HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 02 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 2, 1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
March 2, 1999 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were: Mr.
William Finley, Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Rodney Thomas; and Mr. Pete
Anderson. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Juandiego Wade,
Transportation Planner; and Mr. Steven Boller, County Engineering. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -
Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Jared Loewenstein.
A quorum was established with 4 of 7 members present.
The minutes of February 16, 1999 were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Finley presented an e-mail he received from Nelson and Carol Martin commending Bill Fritz and
Mary Joy Scala for their assistance in relocation to Albemarle County (Attachment "A").
Consent Agenda:
Addition to Yellow Mountain A/F District — Proposal to add 43.770 acres in two parcels to the Yellow
Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 71, Parcels 64 and 64A is
located on the north side of Plank Road (State Route 692) near Batesville, in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. The property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned
Rural Areas.
Addition to Moorman's River A/F District — Proposal to add 110.442 acres in two parcels to the
Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 41, Parcel 9E, is
located on the west side of Browns Gap Turnpike (State Route 680) near White Hall, in the White Hall
Magisterial District, and property described as Tax Map 43, Parcel 44, is located on the west side of
Free Union Road (State Route 601) near Owensville, in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The
property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned Rural Areas.
Addition to Carter's Bridge AN District — Proposal to add 72.160 acres in three parcels to the Carter's
Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 112, Parcels 19F, 19G, and 19I is
located on the east side of Frys Path (State Route 627) near Carter's Bridge, in the Scottsville
Magisterial District. Property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is designated as Rural Area in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the consent agenda as presented.
Deferred Items•
SP 98-68 Brown's (Sign #44)
Request for a special use permit to allow for the construction of a 24'x44' canopy to cover existing gas
pumps in accordance with Section 6.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for the expansion or
enlargement of an existing building or structure. The property, described as Tax Map 128 parcel 92A,
contains 2.055 acres and is located at 2724 Irish Road (Route 6) in the Scottsville Magisterial District
about 300 feet from Route 627. The property is zoned rural areas RA and is located in an entrance
corridor EC. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas —RA. The site is located
in Rural Area 4.
79
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, explaining the applicant's intent to construct a canopy over the gas
pumps in this rural area country store, and stating that the construction should not cause any substantial
detriment to the adjacent property. He reported that the ARB has granted approval of the design and
lighting for the canopy, and that the applicant has met VDOT's recommendations. Staff recommends
approval of the special use permit with conditions as noted.
The applicant, Mike Brown, owner of the store, addressed the Commission and explained his intent to
construct the canopy.
The owner of the neighboring property, Donald McCauley, addressed the Commission. He stated that
he is the only neighboring property owner that would see the new canopy, and said it would be visible
form his front door, his living room, and his front yard. Mr. McCauley told Commissioners that
Appalachian Power mistakenly removed 47 trees from his property in an attempt to do line -clearing with
their right-of-way, thus making Brown's Market highly visible. He expressed concern that despite the
RA zoning in his area, the field adjacent to him (not owned by the Browns) has been used as a "park,"
and his land is being ruined from all sides.
Mr. Finley asked, "What are you looking at right now that's going to be better or worse?"
Mr. McCauley replied, "I see people filling up their cars with gas, but to me it would seem less obtrusive
without a canopy that has to be at least high enough for a van or a truck to go under to use it, which is
going to put it up — according to that picture — at the level of the roof ..I'm the only one that has a view
of all three stories of Brown's market from the back side. I live on the knoll that actually sits higher.
It's the highest land owned piece in that part of the [district]. I look down onto it, and so from my house
I can see it all, and I don't particularly want to see a canopy although it might be convenient, I don't
particularly want to see it.
Mr. Rooker asked how close his house is to the proposed canopy. Mr. McCauley said it would be 350 to
400 feet from his house. Mr. McCauley then explained the mishap with APCo (which he addressed
through legal action) that resulted in the removal of trees, leaving an 85-foot spot that directly accesses
the market. "They had the right-of-way to do it ... but if the trees were there, the canopy would not
bother me as much. I've got a full view of the store. I don't want to extend it 44 feet."
Mr. Thomas asked what the outcome of the legal action was. Mr. McCauley responded that APCo was
within their right-of-way to clear the lines, and the miscommunication was ruled a mistake, which did
not hold up in court. He said that the tree value was $27,000.
Mr. Thomas asked if there would be a buffer requirement. Mr. Rieley said that since this is a special use
permit, the Commission could possibly add conditions if they felt it was a reasonable approach.
Mr. Finley asked Mr. McCauley the angle at which he views the store. Mr. McCauley responded that he
sees the store straight on from his master bedroom and the entrance foyer. "My front of the house
basically faces the back of the store .... if I look straight ahead, I would look at Route 6; if I looked at
11:00 I'd look at Brown's mini -market." Mr. McCauley indicated that the store, including the gas
pumps, was there when he moved into his house. He stated that since the trees have been removed, he
can hear conversations and music at the store.
,,i%W Mr. Brown readdressed the Commission, stating that his family purchased Brown's in 1984, and have
tried to run a decent business in that time. He distributed a petition signed by over 400 people in support
of the canopy (Attachment `B").
80
Mr. Rieley asked staff if guidelines exist for screening for a commercial situation where conditions
would be imposed. Mr. Keeler responded that evergreen trees in double -staggered rows, 15 feet on
center, 4-6 feet in height, would be the standard recommended buffer. He also said that just beyond the
pavement of the store, the edge of the property drops off very sharply; if Mr. McCauley's property is
located higher, it may take some time for the trees to become effective as screening.
Mr. Wade added, "Because of the site... we would have to investigate the type of trees that can grow in
that environment." Mr. Keeler said he is fairly certain the site is a filled site.
Mr. Finley asked if the ARB is finished with the site plan. Mr. Wade replied that they have approved
the plan, but have not yet granted the certificate of appropriateness because a few things need to be
completed as indicated in the staff report. Mr. Keeler said staff examined the site to ensure that the
canopy is located as recommended by VDOT, which it is. Mr. Wade indicated there was a lot of
discussion between the applicant, CITGO, and the ARB to determine the proper size, color and type of
canopy. The parties compromised and decided on a beige canopy.
Mr. Thomas said, "Three or four hundred feet is quite a ways. If you're standing on the hill at the
football field, you're looking all the way to the other end of the parking lot. To me, that's quite a
distance."
Mr. Rooker commented that the ARB has to approve this, and the lighting ordinance will assure that the
light is fully shielded and will not leak out of the sides of the canopy. "Hopefully, that should cut down
on some of the visual problem that might otherwise arise here." He added that screening might be in
order, but he is hesitant to deal with it as a condition because of the circumstances of the lot, where there
may not be any ground capable of being planted.
Mr. Finley added that it may be a while before trees would have an effect as a buffer because the house
is higher up.
Mr. Rieley said, "I think that's always the case when we require screening — it almost never does it
immediately. There is a time lag in there. I don't have any concern with the substance of the special use
permit. I think Brown's is a good neighborhood business. I patronize it myself often, and the canopies
are an important element for convenience stores that are selling gas — it's important for business. I do
think we have to acknowledge a special situation, and it really is a matter of ongoing commercial
activity adjacent to an existing residential one that's compounded by the difficulty with the cutting of the
trees..." He added that a compromise may be to suggest the standard double -staggered row of trees —
white pines or an alternate as approved by staff, and to authorize the staff to adjust the plan to the site
conditions that are there. "It does seem to me that it's not a terribly expensive thing, and as a part of this
project it makes sense. And even if it's going to take a few years in order to be fully effective, it will be
at least partially effective immediately..."
W. Kamptner stated that as a special use permit condition, they could require a planting height above
what's in the site plan ordinance.
Mr. Rieley said that he is inclined not to try to solve the problem this year because it would require very
tall trees. "I don't think we want to penalize the applicant by making him buy extremely expensive
trees. Four to six foot trees, 15 feet on center is not an onerous thing, and I think it seems reasonable for
both parties."
81
Mr. Rooker asked if, given the fact that the neighboring property is located higher up, it would make
more sense to plant trees on that property instead of on the gas station property. "You might have
immediate screening if it's on higher ground."
Mr. Kamptner commented that the Appalachian Power right-of-way may prohibit that.
Mr. Rooker said, "We're talking about protecting one landowners property. We don't have a whole
neighborhood we're trying to screen. It seems to me we ought to try to do that in the most effective,
quickest way." He added that if Mr. McCauley has a place on his property where the screening would
be more effective than on the gas station property, and all the parties agreed, it would make more sense.
Mr. Rieley clarified the language for the condition, and asked if it was legal to impose that as a
condition.
Mr. Kamptner responded that if the Browns are willing to address the conditions off -site, then it could
be included as a condition.
