worked hard with this plan to try to prevent that by bringing the buildings up.  Those buildings are close as they possible can be to Route 250.  There is an existing sewer line that runs east/west and the buildings are right up against that sewer line easement.  As for this plan, you can see that it has a large bank in it with numerous stacking lanes and numerous drive thoughs.

 

Speaking to the special use permit conditions, again, they are satisfied with all of them and are willing to work with it.  They requested the waiver in this case because they are trying to keep the capacity for internal to this development that you could come from the Eckert site and drive over to the Aunt Sarah’s and use these multiple pathways through the site to improve the circulation.  Keeping those accesses, particularly in the narrow strips, creates the need to compress the bank down into a smaller site.  The bank is now on .4 acre and originally they started off with a 1 acre site.  In large part they have compressed the bank area in order to maintain that internal access.  That is one of the major reasons that bank is so close up to Route 250.  It also helps in trying to provide a little more building mass up on Route 250.  But, as a result obviously they are going to have a drive through associated with something that must have the capacity to drive all the way around the building.  The ARB recommended a 22 foot width of this and nothing greater.  If they have to add the extra stacking they have to increase this, which would increase the amount of impervious area between the buildings and the Entrance Corridor. As far a stacking goes they have to speak from personal experience.  Mike Weston is here tonight and would like to speak to his experience with several banks that they have in town and the demands that they experience around the peak hours, which is going to be the concern here.  They feel that this is more than adequate.  Most of the time they only have one of their windows open because of the demand that they exhibit.  This is a relatively small bank at 1,500 square feet, which could actually be smaller than 1,500 square feet.  He stated that he would argue that one of the main reasons that they would want to have stacking is that they don’t end up with a situation like you have with the McDonalds in Shopper’s World where you have people cueing all the way back into the main entrance into the development.  With this if someone was really cueing in here, and they were only several spaces short, they were going to cue back into the parking lot. They would request relief from always trying to protect against the extreme example.  They feel that only on the extreme worse days would they experience that. They are trying in some respects mitigate a large football field worth of asphalt out in front of this bank dedicated simply to the stacking of cars that may never arrive at that area.  With that, he would be happy to answer any questions.  Present to answer any questions are Mr. Nigal Bray, with the veterinary, and Mr. Weston, with the bank.

 

Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for Mr. Barnes.  There being no one, she asked if there was any one else present to speak regarding this application.  There being none, she closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and action.

 

Mr. Rieley stated that he had a question about the Internal pedestrian connection on the north/south that staff is recommending.  If they were inclined to vote in favor of this and thought that was an important component then what is the mechanism that they would use to condition it.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that it could be included as part of the application plan and it would be shown as a feature.   He reminded the Commission that they could not take an action on this tonight because it will have to be readvertised and brought back to them.  Staff is going to do that as quickly as possible unless there are real issues that the applicant needs to address before it comes back. This is somewhat like the Belvedere project in that if there is anything that the Commission wants to identify other than how you may be inclined in the stacking request then you need to identify that.  He felt that the applicant would want to know because they don’t want to come back here and have that issue facing them. 

 

Mr. Rieley stated that proffer 5 is intended to address these 2 big white pine trees.  That pine is shown sandwiched between the sidewalk and the cub.  There is nothing in condition 5 that is going to keep those trees alive.  Those trees will be dead if that illustration is anywhere near correct. 

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that he illustrated the pine trees to show where they would roughly fall on the plan.  The sidewalks would have to be somehow designed to avoid killing the trees.

 

Ms. Higgins asked if he had a picture of what that looks like right now. 

 

Mr. Rieley stated that if his drawing did no show them correctly relative to where the sidewalks are intended to be on the plan, then they need to know that.  The reason that he brings that up is that it is underlined as one of the great attributes of saving those trees.  The proffer as it is written now does not assure that. They don’t have enough information to know whether as they are illustrated are correct or some how that needs to be reworked so that it is clear that you can design that site in such a way that you save those trees if indeed they are that important.

 

Ms. Joseph pointed out that the question was whether those trees were that important.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that he did not think providing pedestrian access somewhere around them won’t be too difficult.  He felt that a solution needs to be established for that.  He pointed out that he illustrated these trees on here so that they would have an idea of what they were talking about.  There are only roughly drawn on the plan.

 

Ms. Higgins asked where the sewer line was located.  It was brought up that the buildings were located right along the edge of the sewer line. 

 

Mr. Dougherty pointed out that it was near the sidewalk.

 

Mr. Rieley asked that they ear mark that as an issue that needs resolution he felt that would be great.

 

Mr. Dougherty asked if that issue was just for the protection of the trees or a solution for pedestrian access.

 

Mr. Rieley stated that they it was clearly related in where the trees were located relative to where the curb cut is going to be and relative to where the sidewalks will go in.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that the curb cuts have already gone in there.

 

Mr. Rieley asked if it was right next to the trees.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that it was pretty close, but not right next to it. 

 

Mr. Rieley stated that they might already be tarnished. If it is an issue that is significant, then it should be resolved before it comes back to the Commission.  With this kind of development it can sometimes be argued that even nice trees have to give way as you become more urbanized. 

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that one of the justifications is that this environment is being sealed off at least in the peripheral of the immediate adjacency of Route 250 natural features that predate 10 or 15 years.  These trees have a lot of life in them.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that she wanted to make sure that this is addressed before it comes back.  In the staff report it talks about PD-MC not being more intense.  When she went to the proffer where it referenced Section 22.0 it was the C-1, Commercial section.  Therefore, it was not as similar as she expected. That is where it came out that the fast food was a special use permit requirement.  If that is the case, she asked that they address it.  She questioned what category a coffee shop with a drive through window would fall in.  She asked that zoning weigh in on that so that this is covered in that action so that the applicant does not find himself with a problem or if the use changes that there would be a problem.

 

Ms. Joseph asked if there were any other comments on the proffers.  She asked why they eliminated farmer’s market.

 

Mr. Barnes stated that they started with the uses that were eliminated from the original rezoning for Mr. Brays property.  He pointed out that they would be happy to add as many uses as the Commission wanted to add back in there.  He noted that they had added back in hardware store. If the Commission wanted them to add that back in that they would be happy to do that.

 

Ms. Joseph stated that they could talk about that, but there was one more question that she had.  In proffer 8 she was a little concerned that they agreed to make interconnection as long as a mutual maintenance agreement can be achieved. She pointed out that was not saying much.

