HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 23 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 23, 1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 16, 1999 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were:
Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr.
Dennis Rooker, and Mr. William Rieley. Absent: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Mr. Rodney Thomas.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner; Ms. Mary
Joy Scala, Senior Planner.
A quorum was established with 5 of 7 members present.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a review of the Board of Supervisors meeting of February 17t'. He reported
that the Board reviewed several items previously considered by the Commission: the Triton
Communications Tower on Route 250E, which they approved at a lower height above existing Virginia
Power structure, which places it at 137'/2 feet above ground level, approximately 7 % feet above the
existing structure. The Board also provided the reduction setback that the Commission had not
recommended along with denial of the facility. The Board approved the Ashcroft rezoning as submitted
and adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the changes that would
result from that zoning action. Mr. Cilimberg said their was a public hearing on the CIP at the meeting,
and after hearing public comment, the Board scheduled to adopt the CIP as part of their budgeting
process in the spring.
Ms. Washington asked for unscheduled items from the public. None were offered, and the meeting
proceeded.
Public Hearing Items:
Addition to Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District
Proposal to add 7.12 acres to the Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District. Property described as Tax
Map 31, Parcel 2 1 E is located on the east side of Reas Ford Lane, Route #661, near Earlysville in the
Rio District. The property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned RA, Rural
Areas.
Mary Joy Scala presented the staff report, stating that the item had already been voted on and approved
by the Commission, but because of an error in the advertising of the public hearing, the item was re -
slated for public hearing and vote.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the addition to the Panorama
Agricultural/Forestal District.
Regular Items•
SUB 98-284 Fontana Subdivision Private Road Request
Item was moved to the end of the regular item agenda, as the applicant arrived late.
*%r
59
SDP 99-002 St. Anne's Belfield Waiver Request
Request for a waiver to allow lighting of a baseball field in accordance with Section 4.17.5 (a)2 of the
Zoning Ordinance, at St. Anne's Belfield School. The property, described as Tax Map 60 Parcels 57,
'+rr 57A, 57B and 57C, is zoned R-1, Residential. It is located in Neighborhood Seven in the Jack Jouett
Magisterial District, and is recommended for Institutional use in the Comprehensive Plan. It is located
on the west side of the Route 29/250 Bypass, north of the junction with Old Garth Road.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, distributing two additional attachments showing photometrics
from the two vendors discussed, Musco and Softlight. She reported that the primary issues pertinent to
the application have been design factors and lighting impact. Ms. Thomas indicated that one correction
needed to be made to the staff report, on Page 5, which changed the second paragraph to reflect 72
Softlight luminaires, instead of the 60 originally included; the number of poles remains the same. She
said that staff reviewed the information made available from the applicant, and when St. Anne's initiated
its original major site plan amendment last summer, they indicated a "shoebox" style of luminaire, and
sometime during the course of the project selected another type of luminaire, made by Musco.
Referencing an artist's drawing of the luminaire styles, Ms. Thomas explained that the "shoebox" style
is more of the traditional sports -lighting luminaire. She said the two issues concerning staff were the
aiming angle - the amount above the horizontal that the luminaire is aimed - and the design of the actual
housing; the open area of the light not enclosed by the box, which could shine out to the sides, is a
concern to staff. Ms. Thomas said what staff is concerned about is "keeping the sky dark, adequately
lighting the playfield, but minimizing the amount of light that spills over or up." She added, "We don't
care who provides it, we're just trying to analyze it from the standpoint of the style of luminaire and the
way in which it works."
„► She said that both of the vendors want the majority of their light to go on the field, and added that there
is a high standard that needs to be met — a 50-foot candle average illumination on the infield, and 30 on
the outfield - for a high school field.
En
Ms. Thomas said the engineer at Musco who did the photometric design referenced a 28-degree angle,
which would be slightly above the angle shown in the illustration, but she said this is not of particular
concern because that as there is a lot of "aiming" that goes on once the lights are installed. Ms. Thomas
added that the 35-degree down angle is deviating about 7 degrees from what she had learned from the
engineer.
Mr. Rooker commented that the 28-degree angle does not include the shield, and Ms. Thomas agreed,
stating that it was difficult to document the exact impact of the visor itself. She said the open area is of
concern to staff because the lighting ordinance references "full cut-off' and no light emitted "above the
horizontal." She added that where you have more exposure, you have the potential for more light
"coming out and up."
Ms. Thomas added that there are a number of sports lighting vendors available, and reemphasized that
staff didn't have the time or resources or the mission to investigate every vendor that provides sports
lighting. She said that at the inception of the major site plan amendment, the applicant indicated they
had spoken to Softlighting Systems, and at some point the decision to go with Musco was made. Musco
provides a more traditional, well-known sports lighting fixture, and the light systems have been
purchased and are ready to go up pending approval of the waiver and the site plan amendment.
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Thomas to explain the contradictory statements in the staff report which say
"staff knows of no sports lighting manufacturer whose system fully meets all provisions of the [lighting]
60
ordinance at this time...," and "there are many commercial luminaires available that fully meet the
ordinance." Ms. Thomas explained that the emphasis is on commercial luminaires, not sports lights.
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Thomas to explain the part of the Musco summary which discusses the light
1%W reading range from the 10-foot candles. She said that the range listed, 7.88 to .088, is recommended by
the IES for gas station canopies in unlighted areas and in dark rural areas.
Mr. Philip Ianna of the University of Virginia told the Commission that the lighting in the meeting room
would be similar to that of 10-foot candles, but stated that without a light meter, it is really difficult to
tell because your eyes adjust to the ambient light. Mr. Rieley asked him if parking lot lighting normally
uses 2-foot candles for safety. Mr. Ianna responded, "If even that much. It depends a little bit, and the
IES has different recommendations depending on the level of activity in the parking lot... somewhere
between'/2 to 1-2 foot candles is kind of the recommendation for various parking levels..." Mr. lanna
added that it would be hard for the human eye to really discern between 2-foot candles and 8-foot
candles.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if that would also hold true if you were far away from both of them.
Mr. Ianna said you could probably see the variation a little better, but it still wouldn't be a "huge
difference."
The applicant, St. Anne's Headmaster George Conway, addressed the Commission, and stated that there
seems to be some confusion surrounding the lights, as St. Anne's purchased the lights believing that they
complied with county regulations, and hoped to precede the ordinance so as to avoid any "fine-tuning"
of the ordinance that might delay their process. Mr. Conway said they chose Musco, and are trying to
keep the ambient lighting to a minimum, then introduced Musco lighting engineer Jeff McNulty and
engineer Kurt Gloeckner, who prepared the site plan, to offer any technical information.
Mr. Conway emphasized that the school believes the caliber of the lighting purchased is as good as that
in any sports stadium anywhere, and added that they are pleased the students will be able to enjoy
evening games.
