HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 27 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 27,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 27,1999 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were: Mr.
William Finley, Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr.
Rodney Thomas; Mr. William Nitchmann. Other officials present were: Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior
Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman.
A quorum was established with 6 of 7 members present.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meetings — April 21st
Ms. Thomas stated that in the absence of Wayne Cilimberg and David Benish, no report was available
on the last Board meeting; she suggested that updates be presented at the next Planning Commission
meeting.
Approval of Minutes — March 30,1999
The Commission moved, seconded and approved the minutes of March 30, 1999.
Unscheduled Items
The Chairman solicited unscheduled items from the public. None were offered, and the meeting
proceeded.
Deferred Items:
CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc. (Willoughby)
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for property consisting of approximately 53.89 acres located
in Urban Neighborhood 4, described as Tax Map 76M 91), Parcels 2A and 2B, lying east of 5 h Street
Extended (State route 631) and north of Interstate 64, within the Scottsville Magisterial District. The
proposal seeks to change the designation of the area from Industrial Service to Regional Service, to
support the eventual rezoning from LI, Light Industrial, to C-1, Commercial, or PD-SC, Planned
Development Shopping Center.
Prior to the public hearing, Mr. Nitchmann stated that although he owns property in the vicinity of the
Brass, Inc., a full disclosure of the facts to the Commonwealth Attorney has yielded a written opinion
that Mr. Nitchmann's ownership is not a conflict of interest under the Conflict of Interest Act. Mr.
Nitchmann announced that he would participate in the public hearing and any votes that take place.
The public hearing from March 30, 1999 was continued. Mr. Finley announced that speakers would
have three minutes, and read remaining names from the list of the March 30t' meeting who had not
spoken at that time.
Mr. Doug Lowe, an Albemarle County resident, addressed the Commission. He lives in Redfields,
approximately 1'/Z miles from the site, and expressed his support for the project. While indicating he
was speaking for himself, he mentioned that "many of his neighbors" support the concept of this project.
He stated that he believes the proposal is good for the following reasons: (1) it is convenient to the
residents of Southern Albemarle; (2) the site is located close to town at an interstate interchange; (3) the
project is in or near a designated growth area within the Comprehensive Plan; (4) the project seems to be
WIC
an appropriate "infill" project; (5) the proposed use is more desirable than the current industrial use
allowed for by its zoning — especially given that the industrial designation allows for "much more square
footage" than the requested designation; (6) the project appears to be a financial gain for the county; (7)
a retail development would keep residents from regularly traveling to the north side of town to the 29
North area for similar goods and services, thus balancing the traffic out a little more. Mr. Lowe
concluded that "this is a reasonable, and maybe superior use for this [land] than is currently zoned."
Mr. Norman Beil spoke (Attachment "A", stating that while he would like to see more shopping
opportunities south of the city, he would rather have the Commission support staff s recommended
Regional Service designation. Mr. Beil said that arguments for the proposed Community Service
redesignation involve jobs and tax revenues it will create, its effect on 29 North traffic, and the
convenience it would bring to residents living south of the city. While it would create jobs and tax
revenues, Mr. Beil argued, these could also be created in that area by encouraging small, locally owned
businesses to locate there. He said that the effect on Route 29 traffic is unknown at this point, and must
be balanced against the excessive traffic a superstore would generate in the area. Mr. Beil emphasized
that there "is no evidence that modeling the development of southern Albemarle on that of 29 North will
improve the prospects for 29 North."
He added that greater convenience along with less traffic and a lower cost of development for the county
could be achieved by encouraging denser, pedestrian -scale development that would allow people to
walk, bicycle or take public transit from their homes to the stores and to their jobs. Mr. Beil said
that in the long term — if done carefully — this will also allow more land to be left in its natural state. He
concluded by stating that having stores (through the Regional Service designation) that would compete
with existing city businesses, specifically the Downtown Mall, is a good thing because competition
keeps prices low and contributes to the economic vitality of the region.
Mr. Beil concluded by saying, "On the other hand, in order for this project to go forward, it will be
necessary for Albemarle County to amend its Comprehensive Plan for the benefit of one landowner
against the recommendation of its own planning staff. Next, the City of Charlottesville must be forced,
against its will, to provide road widenings it never intended to do. All this for a project that does not
have the undivided support of the community. To me, this does not sound like fair competition, but
rather like government interference .... In adopting the Land -Use Plan three years ago, and then forming
the DISC Committee, the county took a decisive step away from ever-expanding growth areas, and
toward making better use of the existing growth areas. To allow such an important parcel of land to be
used for a project that will discourage quality residential development close to the city would undermine
the progress that has been made, and would only encourage an increase in such requests. Nobody is
asking that this land not be developed, only that it be developed in a way that is consistent with a rapidly
urbanizing area and the admirable goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Greg Jackson, a Belmont Avenue resident, addressed the Commission. He indicated that as an
urban designer, he is "deeply concerned" about the proposed Regional Service "big -box" development.
Mr. Jackson explained that the "single -use, automobile -oriented, inhuman scale `sprawl -mart' type of
development is very destructive to the character and health of the community." He said that his design
firm has worked on several projects that have successfully integrated commercial/retail into vibrant,
mixed -use, human -scale communities. Mr. Jackson emphasized that Charlottesville is a beautiful and
special place because of its history, small-scale, and natural surroundings. "We have the responsibility
to maintain our heritage." As a board member of the Belmont Neighborhood Association, he said that
he is concerned about the increased cut -through traffic in the neighborhood; as a member of the Parks &
Recreation Advisory Board, he said he is concerned about the future of the Moore's Creek Greenbelt
that would be part of a comprehensive trail system that traverses the city. Mr. Jackson stated that he is
greatly disturbed by the possibility of a "sprawl -mart to sprawl -mart" expressway through the middle of
M
the city (Meadowcreek Parkway), and the effect of a superstore on existing merchants on downtown
businesses. He concluded that while there may be a need for retail south of the city, "we can design and
develop it in a way that works for both interests — quantity and quality."
Mr. Jason Halbert, a Belmont resident, addressed the Commission. In response to the petition in favor
of the development, he has circulated a petition and gathered in less than two weeks over 1,000
signatures (Attachment "B"). Mr. Halbert said it is the young people who are going to have to live with
the future of this planning, and what needs to be considered is "the long-term effects of instant
gratification." Mr. Halbert emphasized that "we can't continue to build these boxes that provide
consumption for individuals all surrounding our city to meet the needs or the wants... of these individual
citizens." He said that the traffic and sprawl on 29 North would not be defrayed, and sprawl south of the
city would be continued, citing the Boston — Washington corridor as an example of this unbridled
sprawl. Mr. Halbert encouraged support of the Charlottesville Farmer's Market, and support of local
industries as "the model we need to stress" both in the county and in the city. He concluded by asking
Commissioners to accept staff s Community Service recommendation and deny the Regional Service
designation.