 

Mr. Barnes stated that he thought that they would do that. But, what they were trying to do here is if they say that they have to by proffer attach to this property and they are using this travel way to come in here what kind of leverage does it give us to negotiate a receptacle maintenance agreement between ourselves and the neighboring parcel.  The main thing was to maintain bargaining leverage with whatever the future tenant is that comes in there so that they are not obligated to provide it without some kind of receptacle maintenance.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that in the staff report on page 9 and top of page 10 it says the PD-MC is Section 25a of the Zoning Ordinance.  It talks about C-1, CO, HC and some uses are allowed in the PD-MC.  When you go to the proffer section you have referenced Section 22.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, which was just C-1.  So that is what she thought was strange.  Now under that classification that applies to Section 25.0, if that is the correct one, then maybe this issue about the fast food goes away.  She stated that they would have to look at all three sections, but that C-1 specifically calls it out.  She asked that staff make sure that the correct section is listed on the proffer form.  It is a much broader set of uses than just C-1.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was broader uses unless they get proffered out.  What this is doing is that only those uses allowed in Section 22.0. What it is saying is that the other potential uses in the two other uses that PD-MC can cover will not be applicable here. 

 

Ms. Higgins asked if it was on purpose to only reference Section 22.0.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that he did not know if it was on purpose or not, but that was the effect of it.

 

Ms. Higgins asked Mr. Barnes to respond to that question.

 

Mr. Barnes stated that what they were trying to do is when they come in for a rezoning they don’t want to ask for too much.  They have Nigral Bray’s property as C-1.  They started off with C-1 zoning, but they came in to ask for Planned District so that they could get some reductions in setbacks and buildings and things like that.  So basically they were taking the C-1 uses and using that as the model.  If the Commission wants them to look at other uses in other districts they can go back and do that.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that she wanted to make sure that the action that the Commission was taking on a proffer form that was not all the way filled out and does not have an attachment that they know that it is the right one.  Then the other question was that they have not had a coffee shop with a drive through.  If the use changes or the interpretation is that it is a fast food that there is no listing for coffee shop or drive through.  If it is a fast food, then it should have a special use permit with it.  She felt that they need to do it right. She noted that it would be clarified before it comes back to the Commission.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that as a point of clarification the applicant is basically proffering down to only one district and some uses in that district.  He asked if the Commission wants more uses or not.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that she did not have a problem with that, but that she just wanted to understand it. 

 

Mr. Barnes stated that they were using the structure that was set up by the County Attorney’s office on how to go about uses.  They could have used picked three zoning districts and then said not this one or that one.  It was simpler for them just to pick one and do it this way.

 

Ms. Joseph pointed out that the Commission was not going to vote on this tonight.

 

Ms. Higgins asked if they need a request for a deferral.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that they could defer the request to a date to be determined.  He stated that the applicant does not have to request the deferral because it has got to be readvertised.  One thing that has not been addressed, which the applicant was most interested in is what your determination or guidance on the stacking is. 

 

Ms. Joseph stated that there were a couple of issues. She asked that they also discuss the Comprehensive Plan aspect of this.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that he knew that that the issue for the applicant was the stacking.

 

Ms. Joseph asked if the Commissioners would like to go through and discuss the stacking aspect of the request.

 

Mr. Morris stated that he had no problems with the reduced stacking due to the size of the bank.

 

Mr. Craddock asked how big the BBB&T was across the street.

 

Mr. Barnes stated that there is a BBB&T that is across the street on State Farm, which was bigger than this.  The credit union is much, much bigger.  The new Sun Trust Bank was approved under the previous ordinance and it has four drive through and much fewer stacking places in front of that.  That is one new bank that has been built that has fewer stacking spaces per lane that what they were asking.  He stated that he thought they have 10 to 12 stacking places on that for 4 drive throughs.  He noted that they were providing 10.  He noted that next time he would provide a spread sheet of various things with this information.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that if an analysis of some sort is submitted and the Zoning Administrator and Ms. Sprinkle brought this up. Maybe there is enough information that the Zoning Administrator who has increased flexibility since the ordinance was amended in 2003 to grant a reduction. She just did not know if they were setting a precedent to overrule the Zoning Administrator in this particular case. She stated that she really did not have a problem with it if it was thee spaces.

 

Ms. Joseph stated that it was brought up by Ms. Sprinkle that the applicant was providing more parking for the bank than was required. Therefore, they were going to look at that aspect also.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that was an arguable issue.

 

Ms. Joseph stated that she felt that Ms. Sprinkle was open to look at that.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that possibly the applicant might want to put an argument before the Zoning Administrator before this comes back so that they won’t have to overrule the Zoning Administrator.

 

Mr. Rieley stated that there was another issue that Mr. Barnes raised that he did think was pertinent.  It is that there is plenty of room to get all of the stacking would require any property other than the bank itself.  So if their stacking is not sufficient and it backs up that it is going to back up in their own parking lot and disrupt their own.  It is not going to hurt anyone else, which he felt was an issue that ought to be considered. 

 

Ms. Higgins pointed out that they could also pull into another one of those parking spaces.

 

Mr. Rieley stated that the issue of the Comprehensive Plan is still out there.  He stated that it was one that he had struggled with on Eckert and also on this.  There is no question that this is better than some other things that Mr. Barnes had pointed out that could be worse.  This is essentially the suburban model that is turned inside out. Everything is served by automobiles, but part of it is on the inside.  It is probably an improvement for something in this area.  He felt that they should be guided by the Comprehensive, which is our charge.  It is the reason staff recommended denial of Eckert when it came to them before.  He stated that he was really worried that they have just slipped into a defector Comprehensive Plan Amendment because on the spur of the moment they feel like this one is okay.  It is not based on any analysis.  It is not based on looking at a broader bigger picture and how the parts all fit together.  It is based on an off the cuff decision. Therefore, he was concerned about that. 

 

Ms. Higgins stated that the leader of the Eckert and this being in proximity to the Eckert that Eckert might lend it to be considered that way.  She actually looks at this that there is an internal parcel that has been subject to actions over a period of time, but may be they have expired.  But, this is a more cohesive way than pursuing it under its current zoning and maybe this was an opportunity and if the Eckert was approved without the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and this is more like it.  In other words, if you can achieve the same goal would you really question the process part of this? 

 

Mr. Rieley stated that he was questioning that the process is there for a reason and if you skip a step in this one he felt that it raises long term concerns.  He stated that they don’t’ know if it meets the same goals because they have not looked at it in the broad context, which is exactly the reason why you have the CPA process.  But, they don’t have to solve this tonight.  He was just saying that it remains an issue.

 

Mr. Thomas felt that it was a legitimate point, too.