Mr. Rooker asked for the date when the lights were ordered. Project Manager Cliff Harrison replied,
"we were talking with several vendors and analyzing the pros and cons of different vendors. To avoid
the affect on the school campus, we were pushing to try to make the installation process during the
Christmas break.... roughly we had made the order probably October."
Mr. Rieley clarified with staff that the ordinance was passed August 121h, noting that the lights were
ordered after the ordinance was passed. Mr. Conway acknowledged that despite his previous
understanding, the lights were ordered after the ordinance was passed.
Project Engineer Kurt Gloeckner addressed the Commission, stating that in June 1998 they started with
a major site plan amendment for the lights and a concession/storage facility. Prior to that, in March,
they had a minor amendment going to restore the athletic field. He said that shortly after they submitted
the site plan, School Administrator Lou Stevens and Cliff Harrison met with the county to see if they
could proceed with the project, and were given the go ahead to purchase lights. Mr. Gloeckner reported
that he did not hear from the county again on his site plan until just before September, at which time he
resubmitted it with minor changes.
I%w He added, "I thought everything was going along just fine until January 51h of this year ... the reason
we're here is at the direction of the Board of Supervisors .... Cliff called me sometime around Christmas
and said [they] were ready to put the lights up and the county has put a stop workorder on us." Mr.
61
Gloeckner said that Mr. Harrison informed him that the only lights the county would approve were
Softlight. Mr. Gloeckner said at the time he worked on the drawing for the lights, he used lights he had
done for Bradey-Bushey, and modified the drawing to more closely resemble sports lighting. "At that
time the ordinance wasn't in effect, and I wasn't trying to represent any particular light manufacturer."
He said that the Softlight statement that there is no light above the plane of the luminaire was misleading
to staff, as there is an angle -up degree of 5 degrees on all Softlight fixtures not mentioned by the
company. Mr. Gloeckner said that there is an IES standard safe light that needs to be put on the field,
and also a light that needs to put above the field for pop flys, etc.
He said that they met with staff again after Christmas because the Musco system had already been
purchased, the concrete columns had been erected, and the electricity permit had been granted by the
county. "The only thing is it doesn't have the Softlight manufacturer's name on the fixture." Mr.
Gloeckner reported that the county still insisted that Softlight meets the ordinance, and met with Ms.
Thomas after that meeting to study the Softlight catalog. He pointed out at that time that the photograph
on the cover of Softlight's brochure is taken above the plane of the lights, and "every one of these
fixtures is shining in our lights ... that 5 degrees is not insignificant, and that's why the manufacturer
wouldn't expose it to me." Mr. Gloeckner said he then went back and measured with his instruments
and the uplift was there, "and now Softlight can't meet the ordinance."
He concluded that he called the Zoning Department, stating that he needed the lighting above the "total
cut-off' restriction for safe fielding of pop flies, and that Musco comes as close if not better than
Softlight. Mr. Gloeckner then contacted all county supervisors to explain St. Anne's dilemma, and the
Board directed staff to expedite the school's request for a variance from the Commission.
Mr. Jeff McNulty of Musco Lighting addressed the Commission, and presented a drawing which
detailed a single light (Attachment "A"), comparing the 5-degree up angle from the Softlight light and
the Musco lighting model TLC tilted down. Mr. McNulty emphasized that the Musco internal optics
system that redirects light onto the playing field, and said that on the lamp a painted arc cap shields the
actual intensity. He continued that the Musco aiming angle of 28-degrees puts the majority of the light,
contained within 13 degrees, onto the field, and allows 10 degrees where light can emit and go above the
horizontal plane.
He explained that the 28-degree angle would be the minimum of all the fixtures on the field, the
majority on average being 35-degrees or greater, but from a B-pole location going out to deep center
field there could be some 28-degree angle fixtures on a few poles. "That would be allowing a maximum
of 200 candle power above that .... your low beam headlights on your car is 12,000 candle power ... this is
very minimal light that leaves and I don't know how that 200 compares to this [Softlight] because I
don't know what their photometrics are."
Mr. Nitchmann stated that staff was concerned about the amount of light that would emit from the side
of the light, and commented that that would be true of both the Softlight and the Musco fixtures. "You
have to have so much lighting high in the air to handle these high balls that are hit... it can't be dark up
there."
Mr. McNulty responded, "If the ball would go into darkness and come out of it, that's where your eye
may not focus, or focus in time, and you get hit in the nose."
Mr. Rooker asked how long Musco had been making sports lighting. Mr. McNulty answered since
1976.
62
Mr. Rooker asked if they currently manufacture any sports lighting that is better shielded than the design
presented. Mr. McNulty responded that they don't, but they do make some "Level A" standard lights
that are a three -tiered visor designed primarily to actually light 12,000 candle power above the pole for
;%W fly balls. He said the fixture presented by Musco was designed for Southern California, and became
popular nationwide, where playability is important but spill and glare are more important.
Mr. Rooker asked if the fixture has been accepted in localities that have lighting ordinances. Mr.
McNulty responded that the lights are widely accepted, most recently at the Daytona International
Speedway, which has an airport right next to it.
Mr. Rieley asked how high the 10-degree angle coming from the bottom of the fixture would get in the
middle of the field, stating that in the case of both lights it is actually the bounced light which will
illuminate the balls, not the direct light from the fixture because that angle is too low in both cases.
Mr. McNulty responded that while the bounced light will help, the direct light will allow light on the
sides of the ball and underneath it.
Mr. Rieley commented, "The only way to get direct light on a fly ball above the height of the pole is to
shine the light up in that direction."
Mr. McNulty agreed, adding, "In the case of Level 8 glare control where you direct a little bit up above
there."
Mr. Loewenstein asked how far from the illustrated lighting fixture the beam of light would first go
above the horizontal line, asking the approximate distance from the front edge of the shield of the visor
of the light to the point where that line crosses the horizontal. "I'm trying to get a sense of how far out
this light projects."
Mr. McNulty estimated the distance at about 20 feet in front of the pole.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Tom Wilkes, the local Soft Lighting representative, addressed the Commission. He confirmed that
the Soft Light poles are usually higher, and do have a 5-degree uplift. He added that Soft Light systems
are usually comparable in the number of fixtures needed, and confirmed Mr. Rieley's point that it is
refracted light off the field that allows you to see the ball once it becomes popped up in the air, and even
if it went higher than the pole, you could still visibly see it. Mr. Wilkes said the Soft Light system is a
"cut-off' system that allows no spillage behind the poles, and consequently mixes both high-pressure
sodium and metal halide so that the visual effect of the field is of a daylight color rendition.
He explained that the arc -tube in the system is surrounded by a forward throw reflector that punches the
light into the center of the field without spilling it along the property lines. Mr. Wilkes said that this
guarantees "no spillage," and stated that his concern with the Musco is with the residual light from the
sides and front that is an unknown factor until the actual installation is complete. He said that the Soft
Light systems have been around for approximately 7 years, but do not have any systems in the state of
Virginia. "There are notable differences — both systems do adequately light the fields — but I think the
biggest differences are the degree of angle for glare and where the cutoff falls and what spillage occurs.