Mr. Thomas asked if the right-of-way was on both sides of the line. Mr. Wade replied that he does not
think that line is not on the Browns property.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of SP 98-68 with the condition presented
by staff and an additional condition stating that "white pines be planted in a 15-foot double -staggered
row of 4-6 foot height along the edge of pavement behind the canopy or that an equal number of trees be
planted off -site on the adjacent property owner's property if that is mutually agreeable to Mr. McCauley,
Mr. Brown and the staff." The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-65 Snow's Business Park (Sign #91) — item moved to end of public hearing agenda
SP 98-57 Vintage Market (Sign #56)
Request to allow an existing country store to become conforming which would allow expansion of the
country store and the relocation of the gas pump canopy. This is in accordance with Section 10.2.2.22
of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows country stores. The property, described as Tax Map 102 Parcel
27C consists of 1.9 acres and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Route 20 (Scottsville
Road) approximately 5.1 miles south of the intersection with Route 742 (Avon Street). The property is
zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Rural Area.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, indicating that the applicant wants to add 12'x58'of retail space
onto the south side of the existing store, and a 14'x59' storage addition to the rear of the store. He also
wants to relocate the main entrance of the store to the south side of the building and relocate the canopy
that covers the gas pumps. Mr. Wade indicated that the applicant has received approval from the Board
of Zoning Appeals for the location of the canopy and the additions. The applicant is currently
undergoing the site plan waiver process and this request will come to the Planning Commission on April
6''. The ARB has reviewed the site plan and offered several recommendations for the applicant to
include in the plan. Mr. Wade reported that Vintage Market is considered a non -conforming use
because it does not have a special use permit, and said that staff believes the additions would not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property owners. He further stated that the size of the canopy is
proposed to by 24'x46', and the size and design will be addressed with the ARB through the site plan
process. Staff recommends approval, and Mr. Wade presented reworded conditions (Attachment "C").
82
Mr. Jamie Lewis, owner of Vintage Market, addressed the Commission. He said that they have
petitioned zoning for the relocation of the gas pumps, which are presently located at the front of the
building along the roadside of Route 20 South, to the south side of the building to improve the traffic
flow and congestion on the site which occurs when there are more than 2 or 3 vehicles wanting to
purchase gas. Mr. Lewis indicated his plan has been accepted by zoning, and explained how the
changes would improve the flow of traffic around his store. He said they have approximately 650 to 700
customers daily, which creates a substantial amount of congestion.
Mr. Lewis said what they propose to do brings their facility more in compliance with zoning
requirements, and indicated that since he purchased the store, he has upgraded the plumbing, electrical,
lighting, outward appearance, etc. He said the newest changes would greatly improve the store's
appearance for people passing by and customers. Mr. Lewis said they also propose to do landscaping
around the store, including filling a ditch that has presented a small but ongoing problem on site. He
stated that they plan to put up a substantial amount of screening on the southwestern boundary of the
property that will effectively eliminate any view of the canopy and the store from the next door
neighbor. Mr. Lewis reported that they have already removed an old trailer an outdoor trailer, and have
cleaned up the property somewhat since taking it over, and added that a converted garage that now
serves as a residence will become a storage facility for the store.
Mr. Thomas asked what the store hours are. Mr. Lewis replied that the store is open from 6:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m. except on Sundays, when the store is open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Finley asked why he was moving the gas tanks. Mr. Lewis said the tanks were replaced in 1997 and
meet EPA requirements, but said the previous owner did not install the lines from the tanks very well.
He added that modern, up-to-date fuel facilities have containment units underneath the pumps and
dispensers, and said that the previous owner "cut a few corners" and put treated wood to form a box that
does not have the ability to hold back a fuel spill. Mr. Lewis said their plan would make the fuel
containment more modern and safer in the event of a fuel line rupture by putting the spill into a
polyurethane containment unit which has an alarm that would shut the system down.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question about the tanks' location on the property, Mr. Lewis indicated that
they are presently located on the south side of the property, near the building where the parking spaces
are. Mr. Lewis said he is concerned that the original contractor used fiberglass piping which has no
containment in the event of rupture. The relocation of dispensers would involve installing a containment
line that has a double -hose system designed to drain back to the containment unit.
Mr. Thomas asked if they provide restrooms for customers. Mr. Lewis said they would have two
separate restrooms. Mr. Thomas asked if the septic system was adequate to accommodate this. Mr.
Lewis replied that the current system is marginal, and they have already spoken with the health
department. He explained that they are planning to replace the septic tank behind the store with a 1,500-
gallon tank with a new distribution box, and have requested that the health department allow them to
extend the existing field. Mr. Lewis said they have already spent a good deal of money to bring things
into compliance, and plan to spend a substantial amount more to continue that compliance.
Mr. Rieley asked about the nature of the screening agreement with the Burton property. Mr. Lewis
replied that the agreement was made with the BZA, and was also discussed with the ARB. Mr. Wade
presented a memo from the ARB which outlines suggestions for the applicant (Attachment "D"). He
added that the site plan waiver will probably come before the Commission in early April.
NNW Mr. Keeler explained, "A site plan waiver is not a waiver of any site plan requirements. It's a waiver of
preparation of an engineered drawing for a site plan. We only recommend site plan waivers in cases
83
where we feel the information as submitted is accurate enough and the other agencies are satisfied.
That's the reason it's not before you tonight because this is still under review." He suggested that the
record reflect that even though the language of the conditions call for site plan, that doesn't prohibit the
Commission from entertaining a site plan waiver at a future date. Mr. Wade added, "It still has to go
through the same process as a site plan. VDOT and Engineering and Zoning will review it just as
though it was a site plan."
Mr. Rooker asked about Item #7 from the ARB, regarding the applicant's landscape plan. "I don't see
anything that specifically talks about what areas are being screened, where the plantings are taking
place. Has there been a landscape plan submitted with this application, or was there one submitted to
the ARB?"
Mr. Wade said that this is the ARB's first review.
Mr. Kamptner explained that the ARB typically has the applicant come in and get feedback from the
ARB as to what they will be looking for when the applicant comes forward with a plan.
Mr. Lewis said Margaret Pickart from the ARB visited the facility for a preliminary meeting, where she
set forth some ideal guidelines for the property. Mr. Lewis said he then prepared a set of drawings,
which have been submitted to the planning department along with a landscaping plan that shows
locations of trees and screening. That plan has been submitted to the ARB. He said that he did not give
the specific terminology such as the name and type of the trees, and the ARB has requested more
specifics. Mr. Lewis said that there are power lines overhead where the trees would need to be planted,
and they need to have a certain type of tree that will not interfere with the lines. He said as part of their
site plan approval, they have indicated on the landscaping where the screening is going to go.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Willie Mae Perkins, a consultant who has been working with the applicant, addressed the
Commission and indicated that public comment on the improvements to the property has been highly
favorable. She said that the appearance of the store, outside and inside, has greatly improved since Mr.
Lewis took over the property.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Thomas said he has seen the store, and it has progressively improved since Mr. Lewis has taken it
over. He suggested adding a condition that would require the old wooden storage building adjacent to
the existing store to be removed. Mr. Rooker said that making improvements to the appearance and the
safety of the property are "a good combination." Mr. Rieley indicated concern that the adjacent property
is so close to the store site, but said that since the Burtons have not objected, it may not be necessary to
raise that concern.
Mr. Rooker said that is why he had wanted to see the landscaping plan. Mr. Wade said he looked at the
plan when it first came in, but not in depth. "The landscaping plan will get reviewed in depth by the
ARB. The location of the canopy, although it would be reviewed by the ARB and at the site plan level,
the BZA reviewed in detail exactly where it would go also..."
Mr. Kamptner suggested that staff look at the landscaping plan before the item goes to the Board of
Supervisors.
84
Mr. Rooker said that the Commission could actually make a condition that the plan would make
adequate provision for screening on the side of the property adjacent to the Burton property.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded a recommendation for approval of SP 98-68 with
the modified conditions presented by staff (Attachment "C") and additional conditions to state "the
storage building adjacent to existing store will be removed" and "the landscape plan [will] make
adequate provision for screening of the Burton property to the satisfaction of staff." The motion passed
unanimously. Staff will review the landscape plan before the item goes before the Board of Supervisors
on March 17th.
ZTA 98-09 University of Viminia Real Estate Foundation
Petitions to the Board of Supervisors to amend Section 29 Planned Development — Industrial Park PD-IP
of the Zoning Ordinance to allow, as a part of the planned development process, the modification,
variation or waiver of Section 26.0 Industrial Districts — Generally and Section 29.0 Planned
Development -Industrial Park PD-IP.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, explaining that the item is an amendment to the zoning ordinance
and would thus be available, if approved, to any property that is zoned Planned Development —
Industrial Park. He indicated that the applicant is proposing textual language which would authorize the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to modify, vary or waive certain regulations during
rezoning consideration of a Planned Development -Industrial Park. Mr. Keeler explained that the PD-IP
regulations that are currently in the ordinance were developed in the late 1970's and adopted into the
prior zoning ordinance; about that same time, the new draft zoning ordinance was delivered by
consultants and staff was immediately directed to rewrite the draft. The PD-IP text was carried over to
the new ordinance, and remained unused until UREF made subsequent application in 1995; after the
approval of the rezoning, staff met with the applicant to discuss internal design visions for the park. At
that time, it became apparent that a discrepancy existed between the PD-IP district and other Planned
Development districts regarding Planning Commission and Board authority to modify, vary, or waive
provisions of those regulations.