Mr. Trip Pollard, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, made remarks on behalf of
the center. Mr. Pollard explained the mission of SELC and its work to combat "wasteful, sprawling
development." He said that the heavy toll of development can be seen throughout our region on air and
water quality, farmland, traffic congestion, etc. "We must make more sensible, more sustainable
decisions about how this community grows." Mr. Pollard emphasized that the Brass, Inc. proposal
would cause environmental, economic and social damage to the community and should be rejected. He
urged Commissioners to approve staff s recommendation or develop further studies on the long-range
traffic and economic impacts of the project. Mr. Pollard said that SELC has filed suit to try to stop
construction of the Route 29 Bypass, and that case illustrates that "we must pay careful attention to the
transportation impacts of our land -use decisions as well as the land -use impacts of transportation
improvements that do not make sense for our community."
He further stated that the traffic analysis done by the developer does not consider any of the regional
impacts of the project, even though a proposal for a regional shopping center will have a broader impact.
Mr. Pollard continued that a regional shopping center in this area will raise traffic problems: congestion
and backups in the immediate vicinity of the proposal; problems along the Ridge Street/5`" Street
corridor — the I-64 interchange is already at a low level of service, and a massive regional development
proposed here would further clog the intersection and jam a major southern county corridor; there is no
evidence that the project will alleviate traffic on Route 29 as people will continue to travel to 29 for
other purposes, and traffic may actually increase on 29 if people use it to reach the new southern
shopping site; and the development will also effect Route 250.
Mr. William Preston, a 30-year resident of Albemarle County (Bell Air) expressed concern that a stream
on his property, which feeds into Moore's Creek, is already becoming from the runoff of small office
buildings and their parking lots on Ivy Road. He emphasized that "water is more important than
convenience, and clean water is far more important than 5 or 10 minutes more on 29 North." Mr.
Preston concluded by citing Article 11 of the Virginia Constitution: "it shall be the Commonwealth's
policy to protect its atmosphere, lands and waters from pollution, impairment, or destruction for the
benefit, enjoyment, and general welfare of the people of the Commonwealth."
Ms. Diane Dale, a county resident, addressed the Commission. Ms. Dale said that she is a land planner
and landscape architect who has designed a number of "award -winning `sprawl' projects." Ms Dale
stated her opposition to the proposal, and requested that the Commission give full consideration to the
mixed -use, community -scale development recommended by Planning staff. "While the arguments for
1717
the [Brass] proposal may be persuasive, the arguments against the proposal are equally compelling. Of
great concern is the impact of large-scale, regional destination shopping on existing residential
neighborhoods in the area, and the precedent that will be set for rezoning of 5t' Street as it extends
southward into the county." Ms. Dale said public interests would be better served by thorough,
comprehensive evaluation of the county's long-range planning needs for the larger area, before
considering a plan to amend a site with such "far-reaching consequences." She said this proposal has
highlighted a larger issue of "How should our county grow?" Ms. Dale encouraged the county to "grow
smart," finding creative solutions to allow the community to maintain its character while prospering
economically. She mentioned that Hugh McCall, CEO and Chairman of the Bank of America, had
recently called on the International Council of Shopping Center developers to "reconsider the impact
they've had on communities under conventional development," and urge them toward more "smart -
growth" practices [www.bankamerica.com]. Ms. Dale concluded by saying that the amendments should
be evaluated on the basis of long-range, economic, equitable and environmental goals.
Ms. Mary Hunter addressed the Commission, stating briefly that she hoped the Commission would put
off as long as possible any decisions that would allow regional service to be built easily without having
studies on economic and traffic aspects.
The hearing then continued with public comment from the new list of speakers (Attachment "C")
Mr. H.B. Snook, representing the Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Voters, read a prepared
statements from the League's Natural Resources Committee (Attachment "D"). Mr. Rooker suggested
that the League get a copy of the staff's proposals for the language changes to the Comprehensive Plan
for both Regional and Community Service.
Mr. Peter Easter, a business -owner on 5t' Street extended, addressed the Commission. He said that the
,.. residents of that area and his employees would like to see better shopping facilities on the south end of
town. Mr. Easter said that the crossing of two four -line highways near the site "is about as good as [any]
traffic facilities we have in Albemarle County." He added that the state and county codes do a good job
of protecting the environment, and offered his support for the Brass, Inc. proposal.
Mr. David VanRoyen addressed the Commission, stating that the proposed change is "wrong," adding
that "the time for such a massive undertaking and the consideration thereof is when the review of the
Comprehensive Plan comes up." Mr. VanRoyen said this project is being undertaking not because the
designation of the parcel is wrong, but because "the money in front of the developer's eyes looks pretty
good." He concluded by stating, "You and the public are being shown some short-term enticements and
being asked to make a decision that is far more complicated than meets the eye. Use the Comprehensive
Plan as your guide and vote against this project."
Mr. Clarence McClemons, a 14-year city resident, addressed the Commission. Mr. McClemons spoke
against this type of development, and instead encouraged a mixed -use development where a new
neighborhood with residences, shopping, and natural areas would be created.
Ms. Chris Anderson, a southern Albemarle resident, expressed her support for the proposal because
"accessible shopping is something we're all looking for." She said that the Food Lion on Willoughby
Square is filthy, especially the parking lot, and people would be advantaged by having more accessible
shopping on the southern end of town.
Mr. Tom Loche, an Albemarle County resident, commended Ms. Thomas on her staff report. As a
member of the DISC Committee, Mr. Loche concurred with Ms. Thomas' evaluations of mixed -use
development. "What DISC is about is about mixed -use... about building better neighborhoods." He
171
pointed to the approval of Wayland's Grant as an example of a successful mixed -use project, and said
the Willoughby property could provide a variety of housing types and office/commercial space. Mr.
Loche referenced a comparable 58-acre Colorado property designed by DPZ architects that provides a
range of housing types, apartments, office and commercial.
Ms. Thelma Reid, a lifetime Esmont resident, addressed the Commission, stating she would "love to see
a business" such as a big -box in southern Albemarle. "It's quite a drive to go out on 29, and by working
on this side of Charlottesville, it would be more convenient along with all the other stores that would
come to this area."
Mr. Henry Reid, a lifetime Esmont resident, spoke in support of the project largely because of the
traveling distance from the southern end of the county to Route 29. "I can't understand why every time
a project comes up, we oppose it in southern Albemarle County," when things are build on the north,
east, and west sides of the county.
Ms. Carol Clarke, a 28-year resident of North Garden and city property owner. Ms. Clarke spoke in
favor of the project because "it's everybody's right to have convenient shopping close to home." She
continued that as Charlottesville/Albemarle is a regional shopping area, this development would make it
more accessible to people from Afton, Fluvanna, and Buckingham counties. Ms. Clarke said its location
to I-64 makes the traffic problems "less of a challenge for you," and won't necessarily impact
neighborhood traffic. She concluded by stating that shopping in that area would be convenient for
college students, and added that a traffic study is not necessary because it's obvious people would drive
to the southern shopping instead of up Route 29.
Ms. Mary McNeil, President of Sensible Transportation Alternatives to the Meadowcreek Parkway
(STAMP), told Commissioners that the really disturbing aspect of this project is "what it will do in the
future." Ms. McNeil asked Commissioners to consider what types of residential development would be
located in the area once the Wal-Mart is up. "If there's any part of the county that presents a really
promising opportunity to do the kind of development that will not lead to the problems... on 29... this is
the place where it has to start to happen. If this kind of site is not a place where you could start to do
intelligent development that would integrate with the city neighborhoods, where is there such a piece of
land? Where else can it be?" Ms. McNeil continued that "this would immediately set the pace for all
the development that would occur along that for every after... people are saying they don't want to drive
to 29 — why don't they want to drive on 29? Because there's Wal-Mart and Lowe's and this and this and
this and there's a million stores on 29!" Ms. McNeil said allowing Regional Service on the Willoughby
site will create the same patterns of "enclave communities with one access road," and will be the same
problems all over again. She concluded by saying, "All you're doing is going with staff, respecting the
city's wishes and trying to move ahead in a way that's not so grotesque."
