HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 23 1996 PC Minutes*,,,W 4-23-96
APRIL 23, 1996
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 23,
1996, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were:
Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chairman; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair; Mr. William Finley; Mr. David
Tice; 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. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Claudia
Paine, Planner; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County
Attorney.
At 7:00 p.m. Mr. Nitchmann called the Planning Commission meeting to order and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April 2, 1996, were unanimously
approved as submitted.
SP-95-39 Mt. Ararat Lodge - Petition to construct a masonic lodge [10.2.2(2)] on 2.11 acres
zoned RA, Rural Areas and request for site plan waiver [32.2.2]. Property, described as Tax
Map 121, Parcel 32A is located on the southeast side of the intersection of Rt. 715 and Rt.
714 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated Growth
Area (Rural Area IV).
Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the special permit,
subject to conditions, and of the site plan waiver request. Mr. Shepherd said no changes in
circumstances have occurred since the previous approval of this petition. (The approval
granted in 1993 has expired.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Howard Key. He expressed a willingness to work with
the County and a desire to proceed with the project.
There was no public comment.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP-95-39 for Mt. Ararat Lodge be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The building shall be limited in size to 2,200 square feet.
2. Maximum attendance at meetings shall not exceed those limits as established by the
Health Department.
3. Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or structure outlined in the July 20,
1993 staff report shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors.
(The activities of the Lodge were listed in a letter form Moses Agee, dated July 1, 1993.)
53
4-23-96 2
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a waiver of Section 32.2.2 of
the Zoning Ordinance be approved for Mt. Ararat Lodge, subject to the following conditions:
1. The entrance on Route 715 is subject to VDOT approval.
2. An erosion control plan will be required if the total land disturbance is over 10,000 square
feet.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-96-12 Virginia Land Trust & Malcom Woodward - Proposal to permit fill activity in the
floodplain [30.3] on 1.2 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax
Map 76, Parcels 12B, 12C, 12E is located on Fontaine Avenue Extended west of Morey
Creek in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Neighborhood
Service in a designated Growth Area (Neighborhood 6).
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Katurah Roel. Answers to Commission questions
were as follows:
--The stormwater detention pond has been removed. A weir will be created to divert
the water slowly. The drainage pattern will be realigned.
--The grade of the concrete slab, within the building, will be raised to keep it above the
grade of the floodplain.
--There will be very little disturbance to the floodplain. No filling will take place which
will create any detrimental area or cause any water to be displaced. There will be no
increase in the level of the floodplain.
--The County Engineering Department has approved the plans.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Donald Day, a resident of Buckingham Circle, addressed the Commission. He
expressed concern about development which is taking place in the vicinity of his
neighborhood, about filling in the floodplain, and about the impact to wetlands. He hoped
the applicant could "come up with a more creative plan."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
RA
4-23-96 3
Though she said she would support this request, Ms_ Huckle expressed the feeling that the
piping of streams and the destruction of the floodplain should be given careful consideration
in the future because "if we're concerned about our water supply, we need to have as much
recharge, etc., as possible."
Mr. Finley said the Engineering Department would not allow the floodplain to be manipulated
to an extent which would result in a change in flows or high water marks.
Mr. Dotson said he viewed this as "an adaptive re -use of an existing foundation."
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP-96-12 for Virginia Land
Trust & Malcom Woodward be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations.
2. The basement shall be used only for storage and mechanical equipment space. The
basement is not considered habitable and there shall be no employee work space or area
open to the public in the basement.
3. Compliance with all local, state, and federal permit requirements pertaining to fill activity
within the floodplain.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-95-25- Gilray, LLC - 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 March 26, 1996 Commission meeting.
Prior to presentation of the staff report, Ms. Paine distributed a copy of a letter from VDOT
which was received by staff after completion of the report. Staff was recommending approval
of the request and of 2 waivers--4.2.5.2 to allow disturbance of critical slopes, and 21.7.3 to
allow grading in the buffer zone. Staffs answers to Commission questions included the
following-
--A waiver will not be required for grading of the bank on the corner because it is a
man-made bank which was a result of the Berkmar Drive Extension road project.
--"Transitional areas" are identified in the Comp Plan by general boundaries. As
proposed, the eastern boundary of the transitional area is Berkmar Drive, the western
boundary is Woodburn Road, the northern boundary is near the river, and the southern
/PU
M
cm
4-23-96 4
boundary is Rio Road. The site falls within that area. "The area north on Berkmar on the
left is zoned Residential. If it proposes to go to another use, it would require a rezoning."
The applicant, Mr. George Ray, addressed the Commission. The main use envisioned for
the area is professional offices. Two users, a dentist and a business machines wholesaler
and retailer, have already been identified. Based on the present schedule, it is expected the
soonest a building will be ready for occupancy is January 1997.
No public comment was offered. The matter was placed before the Commission.
[NOTE: Some microphone was not functioning properly. Throughout the meeting, some
comments are inaudible on the tape.]
Mr. Dotson said the proposal appears to be consistent with the transitional areas concept
and the only negatives will be addressed if the Board adopts the proposed revisions to the
Land Use Plan.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that ZMA-95-25 for Gilray, LLC be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Mr. Finley
seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission's recommendation for approval would in any way effect
the Board's decision, given the pending action on the Land Use recommendations. Mr.
Cilimberg replied: "They have to make a decision as to whether they are ready to decide
based on where they are with the Land Use Plan, or defer."
Ms. Huckle asked why grading of the slopes on Berkmar do not require a waiver. Mr.