Mr. Keeler stated that other Planned Development districts contain language much more liberal toward
flexible design by providing more discretion to the Commission and Board to allow innovative design
which may not be achievable by strict adherence to the general or planned development provisions.
Staff feels that the current PD-IP language does not offer flexibility to the Commission and Board as
outlined in the general intent for Planned Development. Language as proposed by the applicant is
virtually identical to language applicable to industrial areas in the PUD district and staff opinion is that
this discrepancy is primarily editorial in nature and that the provisions of the PD-IP should correspond to
the provisions of the more recent PUD district. Mr. Keeler reported that staff recommends approval of
the applicant's proposed text as submitted, and referenced proposed language as presented in his report.
John Matthews of Mitchell -Matthews Architects, representing the foundation, addressed the
Commission, and indicated he would be available to answer any questions.
Public comment was invited. None was given.
Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of ZTA 98-09 as presented by staff. The motion
passed unanimously.
Mr. Keeler said that the next agenda item is an amendment to the approved ZMA 95-04 UREF petition,
which was under review from December 1994 until June 1996, when it was approved by the Board. Mr.
Keeler referenced the proffers that were put forward by the foundation, including a requirement that the
85
foundation provide a report to the Planning Department every three years. That three years is up in
June, and Mr. Keeler indicated that staff felt it would be a good opportunity for foundation
representatives to report on the progress of the park.
Mr. Bruce Stouffer of UREF addressed the Commission to update them on the progress at the Research
Park. He stated that the park consists of 532 acres, and has been zoned for 3 million square feet of
mixed -use development. The purpose of the Research Park is to establish an attractive, state-of-the-art
environment for businesses and organizations that wish to have a relationship with the University of
Virginia. Mr. Stouffer said the first three tenants in the park, Microair Surgical Instruments, Motion
Control Industries, and Pharmaceutical Research Associates, fit the foundation's profile for the types of
tenants that they would like to have in the park. He explained that all .three companies have multiple
relationships in the university from joint research to the hiring of undergraduate assistants, spouses of
faculty members, and spouses of graduate students. Mr. Stouffer said that Mr. Anderson has been a
great asset in the process.
Mr. Stouffer said the foundation and the design firm/architects that they are working with on the project
have tried to take the university's high -quality architecture and concept of the Academical Village and
use them in their creation of the park at North Fork. He said that they are trying to create a research
community which is more than just a normal "office park" where buildings lie in a sterile environment.
Mr. Stouffer said they are striving to create a community atmosphere that has a sense of belonging and a
personal feeling with pleasant open spaces and a well -planned community. He said they hope to have in
the "town center" of the development a hotel/conference center, some open-air caf6s and other types of
amenities that would be very attractive to the research park tenants and the community.
Mr. Stouffer added that they would like the park to be a self-sustaining community to reduce traffic
counts, so that people who work at North Fork would be able to take care of banking, food, and business
needs in the town center. He then presented an artist's rendition of what the park may look like at full
build -out, and said that they are finishing their Phase I infrastructure, including a major entrance on
Route 29, and a mile of road going through the park and connecting with Quail Run. He added that the
foundation is trying to develop the park in a sustainable way, including the mulching of trees which will
be used in the landscaping of the road. Mr. Stouffer added that they are undertaking one of the largest
tree transplanting efforts in the country, transplanting approximately 3,000 trees from developable
parcels and moving them into the medians and along the roads.
Mr. Stouffer also presented drawings of the "town center," and explained that they are trying to bring
buildings closer to the roads and hide the parking in the back with heavy landscaping. He said that they
have created a design code that requires many trees in the parking lot to conceal the trees. Mr. Stouffer
concluded that when the initially applied for the rezoning, they thought this would be a 20-25 year
buildout, but that rate will probably increase as the road is constructed and a formal marketing program
is started. "We do think it will be a slow and managed growth." The foundation will be targeting high-
technology industries, primarily in medical and engineering sciences. Mr. Stouffer commended Mr.
Keeler and county planning staff on their work with the project.
In response to Mr. Finley's question regarding light industry, Mr. Stouffer replied that there will be
some light industry at the park, but there is not currently a particular focus on what those firms might be.
He added that there may be some light manufacturing, such as medical devices, or biotechnology firms
in the park.
Mr. Thomas said he has heard that there may be as many as 21,000 people that may eventually be
employed there, and asked Mr. Stouffer to comment on that figure. Mr. Stouffer said it is difficult to
project, because office users are going to have more employees than light industry users. He said that
86
the foundation's projection is that it is going to be difficult to get all 3 million square feet on the park,
and they are now thinking that there will be 7-9 thousand employees at the park at a slow pace over 20
to 25 years. Mr. Stouffer added that their research indicates that 80% of the companies in most research
parks come from the locality. "We do think that it can be a very well managed and planned project
because our topography won't support any huge users coming in that would cause great concern for the
county." He mentioned that the proffers only allow them "to do so much," and they are interested in
"being a good neighbor and working with the county as we move forward."
In response to Mr. Finley's question, W. Stouffer indicated that the roads will be publicly maintained.
Referencing a sketch of the property, Mr. Stouffer said their main streets, including Lewis & Clark
Drive, will be public roads; the internal infrastructure in some of the larger parcels will probably be
private roads. Mr. Stouffer said the park is managed out of the UREF office, but as the park grows, they
will have an on -site management office.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that one of the proffers made initially regarding water conservation stated that
"no single industrial commercial user which proposes a use that will require more than 125,000 gallons
a day of potable water will be constructed without obtaining county approval." He then asked Mr.
Stouffer if he had an estimate of what the PRA facility water usage will be. Mr. Stouffer replied that
their calculations done three years ago indicate that the consumption will be much, much less than that.
Mr. Rooker complimented Mr. Stouffer on UREF's wonderful approach to sustainable development at
the park, especially the conservation of trees. Despite his previous concerns, Mr. Rooker said, "What
I've seen so far seems to be proceeding in a highly beneficial manner."
ZMA 98 27 University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork (Sign #47, 48, 49, 51)
Request to amend an approved PD-IP Planned Development -Industrial Park (ZMA 95-04) to reduce
building setbacks along internal public road rights -of -way from fifty to ten feet. The property, described
as Tax Map 32, Parcels 4B, 6, 6A & 19 consisting of 525.508 acres, is located in the Rivanna
Magisterial District, on the west side of Seminole Trail [Rt. 29N] approximately 1.35 miles north of
Airport Road (Route 649). The existing zoning provides for office, research flex space and industrial
uses as well as supporting commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for
Industrial Service uses within the Hollymead Community which is consistent with existing zoning.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, which emphasized that the reduced setback is requested to
accommodate the desired urban character of the park as expressed by the applicant. He stated there is
no reduction from established building setbacks around the perimeter of the development, and no
increase in the building area. Mr. Keeler said that his staff report elaborates on the park's planning and
zoning history and land use schedule. It also includes a general discussion of building setbacks under
current county provisions and the facets of the Comprehensive Plan which are reflected in the design of
the North Fork Park. He explained that the Plan's general land use standards recommend that to the
extent reasonable and feasible given site constraints, site development should encourage building
orientation to public streets; parking areas need not be located exclusively in front of buildings.
Mr. Keeler said during the design process of the North Fork Park, UREF has developed a developmental
concept that requires reduced building setback from internal public roads; the applicant has stated that
the reduction will help to improve the urban character of the park and to support the design vision for
the park by more clearly defining the public realm, and to provide a more inviting and pedestrian -
accessible arrangement of buildings for visitors and park tenants. Addressing the confusion surrounding
the application, Mr. Keeler explained that some residents along Route 606 have expressed concern that
reducing building setback from internal roads would result in parking areas located closer to the
perimeter of the development; staff emphasizes that there is no reduction in the 150-foot buffer from
87
l
Route 606. Mr. Keeler stated that staff opinion is that the requested variation is consistent with the
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and that the only identifiable issue — which may be of
public concern — would be increased public cost for snow removal; staff does not feel that this would be
significant. Providing that no interference occurs with required site distance along roadways and that
reduced setback does not interfere with utility location, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the setback variation to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Finley clarified that the Zoning Text Amendment just voted on does give this flexibility.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that the 10 feet is measured from the right-of-way. He said that the building
setback on the remaining perimeter of the park would be 50 feet, and would not be affected at all by the
variation. Mr. Keeler said the opportunity to actually locate buildings from Route 29 is greater than that
because of the open space area and a park entrance.
