HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 11 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 11,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a worksession on Tuesday,
May 11,1999 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; Ms. Hilda Lee Washington. Other officials present were:
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior
Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
A quorum was established with 7 of 7 members present.
Approval of Minutes — April 27,1999
The Commission moved; seconded and approved the minutes of April 27, 1999 with one change noted
by the Recording Secretary.
Unscheduled Items
The Chairman solicited unscheduled items from the public. None were offered, and the meeting
proceeded.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting of May 51",1999
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Board approved the two items they had previously deferred:
Woodbrook Crossing Executive Suites and the setback modifications at the North Fork Business Park,
Deferred Items:
SDP 98-166 Pounding Brook Golf Club Preliminary Site Plan
Request for preliminary site plan approval to construct an 18-hole public golf course, with associated
clubhouse and driving range, on a total of 319 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property, descried as
Tax Map 73, Parcel 27G is located on the southern side of State Route 637 (Dick Woods Road), across
from the Ivy Landfill Handling Center. This property is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District and is not located within a designated growth area. Deferred from April 20, 1999 Planning
Commission meeting.
Commissioners asked to hear from the applicant regarding progress made in discussions with the
Helvins since the last meeting. The applicant, Mr. Mark Watson, addressed the Commission, reporting
that he had met with the Helvins for about '/z hour and discussed the plans for the golf course. Mr.
Watson said that during the meeting, he illustrated for the Helvins the difficulty in laying out the site
given the topography. He said that the issues of topography, critical slopes and buffering have led them
to stay with the current site plan, and indicated that the Helvins were "surprised" that the driving range
they had been very concerned about wasn't going to be as busy as they had initially anticipated. In
response to Mr. Rooker's question about why the driving range would be less busy, Mr. Watson said
that the Helvins had thought that the driving range would be consistently busy, with 15 people on the
range at all times, when in reality there would only be 4 or 5 people at a time on the tee. Mr. Watson
said he explained to the Helvins how the parking lot would fit into the hill, and how it would be buffered
with plant material. Mr. Watson said they also discussed how they would plant the Helvins' driveway
area/right-of-way, and how the road would be widened. Mr. Watson said the meeting was "good," with
a "lot more understanding about why we have the facilities where they are located on the site."
204
Mr. Rooker asked if the Helvins had expressed an opinion about berms. Mr. Watson said that Mr.
Helvin had told him he had never liked the idea of berms. Mr. Watson said, "I think we can do an
excellent job in buffering the Helvins from any activities that are occurring. The key issue... is going to
be trying to balance what we want to do ecologically with the cultural aspect and the historic
significance of the building and site... we just have to be very careful about the plant materials... and
how they're located. But I feel confident we can do it."
Mr. Rieley asked if Mr. Helvin could offer his impressions of the conversations held with the applicant.
Mr. Helvin addressed the Commission, stating that he told Mr. Watson "our position was still basically
the same because we have the same situation around our house....and I also told him I did believe and
understand the difficulty he was having in putting a really valid golf course in this location without
having certain things around the house. I understood that to a certain extent but it doesn't change my
overall feeling." Mr. Helvin said he agreed the driving range would be less impact than he originally
thought, "but in essence we still have the main focal point of the operation right around the perimeter of
where we are, and I do feel they're sincerely making efforts to try and buffer things."
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Fritz if there was any additional staff information on the site plan, and asked if
staff s position regarding denial remained the same.
Mr. Fritz said that staff s position was essentially the same as when the executive summary was
prepared with conditions of approval, and read Condition # 11 regarding "privacy and livability." Mr.
Fritz said that staff had initially recommended denial of the site plan; when the Commission considered
the site plan in March, the consensus appeared to be to instruct staff to prepare conditions of approval.
"We were taking our guide as to what this condition meant and what needed to be done on the site plan
from the minutes of the Planning Commission and the minutes of the Board of Supervisors during the
special use permit. That Condition (# 11) was not one originally recommended by staff, so we were
having to interpret the intent of the Planning Commission... we went back and prepared the conditions of
approval." Mr. Fritz told Mr. Finley that if the Commission approves the site plan, Condition # 11 would
be met.
Mr. Rooker said that part of the issue is whether or not Condition # 11 has been met.
Mr. Thomas commented that the developer has addressed the visual and noise impacts of the golf
course, and has approached the livability issue. He asked about the historical significance of the
building.
Mr. Fritz said that it is a surveyed site in terms of having potential historical value, but is not on the
registry or under review for registry.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was anything else — other than redesigning the golf course — that staff would
recommend to protect the Helvin property that the applicant has not embraced.
Mr. Fritz responded that staff is reluctant to offer recommendations about how to redesign a site, and in
this case it's even more difficult because staff is trying to interpret the intent of the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors when Condition # 11 was added. "We brought forward our best
analysis of what the Planning Commission and the Board said."
Mr. Rooker asked if staff made any recommendations to help protect the Helvin property that the
applicant has not willingly adopted. Mr. Fritz responded that staff made specific recommendations that
were complied with, including flood easements and grading easements. Regarding the location of the
205
driving range, parking lot and clubhouse all within 300 feet of the house, Mr. Fritz said the applicant
"made significant changes. They modified the location of the parking area, they eliminated some
parking spaces, they relocated the cart path, and I believe the location of the clubhouse was also
amended somewhat... they did make those changes. The only specifics that we really offered were the
direct impacts actually on the Helvin property — the flood easement and the grading easement... and they
did away with both those easements." Mr. Fritz added that it is difficult to make any specific
recommendations about where things need to be located on the course, "It's ultimately a situation that
the Commission needs to resolve."
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of SDP 98-166 with conditions
as set forth by staff.
Mr. Rieley said he left the first meeting where the item was considered with the feeling that the
Commission had expressed concerns that the Helvins were surrounded. "When I left that meeting, I
thought it was quite clear that we were concerned that the initial site plan anticipated the Helvin property
being a part of the original site plan, and that became impossible at the last minute, and that needed to be
addressed in the site plan... and yet this is the third time this has been before us, and we've seen exactly
the same site plan... I do not believe taken in its entirety within the context of the discussion that
Condition # 11 has been met. I think staff was right in their assessment, and I think nothing has changed
since then. While I applaud a golf course on this location, and I very much applaud the environmental
approach the designers have taken, and I believe their earnest effort to meet these conditions, I cannot in
good conscience say that they have met them."
