Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 09 1996 PC Minutes4-9-96 1 APRIL 9, 1996 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 9, 1996, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chairman; Ms. Babs Huckle, Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; and Mr. Jared Loewenstein. Others officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Bob Tucker, County Executive. Absent: Commissioners Dotson, Finley and Tice. For the first agenda item (ZMA-95-04), a joint public hearing was conducted with the Board of Supervisors. Those Supervisors present were: Ms. Charlotte Humphries, Chair; Ms. Sally Thomas; Mr. David Bowerman; Mr. Charles Martin; Mr. Forest Marshall; and Mr. Walter Perkins. At 7:00 p.m. Mr. Nitchmann called the Planning Commission meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. Ms. Humphries called the Board of Supervisors meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. --------------------------------------------------------- ZMA-95-04 The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation - Petition to rezone approximately 525 acres from RA, Rural Areas, PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial park, R-1, Residential and LI, Light Industrial to PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial Park. This request also includes the following special use permits: SP-95-40 - Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical (27.2.2.1; 29.2.2.1); SP-95-41 Supporting commercial uses (27.2.2.14, 29.2.2.1) SP-95-42 - Hotels, Motels, Inns (29.2.2.2). Property, described as ax Map 32, Parcels 4B, 6, 6A, 19 and 19C, is located south of the North Fork Rivanna River between Routes 29 and 606 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Industrial Service in the Community of Hollymead. Commissioner Loewenstein read a Transactional Disclosure Statement, a copy of which is made a part of this record as Attachment A. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report concluded: "The University Real Estate Foundation has responded to the County with four proffers that control in one fashion or another the timing/intensity of development. Three proffers are easily monitored during site plan review. The proffer related to water consumption would be ongoing and would apply to expansion/change of process of an existing business as well as to a new use. While Proffer III -Density does not preclude the possible location jW VAO 4-9-96 2 of a large industry or the expansion of an existing industry to a large scale, it does provide for an annual limit to development." Mr. Nitchmann noted that the applicant had requested this public hearing after realizing errors had occurred in the posting of the signs on the property prior to the previous hearing. The applicant has also revised previous proffers to address concerns which were raised at the prior hearing. The applicant was represented by Mr. Leonard Sandridge, Executive Vice President of the University of Virginia and a member of the Board of the University Real Estate Foundation and by Mr. Tim Rose, Chief Operating Officer for the UREF. Mr. Sandridge stressed that the applicant has, throughout this process, made every effort to respond to issues raised by the Commission, the Board and the public. He said he believed this applicant has gone well beyond any other to ensure the quality of the development of this project. He thanked the Commission and the Board for their patience in hearing this item again and for their willingness to respond to additional information. Mr. Rose's comments included the following: --He called attention to a letter which the applicant had written to the Lake Acres residents, in which UREF explained how it will respond to their concerns. He presented a copy to Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and asked that it be placed in the County Clerk's file. --Because of the new phasing proffer--" 500,000 sq. ft. the first year, 200,000 sq. ft. each year thereafter" --the applicant feels the proposal is even more favorable than that which was already approved by the Commission in December. --"The Planning Staff and County Attorney's office have researched our proposed proffers and prepared a summary report which shows that our proffer statement represents a significant contribution by the University of Virginia Foundation over and above that which could be required by the County. The Planning staff has reported that this application provides 4 proffers to control the timing and intensity of development, which are concerns of this community. The Planning Staffs reported research shows that a variety of factors make the prospect of a large relocation to the North Fork Park very unlikely. In every step of the process we have tried to address concerns raised by various constituencies.... We have incorporated changes into our proffers that were based on concerns of the Piedmont Environmental Council. We added proffers regarding the fire station, hazardous materials handling, water usage restrictions and development density phasing to address concerns expressed by the previous Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and citizens who have been at these meetings. We have closely followed the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan in correcting this application. The Planning Staff, in Section 4 of its November 21, 1995 report to the Planning Commission concluded that: 'Staff opinion is that the North Fork Rezoning proposal substantially complies with the , detailed amendments of the Comprehensive Plan under CPA 94-1.' 