Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 24 1999 PC Minutes09 Albemarle County Planning Commission August 24, 1999 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, August 24, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. Jared Loewenstein. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Mr. Dennis Rooker. Approval of Minutes — August 10,1999 The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of August 10`i' as amended. Review of Board of Supervisors Meetina — August 18th,1999 Mr. Cilimberg presented a review of the Board of Supervisors meeting, reporting that the Board approved the floodplain disturbance in association with the road to access the new NGIC facility. He said that they deferred action on the Foxfield PCS Tower for CFW because it is located in the Ag/Forestal District, and they are waiting to obtain input from the Ag/Forestal Advisory Committee prior to voting on the item and also want to be aware of the Kreines report on tower policy. Mr. Cilimberg said that the East Glenmore PCS Tower was approved with conditions as the Commission recommended; the five changes from whip antenna to panel antenna were approve — some clarification was provided regarding the appearance of the new antenna; it was determined through photographs that the panel antenna would not extend more than seven feet above the tower, and therefore no more than seven feet above the elevation of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower. He said that one Board member suggested to CFW that the company may want to consider this type of antenna versus what has been previously presented in a flush -mount array. Mr. Cilimberg added that the Board approved changing the Mill Creek Industrial PUD to R-1, and allowing for the R-1 zoning to accommodate the joint juvenile detention facility. Mr. Rieley asked what the county's enforcement mechanism to ensure that the conditions of the Special Use Permit are met. He mentioned two examples where conditions have not been met — the Bell -Air site, where specific requirements for plantings were set; and the tower on Afton Mountain, which was supposed to have dark panels attached to the pole, instead of the existing bright silver. Mr. Davis noted that the enforcement of the Special Use Permit conditions is an obligation of the Zoning Department; they can cite the owner for a zoning violation, and would need to do an inspection to follow up on the permits. Mr. Rieley said it was important to do that, especially early on in the process. Mr. Loewenstein asked if the Board feels that 10 feet of a whip antenna above the tree line is more visible than 7 feet of a panel antenna above the tree line, within the parameters that were presented. Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 117 Mr. Cilimberg replied that at certain angles, the antenna appears to be a goalpost, and at other 1#4W angles, the antenna looks like just a thin pole. He noted that the Board felt that the panel antenna appeared as an extension of the pole rather than an addition to the pole. em Mr. Loewenstein said that the whip antennas seem to be less visible. Mr. Finley asked when something like an antenna tower falls inside an Ag/Forestal District, how much clout the Ag/Forestal Committee has in deciding whether it can be placed there. Mr. Cilimberg said that the committee makes a recommendation to the Board just as the Commission does. Matters not listed on the agenda None were offered, and the meeting proceeded. Deferred Items: Addition to Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District Proposal to add 154.638 acres to the Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 90, Parcels 12 and 14A, is located northwest of Scottsville Road, Route 20 South. The property is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Rural Areas District. Deferred from the August 17th Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Finley noted the handout presented by staff. Mr. Nitchmann stated that his previous questions had been answered satisfactorily. Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of the addition to the Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing Items: Review of Chalk Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District Proposal to conduct a review of the Chalk Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District. The District, which is contained within Tax Maps 97, 98, and 99 and consists of 8 parcels and 1,238.145 acres, is generally located west of Route 29 (Monacan Trail Road) and south of Route 697 (Sutherland Road) near North Garden. The property is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned as Rural Areas District. Ms. Scala presented the staff report, noting that the Chalk Mountain District is located between North Garden and Covesville and contains 8 parcels comprising just over 1,238 acres. She reported that forestry is the predominant land use, and includes Chalk Mountain, Mill Mountain, Cook Mountain, and South Fork — Hardware River. Staff recommends that the district be continued for another 10-year time period; the Ag/Forestal District Advisory Committee met on August 2nd, and recommended unanimously to continue the district. Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission. Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 118 09 Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of the review of the Chalk Mountain Ag/Forestal District. Review of Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District Proposal to conduct a review of the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District. The District, which is contained within Tax Maps 25, 26, 27, 39 and 40 and consists of 50 parcels and 4871.97 acres, is generally located to the north and the south of the Moormans River. The property is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned as Rural Areas District. Ms. Scala reported that the district was created in 1989, and contains 4872 acres in 50 parcels; the predominant land use is forestry, and also includes agricultural and horticultural uses. She said that the area has important farmlands and forests, and much of the district is in a mountain area. Ms. Scala noted that several major stream valleys traverse this district, including Moorman's River, Doyle River and Beaver Creek; Moorman's River is a County Scenic Stream and a Virginia Scenic River. All of the streams in the District lie within the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir watershed and Beaver Creek supplies the Beaver Creek reservoir. Ms. Scala said that staff recommends continuation of the District for a 10-year period, and the Advisory Committee also recommends approval of the continuation. She concluded that one property owner with approximately 40 acres has requested withdrawal from the district. Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded and approval of the continuation the district. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 99-8 White House Motel Request to rezone 1.497 acres from R6, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial to allow expansion of the Free Bridge Auto Sales located on the adjacent parcel, Tax Map 78, Parcel 57B. The property, described as Tax Map 78E Parcel A, part thereof, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the north side of Richmond road [Route 250 East] approximately 0.2 mile from the intersection of Stony Point Road (Route 20 North), The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional Service in the Urban Area Neighborhood 3 Development Area. Ms. Scala presented the staff report, noting that the applicant proposes to rezone a strip of land containing approximately 1.5 acres from R-6 Residential to HC, Highway Commercial; the strip of land currently owned by Fontana Land Trust would then be added to the adjacent properties currently owned by White House Motel and Free Bridge Auto Sales. She explained that this would ultimately allow expansion of Free Bridge Auto Sales. Staff has reviewed this application and recommends approval; all the abutting properties are zoned HC, Highway Commercial except the Fontana property, which is zoned R-6. She noted that the Comprehensive Plan shows the area as designated for Regional Service in Urban Area Neighborhood 3 (Pantops) Development Area. Ms. Scala added that the Open Space Plan shows that Richmond Road (Route 250) is a designated Entrance Corridor. Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 119 Mr. Loewenstein asked Ms. Scala to comment on the VDOT finding that the parcel is not an r approved access point to Fontana. Ms. Scala responded that the site plan she has seen for the property does not show the parcel to be intended as an entrance. 09 Mr. Katorah Rowell addressed the Commission, stating that the strip is being added to the White House Motel, and will just serve as a buffer, not an entrance point. He said that he met with VDOT 11/2 years ago, and they indicated at that time that the strip was not suitable for a highway entrance. Mr. Nitchmann asked if Free Bridge Auto Sales would be expanding into the Hilltop Restaurant site. Mr. Rowell said no, adding that the Hilltop Restaurant is under contract to another owner. Mr. Nitchmann asked if Free Bridge Auto Sales was planning to expand their operation. Mr. Rowell said that they plan to increase their lot, with a new layout and frontage, and improve their facilities. Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the meeting proceeded Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of ZMA 99-008. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 99-002 Value America, Inc. Request to rezone 11.61 acres from RA, Rural Areas to LI, Light Industry to allow a 100,000 square foot office building. The property, described as Tax Map 33, Parcel 1D, part thereof, Parcel 14, part thereof, and Parcel 15, part thereof, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the east side of Seminole Trail (Route 29 North) approximately one-half mile north of the North Fork Rivanna River. The Comprehensive Plan designates part of this property as Industrial Service in the Piney Mountain Community Development Area, and part as Rural Area. ZMA 99-003 Value America, Inc. Request to rezone 17.21 acres from RA, Rural Areas to LI, Light Industry to allow a 100,000 square foot office building. The property, described as Tax Map 33, Parcel 15, part thereof, and Parcel 16, part thereof, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the east side of Seminole Trail (Route 29 North) approximately one-half mile north of the North Fork Rivanna River. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. Ms. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the request is intended to accommodate a new office for Value America, adding that no proffers have been submitted. She explained that the petition is to allow a 100,000 square foot office building on the site, and noted a map that showed the areas proposed for rezoning. Ms. Scala noted that staff has not had time to address preliminary development plan submitted just before the staff report was issued. She stated that the only LI zoning in the area is the NGIC site. Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 120 Ms. Scala explained that the Comprehensive Plan designates part of the 11-acre property as *a. Industrial Service, part in the Piney Mountain Community Area, and part as Rural Area. She added that the area east of 29 is Rural Area, and north of the site, 91 acres zoned PRD in 1977 to the north of the site were intended for a retirement village that has never been pursued. Ms. Scala said that the adjoining parcel — the NGIC site — is zoned LI and is currently under construction. She added that there are several existing industrial uses zoned LI, Light Industry, and HI, Heavy Industry, located on Route 29, abutting the North Fork Rivanna River. Ms. Scala noted that the GE-Fanuc complex is located on the west side of Route 29, zoned LI; as are the Briarwood Subdivision zoned PRD and C- 1, and Camelot Subdivision, zoned R4. 09 Ms. Scala continued that staff recommends denial of ZMA 99-002 due to the need for additional information, including information recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. She emphasized that the applicant has submitted applications on two sites for Value America — one partly within a development area, and one completely outside the development area; she said that the applicant informed her that the two sites were not to be considered as alternate proposals. Ms. Scala said that staff has requested additional information, including a traffic study; VDOT has indicated that the traffic study submitted to them on August 13'h is incomplete, and a letter from Bob Ball outlines what VDOT would like to see in the traffic study. Ms. Scala explained that staff requested a plan of development because it was recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, and also because it should allow issues of transportation, utilities, stormwater, Open Space, public facilities, and areas appropriate for development to be addressed. She mentioned that the applicant has been informed that approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be necessary before a rezoning of a site outside a development area would be considered. Ms. Scala said that staff has requested specific information, some of which has been submitted, some of which has not, staff has not reviewed what has been submitted. Ms. Scala said that until the additional information is received and reviewed, staff cannot recommend approval of either application. Staff has suggested that the applicant request deferral, but the applicant does not wish to defer because he would like to have an opportunity to discuss the proposal with the Commission. She referenced the timeline presented which outlines the major dates involved in the application, noting the July 29t' date when the application was considered complete enough to process. Ms. Scala explained that if the Planning Commission would need to defer, they would need to make a decision by October 27h. Ms. Scala briefly reviewed the Planning and Zoning History of the property. She stated that the applicant has discussed with staff the possibility of future application for an amendment to expand the Piney Mountain Development Area, as he owns quite a bit of acreage in the area. Ms. Scala emphasized that because the Board has said they will not expand any development areas until DISC has made its recommendation, staff had to review the application under the assumption that the existing development area will continue to develop with office and/or manufacturing uses. Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 121 Ms. Scala reported that because of an oversight, the Albemarle County Service Authority does not show either site in a jurisdictional area for water and sewer. She said that a 12-inch water main has been constructed to serve the NGIC facility and has potential to be extended to the 11-acre site, and a 10-inch sewer main is currently under construction to bring service to the NGIC facility. The Service Authority has indicated that it is doubtful that this potential Value America site would be able to get gravity flow sewer, but a private pump station could be an option. Ms. Scala said that the impact on public facilities which serve the entire Hollymead/Piney Mountain Development Area should be considered, and one purpose of requiring a plan of development is to ensure that public facility needs are addressed, even if development may occur piecemeal — once parcel at a time. She listed favorable factors: location is partially within development area, zoning is consistent with Industrial Service Comprehensive Plan designation in the area; public utilities are available; and Value America is a growing local business which provides increased employment opportunities. Ms. Scala noted unfavorable factors: applicant did not submit the plan of development or the traffic study in time to be reviewed by staff and other agencies prior to the Planning Commission meeting; the Comprehensive Plan recommends only two access points on Route 29. She stated that factors without sufficient information to comment as: uncertainty whether the recently submitted development plan or traffic study contain enough information due to lack of review time — based on initial review, the plan does not address Open Space recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan; the need for public facilities to serve this development area has not been addressed; the impacts of development for the two sites are unclear because of lack of information as to whether both sites will be used by Value America; and the impacts of development in the remainder of the Industrial Service area as designated in the Comprehensive Plan are unknown. If action is deferred on the items, Ms. Scala stated that staff plans to take the development plan to the Site Review Committee on September 9"' to obtain comments, and then review the impacts of development. Staff recommends denial of the proposal until the additional information is obtained. Ms. Scala read from a Daily Progress article which said that the developer indicated the headquarters "would contain 100,000 square feet of office space spread out over 92 acres and the Planning Commission would have to rezone 29 acres to make construction a reality .... the remaining 63 acres are already zoned Light Industrial." She emphasized that that statement is incorrect, as there is no other area zoned Light Industrial, explaining that there is industrial zoning on 29 where the existing industrial uses are, but only NGIC is zoned LI so far. Ms. Scala further stated that the traffic study was based on one site, with information assuming one 100,000-square foot study; if both sites are planned for rezoning, the traffic study would need to be adjusted. Mr. Rieley commented that the orange line designating the boundary of the growth area doesn't seem to conform to either topographic or property lines, and asked Ms. Scala how it originated. She responded that staff compared the current land use map, which was Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 122 computer -generated in 1996, when the Land Use Plan was last amended. She said that a 1%W 1992 map and map of the applicant's property were also considered, and explained the boundary definition for each line on the large map presented. Ms. Scala noted that one boundary line was extended to the Rivanna River to accommodate the NGIC rezoning. In response to Mr. Finley's question, Ms. Scala confirmed that NGIC did have to do traffic studies when requesting rezoning. Mr. Rieley noted that the staff report says one of the properties would require a CPA prior to rezoning because it is entirely in the Rural Area. "The other area is mostly outside of the growth area, would that not too require Comprehensive Plan Amendment before rezoning?" Ms. Scala replied that she had not addressed that, and stated that the decision rests with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. She commented that the question is "how hard a line" the Comprehensive Plan area is. `By approving a rezoning there, you are, in fact, expanding the growth area, without actually having any review occur of a CPA." In response to Mr. Finley's question about the NGIC rezoning, Ms. Scala said when that parcel was rezoned, it was the same situation — with part of the property in and part out. She said that the original designation of the development area did not go all the way to the river. Mr. Cilimberg added that the Commission and Board rezoned the property with the knowledge that the line would have to be adjusted, as it was later in the 1996 Land Use Plan. 1%W Mr. Nitchmann recalled that in 1992, the Commission discussed at length how large the growth area should be there, and came up with the lines somewhat subjectively. He added that there wasn't a lot of finite information used in the determination, and lines today might be drawn differently because there are "eight more years history behind us." Mr. Nitchmann added that he doesn't feel strongly that the line is so important that it couldn't be shifted one way or another, which is backed up by the fact that the Commission and the Board did not feel the line was absolute when it was moved without a CP review to accommodate NGIC. f Ms. Scala said there are two important reasons to maintain a hard line there: a growth area where the boundary is actually watershed boundary; and it is possible to repeat small expansions around the edge of a growth area, making it much larger than originally intended. Mr. Nitchmann emphasized that the line was drawn with information from eight years ago, and asked fellow Commissioners to consider things that have occurred in the last eight years. Mr. Rieley agreed that some factors change, adding that "that's why we have a process to amend the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Loewenstein said, "Since that time, the Board has said fairly unequivocally that they do not intend to expand the growth areas until the work of the DISC Committee was complete." Mr. Finley asked when the DISC Committee was planning to reveal their findings. Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 123 M Mr. Cilimberg responded that the target date is to have a report to the Board this fall, emphasizing that the committee is working with a consultant and trying to make sure everything is covered before the plan is done. He further noted that in 1996, at the time the NGIC was seeking to purchase property, the Land Use Plan was under review; the NGIC rezoning took place with the knowledge that the Comprehensive Plan was under review, and the Land Use Plan designation for the area could be adjusted. "It's a little different circumstance there then what we have now." Commissioners asked Bob Ball, VDOT Transportation Planner, to answer questions. Mr. Finley asked how long it would take to complete a master plan and traffic study. Mr. Ball responded that a traffic impact study would probably only take another week or two to complete. He explained that the timeframe would apply to a study just looking at Route 29 and major intersections, adding that the situation could be compared to UREF, in terms of preparing a study. Mr. Nitchmann asked about the carrying capacity of the road that is already engineered to go into the site, compared to the carrying capacity of Route 29. Mr. Ball replied that the carrying capacity of the NGIC road's four -lane section is adequate. "What we're concerned with is the turning points at 29, the signalization and the level of service at that intersection... the traffic study that was turned in by Muncaster Engineering was basically an intersection analysis... opening day, which we assume would be next year... would be at level of service C... and 10 years from now, it would fail, because of the growth in traffic. It's not so much the four-laning, but the turning boom is at intersection — with double -lefts in, and double -lefts out." Mr. Nitchmann asked how this compared to Rio Road and Hydraulic Road intersections. Mr. Rieley said they were "F's." Mr. Cilimberg commented that that is why one of the original studies done for the Western Bypass also noted that those intersections for level of service to be adequate on 29 would need to become interchanges; those intersections and Greenbrier Drive were noted for interchanges in the future — and that was 10 years ago. Mr. Loewenstein asked if a more detailed traffic analysis would take into account the models that have been generated in connection with the North Fork intersection. Mr. Ball responded that ideally, they would be coordinated. He added that VDOT is looking for information in a study for this site that addresses an increase in Route 29 usage of 2.5 to 3 % per year. Mr. Ball stated that VDOT is doing an access management planning now on Airport Road to accompany the widening of that section of Route 29, and once that is accomplished, they can go into the next section. Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 124 cm Mr. Cilimberg said that in the designation of acreage now in the plan, future development should be submitted under a master plan for the entire acreage, which the map presented is attempting to address. "That would be considered comprehensive in terms of addressing the requirements in the Land Use Plan." He referenced a larger plan displayed that the applicant has offered, which looks at acreage owned beyond this, and said that ideally, a master plan and traffic study should include all of that, even though Comprehensive Plan doesn't recognize all of that area yet. "I think you're talking about a study that covers all the area that could be developed under the Land Use Plan. That would be essentially [what's presented] as well as other development that would contribute to the 29 intersections that were affected by that same plan, which would be essentially everything on the west side of 29 in front of Briarwood. That at a minimum would be that comprehensive study." Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Ball if that would take two or three weeks. Mr. Ball said that at this time, the comprehensive study should only include the 200 acres currently designated, which would only take a few weeks. He commented that he was unsure how long it would take to go another step beyond that. Referencing the preliminary "master plan" for the entire area presented by the applicant, Mr. Cilimberg stated that the owner will be pursuing something along those lines, which could be submitted initially as CPA, and at that point, the next level of traffic analysis could be undertaken. Mr. Finley asked Mr. Ball to address the comment in his letter that NGIC and Value America would overload the intersection at Route 29. Mr. Ball responded that the traffic would bring the intersection to a level of service D, which VDOT would like to avoid. He emphasized that the disadvantage of continuing to add offices is that they are very "peak" land uses in terms of traffic, with most traffic entering in morning hours and exiting in the afternoons. Mr. Rieley asked him to clarify if VDOT's preliminary assessment was based on each individual parcel, not both in aggregate. Mr. Ball confirmed that VDOT assumed one Value America site. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Commission could conduct a public hearing on both rezonings simultaneously, although separate actions would be required. Ms. Scala reported that ZMA 99-003 is for a 17.21 acre parcel, proposing rezoning from RA to LI; no proffers have been submitted. The applicant proposes a 100,000 square foot building on the site. She emphasized that the Comprehensive Plan provisions are different in this case, as the site is located approximately 1,500 feet outside the Piney Mountain Development Area, is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and the LI District is not consistent with this designation. Ms. Scala continued that the Open Space Plan Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 125 recognizes stream buffers the North Fork Rivanna River, and the recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan is to establish a greenway along the river in this area. Ms. Scala indicated that the same staff comments as previously stated for ZMA 99-002 regarding the applicant's future intent to apply for amendment to the Piney Mountain Development Area, and transportation issues, also apply to this application. She added that this site cannot be included in the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area because it is not in a designated development area. Ms. Scala noted that the impact on public facilities which serve the entire Hollymead/Piney Mountain Development Area should be considered, including the greenway. Ms. Scala concluded by listing factors favorable, unfavorable, and those with insufficient information as outlined in the staff report. She stated that staff recommends denial of the application due to the need for additional information, including information recommended in the CP, and a CPA. The applicant, Wendell Wood, addressed the Commission. Mr. Wood said that the line drawn to define the development areas did not use natural boundaries such as streams when it was added in 1992. He explained that this is a "unique situation" where a local company is willing to take a piece of property that consists of 110 acres and develop only 29 acres of it, and will keep the rest — almost 70 acres — in Open Space, which they are willing to proffer. Mr. Wood said, "No one is asking for an expansion of this area. All we're asking is to redraw the line." He added that the line could follow the stream and make a much more natural boundary. Mr. Wood stated that the Value America site would join the NGIC site — which is currently zoned LI, noting that that was given to NGIC because it also was a logical re -division of the line. Referencing the preliminary "master plan" for