HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 07 1996 PC Minutes5-7-96 1
°err
MAY 7, 1996
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 7,
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; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative; 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 9, 1996, were
unanimously approved as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the May 1st Board of Supervisors
meeting.
ZMA-96-05 Kenneth J. Newell (Applicant), CCAT2/University Limited Liability
Company (Owner) - Proposal to amend the proffers for the University Village
development, as established with ZMA 97-08, to allow development on the portion of
the property closest to Old Ivy Road. Tax Map 60132, Parcel 1 (part), located at the
existing University Village Complex on the north side of Route 601 (Old Ivy Road), just
east of the Route 20/Route 250 Bypass in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Property
is zoned R-10 with proffers and is designated for High Density Residential in
Neighborhood 7.
AND
SP-96-09 Kenneth J. Newell (Applicant), CCAT2/University Limited Liability
Company (Owner) - Proposal to establish an assisted living facility on a portion of the
University Village property. Tax Map 60132, Parcel 1 (part), located at the existing
University Village Complex on the north side of Route 601 (Old Ivy Road), just east of
the Route 20/Route 250 Bypass in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Property is
zoned R-10 with proffers and is designated for High Density Residential in
Neighborhood 7.
.al
SDP-96-015 Kenneth J. Newell (Applicant), CCAT2/University Limited Liability
Company (Owner) - Proposal to construct an assisted living facility of approximately
56,000 square feet on approximately 5.4 acres. Tax Map 60132, Parcel 1 (part),
/D ;'
IM
5-7-96 2
located at the existing University Village Complex on the north side of Route 601 (Old
Ivy Road), just east of the Route 20/Route 250 Bypass in the Jack Jouett Magisterial
District. Property is zoned R-10 with proffers and is designated for High Density
Residential in Neighborhood 7.
Staff was requesting deferral of all three of these items until May 21, 1996.
The public hearing was opened on all three proposals. No comment was offered.
Separate motions were made on all three to defer until May 21, 1996. All motions for
deferral passed unanimously.
ZTA-96-01 - Resolution by Planning Commission to amend Zoning Ordinance to
require posting by staff of public hearing notice signs for rezoning and special use
permit petitions.
Staff was requesting deferral to May 14, 1996.
No public comment was offered.
I'" A motion to defer to May 14, 1996 passed unanimously.
cm
ZMA-96-09 Lloyd and Patricia Wood - Petition to amend the proffers of ZMA 86-01 to
allow light warehousing. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcels 124E and 124E1
is located on the north side of Rio Road, and is the existing Putt -Putt miniature golf
course. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is recommended for
Community Service in Neighborhood 2.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to acceptance
of the applicant's proffers.
The applicant, Mr. Lloyd Wood, addressed the Commission. He explained the reason
for this petition is to clear up an oversight.
There being no public comment the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that ZMA-96-09 for Lloyd and
Patricia Wood be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to
acceptance of the applicant's proffers with the understanding they will be clarified prior
to the Board hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
/,03
5-7-96 3
In
SP-96-14 Jerome M. Beazley, TimeTech Management, Inc. - Proposal to establish a
Home Occupation, Class B [Section 10.2.2(31) of the Zoning Ordinance] to allow a
commodity trading advisory service with one outside employee in an accessory
structure on an existing residential property. Property, described as Tax Map 120,
parcel 15B, a parcel of approximately 22 acres, is located on the west side of Route
627, about 2 miles west of Keene and about 2 1/2 miles north of Esmont, in the
Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is not
located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4).
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to one
condition.
The applicant, Mr. Beazley, offered to answer Commission questions. He explained
none of his clients are located in Charlottesville and his work takes place almost entirely
by wire.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Dotson's request, and for the benefit of new Commissioners, Mr.
Keeler explained the differences between Class A and Class B Home Occupation
permits.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SP-96-14 for Jerome
Beazley, TimeTech Management, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval, subject to the following condition:
1. The entrance onto Route 627 shall be maintained such that the Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT) minimum sight distance requirement for a private entrance
(250') is provided.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-96-15 Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity - Petition to establish 5
additional development rights for a total of 10 lots. [10.5.2.1] Property, described as
Tax Map 128, Parcel 85 is located in the Esmont area on the West side of Route 627
approximately 1/3 mile south of Route 6. This property, containing 23.75 acres, is
zoned Rural Areas in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is not located within a
designated growth area (Rural Area 4).
MUD
IJ
/D�
M
5-7-96
SUB 96-021 Simpson Habitat Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal to create 10
lots averaging 2.375 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 128, Parcel 85, is located
in the Esmont area on the west side of Route 627 approximately 1/3 mile south of
Route 6. This property, containing 23.75 acres, is zoned Rural Areas in the Scottsville
Magisterial District and is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4).
Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. He explained these items are before the
Commission because original approvals have expired. The report concluded: "Staff
opinion is that no changes in circumstances have occurred since the original review.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of this special use permit with minor modification
to conditions contained in the April 22, 1994 letter regarding the action of the Board of
Supervisors."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bruce Wardell, Chairman of the Greater
Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity. He briefly explained how the program works.