Mr. Scott Clark, a recent graduate of the Masters in Planning program at U. Va., spoke in opposition to
the proposal, pointing out that "there is a difference between ecologically sensitive design and window-
dressing," and encouraged a lot more careful thought about "whether some trees and a soccer field are
really going to make positive change in the area of a stream like that." Mr. Clark added that the pattern
emerging nationwide is that over the long-term, this type of development does not provide the benefit
that people are hoping for in the short term. He said that the large-scale, non -local businesses geared for
this type of development "do not have a responsibility to the community in the long term in the way that
a locally owned business would." Mr. Clark said continued development of these businesses and the
degradation of local economy that accompanies them is not of advantage to anyone in the long term.
*NW Mr. John Mason, a city resident, spoke in opposition to a big -box development "on this particular, very
vulnerable site" because of the noise, pollution and congestion it will bring, as well as the financial and
174
other costs it will impose on the community. Mr. Mason said alternative sites are available for this kind
of shopping in other parts of the city and nearby county areas, and encouraged Commissioners to be a
"good neighbor to the City" in their decision to designate the Willoughby property.
Ms. Jean Hyatt, a Charlottesville resident, spoke in opposition to the big -box store because of the
enormous negative impact of this project on the environment, the surrounding counties and city
businesses. Ms. Hyatt encouraged mixed -use development to include shopping, a smaller discount
store, and residential development.
Mr. Pat Balisle of Crozet, told Commissioners that he has been to many communities throughout the
world, and chose to live in Albemarle because of the strong sense of community that the area has. Mr.
Balisle said that when he and his wife first came to Charlottesville, they were impressed with downtown
and Crozet, and could not initially find the "ugly strip -mall development" and had to search it out to find
it on Route 29. "Let's keep it where it has to be... let's not extend it to the southern part of the county."
Living in Crozet, Mr. Balisle said he does not mind driving wherever he must to get convenient
shopping.
Ms. Ken Sandjewel, a Charlottesville resident, addressed the Commission, stating that he accesses most
downtown businesses and his workplace on foot. He said that the Willoughby development would not
"add anything positive to my experience in Charlottesville," and described the drawings for the
proposed as a "vision of damage" to a forested area and to wildlife habitat. Mr. Sandjewel said the
parcel is a good place for bird watching, and turning it into a parking lot causes irreversible damage. He
added that developing the property as mixed -use causes less damage. Mr. Sandjewel stated,
"Convenience is not the same as quality... quality takes a little more effort... "
Ms. Leslie Gray, a Charlottesville resident, said that the pond on her 4-acre property in the City has been
destroyed by silt. Ms. Gray said that her life as a caterer required a vast amount of running errands, and
said that "it is very convenient in this town," comparing it to Seattle and Washington, D.C. She added
that she has explored Moore's Creek and found wetlands, swamps, and beautiful natural areas. Ms.
Gray said "the same amount of dollars are going to be spent as they already are," and urged
Commissioners not to support this misguided project. She concluded with a line from a Chekov play:
"Only man will destroy what he cannot create."
Ms. Nancy Damon, representing the City Planning Commission as its chair, addressed the Commission,
and thanked them for their work. Ms. Damon said that the City knows the property will be developed,
and understands the need for shopping; the City also agrees that retail/mixed-use makes more sense than
the current industrial use. "It's the scale of the project that concerns us. When you make your decision,
we feel confident that you will consider the ecological impact on this piece of property, the traffic that
will be generated, and the aesthetics of the particular project." Ms. Damon said the City feels certain
that the Commission will decide on a designation that will allow sensible development for city and
county residents.
Ms. Lew Jordan addressed the Commission, saying she had never heard anyone say, "Let me take you to
our town and show you our Wal-Mart. It's not the type of place that I've heard anyone speak of with a
sense of pride. Charlottesville is a very special kind of place. We all recognize its scenic features.
Down through history, Charlottesville has been selected because of its scenery. I've never heard anyone
ever say that a Wal-Mart or a box shopping store held any great scenic virtue. I think what we have here
is a vast opportunity to use a parcel of land in a way that's truly creative — that will provide shopping
that is needed, that will perhaps also incorporate a new neighborhood, that will increase community
friendliness and be on a scale that really reflects our own sense of humanity."
175
Mr. Len Schoppa, a City resident, told Commissioners that the decision they are making is a
"community -defining decision that will effect the entire nature of our community, from east to west and
north to south." He encouraged Commissioners that going with the Community Service designation
affords the opportunity to "preserve a lot of what we appreciate about this community," while Regional
Service will "change this community fundamentally." Mr. Schoppa said many residents chose to move
to Charlottesville because of its human -scale, thus adding to the area's economy.
Ms. Jane Balisle told Commissioners expressed her disdain for big -box developments. "I think there are
so many other ways that we could make this a good place for people to shop... I don't think we need to
have it on that scale. If someone wants to go to Wal-Mart, they can drive out to 29 North and go to that
place. We have one, I don't think we need two. Charlottesville is such a beautiful community — it truly
is one of a kind... I urge you to take the higher road here. Don't go for the easy fix... I'm not opposed to
having convenient shopping... what I'm opposed to is another big, huge, ugly 29 North."
Mr. John Bugby, a Fontaine Avenue resident, told the Commission that he used to live in Austin, Texas,
a community that's "fighting some of the same battles, obviously on a much larger scale." Mr. Bugby
said, "if you lose the natural beauty of the area, you've lost everything that makes people want to come
here... Charlottesville's potential for growth is tied to the way the place looks and the standard of living
that's possible here." He said the proposal to put a big -box on 5 h Street Extended is a "small step in the
direction of making Charlottesville look like every other suburban sprawled community in the country."
Mr. Bugby concluded by asking Commissioners to consider the long-term environmental, aesthetic and
economic aspects of the issue.
Mr. Oliver Kuttner, a 14-year resident of the community who owns 9 buildings with 70 tenants
downtown, said although he is typically in favor of development, he is totally opposed to this one. Mr.
Kuttner said he has surveyed his 70 tenants, and roughly 90% are opposed to the big -box. He said he is
directing a new organization comprised of downtown property owners, and the vast majority of that
group is also opposed to the big -box development. Mr. Kuttner said he feels a Wal-Mart will have very
long-term implications and would be "probably the single worst thing you could do to the development
of the downtown mall."
Ms. Barbara Vigour, a 17-year Charlottesville resident, said that there is an arbitrary dividing line
separating Charlottesville and Albemarle and "we have to work together" to build the community. Ms.
Vigour said that Community Service could provide reasonable housing, day cares, a pedestrian
community, and a people -friendly environment.
Ms. Kay Peasley stated that "it's not only what you do, but it's the way that you do it," and "the
procedure that you follow for making this decision is as important as that decision." Ms. Peasley
expressed concern that the City's participation in the decision is not equivalent to what effect it will
have on it; and there is a "persistent rumour" that Mr. Nitchmann has a conflict of interest.