Mr. Philip Ianna from the University of Virginia addressed the Commission, and presented a written
summary of his comments (Attachment `B"). Mr. Ianna said that the 5-degree up angle is not a
problem, because this does not necessarily mean there is any light coming above the horizontal. He said
63
M
that the photometrics from the luminaire would be needed to be able to tell, and said that similar sports
lights do not produce any light above the horizontal. Mr. Ianna contended that the Soft Lighting system
does meet the ordinance, and said "we wouldn't be doing this waiver ordinance if Softlighting had been
chosen."
He said that in studying the photometrics of the two companies' lights, specifically the amount of light
in the plane above the poles, the Soft Lighting emits zero light above the horizontal, adding that he feels
Soft Lighting does a much better job of controlling the light. Mr. Ianna stated that for Soft Lighting to
get light around the edge of the field, they add additional luminaires on the back side of their poles. He
reported that he has seen a Soft Lighting system in operation in Seattle, and said that standing in right
field observing a baseball game, there was no difficulty following a high fly ball. "The system really
does work, and it works as has been mentioned because of the reflected light off the ground. But it also
works because Soft Lighting does produce less glare, and so you're seeing the ball against a darker
background, and it's the contrast, not the absolute amount of light, that's going to be important to the
visibility.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Ianna was speaking for the University. Mr. Ianna replied that he was not,
officially, adding that the observatory personnel were not disturbed by either lighting system. "The
current TLC system and the Soft Lighting system are very good — dramatically better than old lighting
systems, and there's certainly no effect on the observatory." Mr. Ianna said his opinion is that the Soft
Lighting system is a higher quality system for sports lighting.
Mr. Gloeckner readdressed the Commission, stating that he had a difficult time accepting that Soft
Light's 5-degree angle was insignificant and noting that car headlights on dim are unobtrusive, but high
beams are very obtrusive. He said he asked the state police and Bradey-Bushey Ford if he could borrow
their light -measuring apparatus for the beams of light emanating from a car. "It doesn't take but 1.7
degrees, which is the switch from no light in your eyes to light in your eyes... realizing that this [Soft
Light] box is tilted up three times that magnitude means that no matter how many luminaires Soft Light
has, it's that many headlights that are pointing up into the sky ... the physics behind that is so simple, plus
the 5-degree up has no shield on it because it does have to reach — there's no diffuser — so you might be
even looking at the hot spot of that light if you're a pilot looking down at that beam of light."
Mr. Gloeckner concluded, "I don't like high beams, and 5 degrees is a lot more than 1.7, and the bleed -
out that Musco has to the side is strictly reflected light with no hot spot, specifically designed to provide
high light for pop -ups, so it's much safer."
Ms. Washington asked, "Why can't you just return the Musco lights and comply with the ordinance."
Mr. Gloeckner responded, "Because Musco is better than Soft Light. Soft Light has misled the county
into thinking that it's the light that we should accept, and I don't represent Musco, I represent St.
Anne's, and the children that play baseball, and Musco is the safer of the two systems as far as playing
baseball." He added that no manufacturer can meet the light above the horizontal plane. "I'm afraid the
county keeps coming back to Soft Light as the only salvation, and I think Musco is equal if not better,
and the ordinance needs to be studied to see if you really want to have a fight between manufacturers,
because that's proprietary action, and I'm not sure I want to get into that kind of discussion...."
Mr. Gloeckner confirmed that Musco was a part of the discussions from the manufacturers during the
crafting of the Lighting Ordinance.
Mr. Nitchmann asked for the difference between full cut-off luminaire and full cut-off optics. Ms.
Thomas said the full cut-off optics term was included with the decorative luminaire definition because
64
there are decorative luminaires that wouldn't have a complete housing over the source of the light, but
have internal controls inside a "globe" that recess the light in such a way that it is shielded or cut off.
,ter Mr. Rooker asked if staff had seen a Soft Lighting system. Ms. Thomas responded that she had only
seen them in video. Mr. Rooker commented on the staff report statement that "staff knows of no sports
lighting manufacturer whose system fully meets all provisions of the ordinance," and asked Ms. Thomas
if she felt that statement was true.
09
Ms. Thomas said she believes that to be true, and did not know about the 5-degree uplift. "We're being
very strict in our interpretation of the ordinance because that's the way we've been on the non -athletic
lighting. I wasn't there when the ordinance was adopted ... but as I understand it we acknowledged that
there may be some fine-tuning that may occur in the future. There certainly was a lot of debate during
discussion of the ordinance about the athletic lighting, because we knew it was going to be a challenging
area. That was specifically why the athletic lighting waiver was included, because we didn't want to
box ourselves in where nothing would be available.....we felt there was at least one manufacturer, and
we're stressing the cut-off nature of the luminaire design which is what we also stress when we talk to
people having commercial applications like retail establishments or automobile dealerships."
Mr. Rooker commented about the provision in the ordinance for waivers to deal with sports lighting for
ball fields, and recalled that during the development of the ordinance, the county was not certain
whether or not there was a system out there that would fully meet the requirements, which is why the
provision was added.
Ms. Thomas stated that staff was focusing on the lighting on the field and meeting the requirements of
the ordinance; in this case, the field lighting itself hasn't been an issue, but the design of the luminaire
has.
Mr. Nitchmann said that he feels, "this all boils down to me to one thing — there's just a matter of
fairness here. I think you've got an applicant that was really trying to do the right thing, [and] was a
little ahead of the curve because we didn't know at the time and neither did he when exactly the lighting
ordinance was ever going to be completed and be signed into law. I think if the ordinance now already
states that if the [light] is projected below the horizontal plane, neither one of these meet that part of the
ordinance. So it becomes a subjective thing between what your opinion is or our opinion is of one
manufacturer versus the other."
He added, "I'm not a lighting expert, and I don't plant to learn how to be a lighting expert here tonight.
I think that the reason why we opted to put in these [waivers] is so that when we get into situations like
this we already knew up front that there wasn't enough manufacturers out there that people could readily
go to and buy lights even for decorative lighting ... I don't really understand why in this case it appears to
me that the applicant as well as the manufacturer are trying to comply as close as they can with our
ordinance, and I don't think we should sit here as a judge and hold them hostage because we don't agree
that Soft Light may be as good or better than Musco Lighting." Mr. Nitchmann said that he was
surprised at the staff findings to deny the application because neither manufacturer meets the ordinance.
Mr. Nitchmann concluded, "I think it's a matter of very small differences here, and if it takes some time
for us to fine-tune this and get some more education on the technology of lighting that we can make this
lighting ordinance a little more standardized then I think we need to do that ... but I do not think that we
should hold this applicant up in order to do that.