 

Mr. Craddock disagreed with Mr. Rieley because it has certainly been something that has been talked about on Pantops for a long time about the business end of the north side of Route 250.

 

Ms. Joseph stated that they had someone come in fairly recently about doing the same sort of thing across from the Airport and wanting us to do some type of fast forward instead of having it industrial they wanted to have it residential.  One of the things that they talked about was doing the Comprehensive Plan Review in conjunction with the rezoning request.

 

Mr. Thomas pointed out that they had done that with the Glenwood Station just recently.

 

Mr. Rieley stated that the message that they left was that they were so enthusiastic about having the affordable housing component in it that they advocated compressing the two reviews together.  They did not talk about leaving out the CPA review.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that there was one example from many years ago where the commercial at Mill Creek Shopping Center was not recognized in the Comprehensive Plan.  They actually did review that as a rezoning with the expectation of changing the Comprehensive Plan.  In that case there was actually the expectation that the commercially designated area in that region would be moved to the location of the shopping center.  That was somewhat a conscious decision to allow a rezoning and change the plan to move the designation from another location to that location, which was felt under new circumstances to be more appropriate.  He felt that this one deserves a little bit of that discussion and he was going to get David Benish involved in that because he really oversees what they do with the Comprehensive Plan.  He stated that they could have some more conversation on how they could look at this in relationship to that particular consideration.

 

Mr. Rieley stated that he was not convinced that the Comprehensive Plan was right in this case.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that what he was saying was that it may be worth visiting as part of this rezoning some of the facts behind what has been designated there and if in fact this change does make sense in the context of the Comp Plan.  He stated that his note to the Chair was that they could defer the request with the expectation that it would be readvertised.  He asked Mr. Kamptner if it was necessary for the Commission to take an action.

 

Mr. Kamptner suggested that they set a date for the hearing.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that they could not put a date on it because they don’t know how long it would take for the applicant to cover all of the outstanding issues.

 

Ms. Joseph suggested that the Commission not ignore it and that they need to address it.  She asked that the next hearing be set as soon as possible even if there needs to be some analysis of the Comp Plan.  She felt that it needs to be done quickly.  She stated that the Commission was deferring the request as summarized below.

 

Due to an error in advertising, the Planning Commission took no action on ZMA-2004-012, SP-2004-038, SP-2005-001 and SP-2005-002. The Commission asked staff to set a new hearing date as soon as possible once all of the details have been worked out and the applications have been readvertised. Staff needs to consider whether an analysis of the Comprehensive Plan needs to done in conjunction with this review. Also, the applicant needs to obtain relief from the stacking requirement from the Zoning Administrator.


 

Albemarle County Planning Commission

June 7, 2005

 

ZMA 2004-012 Luxor Commercial (Sign #86):  Request to rezone 3.523 acres (portion of Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4) from R-6 (Residential) and R-15 (Residential) to PDMC (Planned District Mixed Commercial) and to rezone 1.377 acres (Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D) from C-1 (Commercial) to PDMC to allow a 1,500 square foot bank and 80,000 square feet of mixed commercial in a planned development.  The properties, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (portion thereof) and Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D, are located in the EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District and the Rivanna Magisterial District on the north side of Route 250 East between the Montessori School and Aunt Sarah's Restaurant. The general usage allowed in the PDMC zoning district is large-scale commercial with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified planned approach; the PDMC zoning district does not have a density range.  The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density and the general usage recommended under this designation is residential. The recommended density range is 6-34 dwelling units per acre in Neighborhood Three. 

AND

SP 2004-038 Luxor Commercial Drive-In Window for a Bank (Sign #86):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a drive-in window for a bank in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses within PDMC. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (a portion thereof), contains 23.168 acres, and is pending a rezoning to PDMC (ZMA-04-12).

AND

SP 2005-001 Luxor Commercial Drive-In Window for a Coffee Shop (Sign #86):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a drive-in window for a coffee shop in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses within PDMC. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (a portion thereof), contains 23.168 acres, and is pending a rezoning to PDMC (ZMA-04-12).

AND

SP 2005-002 Luxor Commercial Veterinary Office (Sign #27):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a veterinary office in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary offices and hospitals within PDMC zoning. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D contains 1.377 acres, and is pending a rezoning to PDMC (ZMA-04-12).  (Sean Dougherty)

 

Mr. Dougherty summarized the staff report.  He presented some photographs in a power point presentation. 

 

 

·                  The appropriateness of staff’s recommendation for approval of the ZMA as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation for “no strip development” along this side of Route 250.

 

·                  Successful preservation of the two mature pines along Route 250, given the proposed sidewalk location.

 

·                  Adequacy of pedestrian access from front of site to rear.

 

 

·         Regarding SP 2004-38 for the drive-through window for the bank, the following issue was raised by the Planning Commission:  The suitability of a waiver request to reduce the number of stacking spaces for the bank’s drive-through window.  Since the hearing, the Zoning Administrator received additional information from the applicant relative to the waiver request to reduce the number of stacking spaces for the bank drive-through. She administratively granted the waiver.

 

·         Staff feels the proposal is appropriate for the following reasons:

 

·         A by-right scenario with R-15 zoning is maxed out with structures up to 65 feet tall on this ridge line would be much more visible from Monticello among others. 

 

·         The existing light at Rolkins Road and access roads for the larger Luxor site allow for safe and convenient assess.

 

·         The Pantops Master Planning process identified a desire for walkable destination oriented developments to be located on Pantops.

 

·         Westminster Canterbury has expanded significantly and whether they would walk, drive or be driven, this development provides a convenient and close destination for the hundreds of people who live there.

 

·            Staff recommends approval with the amended proffers if a direct pedestrian connection across the parking lot from the buildings along the front of the site to the buildings at the rear is added by the applicant. This connection would have to be reflected in the proffers before the Board of Supervisors hearing.

 

·         Regarding SP-2004-038 regarding the bank, there was an issue with the stacking.  The Zoning Administrator after receiving additional information has eliminated this issue and has granted the waiver for the less than ordinance required stacking of basically one spot per window.  Staff recommends approval of SP 04-38 with the following conditions:

 

4.             Drive-through windows will be limited to three (3); including one to be used for an ATM.

5.             Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.

6.             Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the application plan. The crosswalk just beyond the drive-up window bays for the bank shall be identified with crosswalk signage on either side of the drive aisle. 

 

There was some question whether these conditions were appropriate.  These are the standard conditions.  After discussion with Mr. Kamptner, staff decided that the conditions were fine with some small adjustments. 

 

·         Regarding SP 2005-01 for the coffee shop drive-through, staff recommends approval with the following conditions:

1.             Drive-through windows will be limited to one (1).

2.             Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.