Mr. Michael Collins told Commissioners that they have a tough job because they must separate
preference with what is an issue of health, welfare and safety. Mr. Collins said he owns residential
property just two minutes from the site, and expressed concern about the process where a request for
redesignation has served as a trigger for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. "There could be a better
process to consider the Comp. Plan Amendment in the absence of the pressure from a particular site."
He encouraged the Commission to appoint a committee of county and city residents that would consider
just the Comp. Plan amendment, and would try to seek common ground and look for the kinds of
consensus that I know that we can find in our community... " Mr. Collins said it's not fair to put the
applicant through a long process when it's uncertain what the Comp. Plan states with respect to this
issue.
176
Ms. Karen Castor, a Belmont resident, addressed the Commission on behalf of the Belmont
Neighborhood Association. She said that the Association's Executive Board is very concerned about the
request for Regional Service zoning on the site, and voted to endorse City Council's position in
requesting a joint economic and environmental impact study. Ms. Castor said that the Association
recently completed a six-month study of traffic patterns and issues throughout the Belmont
neighborhood; one major concern is the cross -traffic from Route 20 South up Monticello Avenue. She
said that cross -traffic is already a problem for Belmont, and if a regional service development is created
on 5`h Street Extended it can only make the problem worse. She encouraged the Commission to
consider a more extensive regional impact study, including traffic, economics, environment and quality
of life.
Mr. Andrew Copeland addressed the Commission, saying that it would benefit his parents, who live in
southern Albemarle, to have closer shopping. Mr. Copeland encouraged everyone to work together on
making something good for the community.
Ms. Susan Curry, a City resident, told Commissioners that she specifically chose to live in
Charlottesville because of the beauty of the town and the community. Ms. Curry said that because of a
"Sprawl -Mart" in her former Pennsylvania hometown, her mother lost her job of 20 years, and
consequently lost her health insurance. She asked those against in the project to stand up and express
their opposition to the Regional Service development. Many audience members did so.
Mr. Francis Fife, a 78-year resident of Charlottesville, said we need to consider the development in
terms of how it will effect everyone, county and city alike. Mr. Fife is known as the founder of the
Rivanna Trails Foundation, and he is greatly concerned about what happens to the "complete circle"
they hope to develop. He cited the Kilmarnock study that highlighted the detriment of Wal-Marts on
small towns; and the Shields study, which brought out the "defects" in bringing in a Wal-Mart. Mr. Fife
noted that Ridge Street is designated as a historic area, and the traffic that would be generated from a
large superstore would be "horrendous," and encouraged the Commission to co -fund an extensive
economic and environmental impact study.
Ms. Katie Hobbs, an Albemarle resident, told the Commission that their obligation is to the community
as a whole — what is in the best interest of the entire community.
Mr. Harris Tobias, who owns a Downtown Mall retail business and lives 1/Z mile from the proposed site,
addressed Commissioners. Mr. Tobias said the Downtown Mall will suffer if a superstore is
constructed, and urged Commissioners to use the property wisely.
Mr. Jim Murray, owner of the property and a Keene resident, addressed the Commission. Mr. Murray
said listening to the divisiveness this project has created in the community has been very difficult. He
reported that he bought the property 14 years ago as an investment, and was approached two years ago
by two different developers wanting to buy the property to construct a superstore. Mr. Murray said at
that time, Ridge Street and Willoughby neighbors liked the idea, but found out that many people living
further from the site were opposed to the redesignation. He continued that they have listened to
residents, City officials, environmental groups, and engineers. Mr. Murray referenced the petition that
1000 people have signed in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Murray said, "If we allow ourselves to get sidetracked by what types of shopping our neighbors
should want, the question isn't simple — it's a mess." He stated that there are three planning issues: the
county's current plan calls for growth in the south; there's very little shopping in this region; and what is
planned for should be the shopping that people use. Mr. Murray cited statistics that 65% of all retail
177
sales in the U.S. last year occurred in large super -discount stores, and a large scale is what makes
discount prices possible. "Is it good planning to plan for what people will use, or should we try to
dictate how people will shop with zoning." He said there are 90,000 people today who live in the
"natural southern shopping sphere of this site," and 20,000 more called for in the Comprehensive Plan to
go into that sphere. Mr. Murray said the majority of these people will buy a majority of their goods at
discount stores, and will not suddenly shop at "coffee shops and boutiques and craft shops and used
book stores on the Downtown Mall when they need inexpensive work boots, groceries and school
clothes." He continued that they will get in their cars and drive around the city to shop on 29 North and
"if you plan for only 35% of the retail people, it's not planning, it's wishful thinking." Mr. Murray
stated there is no other site that meets the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan: buffering from
neighborhoods, availability of utilities, meeting the county's infill goals, access to the best traffic
arteries, keeping within the urban ring.
Mr. Murray concluded that the staff s compromise is "more of the same," and in the 12 years he has
owned the site "nobody has proposed neighborhood shopping here. What has been proposed by people
with a lot of market research is a large discount store to meet the needs of the poor people of southern
Albemarle County and Fluvanna and Louisa.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Finley closed the public hearing, and commented that the public hearings on this issue have been the
best he has attended, and has received positive public input on the speakers and tone of the hearings.
Mr. Rieley mentioned his regret that during the Mountain Protection hearing process, the Commission
considered an "enormous amount of public input," took a vote immediately after, and left a lot of people
feeling as if there comments had not been taken seriously. He suggested that the Commission have
some time to digest all of the input on the Willoughby site prior to making a decision.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed. "We're faced with a very complex decision; we've received a lot of input at
two meetings, at two public hearings. I think that we, as well as staff, need time to digest everything
we've heard. I think the applicant also needs time to digest what he has heard." Mr. Loewenstein
suggested bringing the item back to the Commission for discussion and vote at a later time.
Ms. Thomas stated that the meetings of May I I"' May 18at, and May 25'h could accommodate the item.
Mr. Rooker said that "the information -gathering process was not complete until the hearing was closed
tonight," and suggested deferring the item until May 1 lth. Fellow commissioners agreed.
Ms. Thomas agreed to refine drafts of language for both the Regional Service and proposed Community
Service designations. Commissioners agreed that any proposed changes to language they might have
would be forwarded to staff prior to the meeting.
Mr. Rooker said that both potential changes in the Comprehensive Plan are about three pages long,
packed with information. "We need adequate time to study that language and filter in the comments that
have been made by the public, and see whether or not that language is still appropriate as is or whether
potential changes are necessary.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if someone asks for a change in the Comprehensive Plan from one designation to
another, "how did that open up the door for us to say we would like it to be something else, and for us to
take action on that if the individual who asks for the change is not interested in the other
t?R
designation... why would we take it upon ourselves to consider that and be wiser to say that it's better to
be mixed use versus industrial."
Mr. Kamptner indicated that while the procedure for applicant -initiated Comprehensive Plans is not
spelled out in great detail, the process has been for staff to make a recommendation as for the most
appropriate Comprehensive Plan designation for the property. "The Commission can always
recommend denial of the particular request for regional service; therefore the property would simply
stay as industrial."
Mr. Rooker noted that Mr. Nitchmann's question was if the Commission has the power to go to
Community Service from Regional Service.