Mr. Rooker said he was impressed by the statement made by Mr. Ianna that both the Musco TLC and
Soft Lighting systems offer dramatic improvements over older sports lighting designs, and that neither
65
Mr. Ianna or the observatory had objections to the Musco system. "I think in light of that, I would have
to support the waiver."
Mr. Rieley applauded the staff on trying to "hold the line" on the horizontal luminaire cut-off, and
"' recalled that during the crafting of the lighting ordinance, one of the things that seemed apparent was
that athletic field lighting was an important area which may need to be an exception. He said that that
coupled with the fact that there is no fixture that fully meets the ordinance leads him to support the
waiver. "Most importantly, we need an ordinance provision that does not exclude all but one
manufacturer. I find that enormously troubling, although I confess I'm persuaded on the basis of Dr.
Ianna and other's analyses that cut-off fixtures mounted higher are generally a better form of light, and
probably more appropriate, but we need more manufacturers and we need to know more. So I'm going
to support the exception in this case, but I certainly hope that if the Board Supervisors agrees and this
gets installed that we can get some people out with light meters and look carefully at this particular
system ... and I hope very much that we can get something like the Soft Lighting system, no matter who
the manufacturer is, in place so that we can look at that too and we'll have a better basis for fine-tuning
our lighting ordinance.
Mr. Loewenstein added, "I still think we have certainly the opinion of one lighting expert in the
community — Dr. Ianna — and I take that very seriously. I know that he's worked very hard to help the
county come to grips with some of these lighting issues that we've been working on for a long time. I
think that we did do a pretty good job when the ordinance was crafted ... I think there was a great deal of
technical advice and input that the county had as that work was being done ... I support the ordinance and
its provisions fully. I agree however that as you've said and others both tonight and on other occasions
that the athletic lighting in particular does need to be reexamined and further fine-tuned." Mr.
Loewenstein concluded that the reason he would support the waiver is "both of these systems are a huge
improvement over what we've seen traditionally, and I think to go beyond that and to get into the
relatively small differences here would be counterproductive and to a sense unfair to an applicant who
has brought this this far."
Mr. Rooker commented that Albemarle County is requesting a waiver of the light ordinance with respect
to field lights for Western Albemarle High School.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of SDP 99-002 to waiver modify
the standards under the lighting ordinance, and to include "Musco" paragraphs # 1-5 as presented by
staff and with paragraph #3 to include a minimum of 28 degrees for the luminaire angle.
Ms. Jane Sprinkle of the Zoning Department said that the 7.88 foot candles at the property line that
would be included of the item were approved are "way over what's allowed by the ordinance currently
[%2-foot candles]." Commissioners stated that that applies to parking areas, not to baseball fields. Mr.
Loewenstein said that her concern is that if "we include some of the figures here and there's a complaint
from an adjacent property owner ... we have to know that what we're doing is in line with the ordinance,
if in fact the ordinance specifies spillover at the property line from athletic lighting.... there isn't any
guidance on how to deal with what numbers make a difference when an adjoining property owner
calls..."
Mr. Rieley added, "I just want to make sure that we are not endorsing something that is contrary to the
ordinance relative to spillover lighting." He asked if the 1/2-foot candle applied only to parking lots and
has not relationship to ballfield lighting. Ms. Thomas confirmed that is correct, adding that impact of
lighting on public roadways is a factor, and the west property line of the school is a public roadway.
66
Mr. Kamptner said, "The standard is the spillover of lighting from parking area luminaires onto public
roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning district shall not exceed `/2-foot candles."
Ms. Thomas said that applies then just to parking areas, adding that the applicant has provided
li4w computer -generated information about their spillover as Attachment "I. '
Mr. Nitchmann modified his motion to include Attachment "I".
The motion passed with a 4-1 vote, with Ms. Washington dissenting.
SDP 98-156 Western Albemarle High School Major Amendment
Request Deferral to March 16, 1999.
Request for site plan amendment approval for various site improvements, including additional parking,
turning lane, gas pump canopy, grading and lighting of play fields. Waivers from full compliance with
the lighting ordinance and to allow grading on critical slopes have been requested. The project will also
be reviewed under Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia for compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved deferral of SDP 98-156.
SUB 98-284 Fontana Subdivision Private Road Request — Request for approval to create a private
road to serve 6 lots on approximately 2.5 acres. The property is zoned R-6, Residential and is
recommended for Neighborhood Density in Neighborhood Three in the Comprehensive Plan. The
property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 57 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the east
side of Stony Point Road (State Highway 20) approximately 1 mile north of the junction with the
Richmond Road (Route 250 East).
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, which stated that while staff does not disagree with the concept
of the alternative access to serve the lots, the private road provision in the ordinance was intended to
provide flexibility under very specific circumstances during the design phase of the project, rather as a
mechanism to come in later to resolve a problem that has developed. Ms. Thomas said that county
engineering was very concerned about access to the lots, and received information from the applicant
that access was perfectly adequate. She stated that staff understands rock is a much more costly
substance to deal with, but the interest of the developers is not, under the ordinance, supposed to be a
criterion for granting a private road approval.
Ms. Thomas added that the legal status of the road concerns staff in that there is a subdivision that has
all public roads and is geared toward having that issue handled by VDOT; with this private road request
there is the need for the homeowner's association to develop a certain level of competence with the road.
"It's a strange mixture, and it's not a mixture we've done in very many places. Only under
circumstances that were very specialized [such as Glenmore and Lake Renovia] ... and it really had to be
corrected. With this we do have the option of the public road, and we think really a better alignment."
Ms. Thomas reported that the applicant's original request for a private access driveway isn't something
allowable under the ordinance.
V4W Referencing the subdivision map, Ms. Thomas highlighted the lots in question, and said that the road
alignments would generally follow the lot line between 160 and 161. Under the Click Road proposed
67
alignment, the contour would be followed more closely. She said the area involves a lot of steep
topography and a lot of drainage issues, prompting focus on grading of individual lots.
Mr. Rieley asked if the alignment of the public road would create difficulty with double -frontage lots.
Ms. Thomas responded that staff would have to identify which was the front of the lot, and the
subdivision ordinance would require the lots to front on the internal road. She said, "They are double -
frontage lots, you're right, but the option of access from the back would not continue. They would have
access only from the new road."
Mr. Rooker said, "The prohibition is not against double -frontage lots, but against having actual access to
the lots on both sides, serving the lots."
Mr. Cilimberg clarified, "The ordinance requires that the Planning Commission approve double -frontage
lots ... access would be from the internal road, but what we have always sought to do is make sure that
the back of that property that is backing up and fronting a road is in some way screened or protected
from that road."
The applicant, Steve Driver of McKee Carson, addressed the Commission, stating that while the staff
report seems very complicated, the problem is very simple.
He explained that in the construction of Fontana Drive, there is one area where there is a significant
grade difference between the road and the fronts of the lots and existing grade. During excavation, a
significant amount of rock was discovered, most of which was removed. He said there is still some
visible rock outcropping along one of the lots; as a result, the developer thought it would be more logical
to go up to the top of the hill where the grade is flat and put a new small road in that would provide
access to the rear of the lots, instead of building all driveways along the lot frontages at very steep
grades that would exit out onto a 10% grade.