3.             Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as by-pass lanes, signage, and pavement markings.

 

·         Staff recommends approval of SP 05-02 for the veterinary clinic with the following condition:

1.             A separate entrance and exit be provided for the clinic in accordance with Section 5.1.11d.

 

Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for Mr. Dougherty. 

 

Mr. Thomas asked the photograph of the view from Monticello taken at an elevated position.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that the photograph had been taken at an elevated position, but not as high as the house.  It was taken about 20 to 30 feet below the finished level of the first floor level of Monticello.

 

Mr. Morris asked what staff’s request for a walk through was going to do to the availability of parking.  

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that it would eliminate some parking, which would make the applicant have to reduce the total square footage of this mixed use development in order to accommodate this connection.  He explained that they could look at it as the bare minimum of just the curb cuts and a way for someone in a wheelchair, walker or cane to get from the front to back of the site.  It is about 250 feet from the front to the back of the site.  Essentially, those two parallel lines that are the tree planting strips would have a break basically on center with the walkway between the two larger buildings on Route 250 and extending back to at least the median or planting strip that was in the smaller parking lot surrounded by the three larger buildings.  It would require the elimination of at least four parking spaces to get to that location, which would be 8 foot wide sections.

 

Mr. Edgerton asked if there would be an avenue for the applicant to reduce the number of parking spaces if he chose to put in a pedestrian linkage.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that he would have to defer that question to Mr. Cilimberg.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that there was a schedule for reductions in parking in the Zoning Ordinance that allowed the Zoning Administrator to do that, which had recently been revised. The plan shows the parking based on the current ordinance requirements.

 

There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.

 

Matt Short, representative for C.W. Hurt, stated that they believe that Luxor Commercial was a very thoughtful design, which demonstrated the use of the Neighborhood Model in its accessibility to the people in the neighborhood. This use would provide neighborhood services for the residents of Westminster Canterbury and the surrounding neighborhoods.  They have worked hand in hand with staff to design this plan to address all of the concerns and issues.  They also feel that all of the requirements of the ARB were met in this particular instance.  If there are any questions, he would be happy to answer them.

 

Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for Mr. Short.

 

Mr. Rieley noted that the Commission had just been talking about one of the staff’s concerns that they have not addressed, which was the internal connections.  He asked if he could defend that.

 

Mr. Short stated that they feel there is good access based on the location of the buildings in this plan and the amount of pedestrian access that they have granted.  He stated that they are willing to work with staff to accommodate their request.  However, their initial reaction is that they feel that access is adequate. 

 

There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Edgerton invited comment from other members of the public.  There being none, Mr. Edgerton closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for consideration.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that the context of her discussion on the coffee shop drive-through window was geared at that it was now shown as a coffee shop and if its use changed.  She pointed out that the Commission recently reviewed the Subway in Forest Lakes that was adjacent to McDonald’s. During that review it brought us very vividly the idea that certain uses attract a certain amount of traffic.  Therefore, the stacking and the arrangement for the coffee shop might be okay with one drive-through with the area that is defined, but not necessarily for a different type of use.  Therefore, she was hesitant to approve a drive-through without a condition that if the use changes that the drive-through has to be looked at again.  She pointed out that McDonald’s has twice the amount of traffic as a Subway.  She felt that they might not need to address that now.  She felt that requiring a separate entrance and exit for the veterinary was appropriate because of this mixed use scenario.  She suggested that it say that an exit be provided for the clinic animal handling activities in accordance with 5.1.1.d and that the wording of the condition be made clearer.

 

Mr. Edgerton stated that he shared Ms. Higgins’ concerns about the coffee shop drive through because special use permits goes with the property and not with the activity.  If the special use permit exists, then the drive through would be allowed regardless of what went on in that space. 

 

Ms. Higgins noted that perhaps it was something that could be reviewed at the time of the zoning clearance.

 

Mr. Kamptner stated that a condition could be imposed that limits the special use permit solely to a coffee shop use that will continue to run with the land.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that he had worked with Jan Sprinkle on the stacking issue.  The ordinance has separate classifications for fast food and coffee shops. 

 

Mr. Rieley felt this limitation was a good idea because of the scale of the use.  If they were going to condition it they needed to figure out a way to do so which was consistent with the ordinance.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that if there were a lot of cars stacked that it would interfere with the parking, which was the only concern.

 

Mr. Rieley stated that they would have to come back with a way to deal with the stacking issue.  He asked that the Commission not let the conversation about the Comprehensive Plan drop because he felt that it goes all the way back to Eckerd.  When Eckert was approved he felt that it was not a smart thing to be approving things that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because according to what they are suppose to be doing that is the bench mark that they are suppose to use to judge whether something is appropriate for a rezoning or not.  He pointed out that his anxiety about that was that it is a bad road to go down, and now they are using Eckert as the justification for doing another one.  He felt that there is a reason why rezonings are supposed to relate to a Comprehensive Plan and that there is a process to change the Comprehensive Plan if it is not pertinent anymore.  Then there are two small issues that relate to it, which is compounded because of not having this within a better framework of a modified Comprehensive Plan.  The first is the internal circulation.  He agreed with staff’s position on that.  It is very important to make the connection through, which is a part of what the Neighborhood Model is all about.  It is not enough to have a sidewalk all around the perimeter, particularly when there is an important entrance point that they need to be able to get to and one would have to walk all the way around on the public streets in order to get to it.  The applicant said that he was willing to work with staff to get that addressed.  He felt that it was very important that they have a commitment that is addressed before they rezone this property.  The third thing relates to the trees that they talked about last time.  Those trees are an important part of the amenity and the scale in the way that a project of this size can fit in to its surrounding.  There is a provision in the proffer that the trees be fertilized and that they will make some adjustment in the sidewalk location.  But there really is no remedy for the failure to keep the trees alive.  He suggested that a more appropriate way to address it is to establish a value of the trees living.  There are ways for doing that.  The National Society of Arboriculture has a tree evaluation guide that you can set a very objective number on the trees so that some kind of a bond could be established in a reasonable amount of time associated with that be established so that there really is some serious incentive to keep those trees alive and not just say that they fertilized the trees and moved the sidewalk.

 

Ms. Joseph agreed because proffer #5 reads as if the expectation is that the County’s Landscape Planner is going to figure out how to keep the tree alive and where to put them. She felt that was not her responsibility.  There needs to be a plan submitted for her review done by a certified arborist showing how those trees will be treated, especially with the paving around that area.

 

Ms. Higgins suggested that a landscape bond be required for the project.