Mr. Rooker commented that there have been some changes in the site plan that were advantageous to the
Helvins, and the question becomes to what extent accommodations have been made.
Mr. Nitchmann said that the applicant did go through a number of ways of looking at the property — 12
or 13 different variations — to make it a more attractive site and to make it more compatible for Mr.
Helvin and also include environmental considerations. "They have a lot of things that they have to
weight there in order to do this, and I think based upon the fact... they weren't asked specifically to
move something back 500 feet... they didn't ignore the request [for other options]. You might be able to
get another golf course designer in here to change something, but he may come out with the same
situation here if you want it to lay out properly. I think this is a lot better use of this land — and I'm sorry
Mr. Helvin happens to be in the center of it, but my opinion is in three to five years he may not even be
there... " Mr. Nitchmann added that during the week, the golf course may not be crowded, and stated
that having a golf course would probably be less intrusive than having 25 or 30 houses with kids, etc.
next door. "The applicant did make a good faith effort in trying to protect his property."
Mr. Loewenstein said his biggest concern has been the degree and type of buffering between the course
and the Helvins. "I want to be sure we're going to address the appropriate things to do in terms
buffering so as not to reduce or impair in any way the historic value of that setting surrounding Mr.
Helvin's home." Mr. Loewenstein said he agreed that berms are not a good idea or historically
appropriate, and also wanted to respect Mr. Helvin's desire not to have berms. "I think the applicant is
willing... to do the appropriate thing in terms of plantings. I think there is a lot of room to put buffering
in... " He added his intent to support the site plan.
The motion for approval of SDP 98-166 with conditions as presented by staff passed with a 5-2 vote,
with Mr. Rieley and Mr. Finley dissenting.
cm
206
CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc.
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for property consisting of approximately 53.89 acres locate
din the Urban Neighborhood 4, described as Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels 2A and 2B, lying east of Fifth
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. Deferred from the April 27, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting.
Ms. Thomas explained that there are four alternatives on the table: the no action/no change option;
Regional Service as requested by the applicant; Community Service designation with language prepared
by staff, and an alternative Community Service plan with language crafted by two Commissioners
(Attachment "A").
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the applicant had time to review the alternative Community Service proposal.
Mr. Rooker said he had sent the applicant the proposal, and changes made in the most recent draft were
not very significant, applying mostly to building square footage. Mr. Rooker noted that a paragraph in
the language stating "approval of the rezoning of the site will be timed to follow the development of a
definition of mixed use and associated development guidelines standards currently in progress by the
[DISC] committee and staff," was included in the original Community Service language written by staff,
and was carried over into the alternative proposal. "In looking at it and thinking about it, it didn't seem
to me to be fair to the applicant because it imposed a time limitation that was not subject to the
applicant's control." He further noted that the statement "principles of sustainable design will be
incorporated to a significant extent in the site development" was eliminated because there was already
language included that deals with environmentally sensitive design standards. Mr. Rooker mentioned
additional changes: space will be made available for a recycling center, not counted against square foot
limits; the transportation provisions were rewritten because of their inclusion as previously presented
gave the impression the county was imposing proffer requirements. He concluded that the changes
made were mostly minor.
Mr. Finley asked fellow Commissioners how they wished to proceed given the newly proposed
Community Service alternative.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that most of the language from staffs original Community Service proposal has
been carried over to the alternative proposal.
Mr. Finley asked if there had been adequate time to read the alternative proposal so "we can vote
intelligently."
Mr. Rooker said the Commission should certainly take time to consider the alternative if desired, noting
that some of the language from the Regional Service proposal was also included in the new Community
Service designation language.
Mr. Finley asked if the applicant had had time to review the new proposal and determine if it offered
adequate provisions for their development.
Mr. Loewenstein responded that the applicant had requested Regional Service designation, and the
county staff recommended Community Service — which the applicant has had time to review. He added
that the alternate proposal is for the same designation — Community Service.
207
Mr. Finley asked if the alternate could be Regional Service and still accomplish the same goals — smaller
building footprints, etc.
Mr. Rooker replied that when he looked through all of the language proposed by staff for the Regional
Service and Community Service designations, "we thought that this proposal more comfortably fits
under the Community Service designation." He added that it could technically be labeled Regional
Service, but it fit better within the parameters of Community Service as described in the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Rooker noted that one difference in the alternate proposal is that a larger land site is being
considered than what is typical of Community Service — in the Land Use Plan the designation is for sites
up to 30 acres.
Mr. Finley asked for clarification as to the steps in the CPA and actual rezoning.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that whatever the Board adopts as the Comprehensive Plan Amendment — if they
amend the Plan — will outline where the applicant needs to go with the rezoning proposal. After the
amendment is adopted, it is up to the applicant to prepare a rezoning request.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the site could still be used as an industrial site.
Mr. Cilimberg replied, "The zoning doesn't change just because the Comp. Plan changes."
Mr. Rooker commented that there has been a lot of misconception regarding the CPA and rezoning.
"What we are doing is simply trying to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors about what
the Comprehensive Plan — how it might designate this property — and its best use in the community. The
applicant would still have to go through... the Board of Supervisors, would have to come back to us for
rezoning, we would have to recommend approval or denial of the rezoning, which would then go to the
Board of Supervisors, and they would go through that same process."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "If you put a maximum on the size of the largest building, then the applicant can't
go forth with the rezoning process without going through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to get the
size changed."
Mr. Rooker said that the alternate proposal stipulates that the largest single building would be 65,000
feet, but individual buildings are "subdividable at a future date, with minimal physical changes so they
may function as individual businesses. Individual buildings may be attached and interconnected. A
single user may not occupy more than 160,000 square feet of buildings — outside display sales and
storage areas being included." Mr. Rooker explained that the reasoning behind that provision is the fact
that some large store operators in other localities have abandoned facilities, leaving a large box in the
middle of pavement — unoccupied and unusable for other purposes. He added that under the alternate
proposal, a large user could occupy 160,000 feet — but would do it in a way that would allow easy
subdivision in the future in the event that the user abandoned the site. "I for one would like to avoid
being associated with a decision that seven or eight years down the road — if in fact it were built out and
did not work out economically — that we would end up with this large, concrete monolith out there with
nothing in it."
