HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 12 1996 PC Minutes3-12-96
MARCH 12, 1996
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March
12, 1996, Meeting Room 241, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair; Ms.
Babs Huckle; Mr. David Tice; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; and
Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz,
Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant
County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of February 20, 1996 were unanimously approved as submitted.
[NOTE: THROUGHOUT THIS MEETING SOME COMMENTS FADE IN AND OUT
ON THE TAPE. PARTICULARLY EFFECTED WERE MICROPHONES USED BY
COMMISSIONERS WASHINGTON, FINLEY AND TICE and MR. KAMPTNER]
ZMA 95-25 Gilray, L.L.C. - Petition to rezone approximately 2.2 acres from R-6,
Residential to C-1, Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 109C is
located on the west side of the intersection of Berkmar Drive and Woodbrook Drive in
the Rio Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density Residential
(10.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 1. Deferred from the February 20,
1996 Commission Meeting.
The applicant was requesting deferral to March 26, 1996.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA 95-25 be deferred
to March 26, 1996. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 95-23 Berkmar Land Trust and First Interstate Charlottesville, Ltd Ptr -
Petition to rezone approximately 2.6 acres from R-6 Residential to C-1, Commercial.
Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 108 and 93A1 is located on the west side
of the intersection of Berkmar Drive and Woodbrook Drive in the Rio Magisterial
District. This site is recommended for High Density Residential (10.01-34 dwelling
units per acre) in Neighborhood 1. Deferred from the February 20, 1996 Commission
meeting.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
In
3-12-96
'rw MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that ZMA-95-23 be deferred
indefinitely. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-95-46 Central Telephone Company of Virginia - Petition to establish an
unmanned telephone switching station on an approximately 3.6 acre portion of Tax Map
78, Parcel 55A4. This site is located on the north side of Route 250 on North Pantops
Drive in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density
Residential (10.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 3. Deferred from the
February 20, 1996 Commission meeting.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report stated the applicant was also
requesting a site plan waiver (Section 32.2.2). Staff recommended approval of both the
special permit and the waiver request subject to separate sets of conditions.
Staff supported the waiver request because many of the items which are addressed on
a site plan have already been done and, because of the small size of the proposed
building, some of the other items would not be required for this proposal.
The applicant was represented by A.C. Ryalls. He presented an aerial photograph
showing the location of the proposed building. He also had a letter from the President
of Westminster -Canterbury which expressed no objections to the proposal. The
building is needed to provide service for the growth which has taken place in this area.
He said noise is not a concern because the facility will be totally enclosed. The back-up
generator will also be shielded by an enclosure. The building will be brick and the trees
on the west side of the property will be maintained by the applicant.
No public comment was offered. The matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP-95-46 for Central
Telephone Company of Virginia be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the provisions of 5.1.12 PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES/USES to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development
who shall act on behalf of the Planning Commission.
2. Additional landscape plantings to that required by the ARB may be required to
satisfy Condition 1.
3. Except for such changes as may be required during review of the site development
plan, development shall be in accord with the site plan dated 12/19/95 by Dale C.
LIM
3-12-96
Hamilton and Associates, dated and initialed by staff, "Presented to Planning
Commission 3/12/96 RSK."
4. All equipment, maintenance gear, and the like shall be stored within the building or
within the generator enclosure. No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that a site plan waiver be granted, in
accordance with Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval of the site plan shall not be given until the following conditions have been
met:
a. Engineering Department approval.
b. Zoning Department approval.
c. Inspections Department approval.
d. Issuance of a certificate of appropriateness from the Architectural Review
Board.
e. Planning Department approval.
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval.
g. Approval of SP-95-46.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-95-21 Cathcart Properties and Denico Development - Petition to rezone
approximately 11.6 acres from R-1, Residential to PD-SC, Planned Development
Shopping Center. Property, described as part of Tax Map 91, Parcel 2, is located on
the east side of Avon Street opposite the entrance to Mill Creek North, Mill Creek Drive,
in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density
Residential (10.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 4.
