Loading...
85S187July 24, 1985 BS REQUEST ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION 84S187 Richmond Subaru, Inc. REQUEST: Clover Hill Magisterial District South line of Midlothian Turnpike (Amended) Amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 84S039) to revise the approved Master Plan rela- tive to access. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval as per the conditions for the following reason: The conditions stated herein are consistent with the spirit and intent of the original conditions of zoning relative to access to Route 60. CONDITIONS me The following conditions notwithstanding, access to this development shall be as shown on the Master Plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, revised May 28, 1985. (T&P) Access shall be designed to allow shared use with the adjacent Residential (R-7) property and the Convenience Business (B-i) prop- erty to the east (i.e., Tax Map 17-16 (1) Parcels 2 and 4) The access shall be designed to minimize congestion on Route 60. (p) (Note: This condition supersedes Condition 2 of Case 84S039.) Left turn lanes shall be constructed at the Route 60 crossover as deemed necessary by VDH&T and the Transportation Department if detailed engineering determines it is feasible. (T&P) (Note: This condition supersedes Condition 3 of Case 84S039.) (Note: All other conditions of Case 84S039 remain applicable.) GENERAL INFORMATION Location: South line of Midlothian Turnpike, approxi- mately 600 feet southeast of the eastern leg of Moorefield Park Drive. 17-16 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheet 8). Tax Map Existing Zoning: B-3 with Conditional Use Planned Development Size: 1.28 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Adjacent Zoning & Land Use: North - A; Public/semi-public South - R-7; Vacant East - R-7; Commercial West - B-3 with Conditional Use Planned Development; commercial Utilities; Environmental Engineering; Fire Service: This amendment will have no impact on these facilities. DISCUSSION On May 23, 1984, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommenda- tion from the Planning Commission, rezoned the request parcel to General Business (B-3) with Conditional Use Planned Development. Condition 2 required that access to the property be via the 55 foot strip of property which abuts the eastern property line. A public road was to be con- structed on the adjacent property to provide access to the request parcel plus adjacent property to the east and south. The existing crossover was to have been relocated to align with the new public road (see attached approved Master Plan). Since approval of the zoning, detailed engineering has revealed that the crosSover cannot be relocated because of the difference in grades between the east- and west-bound lanes of Midlothian Turnpike. This request is to amend Condition 2 to allow individual access from Route 60 to the request parcel. The Master Plan fails to provide shared access with adjacent properties to the east. At the time the Convenience Business (B-l) property to the east was zoned, conditions were imposed requiring that development to share access. Typically, the Commission and Board have required new developments along major arterials to share access to minimize the number of turning movements and the possibility of traffic accidents. While Staff can support the location of the proposed access shown on the amended Master Plan, the access should be designed to allow shared use with future development to the east (Condition 2). If access is not shared, the potential exists for three (3) entrance/exists within approximately 100 feet. The request also proposes amendment to Condition 3 relative to construc- tion of a left turn lane at the crossover. Because of the difference in grade between the east- and west-bound lanes, it may not be possible to construct the left turn lane. Staff suggests that the condition be 84£ ,?/BSJUN5/JULY24I amended to require left turn lanes if they are feasible after reviewing further engineering information. (Condition 3) Condition 4 of the original zoning requires additional pavement along Route 60. This pavement must connect to existing improvements to the east and west. The revised Master Plan fails to provide the required number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, 62 parking spaces are shown on the plan as compared to the Zoning Ordinance requirement for 84 spaces (i.e., this assumes a maximum of ten (10) service bays). If the recommended conditions are imposed, some of the 62 parking spaces will be eliminated. It is necessary to reduce the size of the proposed buildings to meet the Zoning Ordinance parking requirements. CASE HISTORY Applicants (11/20/84): A sixty (60) day deferral was requested to allow time to resolve Staff's concerns relative to overdevelopment of the site, access and drainage problems. Planning Commission Meeting (tl/20/84): At the' request of the applicants, the Commission deferred this case for sixty (60) days. Applicants' Representative (1/3/85): A sixty (60) day deferral to the Commission's March 19 meeting was requested. It was indicated that the applicants are working with adjacent property owners to obtain easements for drainage and access. Planning Commission Meeting (1/15/85): At the request of the applicants, the Commission deferred this case for sixty (60) days. The applicants indicated that additional time was necessary to obtain easements and revise the Master Plan. Applicant (2/25/85): The applicants have requested a thirty (30) day deferral. 3 84S187/BSJUN5/JULY24I S'taff (2/25/85): The Commission has deferred this case on two (2) previous occasions to allow the applicants to work out easement agreements. The latest defer- ral request is for the same reason. This case is an example of an appli- cation being submitted prior to the request being ready for public hear- ing. Requests such as this tend to unnecessarily delay other projects, increase advertising costs, and increase the Commission's agenda. The thirty (30) day deferral may not be sufficient time for the appli- cants to prepare for public hearing in April. The Planning Commission schedule requires plans be submitted by February 19 for the April 16 Commission meeting. Planning Commission Meeting (3/19/85): The Planning Commission deferred this request for ninety (90) days, sixty (60) days of which was at the applicant's request. Applicant (5/28/85): An amended application and Master Plan were submitted, herein. as reflected Planning Commission Meeting (6/18/85): On motion of Mr. O'Connor, seconded by Mr. Belcher, the Commission recom- mended approval of this request, subject to the conditions on page 1. AYES: Messrs. Miller, Cowan, O'Connor and Belcher. ABSENT: Mr. Thomas. The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, July 24, 1985, beginning at 2:00 p.m. will take under consideration this request. ' 4 84S~ /BSJUN5/JULY24I 84Sl87( AMEND. C.U..PI SH. 8 MOOREFIELD PARK MH-I ZC ¸'8 ZC BRI6HTON 6REEN "' ZC -~'SH~ENAI~ A / I ~-%, // I ". / / / / / / / / A ~Pt~ovE~ ./VtASTEI~ ~LAkl 84-5 18'7-/ ~EVI,..SED IWA,STE~ PLAN