Mr. Rieley said he supports the reduction. "My only reservation is that 10 feet is too much in certain
situations, and I think we ought to look at these kind of guidelines county -wide in development areas. I
think maximum setbacks make more setbacks than minimum setbacks. And since this is what the
applicant asked for, and it's specific to this site, I fully support it."
Mr. Rooker agreed. "I'm in full support of this request and I think we've needed this kind of flexibility
and we've talked about it before. We've recommended a Zoning Text Amendment to permit it, and
we've got a good application of it in front of us."
Mr. Keeler explained that the way Planned Development regulations work is the Commission makes
specific recommendations to the Board, and the modifications become part of the zoning.
Mr. Rooker stated that the amendment just passed would permit less setback, and in this case the
applicant is asking for ten feet.
Mr. Thomas said he strongly supports this, and commended Mr. Stouffer on the presentation.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Matthews said he would answer any questions.
Mr. Charles Tractor addressed the Commission. He stated that the pictures presented by UREF are not
accurate. Mr. Tractor expressed concern that the buffer between the Foundation Park and the
Chrisgreen Lake community is "so cheap," stating that the trees planted are "three feet high that grow
six inches a year." Mr. Tractor expressed displeasure with the "landing lights" in the center of the park.
He said that in 1996, the Commission "voted against this contract because community concerns were not
being addressed" and asked, "why should you now allow it to be watered down even further."
Ms. Linda Zuby, a resident of the Lake Acres area directly across the street from the new PRA building,
read a statement prepared by her husband, David Zuby, who was unable to attend the meeting.
(Attachment "E"). Ms. Zuby explained that the "landin
88
Route 606. Mr. Keeler stated that staff opinion is that the requested variation is consistent with the
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and that the only identifiable issue — which may be of
public concern — would be increased public cost for snow removal; staff does not feel that this would be
significant. Providing that no interference occurs with required site distance along roadways and that
reduced setback does not interfere with utility location, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the setback variation to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Finley clarified that the Zoning Text Amendment just voted on does give this flexibility.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that the 10 feet is measured from the right-of-way. He said that the building
setback on the remaining perimeter of the park would be 50 feet, and would not be affected at all by the
variation. Mr. Keeler said the opportunity to actually locate buildings from Route 29 is greater than that
because of the open space area and a park entrance.
Mr. Rieley said he supports the reduction. "My only reservation is that 10 feet is too much in certain
situations, and I think we ought to look at these kind of guidelines county -wide in development areas. I
think maximum setbacks make more setbacks than minimum setbacks. And since this is what the
applicant asked for, and it's specific to this site, I fully support it."
Mr. Rooker agreed. "I'm in full support of this request and I think we've needed this kind of flexibility
and we've talked about it before. We've recommended a Zoning Text Amendment to permit it, and
we've got a good application of it in front of us."
Mr. Keeler explained that the way Planned Development regulations work is the Commission makes
specific recommendations to the Board, and the modifications become part of the zoning.
Mr. Rooker stated that the amendment just passed would permit less setback, and in this case the
applicant is asking for ten feet.
Mr. Thomas said he strongly supports this, and commended Mr. Stouffer on the presentation.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Matthews said he would answer any questions.
Mr. Charles Tractor addressed the Commission. He stated that the pictures presented by UREF are not
accurate. Mr. Tractor expressed concern that the buffer between the Foundation Park and the
Chrisgreen Lake community is "so cheap," stating that the trees planted are "three feet high that grow
six inches a year." Mr. Tractor expressed displeasure with the "landing lights" in the center of the park.
He said that in 1996, the Commission "voted against this contract because community concerns were not
being addressed" and asked, "why should you now allow it to be watered down even further."
Ms. Linda Zuby, a resident of the Lake Acres area directly across the street from the new PRA building,
read a statement prepared by her husband, David Zuby, who was unable to attend the meeting.
(Attachment " B"). Ms. Zuby explained that the "landing lights" mentioned by Mr. Tractor are the bright
lights located outside the PRA building.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley asked about the "landing lights," and asked if they were installed before the lighting
ordinance too effect.
88
Mr. Stouffer explained that the lights were approved and ordered before the ordinance, but the
foundation made the decision to send them back and have them retrofitted to meet the ordinance to be
consistent with the rest of the park. He said for safety reasons, the lights have to be there, but said he
empathized with residents who were used to fields with no lights.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Stouffer confirmed that the lights are full cut-off.
Mr. Rooker said, "I assume the situation would be substantially worse were it not for the lighting
ordinance."
Mr. Rieley said, "I think there were some good points made, but on the issue of the setback, it doesn't
change my feeling that this is a substantial move in the right direction."
Mr. Rooker asked about the screening between the lake subdivision and the industrial property, and
asked staff to comment.
Mr. Keeler said the rezoning review was very detailed along Route 606, and for this particular site there
is language in the proffers that requires special landscaping treatment. He stated that UREF proposed, in
addition to the tree planting, an earth & berm, which has been approved and constructed. Mr. Keeler
said there has been planting on the earth & berm and the trees are there. Regarding the "cheap buffer,"
Mr. Keeler said the trees are red cedar, which were chosen because they grow faster than some other
trees. "There on our approved landscape list .... the selection of the plant material is [up] to the applicant,
unless it's specified by the ARB.... within the park, we are looking for consistent landscaping
provisions, and you'll see in the proffers again — there are proffers here for architectural controls which
also call for consistency in landscaping treatment internal to the park." Regarding the height of the
trees, Mr. Keeler said, "Part of the landscaper's jargon is to describe trees in growth ranges, which is not
necessarily descriptive of what you're going to see." He added that he will provide that information to
the Board for their review.
Mr. Rooker asked the applicant to take a look at the screening between the industrial property and
subdivision that was mentioned to determine if there is anything that could be done to improve it. "The
people in that subdivision were used to living in a rural area, and we've substantially changed the
character of the adjoining property. I think that in an effort to continue to be a good neighbor, it would
be helpful to look at that."
Mr. Rieley agreed. "It may be that red cedar is indeed a pretty slow -growing tree, and it might go a long
way toward good will to add some faster -growing trees along that area. It's clearly a sensitive area."
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded recommendation of approval of ZMA 98-27 as
presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
Regular Item•
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan — Foster/Cooper Industries Central Septic & Well System
Proposal to establish central septic and well system to serve the old Cooper Industries site located in
Earlysville. Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcel 21A is located on the east side of Route 660 on
1%W01 the Rio Magisterial District. The site is zoned LI, Light Industrial and is recommended as Rural Area in
the Comprehensive Plan. The site is located within the South Fork Rivanna River watersupply
watershed.
89
Mr. Keeler presented the report, which was prepared by Mr. Benish. Mr. Keeler explained that the
Planning Commission must review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan a proposal to install a
central sewage system and central water system intended to serve new uses within the old Cooper
Industries plant and administrative offices. He said the applicant wishes to replace the existing package
sewage treatment plant with a septic system and to continue to use the existing well system and to have
it approved as a central system. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan review is required because
the new sewage system is technologically different from the existing treatment plant, and because both
water and sewer systems will now serve three or more users.
Mr. Keeler said the Cooper site contains three main building: the administrative office building, a
research and development building, and a plant facility consisting of over 200,000 square feet of floor
area. The vast majority of the floor area is located in the plant building; the office portion is
approximately 18,000 square feet. Mr. Keeler referenced W. Benish's report, citing the Land Use
Plan's general principles and recommendations for the use of central water and sewer systems in the
Rural Area. He said that staff opinion is that this request, "although not entirely consistent with these
principles and recommendations, is not contrary to the Plan's overriding intent to provide for orderly
development and provide for the protection of the Rural Area and its associated resources."
Mr. Keeler concluded, "Basically what's being proposed here is to replace an existing package sewage
treatment plant that has a capacity of 25,000 gallons a day and was constructed over 30 years ago with a
conventional septic system of a large scale, which is a preferred method of sewage disposal in Rural
Areas. The capacity of the new system would be much less than that of the existing plant, about 1,200
gallons a day. "While it's not clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it's an improvement over
what exists now and what could conceivably continue." The report stated that staff recommends that the
Commission find this proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
In response to Mr. Finley's question about the capacity of the system, Mr. Keeler said the system as it's
being designed, can accommodate 120 workers. Mr. Finley asked if the existing treatment plant would
be removed. Mr. Keeler said that could be made a condition.