Staff was requesting deferral to April 2, 1996.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA-95-21 be
deferred to April 2, 1996. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-96-06 The Tandem School - Petition to allow for expansion of facilities for a private
school in the R-1 district. The Tandem School proposes construction of a 10,000
square foot building to be utilized as auditorium, classroom, dining hall, and faculty
3-12-96 4
lounge space on 21.77 acres zoned R-1 Residential. Property, described as Tax Map
91, Parcels 2A and 213, is located on Tandem Lane, accessed from Rt. 20 South
approximately 1 mile south of 1-64 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is
designated Public/Semi-Public in Neighborhood 4. This includes consideration of a
waiver of fire hydrant requirements within the service area of the Albemarle County
Service Authority (Zoning Ordinance Section 32.7.6).
Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Staff also recommended that the Planning Commission find that public water is not
reasonably available to this site for the purposes of providing fire hydrants and
distribution systems as required by Section 32.7.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Huckle asked about the school's current source of water to meet fire protection
requirements. Mr. Lilley said there is a well on site, but he was not familiar with the fire
protection system. He said, however, the applicant is required to meet the building
code.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Lilley said the issue of connection to public
water and sewer will again be addressed at such time as the school proposes an
increase in enrollment. Given the construction of the new high school adjacent to this
site, he said it is possible water and sewer will be more readily available to this site by
the time the applicant reaches the ultimate site development stage. He said the
applicant has indicated a desire to add an elementary school to the facility within three
to five years.
Mr. Tice asked if staff feels the location of this building will not complicate the
applicant's access to the new connector road. Mr. Lilley said even the ultimate
development plan will "work with access to the new road."
The applicant was represented by Roslyn Burn, Head of the Tandem School. She
confirmed the applicant has been involved with the plans for the new high school to
ensure that the two plans will not conflict. Regarding the issue of fire protection she
said the school does not currently have the water capacity to douse a fire. The school
has a well -practiced evacuation plan and extinguishers throughout the building. The
Fire Department checks several times a year on the sufficiency of the plan. She said
the school must depend on the Fire Department for protection. She did think the
school's evacuation plan would protect the children.
Mr. Finley asked if the applicant is going to ensure that their plans are such that the
elevations, etc. will allow connection to public water and sewer when it becomes
available. Ms. Burn replied: "My understanding is that we have an active interest in
public sewer and water if possible, but I don't know how much detail has been worked
*00 out about those possibilities." (Ms. Perry May added that the applicant is currently
3-12-96
14*W working on this issue and is interested in getting public water and sewer as soon as
possible.)
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson noted that many letters of support for this petition have been received. He
said his only concern is with the fire situation, but nothing that is being proposed at this
time will worsen the situation. He viewed it as an "interim" situation because the
applicant will be connecting to water and sewer in the future. He was confident the
building would be built in accordance with the building code and would therefore be
able to accommodate sprinklers, etc.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that SP-96-06 for the
Tandem School be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to
the following conditions:
1. The new facility will be located approximately as shown on the attached site layout
(Attachment A).
2. Total school enrollment and on -site staffing shall be limited to 177 persons.
3. Additional buildings or increase in total enrollment/staffing must be authorized by a
new special use permit.
Discussion:
Mr. Loewenstein said he agreed with Mr. Dotson's comments. He said it is probably not
possible to improve the current water situation in the near future and there is nothing in
this proposal which would prevent him from supporting the request.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that the Commission find
that public water, for the purposes of providing fire hydrants and distribution systems, is
not reasonably available to this site at the present time.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 94-12 River Heights - Petition to rezone approximately 29 acres from Rural Area
to LI, Light Industrial (proffered). Property, described as a portion of Tax Map 32,
parcels 5 (part of) and 5C (part of) and Tax Map 33, Parcel 14 (part of), is located on
`''W the east side of Route 29 approximately 0.5 miles north of the North Fork Rivanna River
3-12-96 6
in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area and
is recommended for Industrial Service in the Village of Piney Mountain. Deferred from
the February 6, 1996 Commission Meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "The applicant has provided
proffers and a plan which address many of the issues identified in the 1994 staff report.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends a planned approach to development of this
area. The proffers and plan are a satisfactory substitution for a planned development
rezoning. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning request subject to acceptance of
the applicant's proffers." [NOTE: Later in the meeting it was noted that a Planned
Development approach (PD-IP) was not available for this proposal because the
acreage is less than 50 acres. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has, however, tried to address
some of the issues in the same manner as if it were PD-IP zoning.]
Referring to a statement in the staff report, Ms. Huckle asked how staff defines
"substantial buffer." Mr. Fritz explained that the buffers along the river vary in width,
depending on the meander of the stream. He concluded: "In my opinion (there is) a
substantial buffer along both Herring Branch and the North Fork Rivanna."