Cilimberg explained those slopes were created by the Berkmar Road project and, typically,
slopes created by a public project, have not fallen under a critical slopes waiver requirement.
The waiver which is being sought is for slopes which are actually on the site and were not
effected by the Berkmar project.
The motion for approval of ZMA-95-25 passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a waiver of Section 21.7.3, to
allow grading in the buffer zone, and 4.2.2.2, to allow grading on critical slopes, be granted
for ZMA-95-25. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 95-23 Berkmar Land Trust and First Interstate Charlottesville, Ltd. Ptr. -
RN
W 4-23-96 5
Petition to rezone approximately 3.6 acres from R-6 Residential to C-1, Commercial.
Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 108, 91 (pt), 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.
Prior to her presentation of the staff report, Ms. Paine distributed a copy of a letter from The
Montessori School of Charlottesville, which the letter stated was "the contract purchaser of
the day care center on this site. (The letter, signed by Ms. Lindsey Schwab, was requesting
that the day care site retain its current residential zoning and Special Use Permit.) Ms.
Paine also distributed a copy of revised proffers. She said the proffers were revised to add
clarity; their content was not changed. Staff recommended approval of the ZMA and
approval of a waiver of Section 21.7.3 to allow grading in the 20-foot buffer zone between
commercial and residential districts.
The applicant was represented by Steve Melton. Referring to the letter from Ms. Schwab, he
stressed that there is currently no contract on parcel 1 of this property. He said: "I don't
think the letter should be viewed at all under that context." He offered some additional
information on the phasing of the project --Phase I is the day care center; Phase it will be
retail office space; Phase III will be townhouses; Phase V is unknown at this time. Though
4"01 he was unable to give definitive answers about the alignment of the Bypass, he said he
believes it may hit the western tip of the property on Phase III. The rezoning application is
for Phases I, II and V. Mr. Melton envisioned Phase V developing with a 1,500 square foot
building and one professional type user, e.g. an insurance agent, a dentist. There is
currently a contract on Phase II for a retail pet foods center and related uses.
cm
Mr. Tice asked why the applicant feels, as stated in the justification, that the filling in of the
lot adjacent to Agnor-Hurt School is an advantage to the site plan. Mr. Melton said the
Engineering Department had made this request of the applicant to help fill the "pit" that
presently exists on the lot. All the drainage will be detained underground.
There was no public comment. The matter was placed before the Commission.
Staff answered questions about setback, landscaping and about the location and alignment
of entrances onto Berkmar. (Many of Mr. Keeler's comments were inaudible on the tape.)
Ms. Paine said landscaping will be addressed through the site review process and staff will
be looking for landscaping to buffer the commercial use from the day care use. Landscaping
has not yet been reviewed. Traffic studies will also be a part of the site review process.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that ZMA 95-23 for Berkmar Land Trust
and First Interstate Charlottesville, Ltd. Ptr., be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers.
9�
111AW 4-23-96
The motion passed unanimously.
0
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that a waiver of Section 21.7.3 be
granted for Berkmar Land Trust and First Interstate Charlottesville, Ltd. Ptr., to allow grading
in the buffer zone.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-96-02 Gary Edgecomb - Petition to amend the proffers of ZMA-90-18 to increase the
total square footage allowed for all buildings on the site. Property, described as Tax Map 77,
Parcel 8A, is zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District
and is located on the west side of the intersection of Route 742 (Avon St. Extended) and
1101 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Industrial Service in
Neighborhood 4.
and
SP-92-02 Edgecomb's Imported Auto Sales & Service - Petition to amend a previously
approved special use permit to allow expansion of parking and display area on 1.72 acres
zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property,
described as Tax Map 77, parcel 8A, is located on the west side of the intersection of Avon
Street Extended (Rt. 742) and Rt. 1101 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is
recommended for Industrial Service in Neighborhood 4.
and
SDP-96-005 Edgecomb's Auto Sales & Service Expansion Major Amendment -
Petition to expand the office building with 3 additional service bays, to expand the display
and employee parking areas, and to redesign the lighting for the parking lot. Property,
described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 8A, is located on the west side of the intersection of Avon
Street Extended (Rt. 742) and Rt. 1101 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is
zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor and is designated for Industrial
Service in Neighborhood 4.
Ms. Paine presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval of all three petitions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Gary Edgecomb. He answered Commission questions
about display area, proposed impervious area, and the operation in general. Floor drains
drain to a "pump and haul" tank which is emptied periodically and hauled away.
Public comment was invited.
09
V5-
*taw 4-23-96 7
Ms. Irene Wheeler, residing on adjacent property, addressed the Commission. She
explained that she has been using a driveway (owned by the applicant) to reach her property
during winter storms. (She had a verbal agreement with the previous owner to use the
driveway.) Her main driveway onto Avon Street is too steep to be used during snow and ice.
(This was the result of the construction of Avon Street.) She hoped arrangements could be
made to allow her to continue this arrangement. She also asked that landscaping be
required between her property and the applicant's. She said she had declined the
applicant's offer of a right-of-way through his property because of concerns that this would
open up her property to possible use by the applicant's employees and customers. She had
concerns about security.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kamptner to comment on the validity of the driveway situation as
described by Ms. Wheeler. Mr. Kamptner replied: "Without anything recorded, there is no
recorded right. It doesn't sound as though any prescriptive right has been acquired by
adverse use because it is with open consent. Based on the information, it would sound like
this is permissive type of use which Mr. Edgecomb may at any time (revoke). Interests in
land should be in writing."