The applicant, Donald W. Foster, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Finley asked what the property would be used for. Mr. Foster replied that the facility would
primarily be used for warehousing and office space, explaining that there is 260,000 square feet of
space, which he is trying to lease to individuals who fall under the Light Industrial category. He said he
is not trying to do any manufacturing on -site. Regarding the wastewater treatment plant, Mr. Foster said
he purchased the property from Cooper Industries, which owns the plant. He said the plant is under an
order from the EPA, and it is Cooper's responsibility to take care of the facility. W. Foster explained
that the EPA order states Cooper can clean the plant and leave it in place, or remove the plant from the
premises.
In response to Mr. Rieley's question about the arrangement, Mr. Foster confirmed that he owns the
property, but Cooper owns the wastewater treatment plant on the property; they are under an order from
the EPA and DEQ, and are required to maintain the contamination of the property "for the rest of their
lives."
Mr. Thomas asked about the increase in employees from 50 to 120 and the capacity of the system.
Mr. Foster explained that one of the buildings is going to be a doctor's office with 10-12 full time
employees and 50-60 visitors per day. He said that they took the doctor's present water bills and
90
calculated the total number of people per day in the office, then added the number of employees in the
other offices at the Cooper site to arrive at a total of 120.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Health Department certified the maximum amount of people to be served by the
treatment plant. Mr. Keeler said that the flow to the plant will depend on the types of uses that locate
there. "I'm not sure that placing an actual number of employees is as meaningful to the Health
Department as taking a look at each use that subsequently locates in the building."
Steven Boller of County Engineering, addressed the Commission. He indicated that he talked to Jeff
Loth of the Health Department, who actually does the design of the system for the applicant, and he
stated that the system is design -capable for 120 people per day, assuming some but not all of the
doctor's office patients use the facilities.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Loth certifies the system for a certain level of use. Mr. Boller said he designs
the system for a certain capacity, and there is an understanding with the applicant what it is sized for.
Mr. Boller said it is written into the executive summary which will go before the Board of Supervisors
as only being permitted for 120 people.
Mr. Rooker commented that there is previous contamination on the site stating, "My concern is to make
certain that we don't add to that problem by approving something that two years from now or three years
from now the use is way beyond the existing design of the system. Are there mechanisms in place to
make certain that doesn't happen. Mr. Boller said his understanding from DEQ, which is in charge of
the consent order on the groundwater contamination, is that there are two treatment systems in question:
an industrial wastewater treatment system and a sewage treatment system on site. He said the consent
order applies to the industrial treatment issue with a pump and treat system; the separate issue is the
sewage treatment system — which initially was designed to accommodate 950 employees and probably
would not function properly with just 120 people per day.
Mr. Finley asked about the specifics of the septic system. Mr. Boller said that it is a big septic field, and
Mr. Loth agrees that it is very good soil, and an excellent site for the field.
Mr. Thomas noted the benefits that the wastewater would not be dumped into the South Rivanna River
anymore.
Mr. Foster said the reason he had the new system designed as such is he is unsure how many employees
will be on premises. "We picked out a five -acre area, and are only going to use 3/4 of an acre for the field
and the reserve area. So I do have five acres if there is more employees on the premises, then I can
come back, and ask you, `can I enlarge the septic area?"'
Mr. Foster said he has done all of the well drilling and groundwater monitoring of the property for the
past ten years. "It's great soil for a septic system .... I actually overdesigned the system — we talked
about 120 people, and Jeff [Loth] and I actually think it would handle 150 people, but I wanted to be on
the upscale of putting in too much drainfield to make sure that I didn't have any problems with it."
Public comment was invited. None was given, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Kamptner about the dual ownership and lingering package plant. "It sounds as if
it's impossible for us to make a condition that it be removed because the applicant doesn't own it. Is
there a way that we can assure that, if we're essentially substituting what our staff believes is a superior
system for an inferior one, that we not end up with two in the future."
91
Mr. Kamptner said, "You could probably come up with a condition that would prohibit any uses on this
property from using the current packing plant for sewage treatment, and that should effectively cut it off
from it being used for any uses."
Mr. Rooker asked, "Once the septic field is operable, the existing wastewater plant will no longer be
used? Does that accomplish what we are talking about?" He expressed concern that the plant might be
brought back on-line.
Mr. Foster said the wastewater treatment plant has been decontaminated, and is sitting on the premises.
"Once I take ownership, I'm going to try to speak with the DEQ, the EPA and Cooper Industries. I want
to remove that from the premises. It's quite a task to do so when you're talking about taking out three
75,000 gallon steel tanks, but I do want it off the premises. It has been decontaminated — it's sitting
there, and it's just going to require a lot of acetylene and oxygen to get rid of it..."
Mr. Finley asked if the groundwater is still being monitored. Mr. Foster confirmed that 42 wells are
still being monitored. Mr. Foster said he has to have permission from the EPA to remove the package
plant, but that's what he wants to do.
Mr. Thomas asked, "How can you buy a piece of property and the loan company O.K. it if it's
contaminated and has all these wells all over?"
Mr. Foster explained, "This piece of property does not have soil contamination ... we're dealing with
underground water contamination, and it's confined to one specific area on the piece of property, and
they [EPA] have been monitoring the situation for 10 years. The EPA is involved in it and is here on an
annual basis; the DEQ also is involved in the monitoring of this groundwater situation." Mr. Foster
added that the situation has improved greatly, with 4 out of 42 wells with contamination. He confirmed
that the wells have to stay in place until the EPA says there is no level of contamination that they are
concerned about; they have 19 years left on their consent order, but Mr. Foster is anticipating that it may
be over within 10 years.
Mr. Foster added, "Once this property is closed — in about 2'h to 3 weeks — I think it's going to be a big
plus for me to remove this from the premises. And I also think I'm going to be paid to remove it from
the premises." He said there will be a letter at the Board meeting from the DEQ stating that a septic
system on the property will help clean up the existing contamination problems.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded that this proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, with the condition that the existing wastewater plant will no longer be in service
after the septic field becomes operable. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-65 Snow's Business Park (Sign #91)
The applicant proposes to establish contractor's outdoor storage and display on Tax Map 90, Parcel
35X. This property consists of approximately 5.7 acres zoned LI, Light Industrial and EC, Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. Outdoor storage and display in the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Outdoor storage and display in the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District requires a special use permit
in accord with the provisions of Section 30.6.3.2B of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located on
the east side of Route 742 (Avon Street) opposite Mill Creek South in the Scottsville Magisterial District
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Industrial Service in Neighborhood 4.
141&W Mr. Fritz presented the staff report, which explained that the applicant is proposing to use some existing
fenced areas in the front portion of the property for storage of materials for various contractors. As part
92
of the development, the applicant would propose to construct four separate buildings, one in each of the
fenced areas, which would be used to allow the contractors to store materials inside. Mr. Fritz
referenced the plan presented, which was reviewed by the ARB, and shows locations of plantings, the
buildings, the parking areas and fenced areas, and the garden center itself. The bulk materials storage in
the rear of the property did not require a special use permit because it's not visible from the Entrance
Corridor. Mr. Fritz said the ARB recommended approval of the plan, subject to conditions as presented
in the staff report Attachment D.
He said that the applicant has submitted a revised plan intending to address the conditions, but staff did
not present that because they have not had a chance to review it to confirm that it met the ARB
conditions. Mr. Fritz said a site plan amendment would also be required for location of the buildings to
ensure drainage, lighting, etc. He added that because of the ARB's recommendation and staff review,
staff recommends approval with one condition that refers back to the ARB condition. Mr. Fritz
concluded that the item is before the Commission solely because of a special use permit for outdoor
storage and display in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Mr. Rooker asked about the ARB analysis which stated, "the character of the proposed buildings is
inappropriate for the Entrance Corridor. Architectural or landscape features should be added to soften
the appearance of the buildings." He asked staff to comment on what had been done to address this.
Mr. Fritz replied that that is one of the ARB requirements, and the design planner would have to ensure
that the conditions are met prior to the ARB signing off on the plan.
Mr. Fritz clarified that the sole staff condition is essentially compliance with the ARB recommendations.
The applicant, Bob Snow, the owner of the property, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Rieley asked for his reaction to the ARB requirements.
Mr. Snow replied, "I've returned to the plans two or three times, and I think I've met all of the
[requirements]."
Mr. Fritz commented that it looks like everything has been met.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Kamptner asked if Mr. Snow is "boxed in" if the conditions stays as they are by binding him to the
recommendations as stated in the February 19th, 1999 letter as opposed to having the certificate of
appropriateness approved as being the condition. Mr. Fritz said it doesn't have to go back to the ARB, it
is administrative review.
Mr. Kamptner said that if the ARB changes one of the conditions stated in the preliminary review letter,
he is technically not in compliance with this condition. "I just want to be sure he doesn't have to come
back."
Mr. Fritz replied, "The reason that we did it the way it was done is because the way it specifically reads
it says the board — referring to the ARB — recommended approval of the special use permit and the site
plan, subject to the following conditions.... those were the conditions under which they were able to
recommend approval of the special use permit, and that's why we worded it that way."