Mr. Nitchmann said any large building could be subdivided with walls after it's built, and asked how the
building inspectors would view the attached and interconnected structures. He also expressed concern
about the cost of construction for such a development.
Mr. Rieley commented that the individual buildings can function as separate properties. "Without
rebuilding the building, you can run a property line in, sell it to a separate owner, and they can function
208
as separate buildings. It does not mean that you can have a 300,000 or 200,000 square foot building
with some partitions in it. It has to be built so that it could function with some reasonable modifications
as a separate building."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "You can still sell a 300,000 square foot building and condo it such that you can
buy a piece and I can buy a piece and I can still go in there and... subdivide that, meet the fire code —
which is the critical thing and not the building code — and maintain two separate businesses that may
operate in two different functions." He expressed concern that the applicant has not had sufficient time
to review the alternative.
Mr. Rooker said, "This site is at the corner of two entrance corridors .... there has been a lot of comment
from the public in trying to avoid this giant big box look. We've also had a lot of comment from
members of the public who want to... have available to them the kind of shopping that might be made
available by a Lowe's, a Target, or some other discount operators. I think that what we've proposed
would enable the larger stores to make use of space in this center and offer those kinds of goods to the
people that live in that area that obviously want them. At the same time, I think it would enable us to
maintain a look and feel for this community that is not beyond the reasonable scale... and the applicant
provided us with pictures of the kind of development that he was talking about."
He showed the pictures, noting that all showed two-story buildings. "If the applicant really has an
intention of building the kind of project which he has depicted in these pictures... all of these are multi-
story, some of them are three and four story." Mr. Rooker added that one of the provisions in the
alternate proposal is that at least 1/3 of the roof line of the building be over buildings that are 2 stories,
which is "simply in keeping with what the applicant has depicted," and would prevent a typical giant
superstore building. Mr. Rooker said that the stipulations would not prevent users such as Wal-Mart or
Lowe's from coming in and putting in something "a little more creative, a little more to -scale for that
property. They have done it elsewhere." He added that Wal-Mart has developed stores with a more
community feel, primarily in localities where they have been pressured to do so in order to be in a
desired location. Mr. Rooker said that on this property, "we ought to put down a standard for
development there that somewhat matches what our expectations are for the property, and also matches
what the developer has said that he intended to do with the property."
Mr. Rooker added that the shopping center developer (consultant) that the applicant brought in who
described the design illustrated a two-story development with a smaller footprint. "One of the great
advantages of requiring some two-story building on his property is that it reduces the footprint on the
property by 25%. That's significant." He continued that the alternate proposal also calls for less
impervious surface, in recognition of the widespread concern about water quality in Biscuit Run and
Moore's Greek.
Mr. Finley asked if the 250,000 square feet would be ground level. Mr. Rooker replied that the limit
applied to entire square footage, even that on multi -levels. Mr. Rooker noted that all proposals, event he
Regional Service, included square footage based on the square footage of the buildings, regardless of
whether they are one or two stories.
Mr. Finley commented that Lowe's is 165,000 square feet all on one level.
Mr. Rooker said, "This proposal would allow a single user to occupy 160,000 square feet. You could
have a user that is close to the size of Lowe's there; granted, the design elements would have to be
somewhat different, and they would be more in line with what the applicant has shown us that he
intended to do on the property. We're not really incorporating anything here... that the applicant hasn't
put before us during one or more of the public hearings we've had." He added that Sam's is 139,000
209
square feet; Wal-Mart is 114,000 square feet. "A user such as those would be able to go into this site
and operate a store of the size that they commonly operate." He mentioned that around the country,
there are 10 or 15 Wal-Mart sites where communities have "held their feet to the fire, and they have
gone in and put in much more innovative designs, much more attractive designs, much more
community -oriented designs because they wanted to be in a place. And it's only because the community
insisted on it that that happened."
Mr. Cilimberg said that under the alternate proposal, the 160,000 square feet that a user might occupy
would have to be in three separate buildings that would more than likely be next to eachother with
passageways in between. He added that it did not seem — under the wording — that if the same user
decided to go up rather than side -by -side, that they could do it.
Mr. Rooker said that the alternate proposal does not mean to exclude a user from doing that, and asked
staff to recommend additional language to allow that, noting that there is time between the Commission
and Board of Supervisors meetings to refine the language.
Mr. Rieley said that three 65,000 square foot boxes on top of each other "would probably be a disaster."
Mr. Rooker commented that the county now has an opportunity to make certain that what is done on the
Willoughby property is much better than what happened on Route 29.
Mr. Nitchmann said the alternate proposal may not fit the applicant's requirements or profit margin.
"You're assuming that 160,000 square foot building is a footprint that somebody can actually take their
larger store and cut down at very little expense to them — which I think there is probably a lot of expense
— and bend a little bit to go in there."
1*41W Mr. Rooker replied that there are a lot of shopping centers that are developed with 60,000 square foot
buildings and no gigantic user. "We're not saying that you have to have 160,000 square foot building to
make a shopping center successful." He mentioned the recent Wall Street Journal article showing state-
of-the-art shopping centers, with the big users occupying 50 or 60 thousand square feet, very attractively
done. "I think what we're looking at is what is good land use policy, and what is good land use for this
particular piece of property." Mr. Rooker said that he agrees the property should be commercial given
the amount of residential nearby, "but I don't think that a 210,000 square foot building that could be
built basically in the middle of a parking lot is appropriate for the property given where it's
located... there's not a whole lot in our language that wasn't in the original staff Community Service
proposal or in the Regional Service proposal."
Mr. Nitchmann commented that the Community Service proposal came at the "ninth hour" with no
worksession. "If you look at that total area down there... right next to it we have all this residential,
down the road we're going to have — at Southpointe — a shopping center that's going to be very similar
to this, where the maximum square footage of a box could be 50 or 60 thousand square feet..."
Mr. Rooker said Southpointe would be a little bit different because of the hotel anchor there.
Mr. Nitchmann said the people in the Scottsville district, a great many of which are medium to low
income families, are tired of having to spend extra money for gas and go all the way up 29 North and cut
through the city. He mentioned that Southpointe will provide services such as a dry cleaner, small
grocery, etc. "The thing they don't have — there is nothing there offering them the ability to go and shop
for goods at a lower price than they can get at the stores that are there now or will be built there once
Southpointe is finished." Mr. Nitchmann encouraged Commissioners to look at the growing areas of
Scottsville, Batesville, North Garden, etc. and look at the long-term of what those residents will need
210
and want in terms of shopping. "If 65% of these people shop today — and will continue to shop — at a
discount store, then what makes us so smart to think that we should take this and put the same thing in
this area that we already have there."