4-9-96 --Approval of this plan does not mean the North Fork will build out overnight. It is envisioned to be a 20 to 30 year project. Given the density phasing proffer, the buildout could not occur sooner than 14 years from the date of the rezoning approval. --"The restrictions associated with this application provide significantly more assurances to the Community as to how development will proceed, than development under the currently zoned 225 acres, which has a by -right potential of nearly 7 million square feet, and very few proffers to guide the quality or pace of development." --"North Fork will be developed by the University, an entity with probably the biggest single stake in this community and this region, which will ensure that its commitment to North Fork's success will always remain." Public comment was invited. Speakers who expressed support for the proposal included the following: --Attachment B: Brian Carlson, past Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce and Regional Vice Chairman for State Farm Insurance Company: He praised the applicant and the proposal and stressed the many community benefits which are the result of the presence of a quality employer. --Attachment C: Ronald Flack, Chair of the Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering Dept. of the University of Virginia - He supported the proposal. --Tom Jackson, present Chairman of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce - On behalf of the 1,200 members of the Chamber of Commerce, he asked that the County support the applicant's proposal. --Angus Arrington - He supported the new jobs that will result from this development. Speakers expressing concerns or opposition to the proposal were as follows: --Tim Lindstrom, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council - Though not expressing opposition, he made the following comments and listed the following concerns: -The 3,000,000 sq. ft. proffer is "substantive" and is one which could not be required by the County --The 200 acres of open space is a "substantial" proffer, though over one- half of that is in critical slopes and floodplain and could not be developed under County ordinances. --The ball fields and the fire station are "substantial" proffers. --The transportation proffers are "more questionable." Many of the items proffered are things which the County could require under existing ordinances. The County Attorney's and staffs analyses of these proffers are accurate. --He urged the Commission and the Board to view the proffers in terms of the "impact this proposal will have on the community and decide whether you 75 4-9-96 think there is a substantial enough benefit associated with this rezoning application to justify accepting the proposal on its face." — "(PEC's) concern is with the amount of development that these proffers and this rezoning will allow to happen at one time. The applicant has said they anticipate this development will occur over a 20-year period. If, in fact, the zoning ensured something along those lines of a phasing, then I don't think the PEC and any citizens would have any concern with the proposal on the table. The problem is the proffers and the zoning do not limit the phasing in that way." --Two proffers, which deal with the amount of development that can happen at one time, are of concern: (1) That which puts a cap on water usage of 125,000 gallons per day per user. (For comparison State Farm uses 60,000-70,000 gpd and GE uses 30,000-40,000 gpd.) The proffer would allow a number of different users, all of whom could have up to 125,000 gpd. Therefore, the water cap is not particularly effective. (2) That dealing with square footage which limits amount annually to 500,000 sq. ft. first year and 200,000 sq. ft. each year thereafter. What is not used each year may be carried forward and accumulated. This is "a significant increase over what has been the previous experience of the community." "This proffer is not meaningful in terms of limiting the amount or the size of a facility which could be built in one year and our fear is turning off from the public's review the decision about something that significant." To address this concern Mr. Lindstrom proposed that the Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance so that for uses which are single users of significant size (possibly more than 50,000 to 75,000 sq. feet) a special permit would be required; below that size would be by -right. See Attachment D. --PEC has no doubts about the intent of this applicant, but does have concerns about what may occur in the future with different owners. "There is no guarantee that some future owner will not have a substantially different concept of what is appropriate for this community." --"There is a concern that has been expressed to me that if you take this step to propose a zoning text amendment or ask for more substantial proffers on phasing, the UREF will walk --that they will drop this project. That will leave you