 

Mr. Rieley suggested that condition be added to the proffer by the applicant.

 

Ms. Higgins pointed out that she had not received an Attachment A, which showed which uses would be allowed.

 

Mr. Morris asked if the pedestrian cross walk would make the traffic pattern even more complex for vehicles.

 

Ms. Higgins felt that putting pedestrians where one would not expect them is a little bit of an issue, particularly in the middle of the parking lot. 

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that very generally over time staff has worked on trying to have the orientation of the parking isles perpendicular to the use rather than parallel to the use.  Essentially, if cars were parked across these isles there are going to be people walking towards the uses all over the place.  Therefore, he did not think having a dedicated area for people walking across the parking lots is going to be a whole lot different than the other people walking to and from cars in terms of introducing another hazard.  That is not the ideal arrangement of parking as related to use and the front doors are essentially parallel to the parking.  It would probably be perpendicular to it.  If you look at the parking lot where Giant is located, the parking is perpendicular to the stores.  In two of those isles they have included walkways, which was a lot easier to accommodate.  That keeps people out of the path of traffic a lot more than this kind of arrangement.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that the applicant was keeping in mind the view shed. Actually, the rows of trees would actually help.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that he did not believe the movement of people in this situation was going to make a walkway across an addition hazard, especially when the people need to go directly across.

 

Mr. Rieley stated that in fact they could argue this to be a lot safer if there was a prescribed place.  There might be painted lines on the street so that the people in the cars would have some expectation that people are coming out in between those cars and walking across in one reasonable identified place.  In this arrangement there are going to be people walking in between cars at any place in there.  Therefore, to put it in one place where there was an expectation that was where people were going to cross would be a good deal safer.

 

Mr. Edgerton stated that he shared Mr. Rieley’s concerns regarding the Eckert review.  That he saw a more traditional strip development than this project.  He felt that an argument can be made that this could support the surrounding communities.  But when the largest population base is Westminster Canterbury, they are not talking about people who are just able to walk, but they are talking about people that if they can walk are going to be walking more slowly.  He felt that staff’s recommendation has validity in this particular location.  He acknowledged that there is adequate pedestrian circulation provided around the property, but well over 60 to 70 percent of the property is going to be an obstacle course for anybody trying to get from the south side to the north side of this development.  He pointed out that yesterday he had a long discussion with the applicant.  The applicant’s concern, which he did not express this evening, was that he would be required to lose parking spaces to accommodate a pedestrian circulation from the south side to the north side.  He supported granting a waiver for the loss of four parking spaces if that is what they were talking about rather than requiring them to reduce the square footage on the buildings. He asked if that could be waived.

 

Mr. Kamptner stated that could not be waived.  But, there are options available to reduce parking requirements.  One possibility was the zoning administrator’s ability to examine transportation demands, but he was not sure if that would be available under PD-MC zoning. 

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that he was not sure if people would walk from Westminster Canterbury to this site, but that it was possible that they could be shuttled down to this site.  He pointed out that a lot of people might be dropped off and not even require a parking space, which might be a consideration.

 

Mr. Edgerton asked that they back up to the rezoning issue of going completely against the Comprehensive Plan’s declaration that they don’t want any strip development.  He felt that an argument could be made that this is a lot softer than most strip developments. The parking has been relegated and the buildings brought closer to the street.  He felt that they need to do whatever they can to make this as pedestrian friendly as possible if they are going to rezone the property.  The reality is that if they don’t address the pedestrian concerns there is no chance that it is going to work as a neighborhood center for this.  He asked that the Commission figure out a way to solve this problem to be able to provide a pedestrian connection.       

 

Ms. Joseph pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan actually calls for this area to be residential.  It is not only the fact that it calls out strip development, but it shows it on the map for a different kind of use.  She asked what the entire property was zoned.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that it was a mix of R-15, C-1, and R-6.  He stated that there was some R-15 next to Route 250.

 

Ms. Joseph stated that the R-15 zone allows for special use permits for offices and some retail space.  She pointed out that was the current zoning and not the Comprehensive Plan designation.  She pointed out that she had looked at how this would relate to everything else around it and how does it relate to the residue parcel.  If this is something that the Commission considers, it totally goes against what the Comprehensive Plan means right now.  Therefore, she had hoped that this had come back to the Commission as a modification to the Comprehensive Plan itself with some justification in how that could happen.  She felt that it was very important that the Commission adhere to the Comprehensive Plan.  She stated that she was interested in comments made during the Pantops Master Planning session that people were looking for other sorts of uses along Route 250 that were not contemplated in the current Comprehensive Plan.   She asked if that was correct.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that people identified a desire for walkable destinations and walkability for places that offered some of the features and characters of the downtown mall.  The people definitely did not want something that looked like the typical strip development.  He felt that this proposed development would qualify with that.

 

Mr. Rieley stated that if you evaluated this from the perspective of the existing zoning that it is clear that this is a substantial improvement over how the property could be zoned by right.  He would feel a lot more comfortable about this if it went back to have several things adjusted.  He stated that if these issues could be resolved that he would support the proposal.

 

1.       A stronger statement by staff on how this relates to the Comprehensive Plan and the degree to which where it is not in compliance that there is a justification for it.  As it is now it seems like they are ignoring the Comprehensive Plan. 

 

2.       Because of the absence of this being supported by the Comprehensive Plan, he would like to have three issues resolved being:  internal circulation as recommended by staff; a clearer prescription on how the trees will be protected and what the penalty will be if they don’t survive; and clarification of the issue about the coffee shop and the drive through relative to a change of use in the future. 

 

Ms. Joseph agreed with Mr. Rieley.  She pointed out that they were hoping to get a better project in the end by this delay. 

 

Mr. Rieley suggested that the Comprehensive Plan be fixed in this area. 

 

Mr. Craddock pointed out that there were only a couple more parcels to be developed. 

 

Ms. Higgins asked if the Commission could possibly move this request forward to the Board of Supervisors with the three conditions. 

 

Mr. Rieley opposed moving this request forward prior to these issues being worked out because the applicant has not worked these concerns out that were discussed at previous meetings. 

 

Ms. Higgins stated that the applicant would have to voluntarily defer or ask for a vote. 

 

Mr. Kamptner stated that the Commission has the ability to impose conditions with special use permits that increase traffic congestion.  Therefore, the impacts from special use permits that increase traffic congestion could offset it by making the project more available to pedestrians through conditions.

 

Mr. Rieley stated that was a good way to work with one of the four issues.  He asked for clarification on the Comprehensive Plan issue from staff because it was really fundamental. 

