Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 27 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission July 27,1999 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, July 20, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. Jared Loewenstein. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Community Development; Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior Planner; Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineering; Mr. Steven Hart, County Engineering, Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman. In the absence of both the Chairman and the Vice -Chairman, the Commission moved, seconded and approved the nomination of Jared Loewenstein to act as chairman for the meeting. Approval of Minutes — July 13,1999 The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of July 13, 1999 as amended. Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — July 21,1999 Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Board had approved the Rug Depot and the Boat Dock for the Oggs, the Guaranty Savings Bank drive -through and the expansion of Adwell Office on Rio Road with a limit of 4,000 square feet in accord with Commission recommendations. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public None were offered, and the meeting proceeded. Consent Agenda SDP-99-095 North Fork Towne Center Building #1 Critical slope waiver and curvineal parking and parallel parking modifications. The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda as presented. Deferred Items SP 99-33 N.G.I.C. Access Road Proposal to fill in the flood plain of Herring Branch in association with road construction providing access to the proposed National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC). Property is located on the eastern side of Route 29 North, approximately '/2 mile north of the North Fork Rivanna River. Property is described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5C1, and consists of 28.9 acres and is zoned LI, Light Industry. The property is recommended for Industrial Service in the Piney Mountain Community. Staff requests deferral to August 3, 1999. The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved deferral of SP 99-33 to August 3, 1999. on 53 Commissioners agreed to hear a combined staff report on the five communications facility proposals, as Mr. Fritz indicated that the facts for the items were the same. Mr. Fritz explained that what the applicant proposes is replacement of omni antennas with panel antennas on the five tree -top sites because of the "efficiencies gained by panel antennas over omni antennas," which may result in the removal of the need for additional sites along the Route 29 South corridor. Mr. Fritz noted that staff is recommending approval of all five sites, with a change in Condition # 1 to read: "The height of the tower and antenna shall not exceed 10 feet above the elevation of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement of the height of the tallest tree." (Strike last sentence). Condition #4a shall be amended to read: "Antenna shall be limited to two panel antenna mounted as shown on attached photo (Attachment "A")." He said the changes apply to all five applications. Mr. Rieley asked if the original whip antennas extended only seven feet above the height of the pole. Mr. Fritz responded that they were seven feet, and staff is now recommending 10 feet because there would not be a noticeable change in visibility or impact that would be significant to staff s original findings. Mr. Fritz said that these five stations are the first ones of the tree -top design where the poles themselves are actually no taller than the tallest tree; he noted that the pole in the current proposals would be extended two feet higher, with the antenna slightly higher. Mr. Rooker asked if there was anything "peculiar" to these locations that make the facilities not very visible. Mr. Fritz said the most visible would be the facility at Crossroads; Cook Mountain, Covesville and Britts are in largely undeveloped and wooded areas. Mr. Rooker asked if there had been any comments from the public regarding the proposals. Mr. Fritz noted that no opposition had been conveyed regarding the sites. Mr. Rooker asked if there would be any kind of gain in using panel antenna if the profile were kept lower than 10 feet above the nearest tree. Mr. Fritz replied that there would still be a gain going from omni to panel, but the pole height of seven feet above treeline would not work because the height of the panel antenna is such that they could not be mounted as shown; the height would have to be extended to a minimum of eight feet just to accommodate the cap for the mounting surface, and then the seven -feet height for the antennas themselves. Mr. Rieley commented, "They could cut the top of the pole down." Mr. Rooker said, "It appears to me that we approved a certain kind of antenna, and then now in effect the entire scheme of what we approved is being changed... it looks to me when I look at that picture it's a heck of a lot more visible than a whip antenna that's on a pole that's not any higher than the nearest tree... which is hardly visible because of it's narrow diameter." He added, "I see a significant difference in visibility in going to this kind of scheme of antenna." Mr. Rooker noted that the Bell -Air antenna is often referenced as a good example of a low visibility antenna, and "we're being asked to change that tonight." i4 , Mr. Rieley said, "The difference between a couple of these whip antennas which are really very difficult to see... is very different than these cylindrical bright [antennas]. I think we should think long and hard before altering what is working well. And if they can get the same or better efficiency simply by mounting them at the existing pole height with the exception of the Crossroads one, I think that would be a good solution." Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Fritz to describe the residential nature of the tower locations. Mr. Fritz responded that there is nothing particularly close to Britt's Mountain; Bellair is near a subdivision; Crossroads has three or four residences close by, one of which is very close to the antenna site; Cook Mountain is on a small road that parallels 29, with three or four houses on the end of that road; Covesville has eight more houses in the general area within 2,000 feet of that site. He commented that the Crossroads facility is closest to any house, where the property owner is leasing the tower site, and the next house is 50 feet from the site. The applicant, Mr. Dick Shearer of CFW, addressed the Commission. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question regarding the reason for changing antenna, Mr. Shearer explained that the omni antenna were the only type available at the time the sites were designed; as technology has evolved, the panel antennae developed expand the signal. He noted that there may be "holes" opening up that will need to be filled with a repeater site, and presented a propagation of how the sites would lie if there were panel antenna versus omni antenna. Mr. Shearer added that CFW is trying to gain coverage and eliminate "dead spots." Mr. Shearer noted that CFW had a mount designed for these installations that keeps the antennas as tight as possible to the pole, so it appears to be just the pole sticking up. He presented photos showing existing sites with the depictions of the new poles/antennas. In response to Mr. Thomas' question, Mr. Fritz replied that the original antennae were installed in late 1997, early 1998. Mr. Shearer said that as the trees grow, the channels are blocked. Mr. Rooker responded that the permit is written so that the height of the pole and the antenna are geared to the height of the trees. "Technically, if the trees grow you can raise the pole and raise the antenna height to match that." Mr. Shearer said he would like to have enough flexibility to have cables to reach the antenna without violating what the special use permit states can be mounted. He noted that the antenna would be painted the same color as the wood. Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission. i5 Mr. Rooker stated, "I haven't heard anything to change my initial comment .... Looking at the signal propagation, it looks to me like he's talking about filling in perhaps one hole. Personally, I would rather see that filled in with a pole and antenna combination similar to what we have already approved and is located at these five sites. I think there's a fairly significant visual difference between the two approaches. I don't think I can support this application." Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Fritz if the proposed antenna would handle more calls than the whip antenna. Mr. Fritz responded that generally a panel antenna can accommodate more signals than an omni; a lot of it depends on the electronics down on the ground. Mr. Fritz added that it is harder to do some of the "infill" with an omni antenna, because the signal does not react the same way. "I don't know what that will do to their RF propagation. One of the things they can do is repeater stations... omni antennas react differently in terms of designing a system than panel antennas do." Mr. Rooker commented, "It seems to me that what we've got is a speculation that it might solve a problem that may or may not even exist today. Based upon that, I don't see that there's any dramatic public interest to be served from the carrier's standpoint by approving the application. Perhaps at some point in the future, circumstances might change and it may be right to bring this back before us, but at this point, I don't see that there's a drastic need to improve the service in this area, and it seems to me it could be improved if necessary with a single pole with a whip antenna located in that one area that does not seem to be getting the signal today." Ikaw Mr. Rieley agreed, "I really hate to see us depart from the most successful approaches that we have had in all of these." He encouraged fellow Commissioners to look at the pole because it "highlights fact that these criteria don't seem to work equally well in different locations... when you are viewing it from a certain angle relative to the trees, the same criteria — seven or ten feet above the height of the nearest tree of 25 feet works wonderfully well in Bell -Air; the scene is substantially different at [The Trading Post]." He added that, "it does make a lot of sense to vary from what has been successful so far in the past." In Mr. Thomas asked if applicants would have to come back to extend poles again as the trees grow. Fellow Commissioners commented that they do not have to come back because the height of the pole and the antenna are geared to the tree height, they can keep moving it upwards as the trees grow. Mr. Fritz emphasized that he needs to check with the zoning administrator on that, as the approved tower height may be fixed at the point at which the Board reviews and takes action on the permit. 5h En Mr. Rooker said that it would be important to know that, as he has voted on the permits with the understanding that the antenna and pole height as measured against the trees could be changed to match the height as the trees grow. SP 99-38 Covesville — CV141 Request for special use permit to amend the antenna type on an existing telecommunications facility in accordance with Section [10.2.2.61 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radiowave transmission towers. The property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcel 9C, contains 56.6 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District at the end of Lackey Lane [Route #838] just east of Monacan Trail Road [Route 29]. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 3. Deferred from the July 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded a recommendation for denial of SP 99-38. In a 3-2 vote, with Mr. Thomas and Mr. Nitchmann dissenting, the motion for denial passed. SP 99-41 Cook Mountain — CV144 Request for special use permit to amend the antenna type on an existing telecommunications facility in accordance with Section [10.2.2.61 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radiowave transmission towers. The property, described as Tax Map 98, Parcel 22, contains 49 acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the east side of Thackers Lane [Route 804] just east of Monacan Trail Road [Route 291. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 3. Deferred from the July 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded a recommendation for denial of SP 99-41. In a 3-2 vote, with Mr. Thomas and Mr. Nitchmann dissenting, the motion for denial passed. SP 99-45 Britts Mountain — CV141 Request for special use permit to amend the antenna type on an existing telecommunications facility in accordance with Section [ 10.2.2.6] of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radiowave transmission towers. The property, described as Tax Map 75, Parcel 22, contains 34.7 acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the east side of Monacan Trail Road [Route 29] 1.9 miles south of I-64. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 4. Deferred from the July 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded a recommendation for denial of SP 99-45. In a 3-2 vote, with Mr. Thomas and Mr. Nitchmann dissenting, the motion for denial passed. SP 99-40 Crossroads — CFW CV143 Petition by CFW Communications to remove two whip antennas and attach two panel antennas on an existing 80-foot tall telecommunications pole (Section 12.