Mr. Rooker responded that there is only one building in the county that exceeds 160,000 square feet.
"They could have a user that occupies as much space as anybody we have in the county... Dollar
General, which is one of the prime discount operators in the country, rarely occupies a floor space of
more than 60 or 70 thousand square feet." He added that the alternate proposal will allow for discount
shopping and also ensure that the development has a "reasonable look and feel to it" and does not
drastically exceed the scope of the property in terms of how it ends up looking and its impact to the
community and the environment.
Mr. Nitchmann asked how the 160,000 square foot limit was chosen.
Mr. Rooker said that that is the size of the biggest building in the county. "What we're saying to the
developer in terms of these site design considerations is `do what you said you were going to do'."
Mr. Nitchmann said that a lot of the design considerations could be handled at the rezoning level.
Mr. Rooker responded that "the place to set the stage for that is at the Comprehensive Plan level."
Mr. Nitchmann said the Comprehensive Plan process is "almost crossing over" into the specifics of the
zoning ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that Comprehensive Planning in general is moving in that direction because so
much of the decision making process now is founded on the Comp. Plan, including legal connection
between the plan and zoning action. "Those localities that are dealing with a lot of higher -scale types of
development and a lot of proffer activity are trying to establish as much guideline as they can in the
Comprehensive Plan for how that should take place." He noted that this as already been demonstrated in
Albemarle — with the North Fork property, and the Powers property across from North Fork. "It's
another level of Comprehensive Planning that's very honestly beyond where we were when we were
planning in the 80's."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the county has the legal right to request open space requirements as outlined in
the alternate proposal, and who determines to what extent.
Mr. Rooker indicated that that provision was in staff s original Community Service proposal.
Mr. Kamptner said, "One way of looking at this particular guideline with respect to open space is that
the Comprehensive Plan is a guideline, and when you and the Board consider the rezoning, you look at
this and determine whether or not the application in front of you is consistent with this." He added that
the preservation of open space is a legitimate zoning concern, so that a Comprehensive Plan guideline is
a reasonable criteria to have in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is nothing improper in the Comprehensive Plan about designating areas
for public access, public use and for recreation.
Mr. Nitchmann said that it is a very subjective thing as to who determines the specifics of those
provisions.
211
Mr. Cilimberg said, "You can make it as definitive as you want to....you can decide in your
Comprehensive Plan how wide a greenway path is going to be if you want to."
Mr. Nitchmann noted the language in the alternate proposal stating "principles of environmentally
responsible and energy -efficient design will be incorporated to a significant extent in site development."
He asked who determines what is environmentally responsible and energy -efficient, and who determines
what a significant extent is.
Mr. Rooker said examples are given within the proposal: minimizing impervious surface; energy -
efficient building plans (insulation and provisions for daylighting); minimize roof and foundations; a
master plan prior to rezoning showing specific things including layout, grading, character and scale of
the project; and space made available for a recycling center. "We do put some somewhat specific things
in there, although the Comprehensive Plan is just a guideline. There's nothing that becomes mandatory
about every provision in this at the time of rezoning, but it does give you the things to look at to
determine whether or not a particular rezoning request reasonably matches the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Finley said, "It also could mean the difference between passing or failing, because planning is going
back to the Comprehensive Plan..."
Mr. Nitchmann said "subjective things" like the recycling center hold the developer to standards that are
difficult to meet.
Mr. Rooker commented that ultimately it will be up to the Board of Supervisors to decide whether or not
a plan meets the guidelines.
Mr. Thomas asked why the square footage could not be granted at 210,000 instead of 160,000.
Mr. Rooker replied that he put 160,000 into the alternate based on what was present already in the
community and the size of the particular parcel. "It didn't appear to me that we needed to go to 210,000
square feet, which is about 1/3 larger than the largest building in the county today for this particular site
to be successful and to offer the kind of shopping that the people in that area are demanding. You could
do that within the 160,000 square foot level." He added that the property has some topographical
constraints, has streams nearby, and will require a significant amount of grading. Mr. Rooker said he
drove around the state looking at some "big -box" centers, and found that in communities where they
haven't put significant controls over how they're done, they look terrible. He mentioned that the Wal-
Mart in the north side and south side of Lynchburg are examples of "what we would not like to see in
our community in the Scottsville District, which is rural and a very nice looking district."
Mr. Finley said there is no fiscal impact information for this alternate proposal, whereas the Regional
Service proposal shows $1 million in the black. "Most of the things that we're doing in growth areas
end up costing us more than they bring in, but the Regional was actually going to turn a profit."
Mr. Rooker responded that if the site is developed to 250,000 square feet and does not include
residential, "it will be substantially positive fiscally, because any commercial development in the county
that has no residential is going to show itself as being fiscally positive, and any residential development
in the county — unless you get to 600 or 700 thousand dollar homes is going to on paper be fiscally
negative. We don't end up building more homes or less homes, just because they in the equation are
fiscally more or less positive." He added that there is no reason that the alternate proposal would
provide any less revenue than the Regional Service proposal.
212
Mr. Nitchmann said the applicant may not agree that he can develop a store within the parameters. "I
think we need to have some input from the applicant to say this is a feasible thing for my potential
clients to accept." He added, "I get very, very uneasy when I see things that say `on -site mitigation plan
that exceeds the standard BMPs by what — 10%, 20%, 50%?"
Mr. Rooker said it was brought out repeatedly in the public hearing process that this site was
environmentally sensitive, with three watersheds impacted by it. "That ended up being in both the
Community Service and the Regional Service proposal that we had before us." He added that David
Hirschmann indicated the development would have impact on these streams, and in order to protect
them, having something in place that exceeds the standard BMPs gives the county some latitude.
Mr. Nitchmann said that the proposals indicate that the vegetative buffer could not be disturbed, which
contradicts the streambank restoration asked of the applicant.