Mr. Edgecomb addressed Ms. Wheeler's concerns. He suggested it might be possible to
install a gate at the end of the driveway with only Ms. Wheeler and himself holding a key.
He said he was very willing to work with her, "within reason."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to condition 1(d) of the site plan, Mr. Tice asked staff to define the term
"insignificant runoff." Mr. Andre Williams, representing the County Engineering staff,
responded by explaining: "If your pre -development and post -development conditions are
relatively close, within 1 cfs, then we consider that to be insignificant and no stormwater
detention would be required." This calculation is based totally on velocity.
Regarding parking area treatments, Mr. Nitchmann asked if there are any which are more
porous in nature than blacktop. Mr. Williams said there is a porous type pavement, and
though it sometimes is effective, it has been found that it will eventually fail. He said most of
the drainage from this site will go to a swale in the "gray area" and eventually to the creek.
Mr. Nitchmann noted that in future years, it is conceivable that adjacent sites could be
industrial with paved areas which are draining to the creek. He was concerned about the
cumulative effect. He asked at what point the Engineering Department would begin to
address this situation and look at ways of slowing the water down before it enters the creek.
Mr. Williams was uncertain how to respond. He said he thought at some point water quality
would have to be assessed so that points of contamination could be labeled. Mr. Keeler
recalled that a request on an adjacent property some years ago had required the
construction of a containment area for runoff. He did not know if that use had ever actually
gone forward
4-23-96 8
Mr. Williams was unable to answer Ms. Huckle's question about the actual construction of
the swale. The Water Resources Manager will oversee that part of the plan. Mr. Cilimberg
believed that oversight will include an evaluation of quality as well as quantity of runoff.
It was noted that the issue of lighting was addressed by the ARB and is covered under
condition No. 2 of the special permit.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA-96-02 for Edgecomb's
Imported Auto Sales and Service be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that SP-96-02 for
Edgecomb's Imported Auto Sales and Service, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The additional building should match the existing building with no substantial change
proposed in design and material.
2. The lighting proposed on the site shall be shielded and directed down onto the site.
3. Additional trees should be added to the site in the area between the parking and Route
742. The trees should be 3 1/2" caliper spaced 35' on center.
4. Buffer shrubs, 24" in height, should be specified around the perimeter of the parking area
between the parking and Route 741.
5. One tree (2 1 /2" caliper) for every ten parking spaces will be required for the interior
parking spaces.
6. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required prior to approval of the site plan, and
should include:
a) Samples of the materials proposed, including colors.
b) Photometric Plan.
c) Dumpster location and any mechanical equipment location. These should be
screened with a material compatible with the building material used.
d) Elevations of the building.
The motion passed unanimously.
M
8-T
a%W 4-23-96 9
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr_ Finley seconded, that SDP 96-05 for Edgecomb's
Imported Auto Sales and Service be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature
until tentative approvals for the following conditions are obtained. The final plan shall not be
signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Albemarle County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and computations.
Extend the existing topography a minimum 200' outside the site and include a typical cross-
section of the proposed grass swale.
b. VDOT approval of frontage improvements and drainage plans and computations
impacting Avon Street Extended. Per VDOT, show the existing 250' sight easement across
the property frontage. Include the deed book reference for recordation.
c. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
d. Albemarle County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and computations.
If a comparison between pre -development and post -development conditions shows an
insignificant increase in runoff, then a stormwater management facility may not be necessary.
e. Inspections Department and Fire/Rescue Division approval that adequate fire flow is
available. Required fire flow is 1,150 gpm @ 20 psi.
f. Inspections Department and Fire/Rescue Division approval of one additional barrier -free
parking space. This space is to be van accessible, or in conformance with the universal
parking design.
g. Zoning Department approval of total number of parking spaces.
h. Planning Department approval of landscape plan.
i. A Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB must be obtained prior to final plan
approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
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,
4-23-96 10
29.2.2.1) SP-95-42 - Hotels, Motels, Inns (29.2.2.2). Property, described as Tax 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.
A joint Commission/Board public hearing for this item was held on April 9, 1996. Public
comment was accepted at that time. The Chairman announced that no further public
comment would be taken at this meeting.
The applicant's representatives were present.
Commissioner Dotson announced that he is a member of the staff of the University of
Virginia, and has filed a Transactional Disclosure Statement. His employment is such that it
does not create a Conflict of Interests and therefore he is able to take part in the review of
and action on this request. He stated that though he had been absent for the April 9th public
hearing, he had listened to the tape of the meeting and had read all the materials.
Mr. Loewenstein made reference to the same statement which he filed prior to his
participation in the public hearing of this item on April 9, 1996.
i%w Mr. Tice disclosed that he, too, receives income from the University, but his position is such
that a Transactional Disclosure Statement is not required.
29
Both Commissioners Tice and Finley were also absent from the April 9th hearing. Mr. Tice
said he had listened to the tape and read all the materials and therefore felt he could fairly
participate in the action on this item. Mr_ Finley said that though he did not listen to the tape,
he had read all materials and felt he could fairly participate in the action on this item.
At the beginning of the Commission discussion Mr. Loewenstein read a prepared statement,
a copy of which is made a part of this record as Attachment A. After reading this statement,
Mr. Loewenstein concluded: "I want to propose now that the Planning Commission defer its
vote on ZMA 95-04 and thereafter adopt a Resolution of Intent to seek a Zoning Text
Amendment using language to be worked out by Planning Staff that would re -address the
questions in the proffers relating to the accumulation of unused consumption and size
limitations presently described, as they have already been recorded for this project. I would
ask that my proposal be considered as two formal motions to that effect which I would need
to state individually."