with half of this property zoned for Planned Development Industrial Park and the other half for Rural Areas. I would suggest to you that you look at this proposal and you analyze what the county and the public is getting for that, and the development potential of the southern half. I would submit that that is not a risk I would advise you to take in a flippant manner, but it is a risk that should be considered taking in view of the substantial impact to the community's changing character that this proposal could visit upon the community because there is no n 4-9-96 5 meaningful limit on the amount of development that can be realized in any one year. That is the heart and soul of our concern." --Attachment E: Kathryn Hobbs, League of Women Voters - Their main concern was "the impact of this project ... on the infrastructure necessary for water supply and sewage treatment and disposal for the whole Charlottesville/Albemarle County urban area." --Attachment F: Larry Taylor, a resident of the Lake Acres community - He hoped the county would "slow down the rate of growth and expansion" in the county. He asked that the county study the impact this type of project has had on communities in other areas. --Charles Tractor, representing the Woodbrook Neighborhood Association - He expressed concerns about impact on schools and water. He invited the applicant to hold public meetings. --Lisa Harmon, President of the Earlysville Area Residents' League - She expressed concerns about the cumulative water use for the entire park and the cumulative square footage, which she feared were not being considered. She also thought the definition of "user" should be clearer. --Attachment G: Karen Dame, Citizens for Albemarle - Her comments focused on the impact of increased population on the resources of the County. -- Attachment H: Tom Olivier - He cautioned the County to review the proposal carefully and "approve it only after we are convinced it is right." --Paul Grady - He expressed concerns about road plans and whether or not VDOT will make Rt. 29 a limited access highway. He thought approval should be deferred until highway plans are definite. There was no further public comment. Ms. Humphries asked staff to respond to a question raised in a letter she had received, i.e. is the drinking water supply intake for North Fork below the stormwater dumping area for the UREF Park? Mr. Glen Brooks, representing the County Engineering Department responded by pointing out the location of the intake area on the plan. He explained: "The applicant is proposing to channel the runoff past the intake, with a small section next to Jacob's Run draining to the North Fork Rivanna, but not a significant portion." Mr. Dean Sincala, representing the applicant, also addressed this question. He called attention to Section 12 of the application and a Table which shows how the applicant proposes to mitigate the impact on the raw water intake. He said there are 3 acres "of developed, vegetated fill slope that will actually flow into the raw water intake. Everything else is redirected into the master stormwater management system and ultimately into the North Fork below the raw water intake." The public hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m. %s 4-9-96 6 It was the decision of the Commission to delay discussion of this item until April 23rd. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that discussion of ZMA 95-04 be deferred to April 23, 1996. The motion passed unanimously. The Board offered no comment. Ms. Humphries adjourned the Board meeting to April 10, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. --------------------------------------------------------- The meeting recessed from 8:05 to 8:15. The minutes of the March 26, 1996 meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. SP-96-10 Gateway Partnership, XXI, LP - Proposal to establish a motel on approximately 1.9 acres zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development [20.4.2(1)]. Property, described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 10 is located on the east side of Hillsdale Drive opposite Branchlands Boulevard in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Medium Density in Neighborhood 2. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP-96-10 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. SP-96-08 Dr. Charles H. Wood, Jr. - Proposal to establish a veterinary office and hospital for small animals in an existing building at Airport Plaza. Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcel 38, is located at the northwest corner of Rt. 29 North and Airport Road (Rt. 649), in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned C-1, and is designated for Regional Service use in the Hollymead Community. Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions The applicant. Dr. Wood, offered to answer Commission questions. Public comment was invited. Mr. Roger McNamara, Pastor of the church which will share the lower floor of the same building, addressed the Commission. He expressed concerns about animal droppings 04 in the parking lot, possible odor within the building, the disposal of dead animals, and 1000 possible flea infestation within the building. 