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance). The site is on a portion of 3.038 acres zoned VR, Village Residential, and EC, Entrance Corridor 57 [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 87, Parcel 7a, is located on the western side of State Route 29 South [Monacan Trail Road], approximately 1 mile south of State Route 710. The proposed tower site is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located within a designated Development Area. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 3. MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded a recommendation for approval of SP 99-40. In a 2-2 vote, with Mr. Thomas and Mr. Nitchmann voting in favor, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Loewenstein voting against, and Mr. Rieley abstaining, the motion failed to gain a recommendation. SP 99-39 Bellair — CV142 Proposal to replace two whip antennas with two panel antennas on an existing telecommunications tower in Bellair Subdivision. The property, zoned RI, Residential (1 dwelling unit/acre) and EC, Entrance Corridor, and described as Tax Map 76C Section 2 Parcel 2, is located on the west side of the Route 29 By -Pass (Monacan Trail), approximately one-half mile south of the intersection of Routes 29 and 250 West (Ivy Road) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in Neighborhood 6, and is recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential (306 dwelling units/acre) in the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded a recommendation for denial of SP 99-39. In a 3-2 vote, with Mr. Thomas and Mr. Nitchmann dissenting, the motion for denial passed. SP 99-36 Foxfield —CV202 Request for special use permit to allow a telecommunications facility in accordance with Section [10.2.2.6] of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radiowave transmission towers. The property, described as Tax Map 43 Parcel 30, contains 120 acres, and is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District on Free Union Road [Route 601] approximately 0.6 miles north of Garth Road [Route 601/676]. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report, noted a large-scale map of the proposed site. He explained that no clearing would be necessary for the installation of the site, and an existing road leads into the wooded area where the pole would be located. He mentioned the condition to prohibit removal of trees 3 feet in height or greater. Mr. Fritz stated that the site is heavily wooded, relatively flat and has very low visibility based on his field visit to site. In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Fritz stated that the site would have panel antenna, flush mounted to the pole — bolted directly to the wood on the pole. Mr. Fritz explained that these antenna differ from the ones previously denied, which had a center column on the pole to offset the antenna. He said that the Foxfield design is similar to that approved on 64 West, the 250 area, and in east Glenmore. Mr. Cilimberg noted that there have been several recently approved of this same design. M SR The applicant, Dick Shearer of CFW, addressed the Commission, and presented an aerial *, photo to provide a better idea of the site location. He noted that the proposal is same as CFW's last four or five sites utilizing panel antenna. Mr. Thomas asked what the elevation of the hill sited for the facility. Mr. Shearer replied that the hill is surveyed at 97 feet. Mr. Thomas asked if Mr. Shearer had a picture of the antenna itself. Mr. Shearer confirmed that while the antennas themselves are the same as what was presented in the five previous applications, the mounting is flush to the pole. Mr. Rooker asked why the coverage could not be provided with a whip antenna. Mr. Shearer said that CFW is trying to pick up coverage from Garth Road to Free Union Road. Mr. Fritz noted that this proposal is for three panel antenna, not two, which makes it a full-sectorized site and allows for the most efficient pattern from the site versus the omni. Mr. Rooker asked what the nearest home was, other than the person leasing the site. Mr. Fritz estimated a distance of 1200 feet to the nearest house. Mr. Rooker asked for clarification in the difference in coverage between the proposed antenna array and a whip antenna. Mr. Shearer responded, "Whip antennas do not propagate our signals as far; therefore, with whip antennas we need more sites. This area has been propagated. RF engineers ice,,. have laid out that area, indicating that we basically need three sites. We go away with panel antennas, and we probably will raise it to four sites." Mr. Rooker asked if any of the other potential sites had been tied down. Mr. Shearer and Mr. Fritz confirmed that CFW has made application for the Ivy Creek Methodist Church, located on Hydraulic, close to the Triton location. Mr. Shearer said that they have tried to use the VEPCo tower, but the underlying property owner won't lease the space because he is disgruntled with the existing Triton installation. Public comment was invited. Louise O'Connell, who has owned the adjacent property for 21 years, stated her strong opposition to the proposed antenna. She said that the property is very valuable, and never would have bought property if she knew that this would happen. Ms. O'Connell said she is paying taxes on 150 acres to be protected, and "now we're not being protected." Ms. O'Connell read a letter from her daughters, which stated that the facility will be unsightly and decrease property value. The letter also indicated the daughters' concern that the facility might spoil a beautiful part of Albemarle County. M 59 Ms. O'Connell pointed out the location of her property, Chestnut Ridge Farm. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rooker asked if the large stand of trees that the tower would be located within are deciduous or evergreen. Mr. Fritz stated that the trees are mostly oak. Mr. Thomas asked if one person owns the land on which the antenna would be located. Mr. Fritz said that one person owns the parcel, which contains a total of 120 acres and the owner also owns adjoining piece. Mr. Fritz explained that on the total 150 or 170 acres, from the tower location, there is 750 feet to the nearest property line not controlled by that owner. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Fritz if the tower would be more or less visible than those previously presented at this meeting. Mr. Fritz responded that the siting of this particular tower, in the wooded area set back from the field, and the distance to any residential areas, would make it "a tough one to see" with either design — the flush mount or the other design, which reduces the height of the actual pole above treetop. Mr. Rooker said the cap of the pole is more visible than the pole. He then asked Mr. Kamptner to explain the circumstances under which an application can be denied under the Telecommunications Act. Mr. Kamptner explained that a denial has to be supported by substantial evidence, such as photographs, scatter plots, maps, applicant and witness testimony. He said that courts have rejected claims of decrease in property value as being substantial evidence if those claims were made by a layperson. The visibility issue is governed by state law, and ties into the criteria for special use permits: whether it's a substantial detriment to adjacent property, or whether it changes the character of the area. He stated that that is a determination which the Commission makes, and has to be based on the evidence. He said an application can be denied based on substantial evidence if it doesn't unreasonably discriminate against wireless providers, and doesn't prohibit/have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Mr. Kamptner noted that that is different than simply prohibiting a particular facility. "Whether or not a particular denial prohibits services is generally looked at on a case -by -case basis, and if there are [reasonable] alternatives available, prohibition won't be found." He added that not every piece of property has to be opened up for towers; certain areas can be deemed inappropriate for wireless facilities, provided that the service itself is not prohibited. Mr. Rieley said it seems that this application points out the "degree to which this is an exercise in looking very carefully at site -specific concerns. This site is very different from the previous ones, each of which was quite close to the roadway. There was an opportunity in those situations utilizing the whip antenna, which have been quite qM rw successful for the most part, to provide service in a way that was virtually invisible when it's done very well." Mr. Rieley noted that when a site is as far away from other residences as the Foxfield site, the scale of the antenna diminishes considerably, and it makes sense to look favorably at a panel array for efficiency. "I think the loss relative to its visibility is pretty minor." Mr. Thomas agreed. "I think it's a good location for the tower. That area is really wooded. There are large trees." He asked about the accessibility to the location. Mr. Fritz said there is a road leading directly to the site. Mr. Thomas said it would be a really good site for an antenna. Mr. Rooker agreed. "Unless we're going to deny the service in this area generally, I don't know that we're going to find a site that is less visible than this site for an antenna. This antenna array is less visible than the ones we just dealt with, and probably is appropriate for this site." MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of SP 99-36 with conditions as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of a site plan waiver in association with SP 99-36. The motion passed unanimously. SP 99-43 Arby's at Forest Lakes Petition to establish a restaurant with one drive -through window [25.2.2.4] on 0.8 acre zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property, described as Tax Map 46B4, Parcel 9 is located on the eastern side of Route 29 North (Seminole Trail), at the entrance of the Forest Lakes development. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District Community and is recommended for Regional Service Use in the Hollymead Community and is located within a designated growth area. SDP 99-083 Arby's Preliminary Site Plan Applicant seeks Planning Commission authorization of an internal circulation waiver [Section 4.12.6.2] of the Zoning Ordinance to construct a fast-food restaurant with one drive -through window as described above. Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, describing the rezoning for the Forest Lakes Food Lion shopping center, whereby two outparcels were created. He said that Arby's now wants to construct a restaurant of 3,100 square feet on the parcels. Mr. Morrisette said that access will be internal to the shopping center and will have interconnectivity to other parcels in the shopping center as they develop. He said that the proposal is for a drive -through on an entrance corridor, which will operate in a counter -clockwise fashion. Mr. Morrisette reported that VDOT is requiring a traffic analysis for the intersection into the shopping center for possible signalization, noting that that study is really independent of the drive -through and pertains to the development of the site. Public comment was invited. 61 Ms. Willie Mae Perkins, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission, and described the proposed facility as an upscale fast-food restaurant. MOTION: Mr.Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SP 99-43 with conditions as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr.Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SDP 99-083 with one condition as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously. SP 99-44 Riverbend Garden Apartments Request for a special use permit to allow approximately 130 rental apartments, club house, pool, and associated parking in accordance with Section 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for uses permitted in the R-15, Residential, district in compliance with regulations set forth therein. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 17A (portion) and 15C-1, contains approximately 36 acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Riverbend Drive [Route 1116], south of and adjacent to Pantops Shopping Center. The property is zoned C-1, Commercial. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Service in Neighborhood 1. Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, noting the property's location behind Pantops Shopping Center, along the peninsula with the River fronting on three sides of it. Ms. yam, Thomas said that she found a number of positive aspects to the project, and agreed with the applicant's justification that the residential units close to Pantops provide a good infill opportunity, and pedestrian access between the two should be easy. She noted that the use will benefit from the river proximity, yet will not interfere with enjoyment of the river by others. Ms. Thomas reported that the applicant has expressed a willingness to work with staff in dedicating a greenway at the time of the site plan, adding that while there is not a site plan presented yet, there is a fairly detailed concept plan. Ms. Thomas described the apartments as quite vertical, with all of them having a riverview and allowing the footprint to be small enough so that there is no grading with the plan in the floodplain. Ms. Thomas said the biggest challenge with the proposal has been getting an adequate handle on traffic issues, because of the discussion for need for signalization at the South Pantops and Riverbend Drive intersection; staff had understood at the outset of the project that the VDOT funding was in place, but has now learned that that there is no firm date for the signal installation. She noted that because of this, Condition #2 has been modified to allow more flexibility: "site plan approval for this property shall be contingent upon VDOT approval of intersection improvements to include signalization...." She added that the applicant is very willing to absorb the cost of any faces or phases to the signal that will be triggered by his use. Ms. Thomas continued that there is a fairly substantial portion of the property that would not be used — the northerly portion that lies along the edge of the river behind the Shell Station, which is not involved with the proposal at all. She added that at some future 6? date, there might be something "very appropriate" for the northerly part of the parcel 1%W between Shell and the shopping center. Ms. Thomas noted that staff proposes an additional sentence at the end of the first condition: "The development of the Riverbend Garden Apartments does not prohibit the development of the area identified on the concept plan as future development, with uses allowed as a matter of right, or by special use permit under applicable zoning regulations." Mr. Thomas asked, "What are slopes along the proposed greenway, and what is the area between the construction of the buildings and the critical slope." Ms. Thomas said the topography is pretty challenging, which is one reason staff did not tie down the greenway alignment any further. She noted that there is a sewer line with easement that goes in front of the apartments, and then there is a rocky outcrop, making it unclear where the path for the greenway would go. Mr. Rooker asked if there was a second entrance to the site. Ms. Thomas replied that there is not really a good second entrance, although a driver could come in between Roses and the block of buildings that houses Eckerds and Food Lion. She said that the applicant's plan contemplates a slight shift in the alignment of that service road, so that the focus of the apartment residents will be more on river. Ms. Thomas noted that the primary access will be fairly close to the intersection of Riverbend and South Pantops, and virtually everybody would take that road in or out. Mr. Loewenstein clarified that once past the service road mentioned, there is only the single -access entry road. Mr. Rooker asked how that compared to typical requirement for an emergency access entrance to accommodate this number of residents. Mr. Cilimberg noted that fire & rescue advises staff on how they will access a site in emergency situations. "I don't know what part of this area or apartment complex could actually be served through the back of the shopping center if necessary... obviously there is no physical connection." Ms. Thomas said that she has not spoken to fire & rescue in detail because there is not a detailed site plan yet, but the topography behind Roses would allow emergency access to be provided. "The site is flexible enough in the area where the apartments are located that I think the topography would allow it....I'm confident there will be a way to work that into the site plan." Mr. Rooker asked if there is a measure for level of service on Riverbend. "The traffic on Riverbend at least twice a day is horrendous. Traffic gets stacked up into the shopping center and up onto South Pantops Drive. There are cars '/o mile up the road on South Pantops Drive waiting to try to make the turn on Riverbend to get out with the red light situation at 250 and Riverbend. I just question the [traffic] circumstances where we've got the Carriage Hill apartments going in today." rN Ms. Thomas commented, "One of the premises of course was the signal, and we want to work very hard if it's necessary to get that signal installed some other way than the funding we thought was in place... VDOT themselves told us it was fully funded and scheduled to go in this fall, which was one reason why traffic was not a bigger concern... it was our understanding until the last few days that the signal was in place — funding, etc." Mr. Loewenstein said, "I think we should know a little more about what the timeline for [the signalization] is going to be. [If there are no other means of obtaining funds], it might be... to get funding from the highway safety program on a special basis like this. think that is done in some cases where there's clearly a demonstrated major need, and where public safety is really at risk if [the intersection remains unsignalized]." Mr. Cilimberg noted that VDOT is going to have to issue a permit a result of the site plan process for this property to have access to the public road system. "They've already indicated that part of the permit contingency is going to signalization, so in reality, this project is probably not going to happen until that has been rectified, in terms of their participation as an applicant in that signal and the actual installation or plan for installation of the signal." Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff feels the signal issue will be taken care of by VDOT's permitting process, and the other issue VDOT raised had nothing to do with South Pantops or Riverbend, but was a question regarding off -site concerns at 250, which this project has a minimal effect on. "That problem is there because of the traffic that's already there and approvals for projects that have already ,.law occurred....that was not really a matter where there was a rational nexus for this project — to be held at bay because of a situation that's been created by development in that area that very honestly may not have been accounted for very well in the 250 project that VDOT did." Mr. Rooker said, "We're being asked to permit a use that's only permitted by special use permit application, and I think the decision to add however many car trips a day to a situation that is perhaps intolerable today [may be taken into consideration]. I was very interested in some kind of determination of level of service on Riverbend [and] the intersection of Riverbend and Pantops which may [or may not] be helped by the signalization." Mr. Cilimberg noted, "The VDOT comment to this point on this project regarding that intersection is that the signalization is intended to deal with the level of service issue." He added that the City has an urban systems project this year that will coordinate signalization to prevent back-ups, which will have