Other comments included the following:
--Target costs for selling the houses to families is approximately $40,000.
Houses are sold at no profit and the organization holds a 15-year, no -interest,
mortgage. The organization holds a second mortgage that is equal to the sale price
and the market value of the house, which represents the equity the family has in the
house. The second mortgage is forgiven over the 15-year period of the mortgage. At
the end of 15 years, the family owns the house and has the equity in the house.
--The houses are assessed at between $68,000 - $79,000.
--Addressing a concern raised at the time of the original approval, he said the
organization has made an effort to recruit families from the Esmont area. Thus far, the
three families which have been accepted into the program for this development, are all
Esmont residents.
--Habitat has held several meetings with the Esmont community. Mr. Lloyd
Fegans, an Esmont resident, has become a member of the Habitat Board and is head
of the development committee for this project.
--The project has been delayed because of the difficulty in raising funds for
infrastructure. A Community Development Block Grant has been applied for to fund the
road. Alternative funding sources are also being pursued.
--Once the road is built, construction of houses is expected to begin immediately.
Anticipated buildout time is 3-5 years.
Mr. Lloyd Fegans addressed the Commission. He said nothing has changed since the
original application in 1994. There is still a need for affordable housing in the Esmont,
and surrounding, communities. The families which have already been approved are
anxious to get their homes under construction.
Ms. Jenny MacDonald, Albemarle County Housing Coordinator, addressed the
Commission. She explained the Community Development Block Grant referred to by
/&S
M
i
5-7-96 5
Mr. Wardell is for a total of $827,000. The total package, including rehabilitation of 35
homes and the construction of the 10 Habitat homes, is for $1,500,000 for the Esmont
area, The grant awards will be announced by the Governor at the end of May.
Albemarle County has not been successful in receiving these grants in the last 2 years,
primarily because the County has not scored competitively in the "relative need"
assessment. The State has said, however, that the Habitat package makes the grant
proposal "much more attractive for approval."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann noted that no changes have occurred since the original approval and
this project is much needed in the Esmont area.
Ms. Dotson felt the only change was a positive one, that being the degree of community
involvement and support which has occurred.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP-96-15 for Greater
Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Staff approval of final subdivision plat.
2. Development shall be in accord with the statements of the applicant as contained in
the March 25, 1996 Description of Request.
3. The road serving these ten lots must be built to State (Virginia Department of
Transportation) standards for acceptance into the State (VDOT) system.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that Simpson Habitat
Preliminary Subdivision Plat (SUB 96-021) 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. Approval of SP-96-15.
b. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan.
c. Roads built or bonded in accordance with the approved final public road plans.
d. Albemarle County Engineering approval of public road plans and drainage
calculations.
0
5-7-96 6
'tr
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of final public road plans and
drainage calculations.
f. Staff approval of road name.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-96-03 Worrell Land and Cattle Company, LC - Proposal to amend the existing
agreements and proffers of ZMA-92-12. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels
20B, 20C, 20K, 20M, 31, 32, 71, 71A is located in the northwest corner of the
intersection of Rt. 250 and 1-64 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is
recommended for Office/Regional use in Neighborhood 3.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report explained the "current proposal amends
the location of various uses within the project resulting in the need to amend the
existing proffers." Mr. Fritz said the changes result in a slightly less intense (less
square footage) development. The staff report concluded: "Staff views the proposal as
a non -substantive change from the previous approval, which is consistent with the
previous approval. Based on this analysis staff is able to recommend approval subject
to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers."
Ms. Huckle asked if the plan on display was proffered. Mr. Cilimberg said the land use
plan is proffered, but not the "illustrative" plan which just shows the general layout. Mr.
Fritz said the plan could change slightly, but changes are limited by the design criteria.
Mr. Keeler added: "The locations of the land uses cannot change; acreage limitations
cannot increase on this plan."
Mr. Fritz said he had received no comments from the ARB. Mr. Drucopoli later
explained the item was scheduled, in error, for ARB review at a time when he was just
returning from out of town. Thus it was deferred. He pointed out that it is being
presented to the ARB as a courtesy --there is nothing they need to approve.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Andrew Drucopoli. He explained the reasons
behind the relocation of various uses. He described Phase I as being "the park and the
-bluish area toward State Farm Boulevard." The proposed changes have been
discussed with all neighbors --State Farm, Monticello, Westminster Canterbury,
Ashcroft, Dr. Hurt. All comments from those meetings have been favorable. He
clarified that the land use plan is proffered, not the illustrative plan. Construction is
anticipated to begin later this summer. A 15-20 year buildout time is envisioned.
Mr. Dotson asked how the commercial area would be accessed by people who are
working in the offices, etc. He said he felt it was very important that there be an
"internal link" between uses so that people will not be forced out onto peripheral roads.