Ms. Thomas said that the areas that are seriously eroding would warrant some stream restoration, but
"the last thing you want to do in a riparian area is disturb the existing vegetation that's working well
because that's what's keeping the bank in good shape and also providing that filter that we often spend a
lot of money trying to install." She pointed out that the floodplain area on the site is 9 acres — about
16.8%. Those are the areas that might be appropriate for open space, and those are the areas that the
applicant would probably want to stay out of.
Mr. Finley commented that some excellent points have been made, and asked Commissioners how they
would like to proceed with the item.
Mr. Nitchmann said he was not comfortable voting on something that maximizes building to 160,000
square feet. He indicated that he is leaning toward the applicant's request for Regional Service,
referencing the petition signed by over 1,000 residents — most of whom are from the Scottsville District.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the alternate proposal came out of discussions between him and Mr. Rieley;
they were not in full support of either the Regional Service or Community Service proposals, so they
came up with a draft that incorporated a lot of the language from Community Service and Regional
Service. "There was no particular reason — given the numerous constraints of this site and the factors
involved that we allow a single user that exceeds substantially the biggest single user in the community
today. And we've got some pretty big users there."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I feel the people in the Scottsville District want the opportunity to shop at a
discount store. If that can be accomplished in 160,000 square feet and the applicant feels that that can
be accomplished and he has no problem with, then that's good." He commented that the current Wal-
Mart of 114,000 square feet is not a "super Wal-Mart," and added that he wants to make sure he votes
on something that he feels is good for the Scottsville District, and that is a discount store.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the Commission might want to get reaction from the applicant. "They
may be very well to consider this and move forward with it."
Mr. Rieley said, "I think we know what the applicant wants... I don't object to hearing reactions to this,
but it's not going to be the basis for my decision."
Mr. Finley said, "The applicant wants what a developer is ready to buy ... the developer might just move
on down the road... "
213
Mr. Rooker said, "I doubt if this property were ultimately zoned so that it permitted a 160,000 foot user
there as opposed to its present light industrial designation that the property would sit vacant forever."
He added, "To me, the decision is a question of what is good land use and planning for this particular
piece of property. And to me those are the concepts we look at in the Comprehensive Plan...." not
dictated by what a landowner and developer can get from the property — whether reasonable or
unreasonable. `Even with 210,000 feet, he doesn't have a deal in hand that the person has signed a
contract contingent upon 210,000 feet. And even if he did, I don't think we should make our land use
decisions based upon that." Mr. Rooker further commented that under the intermediate proposal, the
property's value is going to be "significantly enhanced."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "Piecemeal planning is bad planning. I would have preferred for us to have seen
this land use consideration made at the same time we were looking at some other things out in that
immediate area just across the interstate. And I think the fact that we weren't able to do that has caused
some problems... it would have been nice to have considered the land -use designation for this site at the
same time we were talking about Southpointe... that didn't happen. Most of all, I'm sorry that we have
to make this decision within the context of a specific application... we're trying to work backwards from
the [Brass Inc. application] to get to a Comprehensive Plan land -use designation that makes sense. I
think this is wrong. I think we should start with what we want to see in this location, which as I've said
several times before in public meetings, is arguably the most important piece of undeveloped land left in
the urban ring. And we should decide what needs to be done with that and then we should decide what,
if any application, including the Brass Inc. one, fits." He added that 20 or 30 years ago, it was
considered good planning to put residential behind Route 29... and "it's going to be a nightmare
forever." Mr. Loewenstein said, "I wonder if we're going to cringe in the future about what we're being
asked to consider tonight... I hope not, and I hope we can make the decision without specific reference
just to this particular application. I want to see us decide what's best for that site, not what's best for
this particular applicant."
Mr. Finley said, "Whether the cart was before the horse or vice -versa, it was the applicant who
instigated this from the beginning, and we have to act on it one way or another." He added that there are
some improvements within the alternate proposal, and other language that causes concern. "Is this at all
compatible with what can be done on that property, or is it going to sit there for another 10 years looking
for a buyer."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I think we know what the applicant wanted. I don't think we've seen any
significant changes in that, and I think that in light of what I've just said, that's going in the opposite
direction."
Mr. Thomas asked if it was possible to have Community Service if the applicant had a 210,000 square
foot large building and fill in the remaining square footage with other buildings.
Mr. Cilimberg said that this would be closer to Regional Service designation. "Even at this, you're
stretching Community Service... it's really approaching Regional Service in that you're putting 160,000
square feet together based on what the Community Service designation says. I don't think it so much
matters whether it's Regional or Community Service in the color on the map right now. I think it
matters in what you're including in your language for the guidelines of development."
Mr. Rooker added that one of the reasons he prefers Community Service is there are some uses
permitted in Regional Services that are "completely inappropriate" for this property — a large car
dealership, a used car lot, mobile home sales, etc. "I think there are reasons for the square footage
deviations we have made because the site is bigger than the typical Community Service site."
214
Mr. Rieley said he feels there is some limit on how many of the separate buildings ought to be joined
together. "It seems to me that if we have a Wal-Mart at 115,000, Roses at 65,000, Bradlees at 84,000,
then 160,000 is a whopper. That is Lowe's. It's an enormous amount of square footage to put under
one roof — it's gigantic. One of the things that was most illuminating to me in the series of worksessions
that we had was when the engineering department brought a drawing showing what it would look like if
you put 210,000 square feet in one building, 90,000 in ancillary buildings and put the normal parking
requirements... the applicant never showed us anything like that, although we asked for it repeatedly. I
think when staff showed it to us, we saw why the applicant never showed it to us — because it was
appalling. And so I think it is important to have an upper limit on the amalgamation even of these
broken down units."
Mr. Rieley continued that he has been enormously impressed with the level of comment from all sides of
the issue during the public hearing process. "When you listen carefully to what people are not opposed
to in addition to what they are opposed to, more common ground emerges, I think, than is at first
apparent." He indicated that he reviewed the minutes of the public hearings, and found that most of the
people that spoke in opposition to the big box did not speak in opposition to more shopping in that area,
and they did not speak in opposition to discount shopping. "Most of the people that spoke in favor of
better shopping opportunities on the south side of Charlottesville and on the southern side of the county
had almost nothing to say in favor of a big box. That wasn't the issue. The issue was opportunity for
shopping and preferably some opportunity for discount shopping."