Mr. Nitchmann added, "My question is do we as the Commission have the right to impose our wishes on
changing something that wasn't requested to be changed by a property owner?"
Mr. Kamptner responded, "I think you have the authority to make a recommendation to the Board that is
consistent with good planning and zoning practices."
Ms. Thomas commented that with a Land -Use Plan as recently adopted as Albemarle's, staff would not
usually initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, but the Commission and Board do have "wide
authority," and once the Commission recommended to the Board that the CPA be considered "the door
was open to reevaluating the appropriateness of the current plan, and perhaps making another
recommendation..." She added that the Community Service recommendation by the staffperson who
worked on it "came out of the acknowledgement that perhaps Industrial Service was not the most
appropriate simply because of the history of the property."
Mr. Kamptner offered the analogy of the applicant -initiated rezoning request where they are seeking
particular zoning, and staff recommends a less intensive zoning; the Commission then makes its
recommendation.
Mr. Rooker added that a change of the Comprehensive Plan, if made, will not change the zoning of the
property. The applicant will then have to initiate a request for rezoning.
Ms. Thomas asked if Commissioners wanted staff to refine both sets of language: Regional Service and
Community Service. She mentioned that VDOT and Engineering officials were available to answer any
lingering questions.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Angela Tucker, VDOT Resident Engineer how far "down the road" the southern
extender from Avon to 5t` Street or if there is any chance at all VDOT will change its position regarding
an interchange at Avon Street. Ms. Tucker replied that the southern connector between Avon and 5 h
Street is in the 20's on the county's priority list, and is not in any VDOT county plan at this time. She
said that it could be funded out of Secondary Road funds or the CIP, adding, "there is little likelihood
that an interchan§e would occur Avon Street extended at I-64 due to the current spacing of the
interchanges at 5 Street and Route 20."
Mr. Nitchmann commented that without the southern connector, as the urban ring expands out Route 20
South, the traffic on Avon Street will become "the worst problem the city can possibly have versus this
particular development because all the traffic is focused in on two roads: 5 h Street or Monticello
Avenue. It would seem to me that VDOT could do an awful lot in helping the citizens of this
'14A" community by... helping us move it up by means of funding somewhat on the southern connector, or
reconsidering the fact of putting an interchange there." Ms. Tucker said that moving that priority is a
17Q
"more feasible option" than the interchange on 64, and VDOT would be amenable to discussing that
change with the county. She added that there is a project slated for improving Route 20 for the
Monticello High School road north to the four -lane section on Route 20 at I-64.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the bridge over the railroad tracks on Ridge Street was fixed at VDOT expense.
Ms. Tucker replied that if was funded with federal, state and local monies, with 2% city contribution.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded continuance of CPA 97-05 to their May 11 t'
meeting for Commission discussion and possible vote. The motion passed unanimously. No public
comment will be received at that meeting. Commissioners asked staff to continue to work on drafts of
both sets of language.
SP 99-09 CFW CV203 (Lickinghole Repeater — Sign #59)
Communications requests to construct an eighty foot telephone pole type tower with two panel antennas
that will not exceed the surrounding tree tops (Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance). The site is
located on a 6-acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property, described as
Tax Map 57, parcel 411, is located on the southern side of Route 250 West, approximately one mile
west of the Mechums River crossing. This site is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and is
located within a designated growth area.
Prior to the staff report, Mr. Fritz indicated that late in the review process, staff determined that the
requests need a variance for setback from the public right-of-way; the applicant is in process with the
application, and will be heard before it goes to the Board. Mr. Fritz said the Commission could choose
to defer action on the permit until the variance is heard, act on the permit and setback waiver, or act on
the permit and delay action on the setback waiver until the variance is heard.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the Commission proceed with the special use permit application. Fellow
Commissioners agreed. Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant would be held up if the action on the setback
waiver is delayed. Mr. Morrisette suggested that they could move forward with the special use permit,
and when the Board considers the permit, the Board of Zoning Appeals should have acted on the
variance; staff could bring back (as a condition of the Board's approval) on a consent agenda the waiver
request. Commissioners agreed.
Mr. Morrisette reported that the applicant is proposing to construct a tower that is slightly above treetop
level to support a personal wireless communications facility; the tower will pick up the signal from the
Greenwood Motel site approved by the Commission on April 20t' and carry it further down the Route
250 West corridor. He said that in the past, the Commission has reviewed treetop towers with whip
antennas above the tree canopy. The proposed antennas, similar to those discussed April 20, are 6 feet
long and I foot wide, and are more flush mount against the pole. The line of site needed is more direct
than an omni-directional antenna, and the request supported by staff and agreed to by the applicant is for
7 feet above the canopy.
He continued that the pole is about 35 feet higher than the road/pavement section of Route 250, which
should help in camouflaging the site; also, the site is 6 feet from the right of way, but is at a higher
elevation and does not present a safety issue. Mr. Morrisette stated that towers like this are regularly
constructed in VDOT right-of-ways, and do not present safety issues to VDOT; VDOT has had an
opportunity to comment on the proposal, and has raised no safety concerns regarding the setback.
IRO
Mr. Morrisette said this site would have two panel antennas, one located at 40 feet in the tree coverage,
and one located at 87 feet, not extending above the height of the pole that would carry the signal further
down the road. He said the proximity of the tower to the Greenwood Motel tower allows the lower
panel antenna (receiving) to receive through the vegetation; the transmission antenna is much higher.
Mr. Morrisette said that the design planner has not found any negative impact on the character of the
district, but the ARB will probably require the panel antennae to be painted brown to match the
proposed wooden pole. He read factors favorable to the request from his staff report, but indicated that
the site's visibility from Route 250 (although minimal) is an unfavorable factor. Mr. Morrisette
reviewed the conditions set forth by staff, and indicated that staff sees no reason for a full site -plan.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the trees in the grove that would be shielding the pole as deciduous, rather
than evergreen. Mr. Morrisette said yes.
Mr. Rooker said Conditions #5 (stating the tower would only have the particular antenna array that the
applicant has tendered) and #6 (stating the applicant would make the tower available for collocation)
seemed contradictory. Staff responded that Condition 45 limits the number, type and location of
antenna; Condition #6 allows for availability of use. Mr. Rooker said that Condition #6, as it reads now,
seems to indicate that Planning is encouraging additional antenna on this tower," and suggested
rewording the condition.
Mr. Fritz said the condition was crafted over a long time period, and suggested working on the condition
prior to the Board of Supervisors consideration to get appropriate language in the condition.
Mr. Rooker suggested adding a sentence that "nothing herein shall affect the requirement that any
additional antenna will require an amendment to this special use permit."
Mr. Finley asked about the height of the antenna exceeding the height of the pole. Mr. Morrisette said
that the 87-foot maximum is the top of the antenna with the pole at that height; the discussions with the
design planner yielded a preference for the pole that looked like one tree rather than a tree -pole with
something extending vertical from it.
Mr. Finley asked if the variance is granted, would the item come back to the Commission. Mr.
Morrisette responded that just the setback waiver would come back; the variance would be granted
totally independent of Commission recommendation.
Mr. Thomas asked if the tower to be constructed is on a lower elevation than the Greenwood Motel site.