/d7-
5-7-96 7
Mr. Drucopoli called attention, on the illustrative plan, to a "connecting road all the way
through the park." He said the intent is that people will be able to get to the commercial
area without having to go onto State Farm Blvd. or onto Rt. 250. Referring to the
illustrative plan, Mr. Dotson said "it appears that is a pedestrian open space connection
only from the round -about to the commercial." Mr. Drucopoli said that though no road is
shown on the plan, "there will be a road there," Given the fact that the illustrative plan
is not proffered, Mr. Dotson asked if there was some way to show that an internal
connection was planned as described by Mr. Drucopoli. Mr. Fritz said that could be
required as part of the site review process. Mr. Drucopoli added: "I think your best
assurance is that we would be very foolish to force people out onto Rt. 250 to get to
that commercial site. ... It is clearly our intention to develop internal connections. We
have not shown on that (plan) every road. Those roads, probably, are the only public
roads that will be there. There may be private connecting roads, but there will certainly
be roads there"
Mr. Finley asked if sites will be purchased or leased. Mr. Drucopoli said it would be a
combination.
Ms. Huckle asked if there would be recreational areas within the residential part of the
development. Mr. Drucopoli responded affirmatively. He said there will also be open
space, and walking and biking trails throughout the open space. Mr. Fritz added that
the Ordinance requires recreational facilities at different intervals of residential
development. Ms. Huckle said she meant more than just tot lots --things like soccer
fields, etc. Mr. Drucopoli said there probably is not enough flat area for a soccer field,
but it is intended that the park will be used by everyone in the development, office users
and residential users.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Kamptner noted that he has suggested some non -substantive changes to the
proffers for the purpose of clarification. Also, the reference in the last proffer to a
possible additional proffer pertaining to a pro rata contribution for improvements
"hinging on a traffic analysis" needs to be finalized prior to Board hearing.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA-96-03 for Worrell
Land and Cattle Company be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers with the understanding the language of
the proffers will be clarified prior to the Board hearing and an additional proffer will be
finalized related to a pro rata contribution. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-96-03 Sprint Cellular (Hickory Site) - Petition to allow a 185-foot tower and an
**or equipment building on a portion of an 8.037 acre parcel zoned Rural Areas. Property,
lm
5-7-96
E1
described as Tax Map 88, Parcel 30C, is located on the west side of U.S. Rt. 29S,
approximately 6 miles south of 1-64 and about 1 mile south of Rt. 745 in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This property is not within a designated growth area.
Deferred from the March 26, 1996 Planning Commission.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He noted that the ARB does not support this
petition. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the change in the character of the
district and the impact on dwellings in the area outweigh the convenience provided by
cellular telephones. Therefore, staff does not recommend approval of the special use
permit." (The report offered conditions of approval in the event the Board of
Supervisors chooses to approve the request.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Gibson. He was assisted by Mr. Allen
Rosner, an RF Engineer who provides consulting services to the telecommunications
industry. Mr. Gibson gave a lengthy presentation during which he addressed "general
site specific points" and talked about the growth of the cellular industry and the benefits
of cellular usage. He distributed aerial photographs showing the proposed location.
Mr. Rosner's presentation included engineering information related to
telecommunications services. Information provided included the following:
--The proposed height of the tower has been reduced to 150 feet which is the
minimum height possible to provide the needed coverage.
--This tower will provide coverage in the Rt. 29 area, south from 1-64 to the Red
Hill area. The coverage is currently inadequate in this area and is "a much demanded
public service." There are no existing tower sites which would provide coverage for this
area.
--The tower will be a steel monopole, painted grey, with whip antennas (3" in
diameter) mounted on it. (He compared it to a "big flag pole" with a top diameter of 18
inches and a bottom diameter of 5 1/2 ft.) The towers are inspected twice monthly.
--The tower will be located on the east ridge of the mountain above the Massie's
property and will be 1,300 feet from the closest point to Rt. 29 and 1,400 feet from the
nearest dwelling, other than the Massie's. The tower will be visible for a short distance
along Rt. 29 when travelling south in the vicinity of Elsroth-Thompson Nursery.
--A modification is also requested of Section 4.10.3.1 which is related to setback
requirements. That modification has been routinely granted.
--There are existing visual intrusions in this area: a railroad track, the Elsroth-
Thompson Nursery, the Makco Mills Building.
--This coverage cannot be provided with "one big tower" because of frequency
problems. Towers must be added as demand increases. The FCC mandates that
there be a "good level of coverage throughout the licensed area."
--Towers are going to be needed for many years in the future. Even satellite
systems will require towers.
--it is anticipated there will be the need for one additional tower at some future
time in this area --from Rt. 29 south to the county line.
/D /
5-7-96 9
En
--The range of a tower on flat terrain is up to 10 miles; in terrain in this area the
range is probably 5-6 miles.
--Towers are designed to withstand greater force winds than have ever been
experienced and none have ever failed. The cellular industry has been using the
towers for 11 years. Towers are inspected twice monthly.