Mr. Rieley said that the scale of a Regional Service big -box development on this site with
accompanying parking is "appalling," and the sole entrance to the site is controlled by the city. He
noted that the impact on adjacent waterways is concerning, and stipulations to exceed minimum BMPs
and stormwater detention requirements is critical. "I think we've demonstrated that beyond the 10-year
storm there is no stormwater control." He added that the reduction on traffic on Route 29 that people
hope for may not be a realistic expectation. Mr. Rieley said the big -box model which serves only to
maximize developer profit "has not served our community well," and added that there is no justification
for extending that pattern into another area in order to alleviate the problems that the pattern established
to begin with.
He continued that "modest expansion" of the scale of normal Community Service designation is
warranted in this case, noting that the parcel is bigger than most designated for Community Service, Mr.
Rieley said that the existing zoning on the parcel allows for much greater square footage than any of the
proposals, and any expansion beyond 250,000 feet (in the alternate proposal) could only be for
residential. He mentioned that the outdoor display sales and storage areas is a "huge loophole that we
have in our current zoning ordinances" that is addressed in the alternate.
Mr. Rieley concluded that he still has reservations about the proposals, even the alternate, including
concern that the square footage is too big. "I hope if we pass this, that the Board of Supervisors will
take a hard look at that. I wish that the housing component was mandatory... but I'm glad to have it in at
least as an incentive. I hope the Board will look favorably on the city's request for a joint economic and
traffic study. The traffic study in particular need not be costly or time consuming, and I think it would
provide an awful lot of very valuable information. I think it may, in fact, address the question of how
much traffic is going to be reduced on 29 North. These reservations aside, I think this proposal is a big
step in the right direction." He commended Mr. Rooker for taking the lead in crafting something in the
public interest. "I hope that we can send this along to the board with a clear mandate and one that makes
a clear statement that a conventional big -box is not an appropriate use for this property."
Mr. Loewenstein asked if their recommendation to the Board should include a request for the Board to
reconsider the city and county joint economic and traffic impact studies.
215
Mr. Rieley replied, "I would be happy to let that rest in the minutes as a personal observation. I think
that's probably too incendiary to tack onto this dog."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "Nothing we ever do is going to reduce traffic on 29, and I think that I can
explain that in two words: North Fork. Even by the most conservative estimates, we're talking about 5
or 6,000 people at employment buildout population, and that doesn't include ancillary employment.
We're never going to see traffic reduced on 29; we're only going to see it increased." He added that the
North Fork development will generate far more traffic on Route 29 than any big box development would
take away on 5 h Street Extended, Mr. Loewenstein expressed concern that there are failing service
levels at the existing interstate intersections.
He continued, "What is going to happen if we approve something of any size in the historic Ridge Street
neighborhood, because that has been designated not only by the state and federal governments as
historic property... but it has been designated by the city... and the city has said they don't want to widen
Ridge Street... we're going to have to consider the traffic impacts there. I'm much more concerned
about those than about some of the other arguments the city has made, particularly the economic one. I
don't think personally that there's going to be a great deal of conflict between anything commercial we
put on this site and the businesses on the downtown mall. The single -access road into this development
also concerns me with respect to the traffic impact. These are things I'd like to see addressed, too ... I
think that some of these questions have not been taken fully enough into account to make me
comfortable about whatever we might put in down there. I think we need more information than we've
gotten, especially about traffic, and I'd like to see that."
Mr. Finley said he viewed the alternate proposal as coming from just two Commissioners, and hasn't
had the benefit of the normal process of worksessions, public hearings, etc. "If it's going to be
Community Service, I favor the upgrading of the square footage, but will it work for the owner of the
property... is it possible we could use the 160,000 and take out the restriction of three buildings. Why
not let the developer decide."
Mr. Rooker referenced the pictures the applicant provided which illustrated the type of development that
would be put on that property, showing a multi -story concept. He said the language is comprised of
90% of what's been presented — combining Regional Service and Community Service. "Typically when
we have a much shorter staff recommendation for an action, we have an SDP, a rezoning, we have a
staff report recommendation. We vote either yes or no, and we may have a series of proffers or
conditions that we might tinker around with in the meeting and come up with what we ultimately decide
is acceptable language to a majority. It was simply impossible to do that here, because we were dealing
with five pages as opposed to a list of 4 or 5 sentences." Mr. Rooker added, "We're not looking at
anything that has not been before us pretty much throughout the entire time that we've been considering
this Comprehensive Plan change, which now has been going on for in excess of 6 months... I guess my
preference would be to deal with this tonight, and vote on it one way or another."
Mr. Nitchmann said the first order of business is to make a motion for or against CPA 97-05.
MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved for deferral of CPA 97-05 to have additional time to review the
alternate proposal, and to give the applicant time to consider what was discussed at the meeting
regarding the alternate proposal.
1%AW Mr. Kamptner said that there is no problem with the applicant discussing the proposal with staff, but
would have concern about the applicant sitting down with Commissioners.
216
Mr. Loewenstein said it would be great to bring closure to the process, but said that the discussion back
and forth among Commissioners indicates that "we don't have consensus yet," not only in the details,
but also in the larger principles. "That concerns me as much as anything else."
Mr. Loewenstein seconded Mr. Thomas' motion for deferral. Commissioners agreed that June 1st would
be an adequate date for the item to be reconsidered. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Thomas asked if the alternate proposal (Page 2) intends to allow or disallow outdoor storage. Mr.
Rieley indicated that the intent was not to specifically approve it, but was also not intended to grant a
blanket approval. Ms. Thomas said that (Page 3) minimization of impervious surface was not included
in the Regional Service or original Community Service. Mr. Rieley said that the ordinance addresses
minimum parking, not maximum, and it would not be fair to the applicant to set a maximum parking that
is not part of the ordinance; however, the alternate proposal seeks to emphasize that parking over and
above code should be minimized because of the environmental concerns. Ms. Thomas said that in
staff s original draft, a transit stop is not included, and the applicant has been very willing to
accommodate bus or transit service. She suggested that under the transportation section of the
alternative, "site development shall also ensure that transit can be accommodated within the
development." Mr. Rieley offered a change to the timing paragraph on Page 4 so it reads: "rezoning of
the property will be timed with required road improvements."
Mr. Nitchmann emphasized that his constituents — many of whom are low to middle income families -
support the shopping facility for the area, and that may require city road improvements. He also
expressed concern that smaller shops might compete with the downtown mall.