Mr. Driver said, "The intention is to provide a safer means of access for the lots, and avoid having to
have cars come out off a steep driveway onto a steep road." He explained that the purpose for
requesting a private road is basically to allow the road to be constructed with the least environmental
degradation possible. "Private road standards are a little bit more liberal than public road standards.
The developer basically wants to maintain the vegetative buffer that was designed to be behind the lots
and the power line. Construction of a public road behind the lots would pretty much desecrate that tree
buffer that's there now and require a significant amount of additional grading."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the subdivision covenants — if this were a private road — would have something
to cover that the road has to be maintained by the owners of the 5 or 6 lots it serves.
Mr. Driver replied no, stating that the subdivision would be covered by the covenants and restrictions
already in place, and dues would be required from individual property owners that would cover
maintenance for the facility in general. He said, "We don't feel that the owners of these six lots would
be burdened by any more expense by living on a private road than they would they be living on some
other section of the subdivision."
Ms. Washington asked who would maintain the private road if the owners of the lot would not. Mr.
Driver answered that it would be up to the homeowner's association that has yet to be formed.
Ms. Washington said, "The homeowners don't live on those six lots that have the private road .... but it's
going to be the homeowners' association responsibility to maintain this private road."
68
Mr. Driver confirmed this. "It's not conceived that the owners on this particular road — these six lots —
would have to pay $300 a year versus $100 a year... simply because they're living on the private road. It
would be absorbed in the fees for the whole subdivision — 70 or 71 lots."
Mr. Rooker asked him to explain the significant degradation to the environment would be if a public
road were put in instead.
Mr. Driver said that a public road would have to meet VDOT's secondary road criteria, and they have
minimums for vertical curvature, maximum grades, and with a private road, steeper grades could be
used. "The intention is to build a road in there that wouldn't necessarily be totally out of character with
the other roads in the subdivision, but at the same time be able to locate it without desecrating the buffer
that's currently behind those lots — between those lots and the power line."
Mr. Rooker asked, "In the ordinance, there's what attempts to be a relatively objective standard, and it
mentions two things as qualifying as significant degradation: one is the total volume of grading for
construction of a public street would be 30% or more than that of a private road in the same alignment
based upon evidence submitted by the subdivider and reviewed by the county engineer. Have you
submitted that kind of evidence?"
Mr. Driver said, "We have not submitted earthwork computations. It's sort of like the chicken and the
egg scenario. How much money do you spend before you find out if you have approval. Typically,
with relatively short private roads, you're going to be less likely to obtain 30% degradation difference
than if you have a long private road. This is a short private road, but the thing that needs to be
considered here is the location of the road. You can have one horizontal alignment which will yield a
certain amount of difference in earthwork, and you can change this horizontal alignment to some other
location... and come up with a different number."
Mr. Rooker said, "The second standard is environmental impacts including but not limited to erosion,
sedimentation, stormwater runoff, surfacewater pollution, loss of tree cover and/or the loss of indigenous
vegetation [etc.] based on evidence submitted by the subdivider and reviewed by the county engineer
and other qualified staff. Has there been any quantitative evidence submitted of that nature."
Mr. Driver said, "Basically. The original layout that we had proposed using the private road standards
showed a road graded such that after it's constructed the road elevation behind these lots is at about the
same elevation at the back of these lots, so that people could access the lots without cutting or filling to
get from the back of the private road to the backs of the lots. That's what we're trying to avoid. With a
public road, we may be cutting and filling on the backs of the lots for access just like we are on the
fronts, so we really haven't accomplished a whole lot."
He added that although these lots have steep frontages and would result in steep driveways if built as
planned, it wouldn't be uncharacteristic of other subdivision developments in the county as a result of
the topography. "If we had a private road in the back, then basically to meet the fire safety code, we
would be installing an additional fire hydrant along the road, which would be adding an additional fire
hydrant that we don't have in place now. In our opinion, those particular lots would probably be better
served; it would be safer to have an access road in the rear, so that a fireman doesn't have to stop along
Fontana Drive along a 10% grade and run up a 30-foot high slope."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the houses would be require to be built with the front of the house facing the
public road.
69
Mr. Driver said there is no requirement that the houses face one way or the other, but the addresses of
the new homes would likely be assigned from the new road.
Mr. Nitchmann commented that the front of the six houses should face Fontana Drive so that the other
homeowners would not have to look up a steep slope at the back of the houses.
Mr. Driver responded, "That's a real good point, Bill. In fact, if this were approved, it may be prudent
to make that a condition of approval, just so the builder can't flop the house around. I think the
developer would certainly want the houses to front Fontana Drive, just for aesthetics if nothing more."
Mr. Cilimberg stated, "That is a reason that double -frontage lots get approved by the Planning
Commission. For just the reason of how they relate to not only the road, but other lots. So we don't
actually have that before you tonight, but it is something that we would address with conditions if it
were to come about, and you would approve that."
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
Mr. Rooker said, "I don't think that we have the power to approve this application. The applicant, I
don't think, has submitted the objective information that's required to approve a private road. What
gives us the authority to approve this road is an ordinance that says one or more private roads may be
authorized in these specific circumstances .... and it has to be based on objective information that he's
submitted to staff. He may ultimately be able to meet that requirement, but I don't know from the
information we've got before us. And without doing that, I don't see how we could possibly approve it.
It may be a good plan. But I think he's got to satisfy the objective requirements of the ordinance in
order for us to get to that point."
�ww Mr. Loewenstein agreed. "I also think we have to give some weight to the report that the engineering
department has brought in to as important evidence that needs to be brought to bear on this decision. I
think there are any number of places in that report where it's been pointed out that this request did not
meet many important conditions that should be met including VDOT and county standards in certain
areas. I would have a lot of trouble with it for that reason alone, but I agree that we don't have the
objective data."
Mr. Nitchmann asked why the item is before the Commission.
Ms. Thomas said staff explained to the applicant the requirements for a private road request, and the
way in which the ordinance is implemented, and the applicant submitted the letter with the attached
drawing as presented. "That was his submittal. Engineering did a fairly detailed analysis... which I
guess provides some of the information that an applicant would normally provide."
Mr. Rooker said that if you go through the engineering report, there is a lot of evidence that the
applicant does not meet the standard. "In my view we don't have the evidence from the applicant that
really enables us to do anything but deny this. And the evidence that is in the record seems to indicate
that it doesn't qualify."
Mr. Rieley agreed. "I also think there's an overriding concern here that I found very troubling which is
that all of...the problems that this private road are supposed to address are problems that were created in
the design of the subdivision — the 10% grade ... the steep slopes — are all part of the overall design.