The applicant, Mr. Tom Whitaker, Network Operations Director of CFW Wireless, addressed the
Commission. He presented photographs of CFW sites that the Board had approved in 1998; one photo
illustrated a Nelson County site —with no tree cover — with similar antenna to what's proposed. He
presented a brief review of CFW's history in Albemarle County, emphasizing CFW's use of existing
vertical infrastructure and the wooden pole mini -cell — six of which are employed in the county.
Mr. Whitaker said that the purpose of the Lickinghole Repeater site is to extend coverage where Routes
240, 250, and 680 meet. As this low area is very difficult to cover, the close proximity of this proposed
site to the Greenwood Motel site will allow enough energy to be amplified and rebroadcast in the area
targeted for coverage. He presented photos of a crane on the site illustrating the height of the proposed
tower, and aerial photos showing how well the Entrance Corridor has been protected.
I%WMr. Rieley encouraged the applicant to include a notation of what angle lens is used to take the photos.
1 R 1
Mr. Whitaker said the proposed site is approximately'/d to 1/Z mile from the Greenwood Motel site. He
added that the only way to cover the depth of the valley is to use the repeater system or a much taller
tower.
Mr. Finley asked what would happen to the pole if it snapped. Mr. Whitaker responded that the poles
are "Class One" poles, approximately 17 to 21 inches in diameter; the poles don't have the twist and
sway problems that poles supporting telephone or power lines have.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question about a chain -link fence, Mr. Morrisette indicated that staff had
removed that condition, as sometimes fences draw more attention to sites via reflectivity. Mr. Whitaker
said other similar sites in the county have no fencing, and indicated that they do not wish to have a fence
because the pole is already difficult to climb.
Mr. Rieley asked about a condition for painting the cabinets brown. Staff indicated that they had
included that condition in because of the gray differential.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SP 99-09 with conditions as
presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of a site plan waiver for SP 99-09 with
conditions as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of deferral of the setback waiver
until after the variance for setback from the public right-of-way is obtained. The motion passed
unanimously.
Public Hearing Items:
SP 98-70 StarBase Alpha Dance Hall (Sign #59)
Proposal to amend the existing special use permit for a commercial recreation activity to add a dance
hall to the permitted activities. A special use permit is required in accord with the provisions of Section
22.2.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 61 W, Section 1, Block A,
Parcel 2 consists of 1.650 acres zoned C-1, Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District and
is located on the south side of Westfield Road approximately 600 feet north of Greenbrier Drive in the
Rio Magisterial District. The site is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report, indicating that the proposal is for expansion of an existing
commercial recreation use. The site is currently used as StarBase Alpha, which received a special use
permit in March of 1997 for laser tag. Staff has found the proposal for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance, and found it to be generally
consistent with those.
Mr. Fritz said staff has contacted the police department about their concerns, which are parking, traffic
management, security, and the mixing of teens and pre -teens at dance events, and hours of operation.
He indicated that parking and traffic management have been reviewed by staff, and access to the site is
►, adequate; prior to the issue of zoning clearance for this use, the zoning administrator will verify that
adequate parking exists. Based on the information staff has to date, adequate parking does exist. Mr.
Fritz noted that this use is substantially different from other dance halls in that it is not associated with a
1RI)
restaurant. The applicant has stated that he wishes to hold "non-alcoholic dances targeted to different
age groups either with current laser tag operations or in the laser tag arena." Staff agrees that the
existing security measures on site are adequate; the police department has not indicated that the existing
activities have led to any types of problem. No hours of operation have been proposed, and staff has not
recommended limited hours of operation as no conflict with adjacent uses can be identified; the Board
may set operational limits during its review of the dance hall permit. Mr. Fritz reminded the
commission that two permits are required: the special use permit under review by the Commission, and
the dance hall permit that is reviewed only by the Board; the special use permit is a land use issue, the
dance hall is not. Mr. Fritz said that staff believes the proposed operation will not result in any
additional police calls, and approval of the request will provide for organized and supervised
entertainment. He concluded that staff recommends approval of the permit, subject to the same
condition imposed in the original 1997 permit.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the implications of noise impact had been discussed with the applicant.
Mr. Fritz responded that the provisions of the ordinance regarding noise already apply, and therefore
noise does not need to be addressed in the special use permit. He indicated that there are a number of
commercial activities in between this site and the nearest residences.
Mr. Rooker asked what the vote was on Boudreau's request for a dance hall on Rio Road. Staff
indicated they did not know. Mr. Rooker asked what the difference is between that application and the
StarBase request. Mr. Fritz indicated that a dance hall permit was issued to StarBase, and had several
"trial" dances that did not create any problems.
Mr. Nitchmann emphasized that the Boudreau's situation is very different, because it involves adults and
alcohol services.
Mr. Fritz also stressed that the StarBase application is very different from what the Commission has
seen in the past.
Mr. Rooker asked if the age group limits could be enforced through the special use permit. Mr. Fritz
said that they could probably be addressed through the dance hall permit, as it is not a land -use issue.
Mr. Kamptner added that the dance hall permit puts an age limit on the people who can attend: no one
under 18, unless their accompanied by a parent, spouse, guardian or older sibling, or attend with written
permission.
Mr. Loewenstein asked about hours of operation. Mr. Fritz emphasized that that is not a land use issue,
but may be appropriate in the dance hall permit.
Mr. Fritz reported that the police have "no specific concerns relating to this application," but raised
general concerns that apply to all dance hall permits.
The applicant, Bob Cawley, addressed the Commission and made himself available for questions. He
said they plan to go with the recommendations of school guidance counselors and have a middle school
dance on a Friday night (earlier) and then a later age group dance on a Saturday. Mr. Cawley said they
plan to target the age groups separately with different types of bands and music; he said the 18 and
under provision would apply. He said that they have held two trial dances that worked fairly well, with
a number of parents in attendance, and a number of young people attended with written permission from
their parents.
1RI
In response to Mr. Rooker question about the upper age limit, Mr. Cawley said that high school and
early college years would probably be the limit, stating, "I don't intent to limit that, but... I think once
you get into the 21 year old range, especially with dances, they're going to be looking for the alcoholic
venues." Mr. Rooker expressed concern that if there is no upper limit on age, people could easily bring
alcohol. Mr. Cawley said that the security officer at the trial dances did not see any problems, and part
of StarBase's ongoing responsibility will be to monitor the parking lots to make sure there is no alcohol
on site.
In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question about numbers in attendance, Mr. Cawley responded about
55-60 people per dance. Mr. Loewenstein asked if the facility would be used by University students or
post high-school people, stating, "I'd hate to see it turn into sort of an alternative fraternity house." Mr.
Cawley said he doubted the venues would attract that type of crowd, and said that his security would be
provided by the managers and owners of StarBase. He indicated that they would call police if
necessary, and police would be welcome to come on the property at any time.
Mr. Nitchmann commended Mr. Cawley on his efforts to have dances for the younger kids in the
community. Mr. Nitchmann said they hold dances at the Boys and Girls Clubs in Charlottesville, and
they are very well -attended and orderly. He agreed with Mr. Cawley that you won't find teenagers
going to the younger kids' dances, and won't find younger kids going to the teenage dances because
they "just don't mix."
