Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 19 1999 PC Minuteson Albemarle County Planning Commission October 19, 1999 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, October 19, 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. Dennis Rooker; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. Jared Loewenstein. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of County Engineering. Approval of Minutes — October 5,1999 The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of October 5 h, 1999 as amended Matters not listed on the agenda None were offered, and the meeting proceeded. Consent Agenda SDP 99-081 Brownsville Baseball Field Major Amendment — Request for a waiver from full compliance with the lighting ordinance [4.175(a)2] in conjunction with a major site plan amendment for a high school baseball field with lighting, dug -outs and warm-up area on 50 acres zoned R-1, Residential, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The property, described as Tax Map 56 Parcel 17A, is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Rockfish Gap Turnpike [Route 250 West] approximately'/2 mile west of the intersection with Miller School Road [Route 6351. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Institutional in the Community of Crozet. SUB 99-181 Gilbert Station Preliminary Plat — Request for preliminary plat approval to establish a Rural Preservation Development consisting of 20 development lots averaging 5.31 acres and 2 preservation tracts containing 79.5 acres and 100 acres. The property is zoned RA (Rural Area). The property, described as Tax Map 33 Parcel 31 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Gilbert Road (Route 640) approximately 0.6 miles west of Route 784. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 2. The Commission moved, seconded, and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda as presented. Deferred Items• SUB 99-148 Parkside Village Preliminary Plat Request for preliminary plat approval to create 48 lots on 18.2 acres. The property is zoned R-6, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcels 57A and 57A1 is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Hilltop Street (Rt. 691) approximately 0.21 miles from the intersection of Hilltop and High Street (Route 1204). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 194 Industrial Service and Transitional in the Crozet Community. Deferred from the October S, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Echols presented the staff report, stated that the applicant has met with the Crozet Parks Board and area residents to discuss the location of the building, and the location of the road to the park. She noted that a letter from the applicant regarding those meetings is an attachment to the staff report. Ms. Echols said that the major issue resolved was the road configuration; the applicant took two possible road scenarios, and asked VDOT for comment as to what they would approve. She mentioned that the road which VDOT has approved has been presented in sketch format to Commissioners (Attachment "A"). Ms. Echols explained that VDOT has approved an urban cross-section, 30-feet of pavement, with a "Y" configuration — which saves the radio station building, creates a road design that limits the number of vehicle trips per day from any development of the adjoining property, and provides for traffic calming at the intersection of Hilltop's entrance and the two streets that go through Parkside. She added that VDOT is open to considering crosswalks in that general area, so that pedestrian access will be enhanced, and there will be built-in traffic calming. Ms. Echols added to her recommendations of approval a condition that this be the design that the road system be approved with. Mr. Finley asked Ms. Echols to clarify the traffic limit on the new road. Ms. Echols said that there would be a maximum of 400 between the two potential road connections to the east. Mr. Rieley asked her what it is about the 30-foot urban cross-section that limits the traffic. Ms. Echols responded that the horizontal curvature and the width of the road mean that you can't connect more than 400 trips to it. Mr. Rooker noted that there is no physical limitation on the number of vehicles that can be on this road, but if development of the properties to the east were proposed, a traffic analysis of the burden it might place on the road might preclude approval of a new development if the traffic would exceed 400 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Finley asked if there would be stop signs at the intersection as a means of slowing traffic. Mr. Kelsey addressed the Commission, stating that one leg of the "Y" would come in perpendicular to the roadway, and would include a stop sign. Mr. Loewenstein asked if the cross -walks would be raised. Mr. Kelsey said that VDOT has not viewed raised cross -walks favorably, but was more acceptable of the "stamped" cross -walks, which are easier for them to maintain. Mr. Rooker emphasized that traffic -calming is important for this highly pedestrian area. Albemarle County Planning Commission —October 19, 1999 195 Mr. Kelsey commented that he likes the idea that any road coming in from future development would have to come to an intersection with a stop. Mr. Finley asked about the parking in the open space. Ms. Echols responded that staff checked with the Zoning Department on the issue of the open space, and they indicated that if the Park wanted to request the ability to do parking on that area, they would need to make the request. "It's a formal request that the Park would need to make for parking on there... it's also something that needs some consideration by whomever is going to own that, whether or not they really want that greenspace covered with an asphalt surface, or even with a gravel surface. In order for the Zoning Department to approve parking, the parking has to have a surface." Mr. Rooker asked, "Even if the parking is on a very temporary basis — two or three times a year?" Ms. Echols replied that that is her understanding. Mr. Rieley responded, "The county fair is in serious jeopardy." Mr. Rooker said, "It happens all the time at the county fair." Ms. Echols said that the issue could be worked out separately with whomever owns the opens space. Mr. Loewenstein recalled that his understanding Zoning Ordinance accommodated parking for temporary events with a special permit. Mr. Benish said that it may be a matter of how it's defined in the ordinance. Mr. Finley asked Commissioners how they wished to proceed. Mr. Loewenstein said that since additional discussions were held between the developer and the community, it would be reasonable to hear brief comments. Mr. Thomas suggested hearing from a representative from the Hilltop neighborhood. Commissioners agreed. The applicant, Vito Cheta of Weatherhill Homes, addressed the Commission, and offered to