Mr. Nitchmann asked why the applicant has not been able to present a plan which will
address the question of how many towers are ultimately envisioned and their
approximate locations. Mr. Gibson said the Ordinance requires a special permit for
each individual site. There is no "blanket approval' possible. Mr. Nitchmann asked
staff if the county has made any effort to meet with the companies which provide
cellular service to try to develop a master plan for the future location of these towers.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Fritz has been collecting information and has been in contact
withall three cellular providers, asking them to provide us with information about
potential need. US Cellular is presently working on a plan but has not yet made it
available to the county. Mr. Cilimberg explained that special permits for towers are
driven by what the provider determines to be customer need. The county has said it
wants to "see the bigger picture," which includes what the needs are anticipated to be
for all companies. At this point, the county does not have the information needed for
the development of a master tower plan.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Gibson if his company would have any problems with working
with a competitor to develop a master plan. Mr. Gibson said his company does not
have a problem with working with municipalities in cooperative efforts, though there are
some "anti-trust overtures." He pointed out his company had asked staff, several years
ago, to identify county properties or existing structures which might be usable to provide
this need. General information was shared at that time and staff has been very helpful.
He said none of the jurisdictions he works with have ever asked for site plans for the
next 20 years, as did the ARB. Such a plan is not possible given the uncertainty of land
acquisition and competitor plans. He concluded that his company is still willing to
continue to share information with staff regarding areas where coverage is needed and
to work with competitors whenever needs overlap.
Public comment was invited.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the
proposed tower: David Van Rojen; David Bass; John Wolf; Lewis Johnson; Jane
Heyward; Gene Clemens; Ellen Barnett; and Tim Lindstrom.
--Technology is changing so fast the towers will soon be obsolete. The applicant
should be directing their resources to perfecting this technology.
--Higher wattage phones would eliminate the need for so many towers.
--A master plan needs to be developed before any more towers are approved.
om
5-7-96
lM
10
--The service in the area to be covered by this tower is already adequate. (Mr.
Bass said he had performed tests and had found service to be "scratchy" for only one
mile. He had experienced no "dropped" calls.)
--The structures are unsightly and project high above the tree tops. This tower
will be visible from Rt. 29 and from several residences. The tower will impair the rural
character of the area.
--The tower may interfere with transmission or reception capabilities in the area.
--Approval will invite proposals for additional towers.
--Who is liable, in the event of tower failure, if the equipment falls on adjacent
properties?
Mr. Lindstrom expressed the opinion that the recently passed Telecommunications Act
"makes it imperative that County develop a Comprehensive Plan for the siting of these
towers. ... I think the process that the companies are leading you into --a piecemeal site
by site evaluation --is going to make it very difficult to defend a denial. The Act, while it
retains local government authority, requires a different standard for the evaluation of a
decision by the local government than is typically the case with a regular zoning
decision. It says that the denial of a site must be supported by substantial findings in
the record, which I take to be a much higher standard of proof than you might otherwise
be required on a normal zoning case. I think it will be difficult to meet that standard
unless you have a comprehensive plan for these towers. I believe that the staff
probably has enough information now, based on what various applicants have
provided, (and) with a little technical expertise, to begin to plot, on their own, where
you're going to need these sites in the future. I urge you to consider that very seriously
so that what you do is defensible."
Mr. Gibson responded briefly to some public comments. He noted that the new
technology is all tower -based. Also, the Telecommunications Act says there can be no
discrimination based on the types of service. In terms of more powerful phones, he
said wattage is limited because of both technological and health considerations.
Addressing the comment that the towers will soon be obsolete, he pointed out that the
company would not invest the amount needed to develop these cellular sites if it is not
absolutely necessary. The expectation is that technology will continue to be tower -
based for many years to come.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Fritz said the applicant had asked staff if there were any existing structures where a
tower could be located to provide this coverage. There are none.
Ms. Huckle thought the suggestion for the development of a master plan for the location
of these towers was a good one.
n
M
5-7-96 11
Mr. Fritz said some basic issues which could be addressed through a comprehensive
analysis are:
--A possible reduction in number of towers based on identification of sites where
the three providers could co -locate.
--Increasing height of towers might result in the need for fewer structures.
--Relationship to Entrance Corridor and Open Space Plan.
--Availability of utilities; access; availability of properties.
Mr. Dotson said a master plan might make it possible to address all those factors which
the staff report identified as being unfavorable for this site. He said the county is being
asked, in its consideration of these applications, "to take the narrowest of views, and so
we don't really know whether we could do a better job for the overall community as a
result of doing it in this way. He concluded: "That is the issue that is troubling to me."
Mr. Nitchmann said he was concerned about the possible proliferation of these towers
by three individual providers. He said he is a supporter of cellular service, but, living in
a mountainous area, he expects there will be times when a call will be lost. He agreed
with Mr. Lindstrom that a study is called for and he favored a deferral to allow staff time
to study this issue and advise the Commission as to the best approach.
Mr. Kamptner said the Commission has 90 days (from March 26th) to take action on the
1''" petition.