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that the second and fourth concerns can be addressed in the conditions of the special use permits.  The first is obviously a staff statement, which they were focused on.  Staff will take work on that issue again.  The third issue would be advising language in a proffer that would ensure that the trees have a provision for long term maintenance or replacement.  Essentially, that is what the Commission is looking for. 

 

Mr. Rieley asked that the figures for the bonding come from a recognized tree evaluation mechanism. 

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that they need to have the applicant agree to defer. 

 

Mr. Edgerton stated that he would hope that the applicant would be willing to address those four issues. 

 

Mr. Rieley asked if the applicant could work quickly to get these issues addressed how quickly could he get back to the Commission. 

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant would need to develop proffer language, which would need to be reviewed with the County Attorney.  Therefore, it would probably take three weeks minimum.  If the applicant ended up doing it with a proffer that was not shown on the application plan, but it was proffered to be provided for, then it was something that they could work out at the site plan.  Therefore, it would not have to be on the application plan, but it would have to be specified in the proffer how it would be provided for.  The cleanest way is for it to be shown on the application plan. 

 

Mr. Rieley invited the applicant to come forward and address the Commission. 

 

Mr. Edgerton asked if they understood what the Commission was asking. 

 

Matt Short stated that Tucker Hurt and he work for the agent, C.W. Hurt, and they understood what was being addressed.   

 

Mr. Edgerton stated that the Commission cannot ask for a deferral at this point, but they can offer one and the Commission can accept it.  If they do not offer one, then the Commission has to act on it tonight or by State statute it becomes automatically approved, which he did not feel was going to happen.  Therefore, the choice is whether to ask for a deferral.  

 

Ms. Higgins asked if the applicant has anything to say in rebuttal to what they have just heard.   

 

Mr. Short stated that they were more than willing and happy to work with staff of engineering and planning to accommodate the request.  He stated that they do not view this as a traditional strip mall.  They think that it works very well with the ARB and that they have done a good job with keeping if off of Route 250 with required landscaping that is going to mask it appearance. But, the greater issue is the interconnectivity.  They are willing to accommodate that, but their major concern is what Mr. Edgerton spoke of earlier of a prior conversation that they would lose some square footage.  But, again they were willing to address this interconnectivity. 

 

Tucker Hurt asked if this could be an issue that the Commission made subject to the Board of Supervisors approval if they have the proffer included.  He asked if it was possible to have that vote. 

 

Ms. Higgins pointed out that it was possible, but they might have to proceed with an unfavorable recommendation.  She asked if they were agreeable to the three conditions described previously. 

 

Mr. Short stated that they were in favor of doing that.  He stated that they had ever intention of maintaining those  trees and would do anything that they could as the applicant to preserve those. 

 

Mr. Rieley stated that the Commission does not know whether the applicant will lose some square footage in the building.  He pointed out that Mr. Kamptner made some suggestions for trade offs for evaluating the site relative to the number of people who will be dropped off and things like that.  He felt that there was a spirit of cooperation in trying to work this out from the Commissioners and staff.  He stated that it looks like there are some options for that. 

 

Mr. Dougherty asked if there should be landscaping incorporated with this connection.   

 

Mr. Rieley stated that he would favor some landscaping, but that the Commission should not be designing this.  He asked if the applicant was requesting an indefinite deferral or a deferral to a date specific. 

 

Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the request be deferred to a specific date.  Then if necessary the request could be deferred to another date. 

 

Mr. Edgerton asked what the specific date would be. 

 

Mr. Short stated that they would like to defer for four weeks to review the plan and address the issues. 

 

Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff would need to take care of one of the four items. 

 

Mr. Kamptner pointed out that a four week deferral would be to July 5.  Since there is no meeting on July 5 it would need to be deferred to July 12. 

 

Mr. Rieley moved to accept the applicant’s request for a deferral of ZMA-2004-012, SP-2004-038, SP-2005-001 and SP-2005-002, Luxor Commercial to July 12.

 

Mr. Cilimberg asked that as part of the record that the Planning Commission itemize the three things that they were looking for from the applicant to work with staff on.

 

Mr. Rieley amended the motion to include the following three items that the applicant and staff will work on together:

1.       Internal pedestrian connection with landscaping,

2.       Trees with the bond and a arborist report; and

3.       Clarification of the issue of the coffee shop and should it change use that the special use permit does not go with the change in use from a coffee shop to another kind of a restaurant.

 

Mr. Cilimberg asked for one more point of clarification.  The Commission had talked about the idea of the pedestrian access being a condition of the special use permit or a proffer and shown on the application plan.  He asked if the intention was that it be one or the other or if that was open right now.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that it should show in some way on this plan.

 

Mr. Cilimberg stated that therefore, it should be a proffer and shown on the application plan.

 

Mr. Morris seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any further discussion.

 

Ms. Joseph stated that in talking with staff about the other proffers, Mr. Dougherty had said that the other proffers were going to be cleaned up.  One of the proffers talks about if there are conflicts between the Director of Planning and the ARB.  The other proffer talks about creating some sort of inter-parcel connection. The last phrase states that it is so long as a mutual maintenance agreement can be achieved.  She suggested that it either be or not be and not be left up in the air.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that on that same note, she would suggest that condition 7 be made more understandable.  Condition 7 refers to the connection of Westminster Canterbury and she was not clear about where that actually applies as it relates to this plan.  She asked that proffer be clear and explain how it applies to this plan.  It talks about a width, purpose and an ultimate connection.  She asked that the uses referenced in item 2 be attached.  The recommendation on the condition for the veterinary talk about the clinic’s animal handling activities and it does not mean that they must have a separate entrance.  She pointed out that she did not know what that means.  Therefore, she felt that proffer should be made clearer.  It just says that a separate entrance and exit be provided for the clinic in accordance with Section 5.1.11.d.  Therefore, since that section is not attached that unless you knew what it applies to that it could be a separate entrance.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that basically what it says is if the Planning Commission chooses when you have a mixture of uses they could enforce or impose that they have a separate entrance. 

 

Ms. Higgins pointed out that the Commission had discussed that and agreed to it, but it is for animal handling activity.  It is a separate entrance to keep the animals away from the public entrance, which she felt was what Section 5.1.11.d says.

 

Mr. Kamptner stated that it has two provisions.  The biggest one referenced in this condition is to have separate entrances and exits to a building for animal conflicts.  He stated that the proffer would just have to mirror that language.   

 

Ms. Higgins felt that it should be made clear so that when someone reads the condition later that they understand what you mean by entrance.  Therefore, the building official would not have to figure it out.