the entire property he owns, Mr. Wood said the plan would take 50 — 70 years to implement. He added that the site is served by water, sewer, and the best highway in the county; noting that he has built both a 12-inch water main and 10-inch sewer line which could serve the new facility. Mr. Wood emphasized that the road built to access the site is wider than 29, and for the NGIC site, he was required to dedicate a I I0-foot right-of-way to serve all the future development, which he has done. He stressed that Value America is a local industry, hiring locally, offering an opportunity to have a campus setting workplace that benefits the community. Mr. Wood concluded by asking the Commission to redraw the line so it "lays with the land." Public comment was invited. Neil Harris of Value America addressed the Commission. He stated that his large e- commerce company now employs 462 people, with 85% from the area. Mr. Harris said that there are not currently many large office buildings in the county or city that can accommodate this number of employees. He explained that their reason for wanting to create a large campus setting is to bring all of their employees under one roof, and eventually offer day care, food, dry cleaning, etc. so people don't have to make a lot of extra trips. Mr. Harris Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 126 M concluded that Value America is a growing, clean industry, with many opportunities for the future and many things to add to Albemarle County. Eric Strucko, co-chair of the DISC Committee, addressed the Commission. He reported that their report is scheduled to be presented to the Board of Supervisors the second week of November. He noted that a significant portion of the presentation would include the concept of master planning in designated growth areas, and will outline the kind, location, and amount of growth that area citizens want. Stating his concerns as a private citizen, Mr. Strucko expressed concern with this proposal for a rezoning to expand growth areas, adding that any kind of proposal that expands the growth area "simply contributes to sprawl." He acknowledged that Value America is an important corporate presence in Albemarle County, but suggested that they find a location within the current designated growth area boundaries. Mr. Bruce Applegard, a policy advocate for Southern Environmental Law Center speaking on their behalf, u ged the Commission to deny both rezoning requests. He expressed concern over the lack of a comprehensive traffic study regarding the proposal, as most of the Value America employees would be forced to drive even further, exacerbating traffic problems on Route 29. Mr. Applegard continued that this further crowding would seriously undermine the efforts of the SELC to defeat the proposed Western Bypass. He noted that the proposals do not constitute smart growth, as they contradict the basic tenants of smart growth — targeting growth in existing development areas, locating employment centers close to existing residents, and leaving rural open space. Mr. Applegard emphasized that by allowing development outside the designated growth area, the rezoning would seriously undermine the county's Comprehensive Plan. He encouraged the Commission to deny the proposal, or at the very least, defer the request until adequate information is obtained. A Watts Passage resident, Dan Ramirez, addressed the Commission. He said that the "orange line" will only move one way, and he is naturally concerned about increased traffic that may be on the road he and many other residents use — Route 600 — to access Route 29. Mr. Ramirez acknowledged that the sketch of the proposed Value America building is attractive, and the job opportunities it provides are beneficial to the community, but said he wants to preserve the quality of life for his family. Mr. Bob Wack, who moved to Watts Passage from Michigan, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern that his neighbors, some of whom are area farmers, are under various pressures with the growth concerns facing them. He said that residents would like to preserve the rural setting of the area, and the county needs to balance and manage growth in a setting that recognizes the area and what it has to offer. Mr. Wack said that the DISC Committee is undertaking a worthy project, and it seems to be inappropriate to consider amending the line, until they have reached the conclusion that it is appropriate. He outlined his major concerns as: why two locations are proposed; a complete development plan for all the acreage should be considered; and the environmental and traffic impacts the new facility would bring. Mr. Wack encouraged Commissioners to defer action until more information is available. Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 127 En Ms. Anne Malick, representing the Earlysville Residents League, addressed the Commission. She reported that a 1998 survey the league conducted of 120 families indicated that 75% are most concerned with protecting a rural quality of life. The league recommends denial of the application because the property is in a Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, adding that residents are entitled to stability in their lives. Ms. Malick said that Parcel 15 is not within the Industrial Service Area, and developments should be confined to properly zoned parcels, noting that there are currently 2,000 acres of properly zoned land in the area available for this type of use. She asked the Commission what the county's plans for mass transit are, and encouraged the Commission not to be distracted by employment issues when making a decision on the proposals. Mr. Donald Ryan, President of Raintree Homeowners Association, addressed the Commission. He stated that there seems to be a lot of information missing regarding the proposals, making it difficult for Commissioners to make an informed decision on the proposals. Mr. Ryan emphasized that the Comprehensive Plan designates all of Site 2 and 11.6 acres of Site 1 as Rural Area, and encouraged Commissioners to respect the boundaries. He asked Commissioners to vote against the proposals. Mr. John Martin addressed the Commission, stating that the application for Value America to build outside the designated development area should be denied. He stressed that it is vitally important to maintain boundaries of the development area to control growth. Mr. Martin said that the Rivanna Water Supply Project is taking place without any procedures in place to ensure that their planning is in accordance with the county's Comprehensive Plan; he mentioned that a letter he sent to the Board and provided to the Commission requests Comprehensive Plan review of the Rivanna Water Supply planning. Mr. Martin said that their plan involves building a water supply to accommodate 220,000 by the year 2050 — double the current population. He noted that water is a catalyst for growth, and building a water supply for speculative future population growth at the hard edges of the development areas attract builders, developers and other commercial interests seeking to expand development areas. Mr. Martin emphasized that "this is not the time to be tinkering with the borders of the development areas." Ms. Nancy Morsky, a