to happen at this site as well. He added that VDOT's issue with that intersection of South Pantops and Riverbend is the signalization, because that is what needs to occur to deal with the level of service issue. Mr. Rooker stated, "I would be interested in knowing when you add the Carriage Hill apartment traffic, and the potential traffic from this project, whether or not a signal from that intersection would even raise the level of service above a failing level of service. I think this is basically a very good project ... but I'm very concerned about the traffic 64 circumstance we're creating at an already overburdened strip of road... we've got a lot %,,,,, more cars coming on line from a project that's already being built, and now we're looking at another one." Mr. Cilimberg replied, "It's a very classic problem for us in infill development to our road system. The question is do you build lanes of road or do you deny projects, or do you get people into alternative transportation." Mr. Loewenstein commented, "This is further complicated by the fact that we've approved development just north of the 250 intersection as well. There's not only been increased building at Wilton Farms, but we have Fontana that's approved now; a lot of those people are going to be shopping in Pantops. There's going to be as much increased traffic going in as there is coming out... there's an awful lot going on in that location." Mr. Steve Blaine, representing the applicant — Metzger & Co. — addressed the Commission, stating that the applicant's interpretation of the VDOT comments is that the traffic signalization is intended to address the concerns as expressed by Commissioners. He emphasized that the by -right uses would include commercial uses that would generate traffic. While acknowledging the problem of infill development and its inherent dilemmas, Mr. Blaine said that this project provides pedestrian opportunities offered by putting residential communities in heavily commercial area. Nathan Metzger, the applicant, addressed the Commission, and presented a concept drawing to the Commission. He emphasized that as a developer for the last 30 years, he has concentrated on infill locations. "This is just a textbook case for a site that wants an infill location." He mentioned the positive aspects of nearby shopping, the pedestrian access, the river views without negatively impacting the river make it a wonderful site. Mr. Rooker asked if the 36-acre parcel includes the potential development property. Mr. Metzger responded that that includes the apartment site; although the exact apartment site has not been calculated, there is 4 or 5 acres of usable land that it is out of the floodplain. In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Metzger said that he has not done a traffic study, and was guided by what VDOT had indicated. Mr. Rooker asked where the sidewalks would be with the project. Mr. Metzger said that he plans to have sidewalks running all the way down to the intersection, with connection to the shopping center and along parking areas also. Mr. Thomas asked where the vehicles would be parked. Mr. Metzger replied that they have considered six different scenarios for the site, and ultimately decided based on the nature of the site to construct a taller building with a smaller footprint to capitalize on the river views, and have surface parking with inward lighting. Mr. Thomas asked if residents from across the river had offered any comments. ltwr AS M M Mr. Metzger replied that he has met with neighbors there, who offered very favorable comments on the project. Mr. Rieley asked about the contour of the 100-year floodplain. Mr. Metzger said that he recalled the contour as being 334. Public comment was invited. Ms. Kay Slaughter addressed the Commission, stating that she lives on the river, and is an adjacent landowner to the property on the other side. Ms. Slaughter stated support for the applicant's request, noting that her neighborhood was opposed to two previously proposed Comprehensive Plan changes for an outdoor golf driving range, an outdoor amphitheater because of the activity in floodplain, the impacts on the greenbelt as well as area residences. Ms. Slaughter said that this project "is an excellent example of using the river as an amenity....we feel like this will be a positive project not only for the county but also for your neighbors in the city." She added the apartments would be within walking distance to shopping and other businesses on Pantops, and urged that the Commission and Board of Supervisors consider the expansion of transit to Pantops and the Riverbend area. Ms. Slaughter said she encourages the city and county to work together to provide some bike lanes that go from this area into the city and connect to High Street. She noted her support for expanding the greenbelt to the other side of the river, especially given the wonderful link provided by the Free Bridge. Ms. Slaughter concluded that her neighborhood would like to see the river protected from runoff, and would like to see the lighting to be low -scale. "I think this is the kind of quality mixed use development that could be a real `win -win' for city and county residents." Nick Smith of Short 18`h Street said he supports the plan, as the developer has responded well to neighbors' concerns about light and noise pollution. "It seems to me that the way that they have it set up really is taking advantage of the real natural resource that we all have that I think the county and city have, so that we have more places for people to go walk, have outdoor activities, etc." Ms. Katie Hobbs, resident of the county and a member of the DISC Committee, told the Commission that when DISC did a Charette for the Pantops redevelopment, this is what was suggested. Ms. Nancy Damon lives of Jefferson Park Avenue, and a member of the City Planning Commission, addressed the Commission. She said that the project seems to be the "right way to be going." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Loewenstein said that the Board has approved funding for bus service to Pantops. 