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed the developer (not the
applicant) will be responsible for the installation of all utilities and site preparation.
(Later in the discussion the applicant said he would like to be involved in the
development of the site, but the developer will go through the usual bid process for the
job and it is unknown at this time who will ultimately be doing the utility and site work.)
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that regardless of who does the work, the project will still
have to meet all County requirements and permitting processes. He also said there are
likely to be a number of contractors and sub -contractors involved in the development of
the site.
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, addressed
the Commission. Information provided by Mr. Brent and answers to Commission
questions included the following:
--The existing sewage treatment plant has a capacity of 365,000 gpd and is
currently operating between 100,000 and 120,000 gpd (roughly 1/3 of it's capacity).
"The Authority has an agreement with this applicant and other property owners in the
area (GE, Woodbriar Associates, UREF, ACSA) that when the treatment plant reaches
80% capacity, we will design a replacement for it; when it reaches 90% capacity, we will
proceed to construct the replacement of that sewage treatment plant. What form that
replacement will take is not clear at this time. Most likely it will be a combination of
gravity sewer and a pumping station. When that will occur is subject to how long it
takes the plant to reach its capacity."
--"Water would be supplied by the urban water system. We currently have
``''W treatment capacity in 3 treatment plants to provide 17.5 million gpd. Average daily
ZQr
3-12-96 7
demand is 10 -11 million gpd. Locally, we have a water treatment plant that is capable
of providing 2 million gpd. That plant is operated at about 20% of its capacity. So
water is not an issue, as we view it, in this area." Regarding the usage of Chris Green
Lake, Mr. Brent explained: "In order to reach that 17.5 million gallons, we would rely on
additional release of 1 million gpd from Chris Green Lake." (Ms. Huckle asked if these
figures take into account the development potential of the UREF property. She said
she had read in some of the material that the capacity "would be reached shortly." Mr.
Brent was not aware of such a statement. Ms. Huckle later quoted from the figures to
which she had referred, which were related to the North Rivanna Water Treatment
Plant. After she had read these figures, Mr. Brent confirmed the South Rivanna System
will be used to "make up the difference." He pointed out that the two systems are linked
together.) Mr. Nitchmann asked if it is Mr. Brent's department that will inform the
County when capacity is about to be reached. Mr. Brent replied: "The Service
Authority and the RWSA try to anticipate the needs of the County and I hope we don't
get to the point where we have to tell you we have reached capacity. Planning is taking
place at this time for the future Buck Mt. Reservoir and, "unless we slip up somewhere,"
hope we stay ahead of the game." He confirmed it is his opinion that there is
presently sufficient water supply to handle this proposed development and the UREF
development.
--Industrial usage of water in Albemarle County presently is 12% of annual sales.
--Mr. Brent confirmed that planning takes into account not only a particular
industrial development's usage, but also the additional people and residential usage
which result from that additional industrial development. Planning also takes into
account population trends and future projections.
--Regarding a proffer the applicant had originally made which limited water
usage, Mr. Brent said proffers on water usage are a concern to him because it is
difficult to evaluate the meaning and significance of the numbers. He said numbers
should have a basis and a meaning or else questions arise such as: "Will it apply to the
parcel next to it or a similar -sized parcel somewhere else in the County? Is a user
entitled to an equal amount of sewage usage?" He felt attaching a water usage to a
development raises a lot of questions which he cannot answer. He concluded: "If we
are going to start using a fixed number --saying each acre of land has a value as far as
water is concerned --I think we need to think long and hard at the figure that we attach
to that." (Ms. Huckle noted the environmental impact statement submitted with this
proposal estimates a daily usage of 36,000 gpd.) Mr. Brent confirmed that the "legal
basis for the operation of the water and sewer system is 'first come, first served."' "The
opposite of that is reservation of capacity. If what is out there is not available to the first
person who steps forward and wants to use it, then you must allocate it and, in fact,
reserve it. In some cases reserve it for people who want to hoard it or for personal
gain. It's a very complex issue. Wars have been fought over water rights."
on
3-12-96
9
fir► Ms. Washington asked Mr. Brent: "So you don't see a problem with water." Mr. Brent
replied: "No ma'am, not unless we get a Motorola or something similar that wants 5
million gpd."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Wendall Wood. His comments included the
following:
--Through Woodbriar Associates, he is a party to the agreement referred to by
Mr. Brent for sewer capacity.