Ms. Huckle questioned whether staff would be able to complete a study within 90 days.
She suggested a denial might be more in order.
Mr. Tice agreed it would be difficult for staff to present a report within 90 days.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that many factors will be involved in this study, including the
cooperation of the three competitors in terms of scheduling, etc., and possible outside
technological assistance. He thought the two main items which could come from a
study are (1) The identification of areas where the towers will be needed; and (2)
Standards for what should be provided in a tower siting.
Mr. Finley questioned whether a study would include the identification of actual sites,
given the impact this would have on land prices, etc. Mr. Cilimberg was uncertain
whether specific sites could be identified. He said if sites were identified, the county
would then have to decide whether it will be involved in acquiring those locations.
Some localities are using this approach.
Mr. Finley said he agreed with Mr. Nitchmann's comments. He also said he did not
know what the ramifications are if a tower is not provided in this area, i.e. how serious
cm
5-7-96 12
'err
a problem is created? He said he would find it difficult to vote on the request at this
time.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that SP-96-03 for Sprint Cellular
(Hickory Site) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on those
unfavorable factors identified in the staff report as follows:
1. Approval of this tower will change the character of the EC district.
2. The visual impact created by the tower may be considered a detriment to existing
dwellings in the area.
3. The proposed location of this tower is within a mountain protection area identified in
the Open Space Plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-96-04 Sprint Cellular(Avon Site) - Petition to allow a 100-foot tower and an
equipment building on a portion of 9.536 acre parcel zoned R-1, Residential. Property,
described as Tax Map 91, parcel 1, is located on the east side of Avon Street Extended
' (Rt. 742), north of Cale Elementary School, on property developed with a water storage
tank in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is within Urban Neighborhood 4
and is designated for medium density residential use. Deferred from the March 26,
1996 Commission meeting.
Mr. Fritz called attention to a change in the staff report. He explained: "This site is
proposed for a 100-foot tower and the water tank is 47 feet in height. The tower doesn't
meet the setbacks. We were recommending that it be moved to meet those setbacks.
Based on additional information received from the Service Authority, if the tower is
moved it may interfere with the future use of that site for future water tanks or lines or
other Service Authority related activities. Therefore, based on that new information we
can support the reduction in the setback with the standard condition that in the event of
a tower collapse that it fall within the leased area. That is a substantial change from the
prior position. (However), we are still recommending denial of the application, but if you
choose to approve it we can recommend approval of the modification of the setback."
Staff was recommending denial of this request based on the finding that "the change in
the character of the EC district and the impact on dwellings in the area outweigh the
convenience provided by cellular telephones."
Mr. Gibson, again representing the applicant, asked for a deferral of the item. Mr.
Kamptner advised the Commission: "The rules of the Planning Commission provide
/i3
5-7-96 13
fir•°
that no matter may be deferred at the request of the applicant unless the request is
received by the secretary no less than one week prior to the meeting at which the
matter is scheduled to be heard. You can take an independent action, but the
applicant's request is untimely at this point."
Public comment was invited. None was offered. The matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Huckle said she felt this request should also be denied until a comprehensive plan
for tower sitings has been developed.
Mr. Dotson noted a difference in this site from the previous one is that this one is not in
a mountain protection area, but there are many more existing residences near this
location, including a school. In that respect the impact is potentially more significant
and without a master plan there is no way of knowing if there is a way to avoid those
adverse impacts.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that SP-96-04 for Sprint
Cellular (Avon Site) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on
those reasons stated in the staff report as follows:
*AIW 1. Approval of this tower will change the character of the EC district.
2. The visual impact created by the tower may be considered a detriment to existing
dwellings in the area.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
---------------------------------------------------------
The meeting recessed from 10:00 to 10:05.
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. Deferred from April 23, 1996 Commission Meeting.
M
14
Mr. Keeler said staffs report and recommendation were unchanged from that which
was presented at the April 9th meeting.
The applicant's representatives were present at the meeting but declined the invitation
to comment.
The public hearing having been closed at the April 9th meeting, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said the University has been a good neighbor of the community for
over 200 years and has, in fact, "made this community." They have worked hard on
this project "to satisfy the demands that we have put upon them when, in reality, they
didn't have to do that." He called attention to the numerous proffers which the
applicant has offered and expressed the feeling that "they have gone the extra mile."
He concluded: "I think this is very important to the University from the perspective
that if the University is to continue to be a highly sought after center of learning in the
academic world, it is important that they have the opportunity to move their research
and development and conceptualization of new processes from academics into the
private sector. I think it behooves us to consider that. Without that ability, the
recognition that the University will have in the future will be substantially deterred .... I
believe they have done what we have asked them to do in this case. I think asking
NNW them to delay further, while a zoning text amendment is studied, would be detrimental
to the University and to the community. I would like to see this item move forward to
the Board of Supervisors."
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that ZMA-95-04 for the
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers.