66 Mr. Rieley asked staff about the issue of runoff, as it is somewhat "discounted" because it goes into the river and is assumed to pass before accumulated drainage reaches that point. He said that he has always questioned that strategy as it does not address water quality or groundwater recharge issues. "I think it's particularly critical in the Rivanna, which is a stream that is suffering very badly from the results of inundations, and then too much water, and then not enough water at other times, which is all symptomatic of the same problem." He asked staff how those concerns could be addressed at the special use permit level, followed up on at the site plan level. Mr. Glenn Brooks of County Engineering addressed the Commission, stating that staff didn't feel the need to add a condition because the ordinance adequately took care of that. He noted that the new ordinance does offer the ability to require a water quality facility, and not discharge directly into the river. "We would be looking in this case for some credit to them to handle some of the shopping center's runoff also... we thought the ordinance could take care of it." Mr. Rieley asked, "Would you foresee the ordinance kicking in to the extent of requiring a bioretention basin." Mr. Brooks responded yes, and confirmed that it would be handled at the site plan level. Regarding the traffic concerns raised, Ms. Thomas emphasized that staff thought the signal was going in October, and suggested that staff would continue to pursue VDOT for a definitive answer on its installation. Mr. Rooker commented that it is important to include information regarding the traffic and the potential signalization for the Board of Supervisors prior to their action on the item. Mr. Cilimberg said if staff cannot secure a definitive answer on the signal timing, the county will take up the item in the six -year plan, which would not allow it to happen until next July. He added that perhaps the safety funds as suggested by Mr. Loewenstein could be used. Mr. Rooker asked if there would be room for another lane along Riverbend. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he did not think there would be room, and a new configuration would have to be decided for the new access going back to the apartments. Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to extend the far left turning lane all the way back to the intersection. Mr. Nitchmann noted that this project is an excellent example of what can be done to provide quality infill in the county. He emphasized the positive aspects of additional sidewalks and bike lanes, and said that if the traffic counts can be provided to the Board prior to their meeting, they will also look favorably on the proposal. 67 14"W1 MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SP 99-44 with conditions modified as follows: 1. The development of the Riverbend Garden Apartments does not prohibit the development of the area identified in the concept plan as "future development," with uses allowed as a matter of right or by special use permit through applicable zoning regulations. (Added to end of existing Condition # 1). 2. Site plan approval for this property shall be contingent upon VDOT approval of intersection improvements, to include signalization, at the intersection of Riverbend Drive and South Pantops Drive; the applicant shall participate in costs associated with instrumentation needed for traffic management related to traffic impacts from the proposed apartments. (Replaces Condition #2 language). The motion passed unanimously. SDP 99-081 Brownsville Baseball Field Major Amendment/Waiver Request Request for waivers to allow grading on critical slopes [4.2] and athletic field lighting [4.17.5(2)] in conjunction with a major site plan amendment for a high school baseball field on 50 acres zoned R-1, Residential, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The property, described as Tax Map 56 Parcel 17A, is located in the Whitehall Magisterial District on Rockfish Gap Turnpike [Route 250 West] approximately '/Z mile west of the intersection of Rockfish Gap Turnpike and Miller School Road [Route 635]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Institutional in the Community of Crozet. Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, distributing the latest version of the RFP for the proposed project (Attachment `B"). She said that the project has a fairly long history, noting that there was no way to fit a regulation baseball field on the Western Albemarle site without disturbing the stream behind the school; this prompted the move to the Brownsville/Henley campus. Ms. Thomas noted that the prospective field has been used as a little league baseball field, and would become a regulation high school baseball field, with lots of parks and recreation uses. She added that the county is pursuing a very objective and correct path in searching for a system that closely complies with the ordinance. Mr. Nitchmann said it appears staff is asking the Commission to approve the SDP before the results of the evaluation are available. "Isn't that kind of the cart before the horse?" Ms. Thomas said she did not want to proceed with the consultant until the Commission agreed with a lighting waiver, and also wanted to work with the school's construction window and review their RFP. She added that the applicant [school] wanted to take the process far enough to see the process and endorse it as a professional, objective process. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's concern about the order of the process, Ms. Thomas clarified that the Commission is being asked to approve a lighting waiver for a system hR that is not yet specified. She said, "You're giving the school division as the applicant the latitude to go with a system that may not technically meet the exact requirements of the 1;,W ordinance but based on this process we've outlined, it will come as close as we possibly can to meeting it." Mr. Kamptner stated, "Don't we know that right now under current technology, the lighting ordinance cannot be met, so that a waiver will be required regardless, and the procurement will hopefully obtain a system that will come as close to complying with the lighting ordinance as possible under current technology." Mr. Rooker referenced the St. Anne's situation, as they had already purchased a system that did not comply, and in turn were forced to ask the Commission to grant a waiver. "The testimony that we had at that time was that there wasn't a system out there that was acceptable for baseball play that met the full qualifications of the ordinance." He noted that in that case, the Commission at least had a specific system to look at for approval. Mr. Nitchmann ask why, if there are always problems with compliance regarding field lighting, the ordinance isn't changed. Ms. Thomas said that the county may change the ordinance, but when the Board adopted it, they agreed to reevaluate it in one year's time and make necessary changes based on the experience. She noted that baseball is the most difficult sport to find appropriate lighting for, as soccer and other sports might meet the ordinance more easily, adding that the technology is rapidly changing. "In a sense, leaving the provision in the ordinance as it is with the waiver element maybe isn't a bad idea because we come as close as we can but we've got a safety valve." Mr. Rooker noted that the ordinance