-The anticipated tenant for the site is NGIC (formerly FSTC), an existing
community industry with an annual payroll of approximately $35,000,000 to
$40,000,000. 700 of the employees are already area residents. It is believed the total
number of employees will be roughly 858 people. (He briefly described the history of
how this site was selected by NGIC. He referred to a study which was performed, a
copy of which is on file in the Planning Department.)
--NGIC representatives and GSA representatives have met with the County staff
and made their plans known. They have been very responsive to the County's desires,
and the proffers presented reflect that responsiveness.
--The proffers have been signed, but there are a few minor word corrections that
must be made. NGIC has agreed to the proffers.
--This facility has been sought after by other states.
--On the issue of road plans and traffic generation, Mr. Wood said VDOT based
their comments on the assumption that all employees will work on basically the same
schedule, i.e. the work day for all employees will end at the same time. (Mr. Wood later
said, however, that he thinks the facility works different shifts.) Only informal
road plans have been done at this time but it is anticipated the road serving the facility
will intersect with Rt. 29 at the location of the GE, "flashing light" intersection. Mr. Wood
described the plans: "Leaving the site are 2 left turn lanes. As you approach 29 there
will be 2 stack lanes to turn left. There will be a decel lane going north and 1 or 2 decel
lanes coming into the property. The median strip has to be widened and there will be a
decel lane on the southbound lane of 29, for just this development. That is the
requirement that is being proffered." NGIC has offered to pay for the installation of a
light, but VDOT has not yet agreed that a light is needed.
--Mr. Wood did not know if the facility will have an internal cafeteria.
Mr. Tice raised a question about an offer made by Mr. Wood in 1994, i.e. to have the
zoning revert back to RA if NGIC decided against the development of this site. He
asked if the terms of proffer #1 are not met--e.g. the development plans, which
specifically mention NGIC, change --then would the County Attorney's interpretation of
Mr. Wood's offer remain as it had been at that time. Mr. Kamptner replied: "The
property can't revert back automatically. It requires a separate action. It can be
initiated by the Board or the Commission, but it would have to go through the regular
(rezoning) process. The other issue which would arise, if it were to revert back to RA,
'kw would be the issue of whether or not it was a piecemeal downzoning and whether or not
140
3-12-96 9
the facts justifying a piecemeal downzoning exist.... If a proffer is not satisfied, it can
always be enforced through an enforcement action (in the courts). Mr. Tice asked:
"So if NGIC were not to build here, some other industrial user would have to essentially
meet this plan which has been proffered?" Mr. Kamptner replied: "That's right, unless
they elect to come in and amend the proffer." Mr. Tice later asked about the legality of
a proffer wherein the applicant would agree to initiate a rezoning which would request
that the property be rezoned to RA. Mr. Kamptner replied: "That's possible, if it's
voluntary. ... It would still be a piecemeal downzoning and the property is
recommended for industrial usage." Mr. Wood stressed that he had made this offer but
he had been advised not to do so. He did not like the inference that he had not
honored his word.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Wood if he has a bona fide offer for the property at this time.
She noted that NGIC's environmental impact study had addressed three sites and she
had been unable to determine that one was favored over another. Mr. Wood said he
could not answer this question. He stressed, however, that NGIC's representatives
have made their plans known to the County staff, including some members of the Board
of Supervisors, and have verified that this site is their first choice. (Mr. Keeler
confirmed the accuracy of this statement.)
Expressing some confusion about the boundaries of the property in question in terms of
the Comp Plan maps and the maps on display, Mr. Tice asked staff to clarify the
location of the property. Mr. Fritz explained: "The rezoning is on this area. (He
pointed to the 29-acre area on the plan on display.) The remainder of the property
would stay Rural Areas. " Mr. Cilimberg noted that the maps in the Comp Plan are not
precise, but staff found the development area of this site to be well within what is shown
in the Comp Plan.