Mr. Cawley concluded by saying the kids in the county are good kids, and deserve to be given the
chance to have these opportunities.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SP 98-70 with conditions as
presented by staff. Mr. Finely said, "I used to go to dance halls sometime ago in Charlottesville. I hope
they're nothing like that." The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-10 CV 159 Scenic Lookout (Sign #57 & 58)
Request for special use permit to allow a personal wireless service facility in accordance with Section
10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio -wave transmission and relay towers. The
property, described as Tax Map 53 Parcel 6, contains 83 acres, and is located in the White Hall
Magisterial District on the west side of Newton Road [Route #690] at the end of Green Hill lane just
north of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 3.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report, stating that this application is for a CFW personal wireless
communications facility to be located on the north side of I-64 in the western part of the county near the
easternmost of the two scenic overlooks. He said the nearest existing tower is located 1.3 miles to the
north on the top of Bear Den Mountain; those towers are located in Augusta County, and the nearest
CFW facilities are located on top of the mountain, but don't provide the desired coverage in Albemarle
County.
Mr. Fritz continued that staff reviewed the site for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and this
site is located in the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Open Space Plan. He explained that
the Mountain Resource Area starts at the 1200-foot elevation, and the proposed tower is at an elevation
of approximately 1320 feet; the proposed facility is also located within an area of critical slopes. Staff is
recommending a condition that will address both the Mountain Resource and critical slope issues: "the
proposed facility shall be located not more than 25 feet from the existing road, and at a base elevation
1R4
not to exceed 1,320 feet above sea level. 1f the facility is proposed in an area which requires disturbance
of any slopes of 25% or greater, a modification of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance will be required.
Approval of the special use permit does not ensure approval of any modification of Section 4.2."
Mr. Fritz added that there is an existing road in this Mountain Resource Area, and no additional clearing
needs to be done to provide access to the facility; by moving the proposed site closer to the road, it
allows the facility to be located in the MRA and still comply with the design standards that are contained
within the mountain section. He noted that the applicant is requesting a pole that is 85 feet tall; the trees
in the area 50-60 feet tall, and the pole would be 25-35 feet above the tree line. Mr. Fritz said if that
were done, the applicant would not have any tree removal because the facility could be located in the
area currently cleared for the roadway. He stated that the site is located in such a way that it would
comply with all the setback requirements of the ordinance, and no waiver or variance is required; the
antenna in the condition written by staff would extend 7 feet above the tree line, with the antenna an
additional 3 feet above the pole for a total of 10 feet above the tree line.
Mr. Fritz concluded that staff is able to support the applicant's request for a site plan waiver with the
standard conditions and one additional: " a site plan would be required if activities on slopes of 25% or
greater are proposed."
Mr. Rieley asked staff if the approval of this facility in the Mountain Resource Area would put the
county in a difficult position as a precedent. Mr. Fritz responded that staff considered this intently, and
said that the careful siting of this facility — with an existing road not requiring additional clearing and the
design of the facility offering limited visibility — does not jeopardize the resources identified.
Mr. Kamptner emphasized that each application is evaluated on a case -by -case basis, and there may be
situations where a proposal is within the Mountain Resource Area, but satisfies the design standards and
provides public facilities "with a minimal or negligible adverse impact." He added, "From our
perspective, it doesn't set a precedent."
Mr. Loewenstein noted that in the staff report, staff indicates the applicant hasn't demonstrated that
there are no other locations within the proposed area of service that might be available for tower
construction. He asked if the applicant has been actively pursuing other potentially suitable sites nearby.
Mr. Fritz responded that applicants are always looking at a number of sites, which do or don't work for a
number of factors: willingness of the property owners, RF signatures, access, utilities, etc. He indicated
that staff did work with the applicant to examine collocation options, and could not find any appropriate
facilities.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was more proactive work on this particular application than others to try
to identify site alternatives. Mr. Fritz responded that the attempt to find collocations was "as active as it
always is," and in terms of finding raw land for a new site, the applicant has presented this option only.
Mr. Rooker asked the elevation of the nearest mountain top; Mr. Rieley indicated the highest peak there
is 2,880.
The applicant, Tom Whitaker, addressed the Commission, and submitted photographs of a crane erected
at the proposed location to the planned height of the tower. Mr. Whitaker confirmed that the photos
show the tower height that CFW has proposed, not what staff recommends.
I%kw Mr. Rooker asked if the tower would work at the staff -recommended height.
1R5
Mr. Fritz explained, "The height of the tower under my proposal and their proposal would essentially be
the same — the absolute above sea level elevation or the area it's covering. The difference is that their
base elevation would be at a lower elevation — it would be down around 1290 or something lower,
making that difference on the height."
Mr. Rooker asked the applicant if staff s recommendation adequately suited their technical needs.
After some discussion to clarify the particulars, Mr. Fritz reviewed the conditions as presented by staff.
Mr. Shear, the applicant's RF Engineer, addressed the Commission. "If we do what our intent is... to do
as little disruption to the mountain as possible... utilizing the road as existing, we'd be bringing that
tower down and actually locating it right adjacent to the road... if we go by the downhill slope rule —
within 25 foot of the downhill slope, that would present a problem for us." Mr. Shear added, "We
would gladly agree to 10 foot higher than the uphill side."
Mr. Rieley suggested, "How about trees at the same elevation as the tower, but farther away than 25
feet?" Fellow Commissioners agreed.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded SP 99-10 with modifications to conditions:
Condition # 1 reading "the height of the tower shall not exceed 7 feet above the height of the tallest tree
located at the same base elevation as the facility within 50 feet of the facility...."; and Condition #3a
replaced with language stating "the proposed facility shall be located adjacent the existing access
easement shown on the site plan, and no trees shall be removed." The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of the site plan waiver pertaining
to SP 99-10 with conditions as presented, removing Condition #4. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-11 CV154 Ivy and I-64 (Sian #55)
Request for special use permit to allow for a personal wireless service facility in accordance with
Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning ordinance which allows for radio -wave transmission and relay towers.
The property, described as Tax Map 73, parcel 31D, contains 10 acres, and is located in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District on the east side of Taylors Gap Road [Route #708] south of I-64. The
property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The Comprehensive
Plan designates this property as Rural Area 3.
Mr. Fritz reviewed the staff reporting, noting that the property is located south of I-64 on Route 708 in a
grove of trees; the Peacock Hill subdivision is located on the north side of I-64 west of Route 708. The
area is pasture, with scattered residences located south of I-64 and the closest dwelling 400 feet to the
northwest. CFW facilities are remote from this site. Mr. Fritz noted that the only resource identified in
the Open Space Plan for this particular facility is the Entrance Corridor of I-64; the limited area included
in the facility's lease area will not substantially reduce the existing or potential use under the intent of
the Rural Area designation. He continued that the impact on the EC is limited because of the location of
existing vegetation within I-64 and on the property itself, and the distance (500 feet) from the EC. Mr.
Fritz added that the site is still subject to EC regulations because the entire parcel lies with the district.
He said the proposed tower is located approximately 15 feet from the nearest property line and does not
meet with the setbacks.
The trees on the site are approximately 95 feet tall; the area underneath the grove of trees is used for
grazing, and is clear of undergrowth, which will make the base station and pole visible from Route 708.