answer any questions. Mr. Glen Gibson of Hilltop Street addressed the Commission. He expressed his disappointment about the county's inability to deny approval of the Parkside Village development. "I find this hard to believe and even harder to accept. Everyone involved here, I think, would agree that extra traffic, and the end results of this extra traffic, is going to cause a problem, and even affect the safety of the residents there." Mr. Gibson described an ordinance that allows "an infinite number of groups of 49 Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 196 homes built adjoining each other on a single access road is outrageous." He stressed the importance *AIW of being able to distinguish between the continuation of one development and the beginning of another one. cm Ms. Tracy Boozer of Hilltop Street addressed the Commission, urging the county to "establish a new way of planning that protects and represents the established neighborhoods as well as the developers and their new neighborhoods." She added, "Let there be parity between the treasured old and the incoming new. There are only a few Hilltop Streets left, and one is in Crozet, but it will soon be changed beyond recognition." Ms. Boozer explained that residents' grudge is not with Weatherhill Homes, but with how and why it was allowed to be there without the necessary road system. She encouraged Commissioners to "stop the growth in this area without adequate infrastructure for us all. Let Parkside Village be the first and the last until a connector road is built." Mr. Tom Loach addressed the Commission. He stated that the important part of the issue is not whether the homes will be approved in the growth area — because the application is a by -right development, but what recommendation the Planning Commission forwards to the Board of Supervisors. He said that the residents of Hilltop have been very cooperative, recognizing there will be new growth in the Crozet growth area and offering a solution to the problem by asking the county to provide connectivity through a series of well -planned roads built to the east of Parkside Village. "This new road pattern would provide improved traffic and pedestrian flow to both the current and future residents of this expanding neighborhood." Mr. Loach said that residents are asking for the county to consider Hilltop Street as part of the solution to building a new neighborhood, but not to make the street the "sole answer to the problem of spot development." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rooker commented that there has been good dialog between the neighborhood and the developer; despite the fact that the development is a matter of right, the developer was able to go a long way towards solving some of the neighbors' concerns. He said that the change in road alignment and width are "significant improvements to the original plan." Mr. Rooker mentioned the reduction in the right-of-way from the originally planned 28 feet to 21 feet, and stated that the configuration of the road may serve to limit the development of the property to the east until better connectivity of roads is achieved in the area. He added, "I personally am pleased with the result that's been achieved here; it's never perfect, but I think it's a much better result than what we started with." MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved for approval of SUB 99-148 with the 15 conditions as presented by staff, including a condition that the road alignment follow the scheme in the handout presented as "Parkside Village — New Exhibit, 10/19/99, approved by VDOT." He mentioned that a number of concerns that staff had addressed previously, the Commission did not have the power to deal with; the Commission made comments regarding the connectivity of roads in the area. Mr. Rooker stated that roads have to be planned and slated for funded. "We have to find out what pot of money a road qualifies under in order to obtain funding, but I think that certainly the concerns that were raised by residents in this regard are going to back factored into decisions going forward in these other areas." Albemarle County Planning Commission —October 19, 1999 197 Mr. Thomas agreed, adding that he hopes Crozet will be brought into the master plan "a little more w vividly than it has been for the last few years with the Board of Supervisors... Crozet is part of the county, and we would like to help." He seconded the motion for approval of SUB 99-148. Mr. Loewenstein commended "both sides in this process for having participated in a dialog that's had positive results." He also said that connectivity was very important, noting that "this would have been an easier thing for us to do had the work of the DISC Committee already been finished and we had some sort of template." Mr. Loewenstein commended the residents for their input. "I think their sentiments were right on the mark, and I think this is something that we on the Planning Commission and Planning staff should hear and take seriously." Mr. Finley said that while he respected the rights of property owners, but if the effects of development lower the standards of quality below what is acceptable, it should not be pursued. "There are no parameters to determine the impact on quality [on downstream neighbors]." He indicated that he would vote against this, hoping that someone would think about the impact on communities like Hilltop. "We can make fiscal impact studies, environmental impact studies, all kinds, but no impact study on quality of the community that's affected by the discharge from a new development." In a 5-2 vote, with Mr. Finley and Mr. Loewenstein dissenting, the Commission approved SUB 99- 148. SP 99-55 CV201 Route 676 (Ivy Creek Methodist Church) Request for special use permit to allow for a personal wireless service facility in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio -wave transmission and relay towers. The property, described as Tax Map 44, Parcel 12H, is the site of the Ivy Creek United Methodist Church and is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District at 674 Woodlands Road (Route 676), approximately'/2 mile east of the intersection of Routes 676 and 660. The property contains 1.6 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 1. Deferred from the October 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Applicant requests deferral to October 26, 1999. Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded deferral of SP 99-55 to October 26, 1999. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing Items: CPA 99-02 Piney Mountain Community Industrial Service Area Consideration of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use plan for Piney Mountain Community in that area east of Seminole Trail (Route 29 North), west of Watts Passage (Route 600) and north of the North Fork Rivanna River to expand or adjust the Development Area boundary, meaning the Land Use Plan designation may change from Rural Area to Industrial Service and from Industrial Service to Rural Area. Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 198 ZMA 99-02 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. Deferred from the August 24, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. ZMA 99-03 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. Deferred from the August 24, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Scala presented the staff report on the CPA and rezonings, noting that the Planning Commission had considered the items at their August 24t' meeting and deferred action at that time. Commissioners at that time agreed with staff that additional information was needed, including 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 A, development. Simultaneously, the Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to review whether or not the area included in the rezoning application should be included in the development area; within that analysis, the Commission requested staff s recommendation on whether or not the development area boundary should be expanded or adjusted. Ms. Scala said that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment considers only a limited area adjacent to the properties which are proposed for LI, Light Industrial for Value America: one property straddles the development area boundary, and one is located outside the development area. She explained that the question is whether the development area boundary is drawn in a logical and reasonable location, or whether it should be adjusted to accommodate the proposed rezonings. Ms. Scala reported that staff has reviewed the amendment under the established CPA criteria, and has considered the Board of Supervisors directive not to expand the development areas at this time, and recommends that the Piney Mountain development area boundary not be expanded or adjusted. "The existing boundary is reasonable and logical in its current location, and there is no compelling reason to go outside the boundary or to adjust the boundary." She noted that in 1992, an amendment to the Land Use Plan created the Piney Mountain Industrial Service designation east of 29 North as illustrated on the map presented. Ms. Scala also pointed out the study area staff considered in reviewing the proposal to possibly modify the boundary. She outlined the criteria staff used for the review, as indicated in her staff report. Ms. Scala emphasized that there are several CPA amendment criteria — the first one refers to the fact that amendments to the Land Use Plan should be reviewed for compliance with a general plan, rather Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 199 than parcel -specific requests; such changes in the Land Use Map would be evaluated for general public benefits rather than proprietary interests of an individual. Staff concluded that there is no more logical adjustment to the boundary which would allow these sites to be included in the development area — the northern boundary provides a logical location so there could be a possible second entrance on 29 North; the eastern boundary is a well-defined identifiable boundary along a stream; the southern boundary follows the river and the NGIC property to another stream; the western boundary is along 29. She said that the best area in terms of topography has been defined — its along a ridge as illustrated in the staff report. Ms. Scala continued that the proposal does not support the growth management goal, or the infill development objective, and does not sufficiently address other objectives. It supports part of the economic development goal, but not all of it. She noted that there may be other conditions that may be considered in evaluation of a request to amend the Plan — such as change in circumstances that occurred, or updated information becoming available; staff has concluded that this is not the case in this situation. Ms. Scala noted also that the Board of Supervisors has indicated that it does not want to expand the development area boundaries until the DISC Committee has made its recommendations. She concluded that staff believes the Piney Mountain Development Area boundary should not be adjusted; the existing boundary is reasonable and logical in its current location, and there is no compelling reason to go outside the boundary or adjust the boundary. Mr. Rooker asked if the developer's request was approved, how the boundary would be redrawn — just to include the parcel he owns, or to include a larger area. Ms. Scala answered that the Commission directed staff to consider expanding the boundary to accommodate the two requests; the study area goes to the next logical physical feature — a ridge. She confirmed that staff chose natural land features that would be logical to use as boundaries if the designated growth area were expanded, and added that staff concluded that the boundaries that were established in 1992 were perfectly rational. "To expand the boundary now, just to accommodate a specific site, went against the criteria that we use when we evaluate the change in a boundary." Mr. Rooker asked what acreage would be included in the area that would be added by expansion of the designated growth area in the study area boundaries. Mr. Benish replied that the study area boundaries as indicated on the map just identified the parameters of the areas evaluated for boundary adjustment, and were not measured with the intent of becoming a recommended alternative expansion. "If... you were to approve one or both of the rezonings, we would look at the next physical feature and adjust the boundary to that rezoned land." He added that the lakes appear to create the next logical physical boundary. Mr. Rooker asked for clarification as to what exact area was being considered for amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rieley said, "This was a response to our request to consider the issue, and staff s consideration of that issue was that they thought it was fine where it is." He mentioned that there is a mechanism that allows someone to request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, such as what was undertaken by the applicants in Brass, Inc. Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 200 140W Ms. Scala said staff suggested to the applicant that the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended to accommodate his rezonings, but he chose not to pursue that. "When you [the Commission] considered the rezonings, I think you felt that you didn't want to be placed in a position of where you might have to approve a rezoning that was outside the growth area." Mr. Rooker noted that the CPA was not done at the request of the applicant, and at this time there is no proposal for a definite boundary change. Mr. Rieley added, "We don't have a proposal for that because we don't have an advocate for any change in the Comprehensive Plan, because staff does not recommend a change in the Comprehensive Plan, and nobody else has put a proposal before us. I'm not certain that we have to vote on anything, because there's no reason that we have to change the Comprehensive Plan. We don't have a staff recommendation for it and we don't have an application for it." Ms. Scala reported that staff has received a lot of phone calls about this. "It's been a very confusing application from the beginning, and a lot of people were concerned that the way it was advertised, they didn't know [how big the study area was]... I guess we drew that study area boundary in an attempt to explain the limited area that we looked at. That's what it means — it means nothing more or less than that." Mr. Rooker asked what acreage the current growth area includes. Ms. Scala responded that it is approximately 250 acres. Mr. Rooker asked if there is an estimate of the study area addition to that. She replied, "Another 200 acres possibly." Mr. Rooker said, "Other than the recommendations of staff, there really hasn't been any intensive study of what's going on in this additional 200 acres." Ms. Scala responded, "I felt like our charge was simply to look at the existing boundary, and to decide whether or not it was appropriately drawn in the first place." She confirmed that staff concluded that the boundary is presently drawn correctly. Mr. Benish suggested that as the CPA consideration was requested in the context of the rezonings, the Commissioners proceed with their discussion of the rezonings. Commissioners agreed. Mr. Rieley added, "It's nebulous simply because there's no advocate for change." Reading from the minutes of the August 24t' meeting, Mr. Kamptner clarified that Commissioners passed a motion at that time for a Resolution of Intent to consider a CPA to review whether or not the area included in ZMA 99-02 and ZMA 99-03 should be included in the development area; within that analysis, the Commission wants staff to recommend that area should be expanded or adjusted. Commissioners agreed to consolidate the public hearings on CPA 99-02, ZMA 99-02, and ZMA 99- 03 were consolidated into one hearing. Prior to hearing public comment, Ms. Scala presented her staff report on ZMA 99-02 and ZMA 99- 03. Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 201 ZMA 99-02 - She explained that ZMA 99-02 involves the northernmost site, which is the larger of the two on the map, and was originally a rezoning request for 11.61 acres to be rezoned from RA to LI, Light Industrial, to accommodate the offices of Value America. Ms. Scala reported that since the last meeting on the item, the applicant has submitted a new application increasing the acreage to approximately 43.009 acres, including the original 11.61 acres and a new area of 29.471 acres and 1.9 acres of road right-of-way in between the two sites. She said that the applicant has now indicated that Value America would use either the ZMA 99-02 site OR the ZMA 99-03 but not both. Ms. Scala stated that staff has reviewed the application, and recommends denial of the portion of the application outside the existing development area boundary because the property is not located within an existing development area, and due to the recommendation not to expand or adjust the development area boundary contained in CPA 99-002. She added that staff also continues to recommend denial of the portion of the application within the existing development area boundary due to the need for additional information, including additional traffic study information and a plan of development that addresses Comprehensive Plan issues. Ms. Scala reported that since the last meeting, staff took the plan of development to the site review committee; they made comments; staff requested revisions, but did not receive back the revisions requested. Mr. Rooker asked what date the 29.471 acres and 1.928 acres were added to the request, and asked if it has been properly advertised. Ms. Scala said that staff received the letter and the application on August 3Is, but waited until the plat was received before advertising. She said the full application has been property advertised, and the road acreage was added because the applicant indicated that the two sites — the 11+ and 29+ acre parcels — would be combined and the road would be closed in that portion, adding 1.928 acres onto the entire acreage. She added that VDOT had requested a master plan and traffic study, and received a traffic study on August 13"'; VDOT has now reviewed that, and have replied by letter that it is not an adequate traffic study, as included in the staff report. Ms. Scala pointed out that the letter does tell the applicant what would be necessary in a traffic study. Ms. Scala concluded that because the portion of ZMA 99-02 lies outside the development area, and no boundary adjustment is recommended, and because critical information regarding the portion lying within the boundary — including additional traffic study information and a plan of development that addresses Comprehensive Plan issues — staff recommends denial of both portions. ZMA 99-03 — Ms. Scala presented the staff report, noting that the request is to rezone 17.21 acres form RA to LI to accommodate the offices of Value America, Inc. She stated that no proffers have been submitted on either 99-02 or 99-03 to date. Ms. Scala said that staff recommends denial of ZMA 99-03 because the property is not located within an existing development area, and due to the recommendation not to adjust the development area boundary contained in CPA 99-02. She reported that the applicant intends to use one site or the other, but not both, at this time. Ms. Scala Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 202 emphasized that because the site lies entirely outside of the development area boundary, staff recommends denial. Ms. Scala reported that the county has received a site plan and rezoning request for Value America on an Airport Road site. When she questioned the applicant on that, and asked if he wanted to continue the process on ZMA 99-02 and ZMA 99-03, he replied that he wanted to pursue them and indicated he would use one of these sites for Value America. Mr. Rooker asked what the size of the Airport Road site is. Mr. Benish replied that the site is approximately 30 acres, and is zoned LI with a small portion zoned RA. Mr. Rooker asked what part of the properties in ZMA 99-02 is in the growth area. Ms. Scala responded that she believed 12-15 acres to be outside, although she did not measure it; she said the amount inside the growth area was approximately 30 acres. Public comment was invited. Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He presented a sketch of a plan for the general area containing the proposed Value America site, stating that the company is looking for a place to consolidate their current 9-10 different locations around the county. Mr. Wood explained that he showed Value America several different parcels, and they liked the ZMA 99-03 parcel. He acknowledged that the parcel is outside the Comprehensive Plan [development] area, but said, "No one seems to know who drew that solid red line when it was put into the plan. It was certainly not given any natural boundaries." He described the line drawn by staff for the CPA study area as "a more sensible boundary," as it follows a creek which joins two lakes. Mr. Wood pointed out that the county's master plan calls for designation of 250 acres of land, but the solid red line showing the actual development boundary only includes 185 acres. `By that definition, you have an additional 65 acres that you can change that line, and you're really not changing your master plan." He emphasized that the entire parcel that includes ZMA 99-03 really consists of 90 acres of land, and Value America is willing to rezone just 17 acres of the land, with the balance left in open space for "golf course, walking trails, open space." Mr. Wood said that the time frame Value America needs to work within does not allow for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He stated that there are "three different maps out that show that line in different locations." Mr. Wood said that Value America's first choice is the ZMA 99-03 site, but if that does not work out, they would like ZMA 99-02 with whatever portion is in the Comprehensive Plan area. He stressed that the time frame is such that the Commission needs to take action ZMA 99-03, because that decision may indicate that the Value America headquarters will be at another location. Mr. Wood expressed concern that VDOT requested a traffic study for two locations of Value America, and there is only going to be one site - as his traffic study accounts for. He reminded Commissioners that the county required him to dedicate a 110-foot right-of-way into the NGIC property, and also required put a 12" water line and sewer into the property because of future Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 203 CM development. "There is a four -lane road that has to be built entering this property for the NGIC. That certainly is capable enough to handle one more facility." Mr. Thomas asked what acreage he would be giving to the county. Mr. Wood replied that in ZMA 99-03, there is 90 acres of land total of which 17 acres would be used for building and parking, leaving 73 acres open. Mr. Thomas asked why this parcel — outside the growth area — is the best option, and asked if it is the best option for just him [the applicant] or the best option for everyone. Mr. Wood responded that it is the best option for everyone, because it would only use 17 acres. "I don't think you've every seen a request come in that would have that much open space around a project. [Value America] was very interested in their employees having places to walk and ride bicycles." Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Wood to illustrate on the map where the 90 acres lie. Mr. Nitchmann clarified that if the parcel were developed as indicated, 17 acres would be the Value America site, and 73 acres would remain open space. Mr. Rooker asked if there was any proposal for that open space to be given to the county. Mr. Wood replied that it would be a public golf course, with walking trails. "The public would have a right to walk around that river bottom, walk around that cliff, and to play golf on that golf course." Mr. Rooker asked, "You don't propose to deed the property to the county?" Mr. Wood replied, "No." Mr. Rooker asked, "How do you assure that it would be a public facility." Mr. Wood replied, "Site plan." Mr. Rooker said, "You haven't made a proffer in that regard. As I understand it, one of the problems staff has raised is that at this point, there are no proffers that have been made with respect to either of these potential rezonings." Mr. Wood responded that Value America would not give the land up, but it will be a "golf course, open to the public, for pay, as any golf course is." Mr. Thomas asked how the golf course would be run, since only four holes of the course are shown on the plan to lie on the Value America site. Mr. Wood replied that in the contract, Value America has agreed to allow a golf course to be built on that property by a golf course developed. "That's in the contract. It's very detailed." Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 204 Mr. Thomas asked, "Does it specify that only a golf course would be there?" Mr. Wood said, "You have that control." Mr. Rooker said, "I don't think we really do. I don't think it's within our control to require a golf course on a property.... what about the property to the north? If we were to deal with ZMA 99-03, which encompasses the Value America site plus potentially four holes of a golf course, how to you obtain assurance that the property to the north is going to be developed as the other 14 holes of public golf course." Mr. Wood responded that he owns all of that land, and in his contract with Value America, "they have to allow that to be developed in that way." Mr. Rooker expressed staff s concern that there is no plan of development for this property as a whole. "Without that before us, what may or may not happen is not something we're dealing with tonight." Referencing a map he presented, Mr. Wood said, "That is our interpretation of a master plan for that property, and we control that." He added that the property (the 73 acres) cannot be developed in any other fashion than a golf course. Mr. Nitchmann said that Value America could set forth with the staff a proffer that states "the remaining portion of the 90 acres will be left in open space or a golf course. Period." Mr. Wood said, "That's what is in the contract." Mr. Rooker emphasized, "Your private contract is not enforceable by the county." Mr. Rooker also asked Mr. Wood if the part of ZMA 99-02 that is presently in the development area is a sufficient site for Value America to build its facilities. Mr. Wood responded that Value America could be built on 14 or 15 acres, so there is enough inside the boundary to do it. "If you choose not to amend the Comprehensive Plan... the headquarters facility would no longer be built here. It would be built on Airport Road, and additional office space that would be in their needs would then be built on the portion of 002. That time frame is not as critical because they are already moving forward, and have filed a site plan on existing zoned industrial land." He said they would be willing to accept deferral of 002 until the county's requests for information have been satisfied. Mr. Wood said that he has proffered a school site. "Those negotiations are well-known with members of the School Board [and] Supervisors who are involved in that. There has been a proffer on the table for over 2 months." Mr. Rooker stated, "I think a proffer that accompanies a rezoning