Discussion:
Mr. Loewenstein said he has had conversations with the applicant's representatives as
well as with a number of citizens. He said he has been struck by how many
individuals have expressed considerable concern about the impact of this project. He
said he still favors, as he set forth at the April 26th meeting, that a zoning text
amendment be adopted before action is taken on this request. Without said
amendment, he said he could not support a motion for approval at this time.
Mr. Dotson commented: "When this came before the Commission previously, I voted
in favor of it, and when it is timely, in my view, to vote on it again, I would vote again
in favor of it. I don't feel it is timely tonight. I share the concern that Commissioner
Loewenstein has expressed. All the good things that Commissioner Nitchmann
mentioned about this project are there and it is probably one of the most significant
decisions we will make in planning this community. It becomes the anchor for that
//S
En
5-7-96 15
whole northern area and we need to do our homework to plan around that and to infill
and complete that community so that it works for us. I don't, however, feel that we have
all the tools that we need right now to do all the work that needs to be done. I feel that
we are letting go --that is the feeling that is created --of a 20-30 year development
buildout with the only possibility being what we could accomplish through site plans and
site plans are ministerial and give you very little latitude other than just to check and
make sure they comply with the Ordinance. I think what we need is a zoning text
amendment, not that would apply just to this project, but to other projects in that
northern area as well, or to other industrial projects throughout the community. I don't
view that as an unfriendly act toward this project. I view it, in fact, as a friendly act that
enables people who have some concerns to approve it in good conscience. So I would
not, based on timeliness, be able to vote 'yes' tonight on this. However, I would
eventually expect to vote 'yes' on it."
Ms. Huckle commented: "I have said all along that I am in favor of the concept of this
Park, but, like many of this, I had hoped that UREF would be willing to withdraw the
word 'cumulative' from their annual cap on development. I am very sorry that they did
not feel this was a necessary or desirable response to the concerns of the Commission
or the many members of the public who spoke at the public hearing regarding the
phasing of development. Hopefully we would learn from other jurisdictions. For
example, we've heard about some of the results of the research park at Princeton, of
the growth it sparked and the effect on a small college town. So hopefully we could
learn from others' mistakes in judgment. I would like to support this eventually, but I
feel we need to defer the plan for at least 90 days and adopt a resolution of intent."
Mr. Tice commented: °I would echo the three previous commissioners. I spent a lot of
time the last 2 weeks listening to people on both sides of the issue and receiving
comments from many people on both sides. The part I find most compelling is there is
so much common ground between these sides. I am convinced this community really
does want this park and really wants the benefits of it. I understand the arguments that
some people feel the proposal for a zoning text amendment might reduce the
competitive advantage within the business community for locating here, but I am not
convinced of that argument. I look at our existing business climate in the County --and
perhaps we do have an image that it is difficult to locate here --but, on the other hand
our economy is doing reasonably well. Our unemployment rate is down to 2% or less
and you have to look at why other jurisdictions go to the extent of offering cash
incentives or tax incentives for businesses to locate there. A lot of it is to make up for
the quality of life. And it's the quality of life in this county that attracts business and
attracts the economic activity that's here. Part of the quality of life is the character of
our development and the character of our community. All we have been asking in the
form of a zoning text amendment is for us to be able to have some sort of public review
over the very large projects that might potentially impact that character. It's not an
issue of growth vs. no growth. It is precisely the economic well-being of this region that
//4
5-7-96 17
we are all trying to maintain. There is much in the Economic Development Policy
which fits well with the proposal for a zoning text amendment. We say that our goal is
"to maintain a strong and sustainable economy, that we want to provide diversified
economic opportunities that are supportive of the county's growth management policy
and consistent with the other Comprehensive Plan Goals." ... We need to be able to
review and stay on top of these very large projects which could overwhelm our
infrastructure. I, too, want to be in a position to be able to vote in favor of this project.
I don't feel like the time is right to do that tonight. I would rather see us support the
proposal Commissioner Loewenstein will present."
Mr. Finley commented: I agree with what Commissioner Nitchmann said about the
University. But to me it is not just the University. The University is one of the entities
in this community.... To me, what has happened is very normal for any community.
You have a going organization and it plans further development in its own area of
expertise and then it takes steps to try to get it moving. I feel it has developed in a
logical way and they've invested a great deal in it. They are offering a lot through
proffers which, in the long run, will come back to the consumer. What is being
invested in proffers somewhere has to be reflected in what the product is going to cost
the consumer. I don't know really, if we are gaining financially like that. But they are
meeting environmental requirements, and I think it's a good thing."
Ms. Washington asked: "I'd like to know if there is a hidden political agenda I am not
aware of." Mr. Nitchmann replied: "I don't think there is a hidden agenda. I think
there is a feeling that a zoning text amendment should be put in place and it is
unfortunate that this particular proposal is being held hostage by that.... My personal
feeling is that there are individuals looking to use this item as a means to get a zoning
text amendment that I think would have a major detrimental effect on the businesses
looking at this county. I, as a businessman, would not move to this community if you
told me that I could not expand my business three years from now.... I am in full
support of this. We can vote it up or down and it will go on to the Board, the elected
officials, who, if they want to make a significant change like this zoning text
amendment which will impact the economic well being of this county forever ... then so
be it, they'll come back to us and tell us that is what they want us to do."