Mr. Loewenstein then made the following motion: "I move the Planning Commission defer its
vote on ZMA 95-04 until after it has taken up and satisfactorily resolved the questions
relating to the proffers that I have just described."
GA
err 4-23-96 11
No second was offered to this motion at this time. Mr. Nitchmann said there should be
discussion about Mr. Loewenstein's proposal prior to action on a motion.
Mr. Loewenstein had no objection and agreed to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Loewenstein's proposal was then discussed at some length by the Commission. Some
of the discussion was based on the belief, by some Commissioners, that Mr. Loewenstein
was proposing a limitation on building size. [NOTE. Very late in the discussion Mr.
Loewenstein said that was not accurate. Rather he was concerned about the accumulation
of unused square footage.]
Mr. Nitchmann began the discussion by recalling some of the history of the proposal. He
pointed out that the applicant currently has approval (received in 1993) for 2,500,000 square
feet. That part can be developed now "without any proffers, without asking us for anything."
He said the applicant believes the current proposal, which will allow the property to be
developed "all as one piece" will result in a better development. Mr. Nitchmann thought the
current proposal, with the accompanying proffers, are critical for the long term success of
both the research park and the community. He said: "It frightens me that individuals can
come in and recommend something and look at 25,000 to 50,000 square feet of building
space as being a lot. It's not. I don't know where a zoning text amendment would leave us.
We could end up with 250,000 square feet. He said the applicant has worked diligently
throughout this project, with citizen groups and with county staff, to get to this point.
Mr. Tice said he has tried, on items which have been carried over from the previous
Commission, to defer to the judgment of that Commission. However, on this project he feels
"the ramifications are so great, not only on our county but on surrounding jurisdictions, and
the information to the Commission and Board at the joint public hearing relating to the
possibility of a Zoning Text Amendment seems to be a logical and reasonable way to handle
that concern and one which enjoyed quite a bit of public support. I am impressed by the
amount of support for that proposal. So I intend to support Mr. Loewenstein's motion."
[NOTE: The Zoning Text Amendment referred to by Mr. Tice was an approach suggested by
the Piedmont Environment Council at the April 9th meeting which would set a limit on square
footage which could be achieved by -right. Beyond that limit would require a special permit.
No definitive square footage was proposed.]
Ms. Washington said that she supports the project because the pros outweigh the cons. But
she does have concerns. She said her primary concern is with the banking of square
footage year after year to a point where a tremendous amount of development could
conceivably occur all at once. She felt that could have a serious impact on the county.
Mr. Keeler explained there are 4 different proffers dealing with phasing and intensity of
development at a particular time. One is based on transportation concerns; one is related to
total floor area devoted to office use and the phasing of the hotel use; one is related to water
r. 4-23-96 12
usage and the requirement for a special permit beyond a certain point; and the last would
allow 500,000 square feet of building area in the first year and 200,000 each year after that
in a cumulative manner. He explained the proffers operate independently, i.e.: "So if they
do bank 2,000,000 square feet and the transportation proffer can't be met, then they could
not build the 2,000,000 square feet."
Ms. Huckle said she, too, supports, the project, but some questions still have not been
satisfactorily addressed, such as recruitment of employees and the amount of water use.
She noted the County has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation (1.9%) and
GE was unable to fill new positions, resulting from expansion, with local employees. She
said it must be accepted that new employees will have to come to the area, "so the
suggestion that development be cumulative, which could leave the County scrambling to
build schools and expand utilities, is not acceptable. Speaking about the water use, if each
of the 20 sites uses the 125,000 gpd, the total would equal the present output of the North
Fork system. A much more realistic figure, such as 60,000 gallons/day, reflecting some
present users, could be used to trigger a special use permit.... Under the subject of by -right
development, we all want to have confidence in the University. In most cases, the
confidence is justified. But rather than leasing to tenants, as first stated, many of these
tracts will be sold and out of University control. The University of Virginia's partner may not
be as reliable as the University. For example, there have been several published reports
VAW about dissatisfaction with the Colonnades Retirement Village, which is a joint University
endeavor. So I would support (Mr. Loewenstein's) motion, (but) I would like to see it include
not only the cumulative effect of all those square feet, but also a lower figure for triggering a
special use permit related to water use."
in
Mr. Finley said he had found the report prepared by the UREF to have a somewhat "elite
flavor," e.g. "For example, ...the indigenous population and stone huts which were displaced
during the building of the Parkway are mentioned here. What bothers me is that some of the
descendants of that indigenous population probably could not find work at this Park." He
noted that of the envisioned uses, he did not think many of the research uses would be able
to link with CA-TEC to help develop vocational training. He noted that about 11 % is planned
for light industry and 77% for office uses. He concluded: "I wish there was more industrial
allocation. This bothers me. There should be more lower -level opportunities in this park.
On the other hand, I think they have covered just about every base. I am not worried about
the water. If there was a problem with water, the water and sewer authorities would have
raised the red flag. I believe they know what they are doing. I would not be in favor of
special use permits. We have had too many industries in my lifetime go over the hill from
Albemarle County because they finally concluded that they weren't welcome --some good
ones that could have helped a lot of our families find work. All in all, having looked at
everything and having tried to get through this thick report, including the information given to
us by staff, I would be willing to support the Research Park."