*SAW Mr. Rieley said he did not want to make the connection between the Commission's action and the
ARB's action something that's going to "complicate the issue."
93
Mr. Fritz stated the easiest way to accomplish that is to say "use shall not commence until approval of
the site plan and issuance of a certificate of appropriateness by the ARB." Mr. Kamptner stated that this
would eliminate any risk to Snow's if the ARB changes one of the conditions between now and the
issuance of the certificate.
Mr. Rooker commented, "I like the way staff has it. That we have the conditions set out with some
specificity in our own approval. This is an Entrance Corridor, and I think these are some pretty
important conditions with respect to this property."
Mr. Rieley commented that he felt the ARB conditions were "extreme" in an area zoned industrial.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SP 98-65 as presented with the
condition set forth by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
Old Business: Mr. Rieley mentioned that a tower applicant from a meeting several weeks ago had
stated that the antenna complex they were proposing was invisible at two miles away. He commented
that it is almost two miles from the intersection of Route 20 South and the Intersection of I-64 to the top
of Carter's Mountain, and suggested that if you drive out there, you can glance up at the tower complex
and see detail from two miles away. Mr. Fritz added that one local provider [CFW] just submitted a
total of eight applications, two of which were determined not to need special use permits; most of these
will be treetop or attachment to existing structures.
Mr. Keeler said that the Brass, Inc. proposal would be considered at the meeting of March 9t'. He
commented that one newspaper report gave the implication that it was actually a rezoning, not a
Comprehensive Plan issue. Mr. Rooker suggested that staff explain prior to the meeting where
procedurally the county is regarding the proposal to allay some of the confusion. Mr. Rooker asked
again for information previously requested from staff and the applicant, including an artist's rendition
and footprint of the planned development.
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that there is nothing in the code that requires a locality to allow an
individual to make an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan. "We've set up this process
ourselves, and so I'm not sure that there is any time limit on your review."
New Business: Mr. Thomas said he there was going to be a meeting for new Commissioners and the
County Attorneys, and asked when it was going to take place. Mr. Kamptner said he would check on
the plans for that meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
En
c-
94
time, the general public and the majority of homeowners in the subdivision did not know that there was
a zoning sign posted.
Ms. Walker said once she realized the permit process was underway, she contacted Mr. Wade,
summarized the content of their conversation, and distributed the comments to homeowners in the area
(Attachment B).
Mr. Kamptner said the section of the Zoning Ordinance that deals with posting has a "glitch" in that it
assumes that every piece of property is going to abut a public road. The requirement is that it be posted
on the property within 10 feet of the boundary of the property with the state road, and in this case it may
have been impossible to comply with the letter of the ordinance, because the property does not abut a
state road.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question as to whether VDOT had concerns over the traffic, Mr. Wade
pointed out that there would actually be less traffic per week, decreasing from 532 to 422. However, the
daily peak traffic on Sunday would be higher.
Mr. Nitchmann stated that he did not have a problem with going forward with the application because
there is over one month before the item goes before the Board of Supervisors, and during that time the
homeowners can communicate with the applicant.
Mr. Rooker agreed, stating that the issue of the convenants is a completely private matter whereby the
applicant needs to secure the approval of the homeowners.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of SP 98-69 with revised conditions
set forth by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-51 US Cellular (Goodlow Mountain) (Sign #97 & 991
Proposal to remove and reconstruct an existing tower on Goodlow Mountain. This requires a special use
permit in accord with the provisions of Section 10.2.2 (6) of the Zoning Ordinance. The property,
described as Tax Map 36, Parcel 19 consists of 121 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. This site is within the
Rivanna Magisterial District and is not located within a designated development area of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report, commenting that the proposal had been reviewed by the
Commission in November 1997, when they recommended approval by a vote of 4-3; the Board of
Supervisors heard the item in December 1997, and deferred the item back to staff to revise the proposed
conditions for approval on the Board's Consent Agenda in January 1998. Following the December
meeting, it was determined that the applicant had not signed the application, which was not discovered
until the item reached the Board.
Mr. Fritz referenced the prior staff report, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors minutes,
and all letters received as attachments presented to the Commission. Staff has not noted any significant
changes since the item was last considered, but did wish to modify the conditions of approval to bring
them up to date with some of the current wording available. Mr. Fritz noted one significant change in
new Condition 2B, changing the wording to state "the tower shall be 4= "tower," and hence
changing Condition 3 to read "the tower location and the equipment building shall be substantially in
. accord with that shown on the attached plan entitled `Existing Conditions Restoration Plan for CNS
Microwave Inc. Communications Facility' initialed WDF 2/2/99.
IF
u ed
He explained that the applicant is proposing to put back the existing tower as a jui& tower, which staff
believes will have less visible impact because the guides provide a lot of the structural integrity of the
tower, therefore allowing the tower itself to be smaller. He said no additional clearing would need to be
done.
Mr. Rooker asked how the proposed tower compares visually with the tower that was on the property
before. Mr. Fritz responded that it will be essentially the same as the previous tower, except it will be
newer design with a slightly larger base (3 feet versus the existing16 inch base). Mr. Rooker asked if
the applicant as a matter of right could rebuild the existing tower exactly the way that it was. Mr. Fritz
replied that the original tower was damaged in October of 1996, which meant that the applicant had to
have started repair within 12 months, and have completed them within 24 months of the date of damage.
Mr. Kamptner said that the Zoning Administrator between now and the Board meeting needs to
determine whether the non -conforming status has been lost because of the lapse of time. Mr. Kamptner
said that the response from zoning might affect how the project is analyzed by staff.
Eighty feet of the original tower height has been restored and is being used by its owner, Columbia Gas,
for two-way radio transmission. Mr. Fritz said that the information the applicant submitted during the
original review showed their intent to reconstruct the tower as part of their communications network
improvement because this provides a link in their communications to other existing towers in their
system. Mr. Fritz clarified that even if the gas company had reconstructed the tower immediately to its
full original height of 123 feet, expanding the uses of that non -conforming tower requires a special use
permit.
The applicant's representative, Steve Blaine, addressed the Commission. He clarified that repair was
commenced within the 12-month period to allow Columbia to continue to use the structure, and the
application was made for the permit because it is a nonconforming use. The permit would bring the
tower into conformity with the zoning ordinance and would allow for the conditions recommended by
staff, which would not be applicable if the applicant were approaching this as a non -conforming use.
Columbia Gas announced its intent to completely restore the structure within the 24 month period; US
Cellular contracted for the restoration of the tower within the 24 month period to extend to the 120-foot
height and the contractor completed his work before the expiration of that timeframe.
Mr. Blaine added that there is an existing Columbia Gas right-of-way, and there would not be any
clearing required. US Cellular has proposed to do either a self-supporting lattice structure which would
be about four -feet at its width at the top, or a guide tower, which would allow for smaller width and less
visibility. The reinstalled structure would allow co -location, where the existing structure will not
because of its physical integrity.
Mr. Rooker asked for clarification of the tower height after it was restored. Mr. Blaine responded that
the tower has been extended beyond 80 feet since Columbia's initial reconstruction 18 months ago;
Columbia only did sufficient construction to support their 20-foot whip antenna. He said that US
Cellular has had success in arguing before the Board of Zoning Appeals on use of non -conforming
structures and adding additional antennae; the current plan was the preferred route selected by the
company last September.
Mr. Rooker asked what construction needs to take place on the current structure. Mr. Blaine replied that
the tower needs to be replaced because it physically will not support what US Cellular proposes and the
existing whip antenna. Mr. Blaine confirmed that the proposed structure will be uniform width, and
presented a sketch design of what it may look like. In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question, he stated
that the plan for the antennae array would be six panels, three per side. Because of the coverage needs,
each panels on one side of the structure would be four feet in height, five inches in width; on the
17
opposite side the panels would be two feet in height, five inches in width. The RF engineer has
indicated that the booms holding the antennae would be six feet total, three feet on each side. Regarding
visibility, Mr. Blaine noted that the structure is located approximately two miles from significant
roadways.
Mr. Loewenstein commented, "So the width of the pole would be more than twice the existing tower's
width, and presumably the structure at the top that the RF engineer has described will be six feet wide
which will be much wider than what is currently at the top that structure that exists today."
Mr. Blaine stated that he does not have definitive information on the width of the existing tower, and
added that three feet is about as narrow as you can get with a guide lattice tower.
Mr. Rooker asked if the existing antennae array is sufficient for the Columbia's continued use. Mr. Fritz
responded that a letter from the company indicates that it doesn't provide adequate coverage, and they
still have "dead spots" in their two-way mobile coverage. Mr. Fritz said that their comment was based
on the 80-foot tower, and if they move their antenna back up to the top at 120 feet, they could re-
establish their original coverage.