1, Utilizing the provide road provision to fix problems that are part of the design itself doesn't seem to be
what the private road ordinance was intended to do. With that and with a sigh of relief that I find myself
in full agreement with engineering on a private road issue.."
70
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded denial of SUB 98-284. The motion passed
unanimously.
Work Session
CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc.
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhoods 4 and 5 to change the designation of land
located in the east side of 5th Street north of and adjacent to I-64 from Industrial Service to Regional
Service. The area consists of approximately 54 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial
District.
Ms. Washington reminded the attendees that the public hearing would be held in two weeks, and at that
time public comment would be entertained.
Mr. Nitchmann announced he has prepared a disclosure statement under the Conflict of Interest Act, and
is requesting a written opinion from the Commonwealth Attorney whether he is a member of group
under the act and eligible to participate in CPA 97-05. Pending that opinion, he is not participating in
the worksession.
Ms. Thomas distributed additional information to the Commission (Attachment "C"): a letter from a
member of the public, an article taken from the Richmond Times Dispatch on-line, and an annotated
Albemarle County development areas table from the land use plan.
Ms. Thomas corrected the figure of 1,000 available acres for commercial development within the county
cited in several letters to the Commission. She said that that figure originated from the DISC
Committee, where it was brought forward by the committee's consultant, who erroneously at that time
combined industrial and commercial.
Referencing a map presented, Mr. Benish provided information the Commission had requested
previously on available commercial acreage in the designated development areas in the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Benish noted the recently approved Southpointe development of 38 acres with a maximum of
300,000 square feet. The other area in Neighborhood 5 is a 50-acre property, with roughly 40 acres
developable at the southwest quadrant of I-64 and Route 29, and includes constraints such as relatively
steep topography and remote utilities, which would have to be placed under I-64 to serve that site.
On Route 250 East, the Peter Jefferson Place office regional service contains roughly 900,000 square
feet of approved office space; within that approved development, there is also the opportunity for
145,000 square feet of regional service uses. He explained that their intent is not to have large-scale
uses, but potentially that option could be there in the future. Also along 250E, the Pantops shopping
center area rezoning would include approximately 50 acres, with 145,000 square feet that could be
located on that. A site plan is pending for a Kroger/retail area that comprises 80,000 square feet; there
are some other out parcels at this time shown for hotel and office type uses, and smaller scale retail.
Mr. Benish said that the Fontaine Research Park has supporting uses such as post office and daycare, but
is not oriented to provide large-scale commercial. He said there are some infill opportunities along
250E with some of the older development as you head toward town and approach Route 20; however,
topography will limit the development potential somewhat.
In the Route 29 North corridor, Mr. Benish explained that currently there is roughly 35 acres in
Neighborhood One of regional service in the area between Rio Road and the Southfork of the Rivanna
71
River. Most of that is in smaller parcels; it is not one large 35-acre tract. He said that in the Hollymead
area, the two remaining undeveloped areas in the Comprehensive Plan are roughly 50 acres on the west
side of 29 just north of the subdivision entrance up to airport road; this area was included by the Board
of Supervisors when they amended the Land Use Plan to add high -density residential.
The last remaining large area is in the Towers Land Trust area, north of Proffit Road east of 29,
containing 30-35 developable acres, which would be part of the ultimate planned development for the
Towers Land Trust site.
Mr. Benish added that when staff updated the Land Use Plan, they estimated that they did have
sufficient capacity in the short term — for the next 5 to 10 years, but were approaching some limits. At
the time of review of the Land Use Plan, staff was trying to provide for two times the anticipated
demand to provide market flexibility.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is an existing zoned site for regional service for which a plan has not been
filed, that would accommodate the proposed Brass, Inc. development. Mr. Benish responded that it
would depend on what the exact parameters of the proposed development area, and stated that a
component of what's proposed — the large retail of 100 — 130 thousand square feet, if it met the
development intentions, could technically be located at Peter Jefferson Place. He added that if you're
considering 200,000 or more square feet, possibly the Sieg site could be used, but the utilities have been
a concern. Mr. Rooker asked if that was a realistic site; Mr. Benish said there is a realistic site for some
large footprint, but not for 200,000 square feet unless significant grading is done.
Mr. Cilimberg interjected that some aspects of that [Sieg] site are very similar to the Brass site. Mr.
Benish agreed.
Flow Ms. Thomas recapped a couple of points in the staff report, stating that staff s concerns in the
environmental area were that this kind of use, by its very nature, does not provide a lot of flexibility in
design because a big footprint is needed. "I think ultimately with a use as substantial as this and as, sort
of monolithic in its design, you create the need for an awful lot of mitigation that you might be able to
handle as a design element with a more flexible kind of use."
She added that in looking at the proposal, a concept frequently used in economics, an "opportunity cost"
associated with doing regional service may be higher than desired from a community development
standpoint. "This is a site that could work very effectively for other kinds of uses, and once you do the
regional service, you've eliminated those options."
Mr. Rooker asked to what extent its been objectively looked at the kinds of uses that community service
would offer, and the extend to which the county already has property to accommodate community
service. "I question whether the concept of mixing residential into the site makes sense .... if we're
looking at [community service] as a recommended alternative, I would probably like some information
on why that recommended alternative in our community would be a better use in terms of the
supply/demand factors out there for available property .... we really don't have a lot of places where this
kind of development could be located .... I'm a little bit troubled by kind of rushing to a community
service judgement when we don't know whether or not that is a particularly attractive alternative given
the existing supply of property and the existing zoning."
Ms. Thomas said, "We're always concerned about residential capacity and maintaining as much of it as
we can because it is so related to directing our growth to the designated development areas and sort of
resisting the tendency to expand those boundaries out into the rural area. Certainly residential land use
72
is one of the biggest factors in pushing the expansion of those growth areas. We try to find it and
promote it wherever we can within the development areas.
Mr. Rooker asked what the available unused land for residential development is in the southern area
near the site. Ms. Thomas that there certainly is some capacity. Mr. Rooker said he is concerned that
"we have a lot of objective criteria that have been furnished on the proposal, and some of it's favorable,
some of it's unfavorable, but then we put up an alternative... but we're not really subjecting that
potential alternative to the same kind of critical analysis that we might be applying to the proposal.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that if the Commission needs more justification for the community
service/mixed use approach, that staff may not be able to compile that information in a reasonable form
by the public hearing date. "You could move on with the request of the applicant, and simply put that to
public hearing, with whatever that Comprehensive Plan language would need to be. At that point in
time, if you feel that the regional service is worth sending on to the Board favorable, you could do that.
Or, if you feel that you need to have more consideration for the community service, we could give you
that information, and you could decide to do that in the alternative after that public hearing."
Commissioners expressed a strong interest in getting as much information as possible before the public
hearing, because of the wording in the staff report that community service may be a better use of the
property.
Mr. Loewenstein said, "If we turn down the regional service request, and if we suggest this alternative,
it's going to be a lot more difficult for the Board to work in the absence of that information coming from
us as part of that decision."