request has to be in a specific form signed by the applicant, and we would have that before us in our packets. In order to be a binding Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 205 proffer, it has to be in a specific form designed by the county. As we see the packets tonight, we don't have any proffers before us." Mr. Wood responded, "There are some delicate negotiations in that... they are private negotiations." Mr. Rooker said, "Then it's not a proffer that's before us with respect to these applications." Mr. Wood said, "All those technicalities, you can work those out... there's one on the table." He clarified that the school site is related to ZMA 99-03, and added that the School Board members have it, the engineering department has it in the form of dollars, location, and commitment to run water & sewer to the site. Mr. Thomas asked how far the pipes would need to be run. Mr. Wood replied that he has committed to run the water, sewer and road one mile to the school site. Mr. Finley asked if 30 acres was enough for a school site. Mr. Wood said, "They (?) picked the site." In response to Mr. Finley's question regarding site preference, Mr. Wood replied that if the Commission denies the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Value America will concentrate their efforts to the Airport Road site for their headquarters, and the other site would become office space, for which time is not as critical. Further public comment was invited. Mr. Stuart Kessler of Preddy Creek Road addressed the Commission. Mr. Kessler said that he is in favor of "good growth," and understands Value America to be a good company. However, he expressed concern about the scale of the development, and the confusion surrounding the order of the plan for it. "It seems to be dealing with it as it goes, and that's not the way to handle zoning." Mr. Kessler emphasized that the county is not zoning just for Value America, but for the entire property. "What could be there, if it's not Value America. Well, according to LI [zoning] — manufacturer of medical and chemical products, bottling plants for Pepsi Cola, experimental testing facilities... warehouse and distribution of tires... as much as I would like to see companies like [Value America] here, and I think they should be, I think you have to look at the future of the area. It's not the only site." Ms. Ruth Wadlington, co -President of the Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Voters addressed the Commission, and read a prepared statement from that group (Attachment "B"). Mr. Eric Meyers, who lives off of Watts Passage Road, addressed the Commission, and expressed his opposition to the Value America proposal. He said that he has enjoyed living with his family in a rural/agricultural setting, and this project can only detract from the quality of life they have grown to love. He specified that his concerns are: granting an exception on a zoning status could spur other businesses to do the same, which would increase pressure on surrounding farms; to date, Value Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 206 America has not publicly committed to addressing the issues of light pollution, traffic, etc. Mr. Meyers asked Commissioners to consider whether the proposed development is in the long-term interest of area residents. He asked for meeting attendees who oppose the rezoning to stand. Mr. Bob Wack addressed the Commission, and distributed a statement — which he read — from Piney Mountain Community residents indicating opposition to the proposal (Attachment "C"). Ms. Peg Lascano addressed the Commission, expressing her dismay over the statement that "nobody really knows how that solid red line was drawn." She said that that line was probably carefully drawn after careful study and consideration. Ms. Lascano said that as a resident of Route 29 North, "we've paid our dues," and expressed her objection to further infringement off of the 29 corridor. "When we do comprehensive studies, we do them for a reason. I think when we approve them, we approve them hopefully with foresight." Mr. Jeff Werner, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Commission. he read a prepared statement (Attachment "D"). Mr. Rich Lindsay, a Route 600 resident, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern over the lack of a site plan, a plan for development, and general understanding of what Value America plans to do for this site. He said there has been no mention of stream buffers, visual impact, buffer between the rural areas. Mr. Lindsay said he was not aware of the plans for a golf course, and putting one far up on Route 29 North would only serve residents of that area. He echoed Mr. Rooker's statement that it is unclear what is being voted on, and questioned the rationale of Value America seeking two, possibly three sites if their goal is consolidation. Mr. Lindsay suggested shrinking the development area instead of expanding it. "I don't necessarily see this as the best use of the land." Mr. Bruce Applegard, a Transportation/Land Use Planner for the Southern Environmental Law Center, addressed the Commission. On behalf of the SELC, he urged Commissioners to deny both rezoning requests and not change the development area boundary. "I find it very inappropriate to... think of open space and golf courses as one in the same. One of the main points of having open space is that it's accessible to most people, and golf courses clearly are not. Walking trails and golf courses just don't mix." He added that the SELC is also very concerned about the applicant's inability to produce a comprehensive traffic study; as a major employment center, the development poses tremendous increases to the congestion along Route 29. Mr. Applegard warned that allowing development outside the designated growth area could encourage sprawling development, opening the door for unnecessary loss of open space, and present excessive burdens on the area's water, sewer, and road infrastructure. "There are indeed more appropriate sites close to the urban core of the region — such as the Airport site... which could be developed instead of areas on the urban fringe." He encouraged an infill-first strategy. Ms. Anne Malick, representing the Earlysville Are Residents League, said the league recommends denial of the applications for rezoning, and to any change in the Comprehensive Plan. She expressed concern that the request to consider the items was presented in a piecemeal fashion without complete information. She read from the plan, "Development is not to be encouraged in Rural Areas which are to be devoted to the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water supply & Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 207 protection, conservation, and where only limited delivery of public services is intended." Ms. Malick added that there is no compelling need, as required by the plan, to rezone these