specifically mentions waivers for playing fields, so it does contemplate those circumstances. Mr. Nitchmann asked if granting a waiver in a preliminary fashion would set a precedent. Ms. Thomas responded that the concern is valid, but added that it is important that the process outlined by staff is a good one, and is the product of lengthy debates and consultation. She added that if the process/RFP is approved by the Commission, the county would distribute the RFP for bidders, and said that while the consultant will rank the candidates in a technical sense, staff will ultimately decide on what vendor is chosen. Mr. Rieley asked who would make the decision. Ms. Thomas replied that Zoning will be the lead, with Planning and Engineering included also. Mr. Rieley said someone is going to have to determine who would rank the bidders on specifics, such as prevention of glare. Ms. Thomas said that the committee members would decide, with the consultant initially doing the ranking. En 69 eftw Mr. Nitchmann commented, "There's no question that we need the lights. It's just how we get there from here." cm Mr. Loewenstein asked how long would it take for this process to unfold, whether or not action was taken now. Steve Hart, Senior Project Manager, County Department of Engineering and Public Works, addressed the Commission. He stated that the county hired Tom Lemmons to be lighting consultant, with staff s recommendation. Mr. Hart said that Mr. Lemmons is knowledgeable with the IES (Illuminating Engineering Society), the standard for High School baseball lighting throughout the country. Mr. Hart said the consultant helped staff develop an RFP process whereby he would help staff determine the variables required in order to most closely meet the ordinance. Mr. Hart reported that Mr. Lemmons has reviewed the ordinance and the RFP, and helped staff determine how to minimize uplight, spillover, etc. Mr. Hart reported that county staff is probably 4 to 6 weeks away from having a published document asking for bids. After that, staff would solicit bids from manufacturers who would then to submit proposals and evaluation criteria, which is then lab -verified by a third party. "I foresee it to be a 3 to 4 month process, where we would be in a position to select a lighting system, followed by a two month procurement process .... if we get started now, we can have a lighting system selected and installed by probably very early into next year." Mr. Rooker asked if a forthcoming recommendation from the committee regarding which system to purchase could come back before the Commission for action. Ms. Thomas said that would be possible. Mr. Rieley commented that the RFP includes both technical specifications that relate to the waiver, and other things related to selleribuyer issues, such as warranty. He suggested that the issues pertaining to the waiver be isolated. Mr. Nitchmann agreed, adding that the key issue is lighting, and some parts of the RFP contain administrative specifications that should not be a concern. Mr. Rooker agreed, suggesting a two -tiered approach, with one tier including items important with respect to the lighting ordinance — minimization of uplight, spillover, etc., and another tier that contains things not applicable to the lighting ordinance but may be a reasonable consideration for the county. He suggested that the item could even be a Consent Agenda item as long as there was a selection recommendation along with the rationale. 70 n Em Mr. Kamptner asked Mr. Hart if the lights would be procured through the negotiation process or the bidding process. Mr. Hart replied that engineering would like to see more than one source of similar lighting systems to ensure competition, then solicit bids from those firms. "If we don't put cost in our RFP, we're really sole -sourcing lighting systems, and we really don't want to do that." Mr. Kamptner asked if the project would be awarded to the lowest bidder, or if the county would negotiate with vendors. Mr. Hart replied that if there is only one proposal that satisfies the consultant and staff recommendations, then the county would be required to go to that source. Mr. Kamptner suggested that they discuss the process with him at a later time. Ms. Thomas said the applicant has wanted the cost factor to be in there, but the development review departments have consistently said that that would come into play only if two systems, in the opinion of the consultant, produce an identical lighting system. She added that cost should be secondary, would not be an initial criteria, and would only come into play if other more important factors are equal. Mr. Rooker suggested weeding out bidders based on ordinance factors, and then as a second level use criteria such as cost. Ms. Lisa Glass of County Building Services addressed the Commission, and said that they have gone beyond the normal application process for the project. She asked that the item be approved as a Consent Agenda item later, if necessary. Ms. Becky Templeton, parent of an Albemarle baseball team player, addressed the Commission. She referenced the letter previously to distributed to Commissioners from a parent advisory committee comprised of four families with students in the school. Ms. Templeton encouraged the Commission to act swiftly and favorably with regard to project, and asked them to try and observe the timeline of September 1, 1999 construction start and March 20, 2000 completion. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann stated that he has no real objection to the proposal, but expressed uncertainty about the suggested timeline. He agreed that something else needed to be presented to the Commission prior to purchasing the system. "I'm still unwilling to put this process forward because I think it sets a precedent for things that could happen in the future, and I'm not willing to really go for a `pig in a poke'." Mr. Rooker suggested adding a condition to address this in the SDP. 71 Mr. Kamptner proposed language: "the proposed lighting system shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to execution of the contract by the county to assure that lk%.. the purposes of Section 4.17 are satisfied to the extent technologically feasible." MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of the lighting waiver for SDP 99-081 with the condition worded as Mr. Kamptner suggested. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of the critical slopes waiver for SDP 99-081. The motion passed unanimously. Old Business Mr. Cilimberg informed Commissioners that they would meet at 5:00 in Room 235 next week for a worksession on lighting. New Business There was no new business presented. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. V. Wayne Cilimberg Secretary M 72