resident of the Piney Mountain area, addressed the Commission, stating that her family and neighbors will be affected by the decisions made regarding the proposed rezonings. She stated that she and her family moved here in 1992 for the beauty and history of the area, and expressed concern that the increased development would affect the schools in the area. Ms. Morsky asked the Commission to deny the request, and asked them to refurbish the buildings and parcels already within urban limits. Edward Myers of Watts Passage addressed the Commission, stating that his house faces toward the property being considered for rezoning, and the facility would probably be visible from his house. Mr. Myers said he does not wish to live on edge of industrial area, and expressed concern that the county's expansion of industrial areas chips away at rural areas, emphasizing that development should be placed in areas already designated. Mr. Myers encouraged Commissioners to deny the request and ask Value America to look for a site Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 128 within the designated growth areas, or at the very least, defer the item to obtain information %N. regarding a master plan for the area. Ms. Babbette Thorpe of the Piedmont Environmental Council read a statement on their behalf. She referenced a July 17, 1997 memo from Chief of Planning Ron Keeler which stated that a "chronic problem" in Albemarle is that most development zoning was placed on the map before adoption of a Comprehensive Plan and noted that 1,455 acres of vacant land were zoned for industrial use, and an additional 950 acres planned for industrial/office use but not yet zoned. Ms. Thorpe said that if the 2,400 total acres were developed at the density of the North Fork Business Park, an additional 13.68 million square feet of space would be available — more industrial space than the City of Richmond. The PEC statement acknowledged that Value America is an important part of the local economy, but adding a new site for industry leaves zoned and vacant land somewhere else in the county's growth area, regardless of how well that company would fit the needs of the community. Ms. Thorpe added that the City of Charlottesville also has sufficient available industrial/office property, and encouraged the Commission to deny ZMA 99-003 because it lies completely out of a designated growth area, and ZMA 99-002 because of lack of data, and uncertainty about how much of the parcel lies within the growth area. No further public comment was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said it seems clear that the matter needs to be considered after information is obtained to address unanswered questions. He mentioned a request to Ms. Scala for a written ftw list of what would be required of the applicant. Ms. Scala said that the missing information is addressed in the staff report under the factors for which there is not sufficient information to comment. She said that staff needs time to review the plan for development to see if it is adequate, and for VDOT to review the traffic study. Ms. Scala said staff would need to review the need for public facilities for the area, and would need more specific information from the applicant on both sites — including water use and number of employees. She said that it is unclear whether both sites would be Value America, and that should be stated. Mr. Finley asked if all information — including what's been received, partially reviewed, and pending — could be examined within a time frame that would fit. Ms. Scala reiterated that staff is proposing to take the plan to the Site Review Committee on September 901, and under the normal schedule a site plan would return to Commission in mid -October. Mr. Rieley commented that almost all of the issues raised, including the location of the growth area line and whether it should be changed, are Comprehensive Plan issues rather than rezoning issues. "It seems to me that the logical and orderly way in which a proposal such as this should be evaluated is at the Comprehensive Plan level first, including a plan for development and an assessment of its impacts on the general Comprehensive Plan first, and then — once those parameters are set — then a rezoning should be sought within the guidelines Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 129 that are established at the Comprehensive Plan level. It seems to me that the cart is pretty *Iw• seriously out in front of the horse on this, and rather than simply leave it in reverse order and push the schedule back, why don't we get the horse out front." Mr. Loewenstein agreed. "I think we're doing it backwards here. I would suggest [the reverse] order of approach." Mr. Finley asked what timeframe would be involved in a Comprehensive Plan review. Mr. Cilimberg asked the Commission what context a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be considered. He noted that if the Commission wanted to consider the change within the applicant's suggested adjustment so that there's no net increase in land amount, it could be done along with study of the aforementioned impacts of the change in zoning. He noted that the applicant's agreement would be needed in order to have that happen first before the rezoning, and set aside the rezoning for an indefinite period, otherwise the rezoning has to be back to Commission before October because of the 90-day requirement. "We can look at a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or change that reflects what the applicant has asked for as quickly as we can get it back to you, but that is very likely going to push the rezoning out beyond 90 days, and that's something that I think the applicant would have to agree to." Mr. Rieley said, "There's absolutely no way that I would be in favor of either one of these because it seems to me that — completely aside from the fact that there's a lot of missing information — this is simply not within the parameters of the existing CP, and if it can be demonstrated that this is a positive proposal, if we can be brought a CP that is within the objectives... and which makes adjustments to the CP, that's one thing. But clearly we have one parcel that is an island floating way outside the growth area, we have another one that most of it is outside the growth area, and it seems to me that those kind of issues are CP issues, and it needs to be addressed at that level." Mr. Loewenstein concurred. Regarding the applicant's offer to "exchange" acreage, Mr. Loewenstein added that without any study or thought of the CP, "We don't have any way to know tonight that a mere exchange of acres doesn't have some other kind of impact, even if the acreage remains the same, the location of the acreage for which it's exchanged may ultimately... make a difference....this needs to go through the Comprehensive Planning process." Mr. Finley wondered how much time it would take to go through a Comprehensive Planning process. Mr. Nitchmann suggested it be done in parallel to the gathering of the missing information. "We have a very unique situation here, and we have to bear that in mind .... This doesn't come along every day here where an individual or company is willing to put 85% of their land in Open Space, something that we would just love to have." He continued that all the applicant is asking for is "to move the line over and give up some acreage on the other side. Mr. Nitchmann said that Value America cannot go on in its present situation of working out of 12 or 14 different locations, adding that it is the responsibility of the Commission as Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 130 En "public servants" to make sure the community has a strong economic base that serves the environment, and doesn't heavily impact the existing infrastructure. Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern that a Comprehensive Plan review could drag on for a long time, and business has to move more quickly. He noted that there will always be traffic problems, regardless of the Value America site. Mr. Nitchmann said he would like to see the lingering questions answered, and if said that if adjustment of the CP boundaries could be done within the same time frame, then that should be done also. He added that he is unaware of any location in the City that could accommodate the parking Value America would need. "To deny this out of hand would be a great disservice to this community." Mr. Finley said that the development area line is "a bit vague" and redrawing it might be an improvement. He agreed with Mr. Nitchmann that it would be preferable for answering the lingering concerns and redrawing of the boundaries to be done simultaneously. Mr. Cilimberg attempted to clarify what the Commission would want to see in the Comprehensive Plan consideration, stating that if the request was to simply change the boundaries and provide a boundary that actually meets the current policy for Comprehensive Plan designated growth area boundaries, then they could pass a resolution for that only. He stated that the other stipulations specified for that area, including a master plan requirement, are already in place. Mr. Cilimberg said that if it's simply an adjustment to what the boundary is, the Commission could pass a resolution of intent to have that come back to them as one change to the plan only — for boundary. He said that if that is all that is expected, it could be done concurrently with the rezoning deferral. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that if the Commission is looking at a full amendment consideration to the plan, then that timeframe doesn't work. Ms. Washington acknowledged that Value America is an asset to the community, but said that "we're kind of jumping the gun here." She stated, "We can't just move boundaries because they are not in a development area... we can't, just because this particular company is an asset to the community, just move the boundaries." Ms. Washington said while the boundaries may have originally been drawn somewhat "casually," as Mr. Nitchmann mentioned, they were drawn as such. "I think it's really silly of us ... because this developer wants us to move the lines, give him 250 acres to fit that project, we should just do that." Ms. Washington continued that the Commission takes its time with other projects, and asks developers to take deferrals so that we all information can be obtained. She added, "I don't think we should rush this particular situation. I don't care how good this particular plan is... we can't have it both ways. We really do need to slow down [and] look at all the things that we're missing out of this plan. We need to hold this developer responsible just like we hold everybody else... " Ms. Washington encouraged fellow Commissioners not to push this project through without detailed consideration, and work within the guidelines set. She added that she could not support the applications as presented. Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 131 09 Mr. Thomas said that the Commission would be "pushing the envelope and rushing it." He noted that this is one of several projects that have come before the Commission without all of the information needed to make a good decision. Mr. Thomas said he would like to see the overall plan for the area. "With the research park sitting across the highway, it's going to explode very quickly anyway. I would like to see us look at more of that future development for the highway construction, infrastructure, schools..." He concluded that he cannot currently support the proposals because the growth areas were set up for a purpose, and should stay where they are. Mr. Finley said, "There's 250 acres there that something will go there. How many of them are going to have 70 acres of green space. How many will build a building like this, and in addition provide 70 acres of green space. Something is going in that 250 acres." Ms. Washington agreed. "Something is going in the 250 acres no matter what we do here today, and this is a designated growth area. We may not have all of the open space and the green space that we would really want. But whether we get the green space from this developer or have none, when you live in the designated development area, you run the risk of not having any open or green space." She said that future developers would probably proffer some open or green space, even if it is not 70 acres. "It won't be totally concrete. It won't look like Chicago. It won't look like New York City. It will be something we can live with because it's a designated growth area." Mr. Finely wondered how many fellow Commissioners felt the line was in the best place. Mr. Rieley said that the venue to talk about that, since it's a CP line, is at the CP level. "If it's in the wrong place, let's fix it in a proper place to fix it, not jump ahead to rezoning... we really would be making this decision in a vacuum of information, I think." He further noted that while there are two applications, they are fundamentally different — one is completely outside of the growth area and completely surrounded by Rural Area zoning. "I think we'd be doing everybody a big favor if we'd just put that one out of it's misery." Mr. Rieley attempted to make a motion to deny ZMA 99-003. Mr. Nitchmann said he could not support a motion for denial because the opportunity is too important to the health of the community. He reiterated his concern that the boundary line was not drawn with an intended purpose in 1992, and stated that the line should probably have followed the contour of the river. Mr. Nitchmann said that it could be done by October 19t' if just moving the line was being considered. He further complimented the plan presented for the Value America site. Mr. Finley said he voted in favor of the 1996 NGIC proposal because it was good for the county. He said that at that time the development area boundary line was moved to accommodate the site. Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 132 MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved to defer ZMA 99-003 and ZMA 99-002to October 19"'. 1%W He asked staff to issue a letter to the applicant outlining what is expected for the first set of 09 reviews. Mr. Finely asked Mr. Davis to comment. Mr. Davis said there are two applications being considered, each of which needs to be considered separately. He said that the October 19"' date is within the Commission's window of opportunity and discretion to defer. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Nitchmann which site he was moving to defer. Mr. Nitchmann said he was attempting to defer both. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann clarified that he moved to defer ZMA 99-003 to October 19`h so that additional information could be obtained, and so that a mini Comprehensive Plan review could be done addressing the ramifications of moving the line over. Mr. Davis suggested that the Comprehensive Plan review would need to be executed through a resolution of intent as a separate motion. Mr. Nitchmann asked why it was necessary to have a separate motion. Mr. Davis said that if the CP is to be amended, there needs to be a legal public hearing on the amendment, which is a separate action. "If all you want is just the information as to whether or not you should amend the CP, that's something staff could bring you back on October 19t', but the result of that would be, if the Commission wants to amend the Plan before it acts on the application, there would be an additional delay to hold a public hearing to initiate the process at that time." Mr. Nitchmann asked if it were within the Commission's purview to move the line without a CP review. Mr. Davis responded that the CP is a guide, and if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors determine that the application substantially complied with the CP, it could act on the rezoning request without a CP review. "That's a judgement call that the Planning Commission and the Board has to make. If your policy is to follow the CP, then your going to have to determine that this is consistent with the CP, even thought that line splits the proposed site." Mr. Nitchmann clarified that his motion would allow the information to be gathered to allow the Commission to make a decision on whether a CP review is needed, or if it is within their purview to determine that the application meets the intent of the CP and no change would be needed. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized, "You will not be able to move the line without a CPA. You can find the action to rezone the area — whether it's on the boundary or the other one outside — Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 133 you can find that in compliance, and the plan can be amended by whatever subsequent action ,%NW you want to make. Or you don't have to amend it at all." 09 Mr. Nitchmann asked if the parcel could be brought within the Light Industrial area if another parcel would be given back to the Rural Areas. Mr. Davis clarified that the line would stay the same until there is a CPA. "You can make a determination that this zoning request is consistent enough for you to approve it, but you can't take away another area that's designated in the CP without having a CPA. The trade would require an amendment; an approval could be done without an amendment." Mr. Nitchmann said he understood the applicant's intent to be setting aside 70 acres to be left as Open Space. Ms. Washington remarked that there is nothing written that he is going to proffer that. Mr. Finley seconded Mr. Nitchmann's motion. Mr. Rieley said that the reason he would not support the motion because it comes down to the fundamental determination that Mr. Davi.4 made that the trade proposed by the applicant requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. "If it requires a CPA, we have no alternative but to deny this zoning application; otherwise, we're recommending approval of something that's clearly not in compliance with the CP....I don't think it closes the door. I think it simply puts the process in the right order." Mr. Loewenstein agreed, adding that no Commissioner had suggested that Value America is not an important part of the community. "That's not the issue before us, and I don't like to see it turned into that. We don't know what can be worked out at this point, and we also don't know what Value America might be able to put together on some other site that's already zoned for this purpose, and we know that there are thousands of acres available in the county for that....we're not saying no to Value America here. We're asking questions about this particular location, and about the process for approving it." Mr. Finley stated that his understanding from Mr. Davis is that the request for rezoning can be done without moving the CP line. Mr. Davis confirmed this, stating that the CP is a guideline. "If the policy of the Planning Commission and the Board is to approve rezonings consistent with the CP, you would have to make a determination that this rezoning request is substantially in accord with the CP as it's now constituted." Mr. Nitchmann said, "We can't do that with the information we have in hand today." Ms. Washington said she had no problem with a deferral, but did not want to see the county "held hostage" to an unreasonable timeline. She added that if an informed decision could not Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 134 be made by October 19th, she would like more time for staff and the applicant to gather what *AW is needed. Mr. Davis said that the Commissioner technically have until October 3 1 " to make a determination or a deferral without the applicant's consent. Mr. Wood re -addressed the Commission, stating that he did not know that there was a deadline, and does not want to force the county into anything. He noted that it will be Value America's decision whether or not they can wait to begin planning a new facility. In a 4-2 vote, with Mr. Nitchmann, Mr. Finley, Mr. Thomas, and Ms. Washington voting in favor, and Mr. Rieley and Mr. Loewenstein dissenting, the motion for deferral of action on ZMA 99-003 to October 19`h, 1999 passed. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded approval of deferral of action on ZMA 99- 002 to October 19th, 1999. In a 4-2 vote, with Mr. Nitchmann, Mr. Finley, Mr. Thomas, and Ms. Washington voting in favor, and Mr. Rieley and Mr. Loewenstein dissenting, the motion passed. Concurring with staff opinion, Commissioners agreed that additional information was needed regarding a traffic study and plan of development for the existing Development Area — addressing issues of transportation, utilities, stormwater, open space, public facilities, and areas appropriate for development. 14%W MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of a Resolution of Intent to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to review whether or not the area included in rezoning application ZMA 99-002 and ZMA 99-003 should be included in the development area. Within that analysis, the Commission wants staff to recommend whether or not the area should be expanded or adjusted. The motion passed unanimously. Old Business Mr. Loewenstein reported on his representation on the Court Facilities Study Committee, noting that the committee recently met and plans to tour the facilities while the courts are in session to evaluate the situation. He agreed to keep Commissioners apprised of their ongoing findings. Mr. Finley presented a proposed agenda for the joint meeting with Greene County Commissioners to be held at 6:30 p.m. on August 31st in Room 235. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. N . ' V. Wayne Cilimberg Secretary Albemarle County Planning Commission — August 24, 1999 135