Mr. Cilimberg said, "That's why I would say that if you were going to not go the regional service route
and you wanted to recommend an alternative and we can try to do what we can in the next week to get
you that information, but if there was more time necessary, you could take it to actually make that
decision on the alternative. We'll do what we can to bring you the community service justification
beyond what you've got now for that hearing, and then you can make your decision there whether
you're ready to move. The hearing doesn't say you have to make a decision that night. You can make a
decision as to whether your ready to move one or the other forward, or feel like you need [more time."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I understand the time constraints, and I know staff is overloaded. But as much
of that as we could get in advance of that public hearing would be helpful."
Mr. Cilimberg said that in considering something in public hearing, the Commission should have
language of the Comprehensive Plan change that would occur; staff needs to know if the Commission
only wants language for the regional service, or whether they would also like to have the language that
would be community service.
Mr. Rooker indicated he would like to have both sets of language. He asked for the information
previously requested on sales tax/retail sales changes before and after Sam's, Lowe's, Wal-Mart, etc.
Mr. Benish said that it may be difficult to pull detail out of the gross numbers to assess what the
individual impacts are, but said staff would try to make the best analysis possible on the figures.
Mr. Loewenstein mentioned that there has been a lot of citizen reaction so far related to the question of
impact.
Mr. Rooker stated he would like to see figures on the city retail sales after the opening of Wal-Mart, etc.
73
09
Mr. Cilimberg said that perhaps staff can provide a 10-year trend line of retail sales in this grouping (big
box), and look at the trend lines for city and county, and mark the points where Wal-Mart and Sam's
came on line to see if there was any dramatic change to the trend line. "There is a natural growth in
retail sales here, absent any of the other things that are going on. You don't want to isolate it at one year,
you really want to look at it in terms of some trend over a period of time where you can look, too at what
particular business changes might have affected that retail sales."
Mr. Rooker said he has concerns about community service in that stores and shops my more closely
approximate the stores and shops that exist downtown, which may actually be more competitive to
downtown merchants than a Wal-Mart.
Mr. Benish cautioned that in a market such as Charlottesville's, there can be factors that can affect the
city, such as the closing of Bradlee's, that are not market -related but business decisions. "That doesn't
necessarily correspond to the economic impact of what might have been happening at the same time
because it was a business decision. Unlike a regional market that's very large — that gets masked — it
sort of balances out. In our market, it may or may not. We just have to be careful when we look at that
trend line, really look at it carefully and think what caused that spike or that drop and make sure we're
looking at an economic impact."
Mr. Loewenstein said that in discussing differing impacts between regional service and community
service involve more than just the economic impacts as well.
Mr. Benish said that's why staff is looking toward community service and a balance of providing a
commercial opportunity within a mixed use that provided the same opportunities for some of the uses,
but perhaps mixed into a development plan that provided a better balance of employment opportunities,
mixed residential, and commercial opportunities, instead of completely one type of use.
Mr. Rieley complemented staff on their assessment of a complicated issue. He agreed with Mr. Rooker
that considering community service needs to be examined more closely, and asked if staff might
concentrate on a getting a clean topography with boundaries before the meeting, and asked for
engineering's best assessment of what it would require to serve this 300,000 square -foot building area
and ancillary parking, and what would be required in the way of grading to create a platform on this
piece of ground that would accommodate a structure of that size.
Mr. David Hirschmann, County Water Resources Manager, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked if the proposed use of the property has negative impacts on the water quality of the
three surrounding streams that are not capable of being mitigated. "If this were to be approved, are there
mitigation measures that could be recommended, or we could request from the applicant, that might
improve the water quality problems, or might deal with some of the water quality problems."
Mr. Hirschmann replied that the Water Protection ordinance demands a stream buffer along both Biscuit
Run and Moore's Creek — the requirement to provide for BMP's to mitigate the "worst" impacts of the
development, and try to provide some filtering or settling ponds, basins, retention areas, etc. to deal with
the site run-off. `But with any type of BMP, it's not 100% effective, you're going to still deal with a net
increase... especially in development areas." He added that there are things that can be dealt with
through the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning process to address restoration that goes beyond the
minimum requirements of the ordinance.
74
Mr. Rooker asked if there were things that could be done to "create a level playing field" as far as the
impact on water quality comparing a smaller retail development or different retail design to the proposed
use.
Mr. Hirschmann responded, "If something when in by -right, we wouldn't have the ability to request the
additional conditions to provide for restoration."
Mr. Rooker asked if the main measure that could be implemented would be restoration, and asked if
anything else on this particular site might serve to reduce the net powerful effect of development.
Mr. Hirschmann said that the BMP is normally calculated by drainage area, but it could also be looked
at it to try to maximize the BMP treatment for the overall site, independent of what the numbers may
actually show.
Mr. Rooker said that based on the information in Mr. Hirschmann's report, the rezoning and ultimate
build -out of the site might result in a net detriment to water quality in the area. "Since we're dealing
with a rezoning, we are in a position to perhaps require measures that would go beyond the BMP before
we would accept the rezoning of the property. It might be helpful at some point ... to look at this site, if
in fact the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is passed, in that regard."
Mr. Hirschmann said he felt that that could be done.
Mr. Rooker said that there seems to be a comparison in the water quality report between what might be
put on the site if it were developed as community service, and what might be put on the site if it were
developed as the proposed regional service request. He asked Mr. Hirschmann if he had any judgement
as to the quantitative difference in water quality if simply using BMPs in both circumstances.
Mr. Hirschmann said it's impossible to provide anything quantitative without knowing the specific
development layouts. He said he tried to provide that in a conceptual way. "If I did try to quantify it, I
guarantee you it would be inaccurate by the time you actually put design on paper."
Mr. Rooker asked if there was any way to determine if "A" is better than `B" in terms of orders of
magnitude.
Mr. Hirschmann said some of the factors to consider are: the overall cover of impervious surfaces such
as parking lots and buildings, and the extent to which these things are all interconnected by storm drain
pipes. "Obviously when you think about the big box — you can go out to Wal-Mart or the Lowe's site —
and imagine the great rush of water that comes off. Those are great expanses of asphalt and building
where there's no disconnection between the impervious surfaces. I'd say if you took the two concepts of
the individual building envelopes and the big box and the two designs had the exact same impervious
cover — both 20 acres or 30 acres — I would say the big box would have more impact, but I don't think it
would be a huge order of magnitude more because you'd still be dealing with the same surface area of
pavement and buildings."
Mr. Hirschmann added, "We always like to think of these things as a very simple model where "x"
amount of pavement equals "x" amount of pollutants in the river. I always try to remind people that a
lot of issues and impacts and the ability to mitigate impacts goes back to the quality of your
design .... you could have a very well designed big box and a poorly designed building envelope. Really
design is going to be more important than anything else in this realm. Certainly a lot of impacts can be
eliminated through design, and certainly reduced through good design."