Mr. Thomas asked how much higher their antenna would be going than the 120 feet. Mr. Blaine
responded that a 1/Z" whip antenna would be placed 20 feet higher than the structure. Mr. Thomas asked
if the guide wires would be relocated in the same places; Mr. Fritz responded that they are planning to
use the same anchors. Mr. Blaine added that they can guide the tower without any additional clearing.
Public comment was invited. None was given, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker said, "I don't think I can support this application. This tower is in the Southwest Mountain
Historic District. It's in a visible site; it's the very kind of tower and antennae array that we're trying to
get away from. I think that having heard our consultant speak on the possibilities for providing coverage
that are much less visually obtrusive, I really think that we should try to move in that direction unless
there's some exceptional reason in a case why we shouldn't. And I don't think this case presents an
exceptional circumstance. I can't support this application."
Mr. Finley asked what the gas company's status would be if they wanted to rebuild the tower. Mr. Fritz
replied that it's back at 120 feet, "It's there and it can remain. If it falls over again... by an act not of
their doing... they can build it again. It's a nonconforming structure."
Mr. Fritz clarified the tower's history, stating that there was a 120-foot structure there that was damaged.
The gas company put back the undamaged portion that was 80 feet, and now has extended it back to the
original 120 feet. In response to Mr. Kamptner's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that if this Special Use
Permit is approved, they will tear down the existing tower and erect a new tower. Mr. Fritz commented
that it would automatically have two users on it (Columbia and US Cellular), and may even allow for
collocation.
Mr. Thomas asked if there could be an antenna that does not protrude out from the tower.
US Cellular's RF engineer, Jeff Barlow, addressed the Commission, stating that the booms are "just
pipes." Mr. Thomas asked if something the same diameter as the tower could be constructed that would
eliminate the booms that go out three feet from tower center. Mr. Barlow responded that the design that
%NO;. he's using with three antennae is a single antenna that would be mounted flush with the tower; the two
pipe standoffs with the other two antennae would be receive. "That is a superior design for this type of a
situation. An analogy would be in the audio frequency range, a single transmit and a diverse receive."
'1 R
Mr. Fritz asked if the antenna could be spaced vertically on the tower. Mr. Barlow said there are
"multiple -element" antennae available, but would not provide the same quality/performance, and would
be a lot taller. "I really believe that if visibility is a concern, two two -foot panels that are no more than
five inches across, and on the other face... under five foot... they're not going to be visible from the
roads two miles away."
Mr. Thomas said, "I'm just concerned with the look of that big six-foot radius around the top of that
three-foot tower."
Mr. Barlow replied, "They're pipes."
Mr. Thomas asked, "How large are your antennae."
Mr. Barlow responded that on one face, they are two feet by five inches; on the other face, they're
approximately four feet by five inches.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I would venture to say that two miles away, something that's two foot tall from
the road is going to be this tall [very small] when you look at it."
Mr. Barlow and Mr. Blaine presented a picture of the site taken from Route 20. Mr. Blaine stated that
they are photo simulations, and expressed his reticence to show photo simulations. He explained that
the photos are taken from Route 20, and show the path of the gas line and the tower.
Mr. Blaine added, "You have to consider that this is an existing tower that, if this [application] is not
approved, is going to stand there to support a whip antenna. There are coverage needs by this company
and possibly coverage needs by other future co -locators that could be served by this location. We're
sensitive to Mr. Rooker's point that this is in the Southwest Mountains. It's also adjacent to
agricultural/forestal districts, which have been identified as areas we want to avoid putting new towers,
new structures. But this is an existing use that's been there for over 30 years. It's part of what is the
existing landscape, and we'd ask you to consider that, and consider how remote this location is from
those who are likely to see it. And I'd venture if any of you had cared to look at this location before the
tower fell down, you wouldn't notice the tower, and the best we can do is the photo simulation."
In response to Mr. Rieley's question, Mr. Blaine said he did not have the specifications on the lens used
to take the photo. Mr. Blaine said, "That's why I'm not submitting it as a photo simulation. It was
referenced, and it gives you an idea of where the location is. You have to look in your mind and picture
a structure that's three feet wide that far away."
Mr. Rooker stated, "The tower that they're going to rebuild will have more mass than the existing tower
as I understand it, and you're going to have substantially more mass in the antennae .... I simply can't
support any more towers of this magnitude with large panel antennae on top of mountains. I don't think
we need to do that in this community to allow cellular services to be provided. We've hired a consultant
for this very purpose, and I think that his strong recommendation is that we move away from allowing
this type of... antennae array."
Mr. Loewenstein agreed. "I'm the only one left on the Planning Commission I believe who voted
against this the last time it came before me, and I can't see a reason to change my opinion tonight. I
keep asking myself what substantial benefit to the county as a whole is this tower going to provide, and I
don't think that it is. I think that the impacts, however, are going to be broad, and they're not just going
to include people who live in the immediate area, but people who travel through that area and it's one
24
that we have spent a lot of time and energy trying to protect and trying to congratulate the homeowners,
the property owners for the great job they've done. To turn around and do this now, seems to be a really
retrograde move. Not only that, I think we have an opportunity even though the existing tower is there —
and I can tell you from my own personal perspective, I've driven out there a number of times now and
looked at this thing from Route 20 myself, and I can see the existing tower more clearly than the photo
simulation shows that this one would be which presumably would be bigger. I can't put too much stock
in that. I still feel the same way as I did more than a year ago. I can't support this type of structure in
this location for this purpose."
Mr. Rieley also agreed. "I do think that this is, if you count the tower, 132 feet in height in a place
where we don't want big towers .... it's clearly bigger than the existing one. I'm terribly troubled by the
co -location 'opportunities'... because these are going to be magnets for more of these, and the argument
is going to be made `well the tower is already there, the best thing we can possibly do is add more
antennae to it.' This thing we hear is hardly visible in fact is going to be very visible and having looked
for some time professionally from what can and can not be seen from different locations, I can assure
you that two miles is only a little over 10,000 feet, and you can see a lot for two miles....you can see
detail an awful lot farther than two miles. It's not that far....Further, I do think that we have clear
options — sticking these things 130 feet in the air simply is not necessary. There are other ways to get
the coverage, and we just need to be moving in that direction."
In response to Mr. Finley's question regarding where co -location would occur if not on this tower, Mr.
Rooker stated that the consultant the county has hired has set forward alternate ways that coverage can
be provided by the carriers without going on tall towers on top of mountains in the county. "I think the
recommendation is going to ultimately be that areas like this be off-limits for towers entirely, and that
there are... lower -profile antennas that can be put on smaller structures that are virtually invisible. It
may require more of those to provide the same coverage, but when you look at the visual impact, the
visual impact of three or four towers that are telephone pole height as opposed to sticking a tower here
and a tower there on top of our mountains is much less. I think that is the direction it appears to me the
county is moving in, and we hired a consultant to give us that kind of guidance. In his presentation,
that's the kind of guidance he's given. He's basically recommended against doing this kind of thing. I
think if we're going to follow what appears to be that lead, we need to start sometime."
Mr. Finley asked, "Why haven't these suppliers come through with these things before now. What's
holding them up. Why aren't we seeing some of this `hidden away' that you're referring to."
Kre,nes
Mr. Thomas replied that his understanding from Ted K&i*w is the signal from those is not as strong and
it takes 10 times as many to carry the signal. "I support attaching to existing structures. I support
this... except for the protrusion from the antenna itself. If they could keep it at the 120-foot height, and
the same diameter as the tower itself, I would support that, because it is an existing tower, it has been
there for a long time. But I don't support the reindeer effect around the top, sticking out from the sides."
Mr. Rooker added, "The consultant is going to recommend that we use existing structures where
possible, but where it's going to substantially be of detriment to the existing aesthetics of the situation, I
don't think he's recommending that... If you could do this without increasing a visual antenna array on
top of the tower, I think it would be a whole different ball -game."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "We clearly made a mistake thirty years ago when we approved the original
tower, and although that's going to stay, I don't know that we have to exacerbate the situation."
on
Mr. Nitchmann asked the applicant and engineer, "Can you comply with Mr. Thomas' desire to do this?
Would it mean a 50% reduction in your quality of signal, or 10% reduction or are you just stuck that `we
don't want to do it that way, and we're not going to change it. 7'
Mr. Barlow responded, "I would have two losses: my ability to get my signal where I need it on those
roads on either side. The other thing I would lose is... one set of the antennas that I use — the DB 844's,
H 60's — I use those because of their ability not to reflect signal off the back side because we're right on
the border of the adjacent market which is not ours. I am responsible for keeping signal incursion out of
Rural Service Area 10 and 11 of Virginia, which belong to Cellular One/Washington-Baltimore."
Mr. Loewenstein asked how signal shielding is accomplished by moving the antenna apart.