The previous motion for approval failed to pass (3:4) with Commissioners Finley,
Nitchmann and Washington voting for the motion and Commissioners Huckle,
Loewenstein, Tice and Dotson voting against.
After the vote was complete, Mr. Kamptner explained: "The application is deemed
denied unless there is another action that is put on the floor."
��7
in
5-7-96
18
In the event the Board should approve the rezoning application, Mr. Kamptner
explained it was appropriate for the Commission to take separate actions on each of
the three related special permits and four modifications.
Mr. Keeler also asked that the record show that an agreement between UREF and the
Lake Acres residents, dated December 19, 1995, is a part of the application.
Mr. Dotson said he had no concerns about the special permits or modifications. No
concerns were raised by any commissioners.
MOTION: On the condition of Board approval of ZMA-95-04, Ms. Huckle moved, Mr.
Dotson seconded, that SP-95-40 for University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation,
related to Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical (27.2.2.1 and 29.2.2.1)
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to those conditions
listed in the staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: On the condition of Board approval of ZMA-95-04, Ms. Huckle moved, Mr.
Dotson seconded, that SP-95-41 for the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation,
related to Supporting Commercial Uses (27.2.2.14 and 29.2.2.1) be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to those conditions listed in the staff
NW, report. The motion passed unanimously.
In
MOTION: On the condition of Board approval of ZMA-95-04, Ms. Huckle moved, Mr.
Finley seconded that SP-95-42 for University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation,
related to Hotels, motels and inns (29.2.2.2) be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to those conditions listed in the staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: On the condition of Board approval of ZMA-95-04 Ms. Washington moved,
Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Commission recommend the Board endorse the
following clarifications for the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation:
(1) The identification of Open Space as used in the application as compared to
the Zoning Ordinance,
(2) All three special permits are valid so long as the zoning on the property is
valid;
(3) Related to the applicant's proffer on limitation on water consumption,
specifying that any condition imposed in the special permit review would be limited
solely to issues of water usage;
(4) Certain terminology used on the applicant's plan --general office, light
industrial and flex industrial --for use by the Zoning Administrator.
The motion passed unanimously.
He
5-7-96 18
1%W
Resolution of Intent
MOTION: After stressing that his motion was "not intended to inhibit growth, but to
provide the County with a way to manage growth more effectively for the benefit of the
entire community --to assure that all our growth will be healthy growth, Mr. Loewenstein
moved that "the Planning Commission herewith request Planning Staff to begin as soon
as practicable to develop a Zoning Text Amendment: (a) To effect a Special Use
Permit requirement that would set a threshold for major expansions of buildings --
whether new or existing --in any industrial zoning districts; and (b) To establish
appropriate criteria which meet local and State Code requirements and that would
address the County's ability to absorb the infrastructure impacts of all expansions
above the threshold, in order to provide guidance in determining whether or not to issue
such a Permit." [NOTE: After discussion, Mr. Loewenstein, changed the motion slightly
to read: "...whether new or existing --for all uses common to all industrial and
commercial zoning districts...."]
This motion was discussed before a second was made. The second was made later in
the discussion by Mr. Tice.
Ms. Huckle asked if the motion was intended to included business office use. She said
most of the uses in the UREF park were referred to as "office" rather than industrial."
1�"'` Mr. Cilimberg said there are three industrial districts --Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial
and Planned Development Industrial Park. Offices are an allowed use under offices
and PD-IP. They are also allowed in all commercial districts.
el
Mr. Dotson expressed a desire to "keep it simple" at this point so that staff could move
forward rapidly.
Mr. Dotson said he has received a lot of public comment in the past few weeks about
this proposed amendment. A concern expressed is how this will effect existing
businesses who want to expand. He said his concern was with "major, new businesses
coming into the community." He said: "If you already have a business within the
community, it seems to me that wouldn't count towards the threshold... what we would
be dealing with is whether your addition is large enough to cross the threshold. It
wouldn't matter how big the business is in total. I would like, as part of this, for staff to
consider a way to make allowances for businesses already in the community --that
whatever threshold there is --that not be counted against it once they have already been
here for a certain period of time."
Referring to the Supervisors' recent decision "to stop our growth until we have a plan,"
Mr. Finley asked if this was not an issue that would be studied with the current Comp
Plan review that is taking place.
117
En
5-7-96 19
Mr. Loewenstein said he feels this --the eve of the adoption of a new Comprehensive
Plan-- is an appropriate time to address a variety of zoning issues which can contribute
to that product.