7� 4-9-96 There was no further public comment. Dr. Wood addressed Mr. McNamara's concerns. He said the parking lot area will be cleaned three times daily --morning, noon, and evening --and will be sprayed so as to eliminate odors. Wastes will be bagged and removed by trash disposal service. The offices will be vented to the outside but air is filtered before it leaves the building. The building will be sprayed monthly for insects. (He offered to spray the church area more often if a problem should occur.) Deceased animals are placed in a freezer until they can be picked up and disposed of by the SPCA. No animals will be boarded overnight at the facility. The area to be occupied by the veterinary operation is only 10% of the total floor area which is above the church. Mr. Nitchmann asked staff if any County ordinances address any of the concerns raised by Mr. McNamara. Mr. Lilley said the Planning Department does not deal with these issues. However, the applicant will have to meet Building Code regulations in terms of ventilation, etc. He noted that the Health Department expressed no concerns about the use. Dr. Wood noted that the State Board of Veterinary Medicine must approve the proposal �%w and will inspect the facility every two years. State regulations address issues such as water and ventilation. This is a "tightly regulated" use. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP-96-08 for Dr. Charles H. Wood, Jr. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The building plans for renovations shall provide for sound attenuation to the adjoining space such that sound levels from this use will not exceed 40 decibels. 2. This use shall have no outdoor runs or pens. 3. Fencing shall be maintained adjacent to the agricultural/residential property to the rear of this property (Parcel 39). The motion passed unanimously. SP-96-13 Robert Aaron - Proposal to enlarge an existing dam and pond located within the 100-year floodplain [Zoning Ordinance Section 30.3.5.2.1.1]. Property, described as Tax Map 65, Parcel 7, is the present Kinloch Farm, located on the western side of `,, Route 231, about 1 /2 mile north of Cismont in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The 7% 4-9-96 8 property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is not located within a designated Growth Area (Rural Area 2). Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Kurt Gloeckner, engineer for the project. He said the proposal is to replace an existing dam with a larger one and will not change the floodplain significantly. Mr. Loewenstein asked why the proposed dam is 4 or 5 times larger than the existing dam. Mr. Gloeckner said if the dam were replaced at the same size, the pond will silt in again. Also, the applicant wants to use the pond for irrigation purposes. The size of the pond will increase from 1 1/2 acres to 7 acres. The dam will fall within dam safety regulations which allow 100 acre feet of storage. Mr. Gloeckner confirmed there will be no impact to the downstream floodplain. No public comment was offered. There was no further Commission discussion. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that SP-96-13 for Robert Aaron, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations. 2. Albemarle County Engineering approval of plans for the dam showing all grading activities and the existing and revised floodplain. 3. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan. 4. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance with dam safety regulations through the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. The motion passed unanimously. -------------------------------------------------------- Humagen Site Plan - Request for increase in maximum grade of access aisle - [Modification of Section 4.12.6.3(b)]. Mr. Keeler presented a brief staff report. He explained the relocation of the entrance by VDOT had resulted in the need for this modification. The report stated: "During review 7q 4-9-96 9 of final grading and drainage plans and computations, the Engineering Department commented on the 16% grade in the access road and need for approval of this modification by the Planning Commission. Engineering supports the 16% grade as it is the allowable grade for public roads meeting mountainous terrain standards. Moreover, there does not appear to be any way to achieve a 10% grade without necessitating substantial regrading of the site or sacrificing the 4% entrance landing." Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was sufficient room for a service -type vehicle to manuver without getting hung up on the grade. Mr. Keeler responded: "It meets the requirement of our Ordinance." Mr. Glenn Brooks, representing the County Engineering Department added: "Actually for change in grade our ordinance does not address private travelways. We assure that it won't cause a problem on the public road by setting it back at least 40 feet. But the change of grade on the travelway within the site --say if they drag their bumper --is not something we regulate." There was no public comment. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved that a modification of Section 4.12.6.3(b) be granted to Humagen Diagnostics to allow maximum grading of access driveway off of Hunters `4w Way to exceed 10%. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. N- 0 M