Mr. Barlow said, "I don't necessarily accomplish that by moving them apart, but when they take the
multiple element — the two receive and the single -transmit — and put them in the same... structure, I lose
the front to back ratio. I don't get as good of front ratio, and I get more signal off the back side, and I'm
right at the neighbors border."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I guess your faced with very simply... you either move them in close or we're
going to turn it down.. ..regardless of what your feelings are about the signal. I voted for this positively
before, some of my feelings have changed. I can vote for this positively too, if you can solve Mr.
Thomas' problems. If you can't solve Mr. Thomas' problems, than I'm going to vote against it also. I
understand that you'd like 100% coverage, but you have to make a decision that I'm willing to live with
60% coverage tonight, or I'm walking out of here with a recommendation of denial that's going to go to
the Board... then you can have some time in between to decide you want to do what we're asking you to
do tonight."
Mr. Loewenstein commented, "It sounds like there might be more of a question though than that. Is it in
fact even possible, given that you get more back -signal... if you move them closer together and that
infringes into the neighboring service area of a competitor, is it even possible to configure this in that
way, given the FCC regulations about shielding that signal [in back]?"
Mr. Barlow replied, "Thus far, they have been agreeable to this design, this configuration... that's why I
haven't deviated from it. Also, I would say from the onset, having worked this market for the last year
and a half, the constraints — the limitations of the tower heights, the preference for existing structures,
and just working within that trying to make this site work — this was the best configuration I could come
up with. It was reviewed by a senior engineer in our office and in Chicago... we've compromised and
compromised to work within the parameters that you people have set forward."
Mr. Rooker asked, "Is there something that prevents you from using equipment that is presently being
made that can be put on six or eight telephone -height poles through this coverage area if you wanted to
do that?"
Mr. Barlow responded, "If it was available commercially, I'd be happy to look at it .... if there was
stealth or less visible equipment out there that could be had, we'd be buying it and using it, and we
wouldn't be faced with the problems we're facing getting towers and antennas on existing structures, or
getting towers built."
Mr. Rooker asked, "Are you saying you can't use the same kind of antenna that CFW uses for their
service for some reason?"
41
Mr. Barlow replied, "Those existing antennas — there's not anything available for me in my frequency
range yet, and I haven't seen any of the manufacturers in my frequency range coming forth with
anything. They do have the advantage of operating at a higher frequency range, and by Maxwell's
Equation, the higher the frequency range, the shorter the wavelength, and the shorter the wavelength, the
smaller the antenna."
Mr. Rooker said, "Are you saying you can't use a whip antenna? You could not use a series of small
whip antenna as opposed to the kind of antenna you're proposing for this site — you're saying that
doesn't exist."
Mr. Barlow responded, "The whip antenna is an omni-directional antennae. I would be putting signal in
all directions, and as I said, I am on the neighbors' border here. They would not sign off on an omni."
Mr. Rooker commented, "If it were at the site that you're talking about putting this particular antenna.
But there are other sites where you could move away from the signal conflict, aren't there, where you
could use an omni-directional antenna."
Mr. Barlow replied, "I do use omni-directional antennae. I have several in this market."
Mr. Rooker asked if perhaps a different location could be used to get their target coverage. Mr. Barlow
replied that the existing location is between two roads he needs to get coverage on.
Mr. Rooker asked, "You could not mount existing made equipment on telephone poles if you put more
of them up, that would provide reasonable coverage in this area? We have a consultant that seems to
think that is being done in many areas of the country by many carriers, and maybe there's something
unique about what you're doing that is different than every other carrier that is out there."
Mr. Barlow asked if the consultant was showing these in models of dense urban areas. Mr. Rooker said
some are denser urban areas.
Mr. Barlow said in a dense urban area contained by large buildings, that technology could be used, but
not in rural areas.
Mr. Rooker suggested a series of smaller antenna along the road to provide coverage. "You could
provide six or seven boxes at a much lower telephone pole height through a corridor to provide
coverage, could you not?"
Mr. Barlow replied, "I can't see that working effectively out in a suburban or semi -rural area."
Mr. Rooker asked, "Why wouldn't it work in a semi -suburban area if it works in an urban area... perhaps
it's a cost argument... coverage is coverage."
W. Kamptner said, "The RF engineer for 360 Communications stated that it worked better for cellular
than PCS service. The CFW type of tower — the treetop tower — he stated that that system would work
better for cellular than PCS."
Mr. Blaine commented, "I frankly think the question is a policy question, and I can't answer the RF
question. You have to really ask yourself, as a policy matter, what you suggest in a design, and what
Mr. Krinus has suggested, are multiple locations, and if it's to serve Route 231 along a very scenic
highway — and I ask you, would the citizens of Albemarle support that design for that particular corridor.
So when you ask these RF engineers and these applicants about these technical capabilities, I think you
41
have to be fair, because you have to make a decision within the facts presented and the circumstances
presented with this application. We have an opportunity to serve two arterial -ways with an existing
structure on the spine of this ridge, removed from the scenic byway. And what we submit is that's the
least offensive way to obtain this coverage. Otherwise, what you've done is denied access to cellular
service in this area, effectively."
Mr. Rieley said, "That's nonsense, Steve. Just nonsense."
Mr. Rooker said, "Well, the county's consultant seems to think that it can be done, and it can be done at
a reasonable cost, and is being done in other areas of the country. So, I think there is a policy question
there, and from the examples that we've seen provided by the consultant of the kind of towers and
antenna that could be used, I would have to feel that thtmore towers of a much, much lower profile,
provide less visible damage than the kind of thing we're looking at here."
Mr. Nitchmann suggesting deferring the item until the consultant's opinion is obtained. "If he comes
back and tells us to replace this tower, the way that they're proposing it now is going to take 20 poles on
231 and 20 poles on Route 20, then I think we really need to sit back and rethink what we're doing
here."
Mr. Fritz said there is a worksession with the consultant scheduled for February 16t'
Mr. Blaine stated, "I appreciate your desire to seek input professionally, but I frankly think you have the
facts to make a decision on the zoning, and we're asking for a decision on the Special Use Permit. We
can all, each of us, become experts in RF technology, but ultimately it does boil down to whether this
changes the character of the district. And I don't think it's possible that a finding could be supported at
law that an existing tower...."
Mr. Rieley interjected that it's not an existing tower, as the plan is to take one down and construct
another — a bigger one.
Mr. Rooker said, "I think our decision is very supportable in light of the fact that this is in a historic
district, and it is on top of a mountain in an area that's designated in the Comprehensive Plan for visual
protection. I think there's very adequate support in the record for denying this application, and I intend
to vote that way."
Mr. Rieley said, "I feel more strongly about this than I did a little while ago, I think... when we have
examples of virtually invisible towers that are giving good service in our community, along exactly the
model that Mr. Rooker was outlining, other companies are putting them in, installing them, presumably
making money off of them to assert that to not allow something up at 132 feet of height in a mountain
resource area would deny service to the area is just not supportable. So, I'm happy to vote against this
one."
Mr. Loewenstein said, `Before this goes to the board, if it's possible to ask the consultant to provide
some input, I think that would be a really good thing... it sounds like there's been a lot of sentiment in
that direction, and that is what the consultant is here for, after all."
Mr. Fritz commented, "We're going to have more information on this and a lot of other types of
applications in the very near future."
%wool Mr. Blaine indicated he did not wish to have the item deferred.
41
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded a recommendation for denial of SP 97-51.
In a 6-1 vote, with Mr. Nitchmann dissenting, the motion passed. Mr. Nitchmann stated, "I go down
that road a lot, and I think two miles distance does make a difference. I didn't even know that was there.
I've even been down there since then, and looking for the new one they've built — I can't see it [from
Route 231]."
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded a recommendation for a site plan waiver
pertinent to SP 97-51. In a 3-4 vote, with Mr. Finley, Mr. Nitchmann, and Ms. Washington voting in
favor, and Mr. Rieley, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Loewenstein and Mr. Thomas voting against, the Commission
failed to approve the recommendation.
Mr. Loewenstein asked that the consultant provide his opinion on this item prior to it going to the Board
of Supervisors. Commissioners emphasized that other companies are using other types of structures that
are nearly invisible, and encouraged the applicant to consider these.
New Business
Mr. Rieley reported that he attended an inter jurisdictional meeting to discuss water issues, sponsored by
the Division of Mines, Minerals and Energy, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, and
the League of Women Voters. The areas represented included Albemarle, Charlottesville, Fluvanna,
Greene, Louisa, Madison and Orange. Speakers included Senator Emily Couric, Jay Gilliam of the
Izaak Walton League, and David Hirschmann of Albemarle County, who received much commendation
from members of other localities regarding his expertise.
Mr. Cilimberg distributed a list of committee memberships held by Commissioners for their review.
Commissioners will have the opportunity to change their memberships, to be discussed at their February
16, 1999 meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Secretary
OR
44