9/
I%W 4-23-96 13
Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Kamptner to comment on how a deferral, to allow staff time to prepare
a report on a possible Zoning Text Amendment, would effect the time requirements of the
application. Mr. Kamptner explained that the Commission must take action within 90 days or
the item will be passed on to the Board without a Commission recommendation. The actual
beginning date of the 90 period was uncertain, but Mr. Kamptner believed it began on April
9th. Mr. Dotson asked if it was feasible for advertising, preparation of a staff report, etc. to
take place within 90 days. Mr. Cilimberg said a lot would depend on the actual resolution of
intent in terms of how much research is involved, etc. He said staff has already done some
research, but has not been able to arrive at a figure in terms of a square footage per use
threshold before a special permit is required. He was not optimistic that it could be turned
around quickly.
Mr. Nitchmann feared such a study could take as long a year given the amount of debate
that will result. He felt putting a cap on the size building which a business can build (without
receiving special approval) will effectively "shut the doors on economic development in the
County." He felt it would be very difficult to arrive at a rational square footage number. He
said the Commission should be very careful about the approach which is being considered.
He said: "I understand there are fears we are going to grow too fast. But in the real world I
don't see them building 1,000,000 sq. feet which will use 3,000,000 gallons of water. " That
attempt has already been made by a business and it did not succeed because we don't have
the water. He concluded: "I think we're going down the wrong path."
Mr. Finley said he agreed with Mr. Nitchmann that the expansion of a business should not
depend on the vote of the Planning Commission. Businesses should have enough leeway
so they can plan for the future without having to get a special permit.
Ms. Huckle said she did not think the concern was the expansion of a business. Rather it is
about the possibility of 1,000,000 square feet being built in one year.
Mr. Loewenstein confirmed the accuracy of Ms. Huckle's statement, saying that his point was
to address the cumulative effect and did not include a number of the other topics which have
since been raised. He said he agreed with Mr. Nitchmann that the logical progressive
development of any business should not depend primarily on what any elected or appointed
Commissioner or Supervisor says at any point in time. He concluded: "What I am
concerned about is that we, as a county government, adopt appropriate growth management
tools to make it unnecessary to place applicants, in the future, at the whim of individual
Boards and Commissions by creating appropriate controls that will be put in place as part of
the Comprehensive Plan to begin with."
Ms. Washington said she had concerns about the fact that the applicant has been dealing
with this project for such a long time. She felt a research park is needed because jobs are
needed for both skilled and unskilled labor. Based on the information presented by the water
authorities, she did not think water would be a problem. She expressed concerns about the
5"
*4W 4-23-96 14
M
possibility that the applicant might give up_ She said: "I don't want to run UREF away. If I
were them, I'd be gone by now." She said there seems to be consensus on the Commission
that "the project is good." She felt the proffers which are related to the phasing of the project
(as Mr. Keeler pointed out earlier) would eliminate the risk of a large quantity of square
footage being developed prior to the development of infrastructure. She admitted she had
concerns about impact on schools, but said: "We are in a changing society and we can't run
from change. Change and growth must occur. We can't deny it." She questioned the need
to amend the zoning ordinance at this time, for this particular project.
Mr. Dotson said he felt there is somewhat of a conscience issue involved with this petition
given the fact that it is before the Commission again because of a mistake, and could,
therefore, be considered a "second bite at the apple." However, some of the issues which
still have not been addressed are ones which have been raised consistently, e.g.-
-- "What is the nature of the jobs? Are they going to be the kind we all agreed
we wanted?" He recalled discussions about the lack of manufacturing and industrial
jobs available in the area. He said he has been concerned from the beginning about
the portion of jobs in this development which may be "general office" type jobs. He
said the applicant has explained their intent, but offered no new commitment to
manufacturing jobs.
--The requirement for periodic project reports. Though the applicant addressed
this with proffer 9.1, he questioned whether it really offered the County any way of
monitoring the project. He believed what was intended to be accomplished by
periodic reports was information such as: --"are jobs filled by local people or people
from outside the area; are they full-time or part-time jobs; what are the levels and
wages; is the land sold or leased; what is the land use; what about water usage; what
about progress in implementing the proffers?"
Because these issues have still not been addressed to his satisfaction, he said he did not
feel it is really a "second bite at the apple."
On the issue of setting a square footage limit beyond which a special permit would be
required, Mr. Dotson said he had no notion of what this number would be. He said: "We
frequently make decisions about minimum lot size. It's somewhat arbitrary exactly where you
draw the line, but at least you apply it consistently. The thing about a zoning text
amendment is it would apply not only to this industrial site, but to others as well. So it might
end up being a little arbitrary, but at least it would be consistently arbitrary. It would be the
same rules for everybody. So it seems to me if we can do it without harming the applicant....
It's not a cap; it's not a ceiling; it's a point at which you go through a different process on a
very big project. We have to define "very big." My own belief is that it probably has to be in
terms of square footage, not employees, in order to be measurable in advance. If we can do
that quickly, we could get on with business." He said there is also the possibility, after
hearing the Commission's discussion, the applicant can review the proffers to see if there is
some other way to address this issue.
93
**A 4-23-96 15
Addressing the issue of accumulating square footage year after year, Mr. Finley said, given
all the County approvals, etc. which must be acquired, "they may get behind 2 or 3 years,
but in attracting businesses, they've got to know that the space is available and the wheels
are moving, and they can come. How can you restrict them to say, 'if you don't make it in
one year, you (lose the square footage)'?"