 

The motion carried by a vote of (7:0). 

 

Mr. Edgerton stated that ZMA-2004-012, SP-2004-028, SP-2005-001 and SP-2005-002 for Luxor Commercial were deferred until July 12.

 

Albemarle County Planning Commission

July 12, 2005

 

ZMA 2004-012 Luxor Commercial (Sign #86):  Request to rezone 3.523 acres (portion of Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4) from R-6 (Residential) and R-15 (Residential) to PDMC (Planned District Mixed Commercial) and to rezone 1.377 acres (Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D) from C-1 (Commercial) to PDMC to allow a 1,500 square foot bank and 80,000 square feet of mixed commercial in a planned development.  The properties, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (portion thereof) and Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D, are located in the EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District and the Rivanna Magisterial District on the north side of Route 250 East between the Montessori School and Aunt Sarah's Restaurant. The general usage allowed in the PDMC zoning district is large-scale commercial with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified planned approach; the PDMC zoning district does not have a density range.  The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density and the general usage recommended under this designation is residential. The recommended density range is 6-34 dwelling units per acre in Neighborhood Three. 

AND

SP 2004-038 Luxor Commercial Drive-In Window for a Bank (Sign #86):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a drive-in window for a bank in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses within PDMC. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (a portion thereof), contains 23.168 acres, and is pending a rezoning to PDMC (ZMA-04-12).

AND

SP 2005-001 Luxor Commercial Drive-In Window for a Coffee Shop (Sign #86):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a drive-in window for a coffee shop in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses within PDMC. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (a portion thereof), contains 23.168 acres, and is pending a rezoning to PDMC (ZMA-04-12).

AND

SP 2005-002 Luxor Commercial Veterinary Office (Sign #27):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a veterinary office in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary offices and hospitals within PDMC zoning. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D contains 1.377 acres, and is pending a rezoning to PDMC (ZMA-04-12).  (Sean Dougherty) 

DEFERRED FROM THE JUNE 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO THE AUGUST 9, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

 

Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited public comment.  There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission for an action.

 

MOTION:  Ms. Higgins moved, Mr. Thomas seconded, that ZMA-2004-012, SP-2004-038, SP-2005-001 and SP-2005-002 for Luxor Commercial be deferred to the August 9 meeting. 

 

The motion for deferral passed by a vote of 5:0.  Commissioners Joseph and Craddock were absent. 

 

Mr. Edgerton stated that ZMA-2004-012, SP-2004-028, SP-2005-001 and SP-2005-002 for Luxor Commercial were deferred until August 9.

 

Albemarle County Planning Commission

August 9, 2005

 

ZMA 2004-012 Luxor Commercial (Sign #86):  Request to rezone 3.523 acres (portion of Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4) from R-6 (Residential) and R-15 (Residential) to PDMC (Planned District Mixed Commercial) and to rezone 1.377 acres (Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D) from C-1 (Commercial) to PDMC to allow a 1,500 square foot bank and 80,000 square feet of mixed commercial in a planned development.  The properties, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (portion thereof) and Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D, are located in the EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District and the Rivanna Magisterial District on the north side of Route 250 East between the Montessori School and Aunt Sarah's Restaurant. The general usage allowed in the PDMC zoning district is large-scale commercial with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified planned approach; the PDMC zoning district does not have a density range.  The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density and the general usage recommended under this designation is residential. The recommended density range is 6-34 dwelling units per acre in Neighborhood Three. 

AND

SP 2004-038 Luxor Commercial Drive-In Window for a Bank (Sign #86):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a drive-in window for a bank in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses within PDMC. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (a portion thereof), contains 23.168 acres, and is pending a rezoning to PDMC (ZMA-04-12).

AND

SP 2005-001 Luxor Commercial Drive-In Window for a Coffee Shop (Sign #86):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a drive-in window for a coffee shop in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses within PDMC. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (a portion thereof), contains 23.168 acres, and is pending a rezoning to PDMC (ZMA-04-12).

AND

SP 2005-002 Luxor Commercial Veterinary Office (Sign #27):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a veterinary office in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary offices and hospitals within PDMC zoning. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D contains 1.377 acres, and is pending a rezoning to PDMC (ZMA-04-12).  (Sean Dougherty)

DEFERRED FROM THE JULY 12, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO THE AUGUST 30, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

 

Ms. Joseph stated that the applicant was requesting deferral from the July 12 Planning Commission meeting to August 30. She opened the meeting for public comment and asked if there was anyone present to speak regarding Luxor Commercial.  There being no one, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Commission for action.

 

Motion:    Mr.  Rieley moved, Ms. Higgins seconded, to accept the applicant’s request for a deferral for ZMA-2004-012, SP-2004-038, SP-2005-001, and SP-2005-002 Luxor Commercial to the August 30, 2005 meeting.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.  Commissioners Morris and Edgerton were absent. 

 

Ms. Joseph stated that the Planning Commission deferred the requests to August 30, 2005.

 

Albemarle County Planning Commission

August 30, 2005

 

ZMA 2004-012 Luxor Commercial (Sign #86):  Request to rezone 3.523 acres (portion of Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4) from R-6 (Residential) and R-15 (Residential) to PDMC (Planned District Mixed Commercial) and to rezone 1.377 acres (Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D) from C-1 (Commercial) to PDMC to allow a 1,500 square foot bank and 80,000 square feet of mixed commercial in a planned development.  The properties, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (portion thereof) and Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D, are located in the EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District and the Rivanna Magisterial District on the north side of Route 250 East between the Montessori School and Aunt Sarah's Restaurant. The general usage allowed in the PDMC zoning district is large-scale commercial with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified planned approach; the PDMC zoning district does not have a density range.  The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density and the general usage recommended under this designation is residential. The recommended density range is 6-34 dwelling units per acre in Neighborhood Three. 

AND

 

SP 2004-038 Luxor Commercial Drive-In Window for a Bank (Sign #86):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a drive-in window for a bank in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses within PDMC. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (a portion thereof), contains 23.168 acres, and is pending a rezoning to PDMC (ZMA-04-12).

AND

SP 2005-001 Luxor Commercial Drive-In Window for a Coffee Shop (Sign #86):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a drive-in window for a coffee shop in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses within PDMC. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A4 (a portion thereof), contains 23.168 acres, and is pending a rezoning to PDMC (ZMA-04-12).  (WITHDRAWN)

AND

SP 2005-002 Luxor Commercial Veterinary Office (Sign #27):  Request for a special use permit to allow for a veterinary office in accordance with Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary offices and hospitals within PDMC zoning. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D contains 1.377 acres, and is pending a rezoning to PDMC (ZMA-04-12).  (Sean Dougherty)

DEFERRED FROM THE AUGUST 9, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

 

Mr. Dougherty summarized the staff report.