Mr. Loewenstein said that he hoped someday discussions would be held regarding ways to move people
to and from shopping without cars. "They've already done this in a lot of communities... to be freed of
the tyranny of decisions like this that we want to make in everyone's best interest, we're going to have
to figure out how to do it without automobiles."
Work Session: Wireless Communication Policy
Mr. Fritz and Ted Kreines (the County's consultant) led the Commission in discussion of the Wireless
Communication Policy, focusing on the proposed design manual. In addition to specific changes,
Commissioners expressed an interest in setting a different tone for the language in the manual,
eliminating wording that could be perceived as confrontational. Commissioners also asked that the
manual be condensed as much as possible while leaving a readable, user-friendly document. Staff will
work with the consultant to implement the changes mentioned, and will present another draft to the
Commission.
Mr. Fritz told Commissioners that staff is looking for comments and changes so that they can come
back with a CPA for public hearing; the design manual will be a component of that CPA. Mr. Fritz said
the mapping work is not complete, but staff thinks that they will probably rely on the open space maps,
as they are the best ones available and are fairly detailed in certain areas. He said the maps show some
things that would be difficult to show on larger scale map so that they can be included in the design
manual; there will have to be some mapping that's specific to this. Mr. Fritz noted that the manual
contains no references to agricultural/forestal districts — which was simply a staff oversight.
Mr. Finley asked if the manual itself would be the policy. Mr. Fritz responded that it would be the
primary component of the policy, similar to the ARB's design manual, used as a guide towards review
of any requests they have before them.
217
Mr. Rooker said the manual is helpful because there are "some specific objective things going on here."
He noted that if you are in an opportunity are, you can avoid going to the Planning Commission because
you can get administrative approval of your proposed tower, especially with a low visibility tower. An
applicant knows that if the county has identified opportunity areas, that objectively he knows the process
is going to be a very truncated less expensive process. "I think we're creating a lot more objectivity
with this proposal than we have today... when you're dealing with issues of visibility, there's always
going to be some subjective judgement by somebody. To me, this does a reasonable job of making what
is usually a very subjective area somewhat objective."
Mr. Loewenstein asked if under the present proposal an applicant needs to go to the Commission and
Board for citing in an avoidance area.
Mr. Rooker responded that combined with a tall tower, that would most likely require it to go to public
hearing.
Mr. Fritz clarified that the tier structure allows the applicant to quickly determine what process he's
going to go through and the likelihood of approval in that process. "If he's in an avoidance area, and
he's using designs which are not the endorsed designs, the likelihood of approval is pretty low... it
doesn't meet the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. He added that a tiered structure would generate the
need for zoning text amendments, some of which would potentially be complex.
Mr. Rooker commented that as other communities have done this, there may be models of zoning text
amendments to use.
Mr. Fritz commented that not many other communities are using the design guideline approach.
Mr. Loewenstein said that he would like to hear how these guidelines fit into the overall picture
nationally of what's generally being done in other communities.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if one of the goals was to have a tier that can be administratively approved.
Mr. Fritz said that one of staff s goals is to present to the Commission a tiered structure that would allow
for some things to be by -right. He added that when they met with industry representatives, the officials
wanted to know what the rules were, and wanted some things to be by -right.
Mr. Rooker said, "Our goal has never been to stop the deployment of service; it's been to make certain
that the towers don't destroy the aesthetics of the community by their visibility."
Mr. Rieley asked about the conversion of a microwave tower at the corner of I-64 and 5`t' street. Mr.
Fritz said the tower at the old Virginia Power site had been purchased, and in the 1980's had been
approved in the early 84's with no conditions that limited users — just a height limit. Mr. Fritz said the
PCS companies got permission from the Christian Aid Mission (which now owns the site) and put up
panel antenna as staff recommended.
Mr. Fritz introduced Ted Kreines.
Mr. Kreines addressed the Commission, and asked them to offer comments about the design manual.
He said that he us trying to lay some groundwork in advance so that applicants don't have to go through
a lot of basics repeatedly, and so that they know what the county wants to see in the future. Mr. Kreines
said nationwide, there are a lot more denials, but said it is difficult to point to prototypes for the
Albemarle model. "You're taking a very big step here.... we know enough now about this trend that
218
we're going to tell you what we want to see back from you." Mr. Kreines said that there is nothing
about the tier concept that is mandatory — it is totally something brought from him. He added that the
applicant should have to pay a high price for this volume [the design manual], and should use it to
locate, site and design their facilities in the future.
Commissioners decided to ask questions about specific parts of the manual instead of reviewing the
entire manual page by page.
Mr. Rooker suggested language changes to the introduction, adding "the public" to the 3rd bulleted item.
He said that other introductory language could be changed to say "there are options to highly visible
towers... Albemarle County intends to require them."
Mr. Rooker and fellow Commissioners suggested deleting comments which are editorial in nature,
especially argumentative language because it appears confrontational.
Commissioners suggested deleting pages 8 and 9.
Mr. Loewenstein mentioned the semi -confrontational language, and said, "I don't know that it improves
relationships, and I think — in many cases — mistakes that were admittedly made were made out of
ignorance on all sides rather than bad will."
Mr. Finely said, "This kind of language in a design manual — I'm a professional engineer and I've never
seen this kind of language before. Maybe it's appropriate, but mostly it [should provide specific
instructions]."
Mr. Rooker noted that the primary objectives of the design manual are: Albemarle County will deny
applications that don't meet the first criteria, and the county intends to demonstrate to the wireless
carriers how to deploy facilities.
Mr. Loewenstein suggested reversing the order of the two sentences to start with the positive.
Mr. Rooker suggested changing the sentence to "applications will be denied that don't conform to
Albemarle County's environment and community values."
Mr. Kreines emphasized that the industry wrote the Telecommunications Act, and one of the things they
wrote in the language of the act is that in a denial, you must have substantial evidence, but didn't explain
what evidence was needed for approval. He added that in cases of denial, it's important to tell why the
application is denied.
Mr. Kamptner said there are a number of applications that, when denied, have to be approached
differently than when they are approved. He noted that the Telecommunications Act does not treat
denials much differently than, for example, BZA variances or site plan denial for not meeting a specific
condition. Mr. Kamptner concluded that stating in the design manual an intent to deny some
applications is not essential.