Mr. Tice raised questions as to how development of this property might impact the
possible development of the Greenway along this portion of the river. He doubted that
NGIC would want any recreational use of their property because of security concerns
and he feared they might also discourage any recreational use of the land along the
river which borders the property. Mr. Cilimberg said the exact location of the
Greenway, in terms of which side of the river it will be on, has not been decided. It is
possible, if NGIC is not amenable, the Greenway might have to be located on the
opposite side of the river. Mr. Cilimberg said even if NGIC discouraged the use of the
land along the river, it does not mean the County would agree not to use that land for
the Greenway. Mr. Fritz said this issue had been discussed at a meeting with NGIC
representatives and no opposition to a Greenway was expressed at that time. Mr. Fritz
also said the topography on this side (north side) of the river is not conducive to the
construction of a greenway, so it would probably be located on the opposite side (south
side) in any case. Mr. Keeler added that UREF has proffered to dedicate land for
J4/
3-12-96 10
*rl
greenway on their property, which is on the south side of the river, upon demand of the
County.
Public comment was invited.
The following persons addressed the Commission and read prepared statements
expressing opposition to the proposed rezoning. Their statements are made a part of
these minutes as noted:
--Ms. Kathryn Hobbs, President of the League of Women Voters (Attachment A)
--Ms. Karen Strickland, Earlysville Area Residents' League (Attachment B)
--Ms. Babette Thorpe, Piedmont Environmental Council (Attachment C)
Mr. Wood was allowed final comment. He disagreed with statements made by the
League of Women Voters which he described as being "untrue" and "unfactual."
The matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Brent to comment on statements made by the public related
to water and sewer capacity. Mr. Brent responded: "The physical facilities are in place
to serve this property. The figures which have been quoted to us, as far as the water
use for this property, are not significant and will not have a significant impact on the
%W existing facilities.... Figures of 30,000 to 40,000 gpd have been quoted to us. That
capacity is available and sewer capacity for a like amount is available." He once again
confirmed that plans exist which will be put into effect once capacity reaches 80%." Mr.
Tice asked who will bear the cost of improvements, when that time comes. Mr. Brent
replied: "The Authority will pay for it, (and the cost is recovered from the customers).
What the rate structure will be to recover those fees, I don't know at this point. Growth
should pay for growth." He confirmed there are no provisions, in the agreement
referred to earlier in the discussion, for the other parties to that agreement to pay for the
improvements. He explained: "This is viewed as a regional facility and no one of those
(parties) would be required to foot the bill."
Ms. Huckle asked how wastes from photographic developing processes are handled.
Mr. Brent said the sewage discharge will be analyzed and they will be subject to the
same federal requirements for discharge into public sewer as any other customer.
Noting that most of the employees of this facility are already in the area, and the facility
has been operating here for a long time, Mr. Finley concluded the water and sewer
impact would be minimal. Mr. Brent agreed saying, "Wherever the facility moves in the
community... the supply and the treatment sources are the same."
There being no VDOT representative present, Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff could
address traffic issues. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT comments are based on a traffic study
3-12-96 11
'w..
which only applies to the development of this property. The study does not include the
remaining acreage which may be served by the road. An additional traffic analysis will
have to occur when development is proposed for the remainder of the property and an
assessment of additional improvements will be made at that time. He said, however,
VDOT "looked at an ultimate buildout scenario at the greatest buildout they could
envision --the kind of road right-of-way and road facility that would be necessary." As
noted in the proffer, VDOT assessed this "for the basic kinds of right-of-way needs,
including improvements to 29 and the ultimate need for signalization that might occur."
That proffer is in response to VDOT comments. Mr. Cilimberg said the traffic study had
included information on how "this site's development would coincide with traffic
forecasting on 29... but they could only generally look at additional traffic that might
come off of this area and feed to that intersection because they did not have any kind of
land use information to go from." That is why VDOT is requesting that ultimate right-of-
ways be provided.
09
Regarding the issue of critical slopes Mr. Fritz commented: "There do appear to be
areas of critical slopes on the site. No analysis was done, as required by Section 4.2,
for a modification of those critical slopes. If critical slopes are determined to be there
based on field -run topography... they will need to apply to the Commission for a
modification to allow development on those critical slopes. It is stated in the staff report
that approval of this rezoning and acceptance of the proffered plan in no way implies
approval of a modification down the road for any activity on critical slopes. That will
have to be considered on its own merit, based on Section 4.2."
Ms. Huckle asked why no Fiscal Impact Study was performed on this request. Mr.