Ms. Huckle said it would not mean the square footage would be lost if it were not used in a
particular year, it would just mean the buildout time would take longer. She said allowing the
accumulation of square footage could put the County "in a terrible scramble to fund schools,
roads, utilities."
Mr. Loewenstein said he sees this as an opportunity to take a good proposal and make it an
excellent proposal. He thought the impact on the applicant, in terms of time schedule,
should be "minimal." At this point Mr. Loewenstein clarified that his proposal was not to set
a limit on the square footage, but rather that the square footage not be allowed to
accumulate from year to year.
Mr. Nitchmann said he could not support a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance as proposed by Mr. Loewenstein, though he could possibly support a deferral to
see if "the applicant, after having listened to the Commission discussion, has any better
,4aw suggestions for us." He stressed: "I still believe, whatever you put in a zoning text
amendment, to limit the growth, is going to have a detrimental impact on the economic
vitality of this community. I believe that with my heart and soul. It's going to send a
message that we've worked three years to try to overcome, i.e. to have Richmond recognize
us as an area that wants to have good, sound economic development. I think this is going to
send the wrong message at the wrong time."
Mr. Finley wondered how the proposal could have continued this long, with this suggestion
for a zoning text amendment just now being proposed.
The applicant's representative, Mr. Steve Blain, asked to be allowed to address the
Commission. He said: "In all fairness, it seems the applicant has been taken by surprise."
Because the public hearing had been closed at the April 9th meeting, no comment was
allowed from either the applicant or the public.
There was then discussion about when, if deferred, the item could be rescheduled. Mr. Tice
asked: "if we deferred, with a Resolution of Intent, and then the applicant comes back with a
better proposal, is there any reason we couldn't (take action on this item separate from the
Resolution)?" Mr. Nitchmann asked: "Then what do you do with the Resolution of Intent
without having it effect this project? Do you grandfather this project and say it doesn't have
to wait for a possible zoning text amendment to be completed." Mr. Cilimberg responded:
"Theoretically, you could pass this on to the Board tonight and still pass a Resolution of
Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance. If the Resolution of Intent wasn't acted on for a year,
VM
V%r 4-23-96 16
and that application was approved next month, then whenever the special permit and its
provisions came into effect, they, along with all other industrial properties, would fall under
that, because a special use permit would be a general amendment which would apply to all
business and industrial property. If someone has proffered limitations and then special use
permit criteria kicks in at a later time, the County Attorney needs to advise as to which
supersedes."
Staff expressed confusion as to what action the Commission was contemplating in terms of a
proposed zoning text amendment. Mr. Keeler and Mr. Cilimberg commented on the
potential impact of a "cap" on square footage and the process involved in developing
special permit criteria and supplementary regulations. Both were skeptical that staff would
be able to prepare a zoning text amendment quickly.
Ms. Huckle asked when the idea of "cumulative" square footage had arisen. Mr. Cilimberg
explained it had come out of the Board's public hearing (after the Commission had passed
the petition on to the Board with a recommendation for approval). Ms. Huckle noted the
Commission has not discussed this concept previously.
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out: "That was the issue that my Resolution of Intent was intended
to address." He again explained his proposal, i.e. "To make two motions --the first being that
the Commission defer its vote on this matter and the second motion would be that the
Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to seek a Zoning Text Amendment, using specific
language which must be composed by staff, to address the questions relating to the
accumulation of unused size limitations as presently expressed in the existing proffers."
Mr. Keeler commented: "I think the way (Mr. Loewenstein's proposal) is phrased causes
some difficulty because we would be amending our Zoning Ordinance to address a particular
set of proffers in a particular case."
Mr. Loewenstein said he was willing to amend his language. It was his intent "to seek a
means to eliminate the accumulation of unused square footage." He clarified that it was not
his intent that any unused portion would be lost. It simply could not accumulate without a
special use permit.
Mr. Dotson summarized his understanding of Mr. Loewenstein's proposal as follows: "To
consider a zoning text amendment which would not apply just to this property, but to any
property, that at some large size --and presumably this would be a large size which 90% of
the time you would never reach, so it's only for the very largest developments that you would
reach it --that there would be chance to give a second look and a chance to assess where we
are at that point in time with all of the impacts and consequences of that development as
well as the benefits of it. So it's a chance to give it an 'on its own merits' review."
on
�% 4-23-96
17
Mr. Loewenstein replied: "It's simply an opportunity to give all servants of the community
equal representation in terms of considering both pros and cons of any large scale project.
think everyone has expressed the belief that this is basically a good project and I think we
are all in favor of it, conceptually. I think the concerns that I have heard expressed have
been in terms of magnitude over short periods of time. That is really all I am trying to
address."
Mr. Kamptner commented: "I am a little concerned with a zoning text amendment that is
really focused on addressing a particular proffer. It does raise some due process concerns
because it is focused towards a particular application that is being considered. Although this
particular item hasn't been approved, the door is open, always, for the project to be
disapproved. I'm not sure how staff will be able to develop a ZTA that will apply to a specific
proffer. Mr. Cilimberg has told me that this is the only project that we know of right now that
has this type of provision (the rollover of the square footage)." On the question of whether or
not some future ZTA may have impact on the approval of this project (if the project were to
be approved prior to the adoption of the ZTA being contemplated), Mr. Kamptner said:
"Whether or not a future ZTA would be applicable to this property, would depend on the
comprehensiveness of the Zoning Ordinance change because this is a proffered project.