75
09
Mr. Rooker said it would be extremely helpful to have the site looked at in a very critical way to
determine the measures beyond BMPs that might be applied to this particular site to mitigate any
detriment to water quality.
Mr. Hirschmann added that putting a "big box" on a hilltop is going to involve taking the top of the hill
off, whereas individual envelopes (stores) of good design could better fit into the topography.
Mr. Rooker asked staff how much control could be garnered over the design of a community service
development.
Mr. Benish said that at the Comprehensive Plan level, the Commission will set the stage for what the
expectations are at the rezoning level. Referencing the Southpoint development, Mr. Benish said there
is a guiding document in place that provides a clear expectation that the basis of that zoning is on a
certain design and range of uses and general building orientation concepts. "You can articulate
that ... you have the latitude to do that here."
Mr. Rooker said, "I think we ought to have similar language for the proposal that's before us."
Mr. Benish said, "We do intend to do that. This sort of was the first step... a general description, and
then we're going to bring out the specifics and amendments next."
Mr. Rooker said regardless of what direction the property designation goes in, "We want to make sure
that water quality is dealt with in the best way possible, and that could mean going beyond BMPs in
order to mitigate that."
Mr. Benish stated that development of the park facility and greenway in that area would be integrated
into that concept, and the applicant is well aware of that.
Mr. Rooker asked how the soccer field proposed by the applicant for the property would impact the
water quality.
Mr. Hirschmann said he is only aware of one or two spots where a soccer field could go on the property,
but said that as long as an adequate buffer and buffer restoration could be provided, a soccer field would
work.
Mr. Rooker asked if the field would enhance mitigation efforts or get in the way of mitigation efforts.
Mr. Hirschmann said it wouldn't enhance the mitigation efforts but it could be accommodated without
too much adverse impact.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that what the Commission has expressed a need for to this point is: justification
for community service; additional information on how large-scale retail may have historically effected
retail sales figures in the city and county; and language for both types of amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan for the public hearing, including language relative to water quality.
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant had provided the survey questions as previously requested and the
quantity of responses, and additional schematic drawings of the potential development that were more
detailed and reflected how much of the land would be buildings, and how much would be open.
Mr. Rieley said he was hoping to get from county engineering a general layout that reflects the scale of
the buildings, the number of parking spaces, etc. "I'd frankly feel more comfortable looking at that than
76
a sketch that's provided by the applicant that provides more in the way of mood than it does in the way
of concrete information."
Mr. Rooker said he would like information from both engineering and the applicant on the proposed
layout of the parcel.
Mr. Hirschmann said it would be hard for engineering to know what the applicant has in mind in terms
of site layout.
Mr. Rieley said, "I'm just talking about a diagram. A box of the right scale, a block of parking, and a
flat place big enough to put it on."
Mr. Rieley added, "More just in terms of being able to get a feel for the extent to which the buildings,
parking lots, etc. occupy the site."
Mr. Rooker asked about the county's interchange development policy, stating that it is mentioned in a
letter from the applicant's representative.
Mr. Cilimberg said the policy was developed after the 1982 Comprehensive Plan was approved, and has
been carried forward through the 1989 Plan and the 1996 Land Use Plan. It was made in an effort to
develop what variety of uses were considered to be appropriate and their relationship to the interchanges
in the county's development/urban/growth areas. He said there were specific interchanges identified
and uses listed that would be considered supportive of interchange activity and relationship of access to
those uses from the interchange in terms of distance. Mr. Cilimberg said in their thinking of urban
development now, the policy is somewhat dated, but is designed to provide some general guidance as to
what types of uses might be appropriate at those interchanges within the land use designations that have
been given. "It does not dictate land use designation. It is only to say that with the land use
designations you have, these would be considered appropriate uses in interchange areas, and how they
would be accessed."
Mr. Cilimberg said that in terms of land use, the applicant's plan does fit, but they're on a site that's now
industrial development, so until there's a re -designation, it doesn't fit in terms of the Land Use Plan. It
fits in terms of the land uses that were to be considered to be appropriate near an interchange.
Mr. Rooker referenced the letter the applicant included from Ramey Kemp & Associates regarding the
widening of Bent Creek Road, and said it seemed to contradict information he had heard regarding the
city's willingness to widen the road.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant's consultant did an analysis of what improvements would need to
be done, but the city would have to concur with that because the streets are in the city. He added that
city staff were asked to comment on what to be necessary to accommodate the development. "I don't
know if it's fair to cast it that this is the city's position versus that because I think it was city staff
responding to what was before the county. Obviously there have been statements made beyond city
staff about the road system and infrastructure that I think are kind of in a different plane, so to speak."
Mr. Cilimberg said the city Comprehensive Plan does not say one thing or another regarding Bent Creek
Road.
Mr. Rooker asked if Bent Creek Road is not widened, what the impact on circulation to that site would
be. "It doesn't appear to me that we have any kind of good traffic study that shows whether or not Bent
77
Creek Road as it presently exists without widening could service this development. And I think that's
an important factor to consider."
Mr. Benish said staff has gone through analysis with VDOT as to what the potential improvements
might need to be at a minimum. "I think the concern that we need to get clear is that is in fact a city
street, and VDOT really has no control over Bent Creek Road, and quite honestly, we need to make sure
that we're clear on what the city's position because... you're basically looking at a traffic engineer's
assessment .... I think we do have a sense for what type of improvements may be necessary at the
intersection. Now the question would be given those types of improvements — the amount of turn lanes
and the additional lanes that might be needed between intersections, is that something that the city is
comfortable with in their road plans."
Mr. Rooker asked if the widening of Bent Creek Road has been looked at in the past, and what city's
reasons for wanting or not wanting to widen it are.
The applicant's representative, Steve Blaine, said he would be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker asked for the information previously requested.
Mr. Blaine indicated that they intended responded to all points raised. Mr. Blaine said the reason he
asked from the letter from Mr. Kemp was there appeared to be an inconsistency in opinion. "Our traffic
engineer hadn't recommended as a necessary improvement the widening of Bent Creek, but in meetings
with the city engineer determined that that may be an improvement to the overall flow. Obviously it's
subject to getting the adjoining property owners to consent to the widening, and those conversations
have been going on for some time as well .... we had some discussion early on in this process about the
possible future southern connector with Avon Street. And so naturally we wanted to see what the city
engineer's views were on that to make sure we didn't preclude that in this development."
Mr. Rooker asked if the consultant to the applicant, who had worked with developments of this kind and
is aware of the impacts on communities, had brought forth any information on similar developments in
other localities. Mr. Rooker indicated he would like to see this information if it is available. "If there's
any other empirical evidence that might help us in that regard, I'd certainly like to receive it."
New Business
Mr. Cilimberg presented an artist's rendition of the planned Wayland's Grant development.
Commissioners were complimentary of the layout as presented.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Secretary
CM
7R