Cilimberg said there is, as of yet, no final recommendation on the finalization of the
Fiscal Impact Study. A model has been provided to the Committee members, but final
comments have not yet been received from the Committee. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out
that this is not a new business. Rather, people are simply being moved from several
temporary sites into this one facility. He thought the fiscal impact could be much worse
if this business were to move to some other locality. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that this
situation would "not compare to a new industry moving into the area with the same
number of employees." Mr. Tice pointed out there will be a change in the fiscal
environment because this facility is currently within the City limits. Ms. Huckle said this
property will be removed from the tax base if it is developed by a Federal agency.
Ms. Huckle said that according to the Environmental Impact Study, the "only benefits
will accrue from the influx of new people --plus or minus 200 people --and these new
families will cost us more in taxes because of the impact to schools and other services."
�3
3-12-96 12
Ms. Washington pointed out that there are already 700 local people employed by this
facility. She felt the loss of 700 jobs would be a much greater economic impact than
would be the addition of 200 people.
Mr. Dotson asked what latitude this rezoning might grant a different future tenant, e.g.
"would 25% more floor area be considered to be in general conformance or a significant
change, or would a significantly different building footprint require an amendment, etc.?"
Mr. Fritz said the Zoning Administrator would first rule whether or not the site plan
submitted was in general accord. That decision could be appealed to the Board of
Zoning Appeals. Or, the applicant could agree that the plan was not in general accord
and submit a zoning map amendment request. He said the Zoning Administrator
"stays fairly close to the plan" when making the general accord determination.
Mr. Dotson said that this particular user seems to want a private site, so the facility has
been surrounded with a lot of open space and buffers. He felt that was an important
part of this approval, so even if the tenant were to change, the concept of generous
buffers, isolated placement of the building, and scale of the building should be
understood "as part of what is being acted upon tonight if we approve it."
Mr. Tice asked if staff has any concern about the fact that the stormwater detention
facility is located off site. Mr. Cilimberg said an off -site facility is preferable when
dealing with a site which has future development potential so that stormwater
management can be regionalized. Mr. Tice asked if maintenance of the facility is a
concern. Mr. Fritz said maintenance is always an issue and the Engineering
Department now requires the recordation of a maintenance agreement. The site plan
will not be signed until all easements for off -site drainage have been recorded.
Referring to one of the "favorable factors" listed in the staff report --"Retention of a local
employer and employment expansion opportunities are provided by this proposal" --Mr.
Finley asked: "Is there anything specific in the proposal that would imply that this is
correct? If I vote for this I am correct to presume that this is a fact?" Mr. Fritz said staff
could not confirm, and he doubted NGIC could confirm, that all new employees will be
local. Mr. Keeler added: "We have relied on what has been represented to us by
NGIC. He also confirmed that a statement made by Ms. Strickland --that funding has
not yet been approved for this facility --is correct. However, he said NGIC has been
operating on the assumption that funding will be made available. Mr. Keeler concluded:
"So far as we know, NGIC is looking at this site and they intend to build and occupy.
We can't give you a definite answer on expansion of employment or reduction of
employees because that is a federal function."
Referring to Ms. Strickland's comment that a sign is not posted on this property, Mr.
Tice asked staff to comment. Mr. Fritz said this is a deferred item and he remembers
that the property was posted for prior applications. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has
cm
3-12-96 13
the obligation to post and maintain the sign with pertinent dates, etc. He said staff does
not visit every piece of property to check for signs.
Recalling that the Commission has just recommended to the Board of Supervisors that
there be no additional area designated for growth in this 29 North area, Mr. Tice said it
seems that recommending this property for development conflicts with that
recommendation because of the increased demand for residential land that will result if
this request is approved. He asked if Commissioners who had been involved in the
Growth Area decisions could fill him in on the thinking at the time. Ms. Huckle
explained that all public comment had opposed further growth on Rt. 29 because of
traffic concerns. She said this property would probably not be under consideration at
this time except for the fact that it was designated for industrial usage four years ago
when the applicant thought he had a user at that time. Mr. Nitchmann said he felt the
decision to exclude this area from growth designation had been a mistake. He said
growth is inevitable in this area and plans for the future should begin now.
Ms. Huckle said she thought this should have been proposed as a Planned
Development and it was the applicant's choice not to use that approach. Mr.
Nitchmann disagreed and explained that a planned development approach was not an
option because the property is less than 50 acres.