The ability for subsequent zoning changes to effect it is not quite as open as a non -proffered
piece of property. That would have to be looked at at the time the Zoning Ordinance is
changed."
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Keeler: "Do you think there is some other way to skin this cat?"
Mr. Keeler responded: "I think the amendment is pointed at this cat." He added: " With the
original zoning in 1978, the staff did suggest the timing of development. That was not
pursued by the Board. But to my knowledge, with the exception of the original zoning of this
property, I don't believe the County has ever tried to pursue any timing of development types
of amendments to the Ordinance." Mr. Nitchmann asked: "Do you think, if you were in the
applicant's position, you could be creative and come back with something that would satisfy
our worries?" Mr. Keeler responded: "I think the applicant has heard what the concerns are.
It's not the total square footage, and it's not the project itself, but the availability of
accumulated square footage in one year that could be utilized. With a project that has
twenty sites in it, I can perceive a situation where they may get 5 or 6 employers in one year
and need to use some square footage. At the same time, they may have to give some
thought as to how to address a Motorola -type use (1,500,000 square feet), but still allow 5 or
6 other businesses, if that doesn't cause a problem.... I think everybody has this one piece
of property and this one project in mind (but) how (would a zoning text amendment) apply to
a 5-acre LI piece of land or something else. Is it based on the district that exists on the map
regardless of the number of owners or whatever? That could be particularly complicated."
Mr. Nitchmann said: "I still think we're holding this applicant hostage because they happen
to come up with this idea (accumulated square footage). Maybe (this zoning text
;�ow amendment) is a good idea, but it was presented at the 9th hour. And I do think we are
IA,
�%W, 4-23-96 18
taking another bite out of the apple. If the applicant had not made a mistake and posted the
signs where they thought people would see them instead up on the property, we wouldn't be
here today discussing this." He concluded that he could not support a deferral related to a
zoning text amendment. However, he said he could support a deferral to allow the applicant
time to respond to this issue.
Mr. Dotson listed the following two options for Commission action: "(1) Adopt a Resolution
of Intent tonight, and then "unadopt" it in two weeks if the problem goes away; or (2) We
can wait that 2 weeks and see if at that point we feel there's a need --we can take action on it
at that point, which then may create some real time binds on the staff." Mr. Cilimberg
offered another option: "You could defer it tonight for 2 or 3 weeks while the applicant, in
hearing what you've said, decides whether they want to address this issue. When it comes
back in 2 or 3 weeks, depending on how the applicant has responded, you could make a
recommendation to the Board --either up or down --and at the same time, based on that
action, you could pass a Resolution of Intent for a zoning text amendment if you felt it was
warranted, based on how it was proceeding forward. You have then satisfied the 90-day
requirement and if you still feel it's important to have the ZTA under consideration, it can
move forward, and then it's up to the Board. Then the Board has to make its decision under
its time frame as to how it wants to deal with the matter. I think the crucial thing here is to
make sure --and I am hearing it from the Commission, and staff also has this concern --that
we are not holding this applicant hostage. Even if the Commission recommendation is for
denial, they still have the Board's consideration and have time to think further about Mr.
Loewenstein's suggestion."
Mr. Nitchmann said the option described by Mr. Cilimberg would not tie a deferral to a
tion of Intent.
'Here was discussion as to whether a deferral should be for 2 or 3 weeks. Staff did not
think one week was adequate.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved that ZMA 95-04 be deferred to May 7, 1996. Mr. Tice
seconded the motion. The motion passed (6:1) with Commissioner Finley casting the
dissenting vote.
The meeting recessed from 10:15-10:25.
SP-96-11 Bentivar Land Trust and SUB-96-06 Bentivar Preliminary Plat - Proposal to
create a 58-lot Rural Preservation Development on approximately 264 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas [10.3.3.3(b)]. Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcels 92H, 129, 130, 139, 140,
141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147 and Tax Map 62, parcels 50A and 50G is located east of and
adjacent to the Bentivar Subdivision in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not
located within a designated Growth Area (Rural Area 2).
W
4-23-96 19
In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding the posting of the property, Mr. Fritz said he
had verified that the property was properly posted.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report and answered Commission questions about the proposal.
Staff was recommended approval of both items subject to conditions.
Noting that some of the parcels are larger than the minimum requirement, Mr. Dotson asked
if there was some advantage to this since smaller parcels would give more acreage to the
preservation parcel. Mr. Fritz said the lot lines were drawn to recognize pre-existing parcel
boundaries. There are also multiple property owners in this RPD and the lines are
"somewhat faithful to the property lines as they currently exist."
Mr. Loewenstein asked if any consideration was given to the traffic impact to Rt. 643,
particularly in relation to the railroad underpass. Mr. Fritz said traffic discussions were
largely limited to the need for improvements to Bentivar Drive and the entrance location. He
noted that the level of development which is proposed is no greater than could occur by -
right.
The applicant was represented by Katurah Roel. He presented photographs and answered
Commission questions. He said a 100-foot natural conservation buffer will be preserved
along the stream between this property and the Red Hill property.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the cemetery on the property will be addressed in the Ordinance.
Mr. Fritz said there is no indication the location of the cemetery will cause any problems.
Staff will require that the cemetery be noted as part of the final plat approval and that it be
taken into consideration when determining lot boundaries, Health Department approval, etc.