IRA
The top of the facility will blend into the existing tree canopy in the area. Mr. Fritz noted that the
county has, by its past actions in approving or denying wireless facility applications, attempted to site
these facilities in areas where they have limited impacts on the character of the surrounding area. He
emphasized that the site is in a wooded area, which has been the "favored approach of the county."
Staff opinion is that the existing trees will hide the facility, but the lack of undergrowth will not mask
the site as it does in other locations. Mr. Fritz noted that shade -tolerant screening materials may serve to
reduce the visibility of ground -based equipment; if landscape is installed it will need to be protected
from grazing.
Mr. Fritz concluded that the distance and visibility will not, on its own, result in a change in the
character of the district to an extent that the are is no longer considered rural; however, it will have an
impact on the area, and to some extent the character will be changed. He reviewed the favorable and
unfavorable factors of the request as outlined in his staff report.
In response to Mr. Rooker's questions, Mr. Fritz confirmed that the nearest residence is 400 feet from
the site, and the nearest property line — other than the right of way — is more than the height of the tower.
In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question, Mr. Fritz indicated that no clearing would be required for
access, as there is an existing farm entrance that will be used.
The applicant, Tom Whitaker, addressed the Commission. He submitted photos taken from I-64
(Eastbound) showing the crane erected on the site at the proposed height, and aerial photos showing
where the site would be located. Mr. Whitaker said that CFW would need to protect the equipment from
grazing cattle with some means agreed upon by the county and the landowner.
Mr. Rooker asked why, in this case, the antenna would exceed the height of the pole. Mr. Fritz replied
that staff's condition has the antenna exceeding the height of the seven -foot pole by three feet instead of
the entire apparatus being 10 feet above the tree line. Mr. Morrisette added that the ARB typically likes
the antennae to be flush with the top of the pole if the backdrop is not going to be mountainous; if the
backdrop is terrained, than it doesn't really matter if the antennae are flush mount or not.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked that the same change be made to the conditions with respect to collocation as made on
the previous application; Mr. Fritz said staff would make that change on all of them.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of SP 99-11 with Condition #3a
regarding tower location changed as in SP 99-10, and adding conditional language that any fencing used
"shall be of a design similar to that found on the property currently so it helps to maintain the character
of the area." The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of the site waiver pertaining to SP
99-11. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of deferral of the setback waiver until a
variance for setback from public right-of-way is obtained. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 98-24 Grayrock North (Sign #66, 67,68)
1R7
Petition to amend a portion (21 acres) of an approved PRD Planned Residential Development to reduce
development potential from 70 townhouse units to 27 single-family detached dwellings. Property,
described as Tax Map 55, parcels 65 (part) and 65A (part) is located in the White Hall Magisterial
District on Route 684 west and adjacent to Orchard Acres subdivision. This property is situated in the
Crozet Community in the Comprehensive Plan and is recommended for Neighborhood Residential (3-6
dwellings/acre).
Mr. Morrisette noted that the staff report distributed earlier was actually a draft report; some slight
alterations have been made. He stated that the proffers that were approved with ZMA 97-12 are
different than what was attached to the Commissioners' packets. Mr. Morrisette distributed the updated
information to the Commission, and proceeded to review his staff report.
He indicated that staff s opinion is that the applicant's proposal is consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance. Although inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, this development is consistent
with the Crozet Community Study. The inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan is in staff s
opinion, superseded by the applicant's obligation to fulfill Proffer #4 of ZMA 98-12 (Grayrock). Staff
has not identified any conditions, amendments or modifications that should be applied to this
application. Reading from his staff report, Mr. Morrisette reviewed the favorable and unfavorable
factors to this request. He emphasized that the development does not provide for a rural road cross-
section for sidewalks to complement such development in Grayrock's southern portion; the development
does not provide for an alternative dwelling unit type as outlined in the specific standards for residential
land uses of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Morrisette concluded that staff recommends approval of the
request with no other proffers or agreements.
In response to Mr. Finley's question regarding site plan review, Mr. Morrisette explained that site plans
are not required for single-family detached units, so a subdivision preliminary plat review would be
required.
Mr. Rooker asked what discussions were had concerning the rural road cross-section for sidewalks. Mr.
Morrisette responded that staff asked for sidewalks, and the applicant pointed to the section in the
ordinance that the density does not require it. Mr. Morrisette confirmed that the southern portion of the
community would have sidewalks, there would be an extensive trail system connecting the two, and
there would be no sidewalks for the northern portion.
Mr. Rieley said, "It seems to me we're in the position that we accept this density as part of the
proffer... take it or leave it." Mr. Morrisette agreed.
Mr. Charlie Keeler of the Freed Companies, addressed the Commission, reiterating that the company is
retaining over 11 acres of open space in a 20-acre site. The proposal is a reduction in density from 70
units to 27 units, more similar what's in the area.
Mr. Rooker asked the applicant why there are no sidewalks provided in this part of the community.
Mr. Keeler responded that there are only 27 lots on this side, and the company has already provided over
6,000 lineal feet in the trail network provided in the common areas, and has provided sidewalks on both
sides of the street in the south side totaling over 12,000 lineal feet. "It's a very cost -sensitive item. It
adds over $2,000 a lot to the cost of the lots." Mr. Keeler said that during the rezoning process for
Grayrock South, the community came forward and indicated that they did not want townhouses, so the
11%W developer agreed to lower the density to the 27 singles.
Mr. Keeler said they "do not see the opportunity for different types of units within such a small [area]."
1RR
Mr. Tom Loche, a Crozet resident, addressed the Commission, and said that the Grayrock community
had put together a plan for the townhouses to be incorporated in the overall design of the site, which the
applicant did not find acceptable. Mr. Loche continued that Ms. Washington had indicated at the time
this originally came forward that she felt the Commission should be consistent within the Crozet growth
area to ask for sidewalks (as they had required in the Western Ridge rezoning). Mr. Loche expressed
concern over the lack of sidewalks, and read the recommendations for the Model Neighborhood
Committee of the DISC Committee: "sidewalks are fundamental to the movement within a
neighborhood as roadways; they should be required in all new development... if money became
available for redevelopment of existing areas, they should be retrofitted in those areas where sidewalks
were lacking." Mr. Loche said the Transportation Committee within DISC also stated: "pedestrian
access should be provided in all new developments in urban areas; sidewalks should be available
throughout new residential neighborhoods and connect to existing residential and non-residential areas
alike." He expressed concern that the primary issue surrounding this development has been design, not
development.
Mr. Rooker said, "I'm not certain we're in a position where we can impose a requirement for
sidewalks... "
Mr. Loche agreed, implying that not putting sidewalks in is a purely financial. "This came out of a
proffer, a deal made with the Board of Supervisors for the overall design of the development. It's sort of
a shame."
Mr. Rooker said, "It's unfortunate the proffer did not include at least that the design of the road system
and sidewalks would be the same if the rezoning occurred."
Commissioners expressed concern that no provision for sidewalks had been included.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded ZMA 98-24 to reduce development potential of
the 21-acre parcel from 70 townhouse units to 27 single-family detached dwellings. The motion passed
with a 5-1 vote, with Mr. Nitchmann dissenting.
Mr. Nitchmann said he voted no because, "I think we're missing an opportunity here to put more houses
in an area. I just think it's wrong what we're doing."
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
There was no new business presented.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. - '
V. Wayne Ci
1R8