Mr. Loewenstein said although the manual is fairly generally written, he wanted the Commission to
include something about denials that would "conform to the process legally when that comes up."
Mr. Rooker said that the language could just state, "The County intends to deny applications that don't
conform to its environmental and community values."
219
Mr. Kamptner suggested adding, "expressed in these guidelines and in the Comprehensive Plan." He
added that zoning regulations will apply also.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if striking the sentence about denying applications would create any conflict
within the process.
Mr. Kamptner responded that provided the applications are still processed in some kind of special use
permit process, as that is the criteria that will ultimately be applied. "The extent to which they comply
with the design manual will help you make those findings."
Mr, Rooker commented that the red "NO TOWERS" emblem was a bit argumentative.
He suggested adding "or less visible antennae systems" to the section stating the carrier should design
personal wireless service facilities with dual polarized antennas (to accommodate improved technology).
Mr. Kamptner indicated concern over paging systems being included. Mr. Kreines reported that in a
recent Wisconsin case, paging was found to not be functionally equivalent to cellular/PCS, and could be
treated differently than cellular and PCS.
Commissioners agreed that the statement "Personal wireless service facilities can go within trees"
should headline the page.
Mr. Anderson noted that most of the comments have to do with "a style of writing which permeates this
text." He suggested that rather than going along page -by -page with edits, it may be better to make some
general comments regarding style, and have the whole document be revised with that in mind.
Mr. Loewenstein said that he would like to be sure that the county is as consistently full and clear in its
definitions as possible. "To the degree that we can make those points clear without boxing ourselves or
the applicant or the county in... any farther than we want to in this document, then we should try to do
so."
Mr. Kreines noted that some photographs, including pages 18 and 19, would be changed to reflect local
examples of towers and cellular sites.
Mr. Rooker asked if all wetlands areas and floodplains (on page 24) are avoidance areas. Mr. Fritz
confirmed that they already are. Mr. Rooker asked if, for example, Shenandoah National Park contained
a good tower site halfway down the mountain, if a telephone -pole type tower could be erected. He
asked if all parkland is an avoidance area. Mr. Fritz responded that it would fall under the tier structure,
where it falls into an avoidance area, but "you're using the design manual [and] guidelines to mitigate
the impact within that avoidance area to the point that we'd be able to support it." He mentioned the
application one week prior for the overlook tower — which was in the Mountain Resource Area, but
because of the siting of it, it was mitigated and staff supported it.
Mr. Kreines said that the term "wilderness area" is used in the manual because the FCC has determined
that the National Environmental Policy Act is invoked in several areas, including a wilderness area —
which NEPA defines...
Mr. Kamptner indicated there would not be towers on federally owned lands, or adjacent property if it
would impact it.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if that also applies to historic and ag/forestal districts, etc.
220
Mr. Kreines said that he believed it did.
Mr. Loewenstein suggested using a different historic district (other than Monticello) such as the
Southwest Mountains district as an example on page 23 and elsewhere in the manual.
Mr. Rooker added it would be helpful to define districts, wilderness areas, etc.
Mr. Kamptner asked if any guidelines exist or could be formulated for proposals that are adjacent to
such districts. "Would we look at those any differently." Mr. Fritz said that staff currently works within
the A/F district criteria, assessing potential impacts from nearby properties.
Mr. Finley cautioned the use of churches in the manual. Mr. Fritz suggested using a church that already
has a cell site within it, and that could be used as an example. Mr. Loewenstein mentioned that his
church has such a site.
Mr. Kamptner suggested using the term "design guidelines" instead of "design standards." On Page 40,
he suggested stating that "a personal wireless facility may be approved — if it's properly sited — even if
it's not in an opportunity area."
Referencing Page 47, Mr. Rieley asked if there is resistance from utility companies who have standard
size poles as potential locations for wireless service facilities. Mr. Fritz replied, "No." Mr. Rieley cited
the Red Hill example where utilities were to be moved onto the monopole, but the owner was told by the
wireless service that the utility company would not allow that. Mr. Fritz said that it is disallowed, unless
there is a way to provide electrical power while the line was out and to compensate for the time while
the line was out.
Mr. Kamptner said that on Page 48, the statement in the right-hand corner should be deleted.
Mr. Kreines stated that, "We do not want to send a message with this design manual that anything is
prohibited. We also want to send a message that there are going to be very strict guidelines as to what
will be approved."
Mr. Kamptner asked if there were any guidelines for the "towers within the towers." Mr. Fritz said that
staff does not, but is recommending the panel antenna instead of the reindeer array. Mr. Kamptner noted
that placing a pole slightly off -center reduces its visibility.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would make sense to have Page 72 earlier in the manual, as it deals with
conceptual material. He expressed an interest in a more condensed manual.
Mr. Kamptner suggested having a "digest" or index of criteria that will be applied, with page references
to the examples within the manual.
Mr. Kreines said that the Commission should discuss the Tier structure.
Commissioners agreed that Tier 1 is essentially staff review.
Mr. Loewenstein asked how Tier 2 could be approved administratively.
Mr. Fritz responded that there are certain things that the design planner can approve administratively by
review against the design manual — using her best judgement to apply the standards.
221
Mr. Loewenstein said that it works well for signs, but possibly not for transmission towers.
Mr. Fritz suggested knocking Tier 4 off the top, making a three tier review: Tier 1 (Administrative);
Tier 2 (Ministerial) Review such as a waiver — not an SP; Tier 3 (Permit) would be a special use permit
that would go through the Planning Commission and the Board.
Mr. Kamptner said the Commission may want to view Tier 3 as being a special use permit process with
public hearings.
Mr. Kamptner said on pages 74 and 75, he would like more specifics in the bulleted items, such as the
personal wireless facility ignoring siting practices. Mr. Kamptner said that the distinction between the
administrative review, the waiver, and the special use permit process is clear, especially with Tier 1. He
suggested that the parameters of what the design planner will be looking at should be spelled out.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the wording for tiers needs to be looked at as though you were an applicant.
Mr. Fritz said that they will expand the definition section, move the tier explanations to the front of the
manual, and reorganize where the concepts are.
Commissioners expressed an interest in having an index.
Mr. Anderson said having the pictures side by side made it easier to compare.
Mr. Fritz said that staff would incorporate the comments made by Commissioners into a new draft.
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 10:00 p.m.
V.
cm
Secretary
222