The applicant confirmed the cemetery will be marked and plated on the final survey.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. J.J. Murray, owner and resident of the historic house on the property, Bentivar,
expressed the hope that the environment of the house will be preserved. He supported the
proposal because he feels it is preferable to by -right development. He asked that the road
which serves his property be allowed to remain a private road.
Mr. Jack Kegley, owner of property at the end of the cul-de-sac, addressed the Commission.
He, too, asked that the road to his property be allowed to remain private.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson asked staff to explain why it opposes a private road. Mr. Fritz explained: "It is
based on our past practice of allowing breaks between public and private roads based on
intersections. That's consistent with the standards for private roads contained in the
7�
i%r 4-23-96 20
Subdivision Ordinance which allows you to step-down the category that the road is built to
only at intersections. Cul-de-sacs have not been deemed to be intersections. It is a
continuation of the existing road. It is a deviation from past practices. There may be
justification in this case --one of the things that the applicant hasn't cited is reduced earth
disturbance for a private road-- and we do say that the Planning Commission can use that as
a justification." He confirmed the Commission would need to authorize a modification to
allow a private road. Mr. Cilimberg also pointed out that the historic significance of the
Bentivar house had not been addressed in the staff report and is a factor which may play
into the consideration for a private road. Mr. Keeler added that the Commission has at times
in the past approved private roads in order not to disrupt historic setting. There is a
"catchall" phrase in the Ordinance which allows the Commission to approve a private road
when it is deemed to be in the public interest as opposed to proprietary interest of the
developer. Mr. Keeler thought a sound argument could also be made for private roads
based on security concerns in this case.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that SP-96-11 for Bentivar Land Trust be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition:
1. Development shall be in general accord with a plan titled "Preliminary Plan Showing Rural
Preservation Development Bentivar" and initialed WDF 4/10/96. This plan may be modified
in order to comply with requirements of the site review committee or Planning Commission."
Ms. Washington seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle said she would support the motion because the proposal seems to be in the best
interests of those who have spoken to the Commission. However, she felt this is an "unfair"
use of the RPD with 240 acres being developed into lots and a paltry 40 acres being placed
in the preservation tract. She also said the development does not meet the criteria because
more than half the soils are prime soils, critical slopes are present, and one lot includes
floodplain. She hoped situations such as this will be considered when the Commission
begins discussion on the Rural Areas. She felt this was an abuse of the RPD concept_
Mr. Loewenstein said he would support the motion, but he too had concerns about the size
of the preservation tract, particularly in view of the historic resources adjacent to this project.
He concluded: 'I'd like to see more of this than we've seen in the past in the County, and I'd
like to see the percentage of land dedicated to preservation purposes increase over time as
we see additional RPD's of this kind."
Mr. Tice expressed his agreement with Commissioners Huckle and Loewenstein. He
questioned whether this proposal truly furthers the objectives of rural preservation. He said,
however, that he supports the overall concept of the RPD.
4-23-96 21
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
MOTION: Noting that he supported the use of private roads in this development (because it
will serve historic property and is an existing road which fits the land well), Mr. Dotson
moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that the Bentivar Preliminary Plat be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following
conditions are met:
a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans and calculations.
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road plans which shall include
dedication of 25' right-of-way where frontage is on Rt 699.
c. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final road plans and calculations.
d. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final grading and drainage plans to include
methods to provide adequate access to each lot.
e. Albemarle County Engineering approval of soil erosion plan.
f. Health Department approval of primary and reserve drainfield locations for each lot.
g. All lots shall have direct access to internal private roads.
h. Recreation Facilities Authority approval of Preservation Tract easement.
i. Staff approval of road names.
j. At no time shall there be more than one dwelling on any development lot.
k. Staff approval of building site on each lot. Those lots which do not have adequate
building area shall be modified or combined with other lots.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-96-06 Peyton Drive Regional Stormwater Detention Basin - The Board of
Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to rezone properties which were reorganized
in association with the Peyton Drive Regional Stormwater Detention Basin. This rezoning will
establish uniform zoning on the newly organized parcels. These properties comprise a total
of approximately 3/4 acres and are described as Tax Map 61 W, Parcel 03-4(part), zoned C-
1, Commercial and Parcel 03-5(part), zoned R-15, Residential. These properties are located
between Commonwealth Drive, Peyton Drive, and Greenbrier Drive in the Rio Magisterial
District. Parcel 3-4(part) is proposed to be rezoned to R-15, Residential. parcel 3-5(part) is
proposed to be rezoned to C-1 Commercial. This site is recommended for Community
Service in Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Cilimberg gave a very brief staff report.
09
/O D
vI ftw 4-23-96
09
22
Public comment was invited. None was offered. The matter was placed before the
Commission.
There was no Commission discussion.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA-96-06 be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 96-07 Berkmar Drive Extended Properties - The Board of Supervisors has adopted a
resolution of intent to rezone properties adjacent to Berkmar Drive to HC, Highway
Commercial. This rezoning will allow Berkmar Drive to divide the zoning, with commercial
zoning on the eastern side and residential zoning on the western side of Berkmar Drive.
These properties comprise a total of approximately 2.8 acres and are described as tax Map
45, parcel 68(part), zoned R-6, Residential, Parcel 1126(part), zoned R-6, Residential, and
Parcel 109E(part), zoned R-6, Residential.
Mr. Cilimberg gave a very brief staff report.
Public comment was invited. None was offered. The matter was placed before the
Commission.
There was no Commission discussion.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that ZMA 96-07 be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
I0Ic3
V.
V. Wayne ilimberg, r1ry
/d/