Mr. Tice asked: "You are intending for that to apply to individual ownerships of
businesses. You are not suggesting that within an industrial district the accumulated
square footage of what may be several different owners would kick in the threshold, but
rather the threshold would kick in when... (sentence incomplete)." Mr. Loewenstein
responded: "For individual owners --that's correct."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if there were not some other way to approach Mr. Loewenstein's
suggestion, without placing a "hard, fast zoning text amendment on the table." He
said: "I don't think (all of you Commissioners) understand what this can mean to this
community. I think you feel this is a way to control growth and control people. But you
are not going to tell me, as a businessman, that I have to come to you, Jared, and ask
your permission to expand my building by 50,000 square feet.... I'll move out of this
county before I'll do that. That's what's on the table.... That is wrong. I don't agree
with the Zoning Text Amendment and I think it's the wrong approach. We can have
work sessions on it and discuss (before deciding to move forward with a zoning text
amendment). That makes more sense."
*40" Ms. Huckle explained her interpretation of the motion: "They are going to look into a
threshold so that something small is not going to trigger anything. 50,000 square feet
doesn't seem very big to me. I think it's when you get up in the 100's that you are going
to have a big impact." She thought staff would be able to present a report within "a
couple of weeks" which could then be discussed in a work session.
Mr. Dotson viewed the resolution of intent as a mechanism to determine if there is
enough support for the idea to justify staffs time in development of an amendment.
Mr. Nitchmann said the proposed amendment, if adopted, will impact every business
decision made in this community, no matter what limit is decided upon.
Mr. Loewenstein said he was hearing opposition on the part of some Commissioners to
using special permits as a growth management tool. He said: "We already manage so
many things in this community through the special permit process, that are so
infinitesimally small in potential impact, compared with large uses in industrial districts,
that I think this is not at all inconsistent with Comp Plan goals to look at this kind of
thing and see if we can't do a better job of promoting growth in a healthier way.
believe the only people who will be negatively effected by this are those who look into
moving to this community with their business or industry and they want to plan, over
some period of time, to increase the size of their business to a point that would reach
' whatever threshold is set. I think that is going to be a very limited number of potential
/12D
M
5-7-96 20
businesses. I don't see that as a major detriment to the enhancement of our economic
policy as a community."
Mr. Finley wondered if Mr. Loewenstein would feel differently if he were a businessman.
Ms. Huckle said businesses look at three factors when considering locating in an area:
(1) Quality of life; (2) Education system; and (3) Water supply. She said: "If you
have a huge business community, or several businesses, such as UREF which could
bring in hundreds of thousands (square feet), in one year, then this community is not
going to be able to provide the schooling, the water and the quality of life that those
companies are looking for. So if you want to kill off growth, the best way to do it is to
not provide these things, which are essential to people looking for a new place."
Mr. Dotson commented: "There is another way to look at it. The University has already
offered a proffer which caps each year and gives a maximum of development. If,
instead, there were this threshold idea, then maybe that proffer wouldn't be necessary
or meaningful. The threshold would be less restrictive from their point of view and give
them more opportunities to bring more businesses in and if they were very large, to
then get special permits and to go ahead.... I think it's true that many of the most
attractive communities which both residents and businesses want to be in are those
which have fairly well thought out planning and zoning systems and (they are) far more
elaborate and demanding than anything we have here. I don't think this action is going
to single us out by a long shot. I'll think we'll still be right in the center of the pack."
Mr. Nitchmann disagreed saying: "We're not in the center of the pack today and I don't
think this will help us get closer to the center of the pack. I would be much more open
to this if (we could first hold some work sessions) before adopting a zoning text
amendment."
Mr. Tice addressed Mr. Nitchmann's comments: "When we have a community with an
unemployment rate as low as this one, and one that ranks consistently among the top
places to live in the United States --no we're not in the center of the pack, we're at the
top of the pack."
Mr. Nitchmann disagreed. He said the unemployment rate is misleading because very
low paying jobs are filled with very over qualified people. He said: "People still don't
understand that there is underemployment in this community."
Mr. Keeler attempted to clarify the intent of the motion. He explained: "If it's any use
within an industrial district, office uses are within an industrial district. On its face, if you
adopt a provision that treats offices differently in an industrial district from other districts
and you cannot articulate a reason for it, I think you're on very weak ground. I think
5-7-96 21
''WW
what you probably want to look at are non-residential uses, no matter what district
they're in."
After hearing Mr. Keeler's comment, Mr. Nitchmann noted: "It just points out that we
don't understand the impact of what he is proposing."
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that perhaps the resolution of intent should be reworded to
cover "uses that are common to both industrial and commercial districts." Mr.
Loewenstein agreed to amend his motion as suggested by Mr. Cilimberg. Mr. Tice
agreed to this change.
Mr. Washington questioned the need to adopt a resolution at this point. She favored
work sessions taking place first.
The motion to adopt a resolution of intent passed by a vote of 4:3 with Commissioners
Huckle, Dotson, Loewenstein and Tice voting in favor and Commissioners Washington,
Nitchmann and Finley voting against.
Mr. Cilimberg was unable to predict when staff would have a report ready for the
Commission.
cm
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
0. 1)"�AAA_A- 1� �' �
1.
In
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
/, 2Z