Mr. Dotson said he would support the rezoning and "live with the contradictions"
identified by Mr. Tice. He agreed there are concerns about the development of this
northern area and he said he had not supported the addition of residential area at this
time. He recognized that residential area will be added, but said, "I just don't think
we're ready to do it yet." He said commercial area will also be added in the future
because a community needs to be built in this area. He concluded: "I don't view this as
piecemeal as much as I view it as this use, plus GE, plus UREF are the anchor tenants.
You have to start someplace and that's where we're starting with the job base. Now our
job is essentially one of infill. How do we build the rest of the community that will work
with that? My concern is not ... that growth is occurring too rapidly. My concern is that it
is occurring in the wrong pattern. I see that in the next year we have a real need and
real opportunity to look at infill. We've said that we want to look not just at the
immediate next period of time, but, in terms of water and sewer for instance, 50 years
ahead. I see us as trying to work backwards now. We've got a starting point and some
anchor tenants. We've got water supply and some resources that we can allocate.
How are we going to allocate that in order to build the community that we want? That's
how I can vote for this, even understanding that it's just the first element in a picture that
is yet to be developed. I think we can move forward and commit, in the next year or
two years, to developing the rest of that picture. I think we need to do it.
Transportation is a major issue. The proffer speaks to a service level C at the entrance
to this site but this is tributary to the traffic that is further down Airport Road where it is
vow not going to be a C. We've got to address all those problems in that northern area.
Ll5
em
3-12-96 14
That's the way I am addressing this. On the one hand saying 'yes' to this; on the other
hand saying 'let's do some more planning before we fill in the rest of the area around
it."'
Mr. Loewenstein said he was also concerned about the conflict identified by Mr. Tice.
He agreed this particular project would not have a significant negative impact, but he
believed infill will have to be considered very carefully so as to support this use and the
other anchor tenants. He thought this presented a major challenge for the Commission
and Board. He concluded: "I am prepared to support this on the condition that we
know what we are going to have to face and that we're going to have to deal with it
effectively.... I think continuing to concentrate all of the growth in the 29 North corridor
will prove, if it has not already proved, to be a planning difficulty at best. We need to
face that squarely in the months ahead. That having been said, I am prepared to
support this particular project."
Ms. Huckle said she would be willing to support this request, "in spite of all her
reservations," except for the fact that this rezoning will run with the land and if this user
should not materialize it could be replaced with one which is a much heavier water user.
She said she could not support it without a proffer on the water use.
Mr. Finley stated: "I am ready to support (the request). I think it is a desirable industry.
. " It is a good neighbor. I know a lot of people who work there and I would sure hate to
see them move to Birmingham or someplace else. The utilities are available. The
proffers are here. There are a lot of favorable aspects, and I am prepared to support it."
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved that ZMA 94-12 for River Heights be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the "spirit" of the
applicant's proffers as stated on the applicant's Proffer Form dated 3/4/96, with the
understanding that the proffers will have minor modifications for the purpose of clarify.
Mr. Finley seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle suggested that the sketch plan be attached to the proffer. Staff confirmed
that is usual procedure.
The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting
vote.
UREF - University Village Waiver Request - Request for waiver of Section 4.12.6.2 to
,, allow for one-way circulation and 4.12.6.5(c) to allow for curvilinear parking.
3-12-96 15
`+...
Mr. Fritz briefly explained the waivers are needed in order to allow the developer to
'` achieve the goal of having the offices retain a residential appearance. The waivers will
allow existing trees to be saved and fits in very well with the topography and character
of the site. Staff could identify no public purpose to be served in requiring two-way
travel. This issue had not been identified at the previous Commission hearing because
plans were not complete at that time.
No concerns were expressed by the Commission. Mr. Dotson said the request appears
to be consistent with the original intent.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that the a waiver of Section 4.12.6.2 and Section
4.12.6.5(c) be granted. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Monticello High School / Update
Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, described in detail the progress of this project to
date, particularly highlighting site layout, water and sewer plans and road plans. The
site plan was submitted to the Planning Department on March 11, 1996.
After Ms. Higgins' presentation, there was a brief discussion as to whether or not the
Site Plan will be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Tice said he has received several
comments from the public and he wants to ensure that the public has had ample
opportunity to comment on the plans. Ms. Higgins explained that several meetings
have been held and public comment has been received at some of those meetings. Mr.
Tice ultimately decided he would postpone a decision as to whether or not to call the
item before the Commission until later in the process.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
F:
05
V. Wayn Cilimberg, e etary
47