particular parcels, and the petitioner has not cooperated with timely requests for maps, plans, traffic studies, etc. She concluded that there is lots of land available — such as the Airport Road site. Mr. Lloyd Herring, a Route 600 resident and third generation farmer, addressed the Commission. He expressed dismay over the confusing way the application had been presented up to this point. Mr. Herring said that he currently has a nice view of the Blue Ridge Mountains, and if this building is constructed, he will see that instead. "If there's one building put over there, you can bet they'll be more." He encouraged Commissioners to consider the concerns of area residents regarding the proposal. Mr. Chris Herring addressed the Commission, expressing his concern that growth in the county is out of hand, especially the development along Route 29 and the improvements to the road that don't seem to solve the traffic problems. He added that he is concerned that eventually Charlottesville will join Culpeper if the present development trends continue. Mr. Herring said that the site the applicant has earmarked for a school has had sewage dumped on it, and it would not make an ideal school site. Mr. Tom Riddle of Sylvan Lane, which neighbors the proposed area, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern that many of the jobs Value America creates may need to bring in outside employees, generating additional residents which put demand on county resources. "How can you be assured that if you move [to a rural setting] that you'll be able to enjoy that for very long, if we keep building more and more shopping centers, and paving all the rural property." Mr. Riddle said that a resident should be able to count on the Comprehensive Plan to provide that assurance. Mr. Nick Evans, a geologist and landowner within four miles of the site. Mr. Evans said that the Comprehensive Plan is a document that belongs to the Albemarle community, and before it is altered, the burden ought to be heavily on the applicant to demonstrate how it is in the best interest of the community to start "poking holes in that" regardless of who drew the boundary or why. He said that the applicant has failed to meet that test, particularly in light of the fact that there is an alternative site at the airport. Mr. Evans emphasized that golf courses and campus like open spaces do not equal forestal land in terms of their ability to cleanse groundwater and function as effective recharge areas. He said that we have finally reached a point of considering how land in the county is being used in terms of recharge areas. Ms. Anne Zamorski, a Piney Mountain resident, addressed the Commission. She asked Commissioners to deny the rezoning request, and said there have been many contradictions in what the applicant has presented. Ms. Zamorski said that the Comprehensive Plan is designed to have the infill growth happen first before the development boundaries are expanded. "Growth does not equal prosperity or increased quality of life." She suggested shrinking the growth area, and suggested that developers be forbidden to clear-cut land for speculation. The Commission took a 10-minute recess. Mr. Thomas asked if the Board of Supervisors has agreed to accept the "school site" offered by Mr. Wood for purchase, or has Mr. Wood agreed to donate the 30-acre site. Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 208 11*aw Ms. Washington said that she understood the applicant to be offering the site as a proffer, which has not come before the Commission. Mr. Finley said, "Normally, if we're going to have a proffer, we have it there before us, and it's an official document." Mr. Nitchmann said, "I don't think the proffers are related to these actions that we're taking tonight." Mr. Rooker said, "He seemed to be linking them in his discussion... if there are any proffers to be made with respect to either of these requests for rezoning, I would expect some well thought-out proffers that relate to specific requests to be put in writing, like all other applicants do." He added that the Commission has two rezoning requests to act on, not the Comprehensive Plan Amendment — as the review of the Plan was just for information. Mr. Rieley stated that he would like to do as Mr. Wood suggested, and "dispense with [ZMA 99- 03]," as it is a proposal for rezoning "that is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it's not within the growth area, and is inconsistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan even if it were in the growth area." Mr. Rieley said, "I think it's fundamentally a bad idea to site a big block of a building filled with people who have to drive out to this area to go to work, surrounded by a golf course. It's a 1960's office park model. It's not smart growth, and it's not environmentally sensitive." He added that his big concern is one of process, and the method by which this proposal has been brought before the Commission. "I think that proposals for rezoning need to be specific, and they need to be binding." Mr. Rieley mentioned that the map the applicant presents during the discussions suddenly "disappears," never shows up in Commission packets, and is never legally linked to any actions taken. He noted that the proposal needs to be set in a context that make sense and is enforceable. MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Ms. Washington seconded denial of ZMA 99-03. Mr. Nitchmann said he did not find the application confusing. "I view the Comprehensive Plan as an item that can be changed, and we have a method of doing things without having to change the Comprehensive Plan. I think that was built into this process so that we could respond to certain opportunities that we have that come along." He added that the county is trying to buy open space, this applicant is willing to give us some, suggesting that the applicant would offer a proffer before the Board of Supervisors meeting stating that the land be used for a golf course, or just open space. Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about the discrepancy between what acreage is included in the development area boundary — 250 acres vs. 185 acres. "I think we should look into that and determine what is correct. If after 1992, everything that we did was based on permitting 250 acres in the growth area, and we drew a boundary that turned out to be 185, when our intentions at the time were to do 250, then I believe we should go back and correct the line." He concluded that "we're missing a good opportunity" if ZMA 99-03 is denied. Albemarle County Planning Commission —October 19, 1999 209 „, Mr. Nitchmann said when the boundary was discussed in 1992, there was an assumption that the line included 250 acres. Mr. Rooker said that regardless of how the line is resolved, ZMA 99-03 is not in the development area boundary. Mr. Rieley said that a Comprehensive Plan review is the forum for addressing the issue of where the line lies. Mr. Nitchmann reiterated that the 90 acres in ZMA 99-03 already joins the NGIC property; the roads are in place. Mr. Rooker recalled the discussions and decision regarding the Ivy golf course, which passed on a split vote. "It wasn't something that we took likely — considering a proposal to build a golf course — nor did we immediately determine that it was in the public interest.” He said that with the offering of a public golf course, this applicant has thrown out a "carrot" to entice support of this particular plan. "If a golf course is the best use of that property, then it ought to be considered under a special use permit request... and it ought to be considered just like any other proposal for a golf course would be considered." Mr. Rooker noted that there needs to be a plan for the use of the overall property so that the overall merits of the plan can be judged, not a specific small request for a rezoning out of the designated growth area. "This is not infill development, which we're trying to encourage in the county. It's really sprawl. It's a very dense piece of development, completely out there by itself. We have no plan of development before us upon which to make a judgement." He added that when a landowner comes forward and wants to rezone a parcel outside a properly designated area, he has "a significant burden of proof that his proposal is in the public interest." Mr. Rooker noted that staff has included criteria by which that judgement can be made, and the applicant did not address them. He concluded that a rezoning is not company specific, and if Value America does not locate on this site, "all we've done is rezone a piece of property outside of the designated growth area for Light Industrial use." Mr. Rooker stressed the need for a plan of development that the developer can be tied to as part of the rezoning process. In a 6-1 vote, with Mr. Nitchmann dissenting, the Commission approved Mr. Rieley's motion for denial of ZMA 99-03. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved for denial of ZMA 99-02. He commented that if the applicant wants to pursue the rezoning of this site, then he should submit a proposal for rezoning of the land that lies within the development area boundary, including a development plan for the property, including proffers, runoff control, and transportation amenities. Ms. Washington seconded the motion. In a 6-1 vote, with Mr. Nitchmann dissenting, the motion for denial of ZMA 99-02 passed. Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 210 Mr. Rieley asked staff if the applicant comes back with an application that is completely within the Nftw Comprehensive Plan growth area, if it could be considered as a free-standing application. Mr. Rieley said that he would like to see a reapplication for a rezoning within the designated growth area reviewed as a separate application; he agreed that a plan of development, traffic information, proffers, etc. should be included. Commissioners unanimously agreed that if the Board acts on the rezoning, they should consider any subsequent proposal to be treated as a substantially different application. Mr. Rieley said that he would like a reapplication that falls completely within the growth area that comes to the Commission that includes the information lacking as previously discussed. MOTION: Ms. Washington entered a motion for dissolution of the consideration of CPA 99-02 to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan for Piney Mountain Community. Mr. Rieley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Old Business Mr. Rooker presented copies of the Planning Commission recommended economic development policy, adopted in March 1995. Mr. Benish presented additional information on the Eastern Planning Initiative Advisory Committee; Commissioners agreed to make an appointment at a future meeting. Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to clarify the exact acreage with the development area as discussed previously during the meeting. Mr. Benish explained that when the amendment took place, the developer needed 100 acres for a major corporate industrial building; under county policy to provide growth area boundaries, the next natural features out were chosen to contain a sufficient parcel to level 100 acres and accommodate a one-story building. "It wasn't based on giving him a total acreage, it was based on establishing a boundary that within which there could be a reasonable development of a very large one-story flat building, and all the ancillary facilities needed for it." Mr. Benish stated that the base -mapping from the 1992 plan to the 1995 has improved the calculating from a reasonably inaccurate map to a GIS- based map. Mr. Benish said that staff has depicted the boundary as accurately as possible from the old map to the new map system. "I would bet that that area is probably what is the total area inside that boundary, as opposed to the total developable acreage, which we tend to talk about in the Comprehensive Plan, which is minus critical slopes and floodplains. I think that's probably the discrepancy between these two totals....with the 1995 amendment to the Land Use Plan, there was no intention to amend the boundary of this substantially undeveloped area. What we did do was add where Badger-Powhatan is, and International Auto Parts — that already had zoning — we brought that into the growth area boundary, since it already had jurisdictional area designation and was already developed and zoned." He noted that the original map of the amendment went around the boundary of the Herring Branch Creek — parallel to Route 29 North — but when the Land Use Plan was Albemarle County Planning Commission — October 19, 1999 211 E5 updated, it was easier to draw the boundary to Route 29 North, and a recommendation was added in the text that said `do not develop along Herring Branch.' So, the map boundary is different. The intent with the text and the map are the same." He added, "The intent was to make the description cleaner... the intent wasn't to add or subtract acreage. I don't think there's really a discrepancy if you get right down to it. The boundaries in question — the intent was to keep them consistent. We've tried to do that as best we can based on two different map bases." Mr. Nitchmann said we should be more careful in calculating so "we don't have a 25% error in perception here." Commissioners agreed that some newer mapping technology might help prevent future errors. Commissioners moved, seconded and unanimously approved a motion to reconvene their October 22" a at the Meadows Community Center on Route 240 south of Crozet for the Debris Flow Hazard areas field trip, if necessary. (If there are more than 3 Commissioners present at the field trip). There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. I V. Wayne Cili Secretary Albemarle County Planning Commission —October 19, 1999 212