 

 

 

7.       Drive-through windows will be limited to three (3); including one to be used for an ATM.

8.       Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.

9.       Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the application plan. The crosswalk just beyond the drive-up window bays for the bank shall be identified with crosswalk signage on either side of the drive aisle. 

 

 

 

2.       A separate entrance and exit shall be provided for the clinic in accordance with Section 5.1.11d.

3.       No outdoor exercise area shall be permitted.

 

Mr. Edgerton asked which building was going to be used for the veterinary clinic.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that the veterinary clinic would be located in the building out at the road on the right hand side of the site.  The veterinary clinic would actually be located on Nigral Bray’s property, which he continues to own.  So there are two separate applicants for this proposal.   Essentially, there are three masses.  The small mass to the left at the front of the site is the bank.  The larger mass to the right actually sits on Nigral Bray’s property, which is where the clinic will be located. 

 

Ms. Higgins asked if the clinic was in building 4, and Mr. Dougherty stated that was correct.

 

Ms. Higgins asked that the building number be added to the condition.

 

Mr. Edgerton asked how the requirement for a separate entrance was being accommodated.  He asked if the entire building was going to be the veterinary clinic.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that the building has not been designed that far yet, but that only a portion of the building would be used for the veterinary clinic.

 

Mr. Edgerton asked if in the final design they would have to have a separate entrance, which was what his condition referred to.

 

Mr. Craddock asked if outside exercise means not a fenced area, but that they could take the animals outside.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that there is space there that could be used, but the intent is that would not be the case.  The applicant has accommodated the pedestrian connection from the front to the rear on the site plan by shifting one building over closer to the other. The applicant has done a nice job with the cross walk and the way they broke the medians there. 

 

Mr. Edgerton asked where the $2,000 amount came from for the bond.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that the amount came from the applicant and their arborist after speaking with the County’s landscape architect. 

 

Ms. Higgins pointed out that the particular trees that they were talking about were clearly noted on the previous plan, but they are not noted on the new plan. 

 

Mr. Dougherty pointed out that the trees were shown on the plan on the board, but were very light and hard to see. 

 

Ms. Higgins asked that the applicant add a note that points out where the trees are located and the protected area.  She asked about the waiver required on the stacking.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that the waiver on the stacking and the reduction in parking have already been granted by the Zoning Administrator.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that the Commission had preferred it to be done that way, but she just wanted to make sure it was done.

 

There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.

 

There being no one present to represent the application, Mr. Dougherty pointed out that the applicant had told staff that their last representative was no longer representing the project.  There is a new person on the project who was supposed to be here.  In the past Katurah Roell had represented the project and was going to try to come.  But, he was not sure why they were not here.

 

There being no one present to represent the applicant, Mr. Edgerton invited public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and possible action.

 

Action on ZMA-2004-012:

 

Motion:  Ms. Higgins moved, Mr. Morris seconded, that ZMA-2004-0212, Luxor Commercial, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the proffers as attached to the staff report.

 

Ms. Joseph stated that she was concerned about proffer #9 because it talks about the connection of the roads, which was on page 7 of the staff report.  The last sentence reads, “. . . any parcel of record which may be created therefrom in the future shall agree to provide reasonable interparcel access to the Aunt Sarah’s parcel (TMP 78-55A2) so long as a mutual maintenance agreement can be achieved.”  She felt that means if they can’t find that mutual maintenance agreement, then they won’t do it. She asked if that was correct.

 

Mr. Kamptner stated that proffers 4 through 9 are the ones that still have not been changed to reflect their comments.

 

Ms. Joseph stated that they have changed a lot of the proffers from before, but that was the one that stuck out as still being the same.  She felt that proffer 9 does not guarantee anything.

 

Ms. Higgins amended the motion to say that item #9 in the proffers be reviewed with the County Attorney and that appropriate wording be incorporated if the applicant was willing.

 

Mr. Morris seconded the amended motion.

 

Mr. Kamptner stated that they could not mandate a connection by a proffer.  He stated that staff will certainly work on the language of the proffer, but also talk to zoning.

 

Mr. Edgerton stated that there was more than one owner that is going to be involved here.  He felt that it was very important that all of the owners know that the Commission wants that.

 

Ms. Joseph stated that if that interconnection was shown on the application plan, then they assume that it is part of the approval because they have approved the application plan.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that the site plan has got to be consistent with the application plan, which is identified.

 

Ms. Joseph asked if that shows the access that they were talking about.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that it shows up to the edge of where it the road would eventually be built.

 

Ms. Joseph stated that it shows that connection, but not the entire connection.

 

Mr. Dougherty stated that they show it through their property.

 

Ms. Higgins stated that they have to do their part under the plan even if the other property owner does not.  They don’t have any control over that other property unless that site gets redeveloped technically.

 

Mr. Edgerton stated that the motion and second stand as is. He asked for a role call vote.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.  (Commissioner Rieley was absent.)

 

Action on SP-2004-038:

 

Motion: Ms. Higgins moved, Mr. Craddock seconded, that SP-2004-038, Luxor Commercial Drive-In Window for a Bank, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff:

 

1.       Drive-through windows will be limited to three (3); including one to be used for an ATM.

2.       Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.

3.       Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the application plan.  The crosswalk just beyond the drive-up window bays for the bank shall be identified with crosswalk signage on either side of the drive aisle.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.  (Commissioner Rieley was absent.)

 

Action on SP-2005-002:

 

Motion:  Ms. Higgins moved, Mr. Morris seconded, that SP-2005-002, Luxor Commercial Veterinary Office, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to staff’s recommended conditions with a modification to condition 3 and the addition of conditions 4 and 5:

 

1.       A separate entrance and exit shall be provided for the clinic in accordance with Section 5.1.11d.

2.       No outdoor exercise area shall be permitted.

3.       A note shall be added to the plan to identify the two trees that are to be bonded.

4.       The veterinary clinic shall be identified as located in building 4.

5.       Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.  (Commissioner Rieley was absent.)

 

Regarding a previous request for SP-2005-01 (coffee shop drive-through), the applicant has withdrawn the Special Use Permit due to the constraints tied to the access easement issues identified above.

 

Mr. Edgerton stated that ZMA-2004-012, SP-2004-038 and SP-2005-002 for Luxor Commercial would go to the Board of Supervisors on October 12 with a recommended for approval.

 

Return to PC actions letter