HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 16 1996 PC Minutescm
EAMON
JULY 16, 1996
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July
16, 1996, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair; Ms.
Babs Huckle; Mr. David Tice; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; and
Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill
Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator; Mr. Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of July 2, 1996, were unanimously approved as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the July 10th Board of Supervisors Meeting.
ZMA-96-10 Ivy Motors Commons II - Petition to amend the proffers of ZMA 88-14 to
�iww allow vacation of right-of-way. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 84E, is
located behind Jefferson National Bank on the north side of Route 250 approximately
500 feet west of Rt 678 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located
in a designated development area (Rural Area 3).
Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. The report explained that this item had been
reviewed and recommended for approval by the Commission on July 18, 1996. It was
subsequently found that one adjacent property owner had not received notification of
the proposal. Thus, in order to ensure that the rezoning is without legal defect, the item
was rescheduled for Planning Commission public hearing.
The applicant was represented by James Newman. He had no additional comment, but
offered to answer Commission questions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that ZMA-96-10 for Ivy Motors
Commons II be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to
acceptance of the applicant's proffers.
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------
SDP 96-51 Cafe No Problem Site Plan Waiver Request. -
405
M
7-16-96 2
Proposal to modify the existing structure including the addition of an apartment.
Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 31A is located in the northern corner of the
intersection of Route 250 and Route 240 at Mechums River. This site is located in the
White Hall Magisterial District and is not located in a designated development area
(Rural Area 3).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Benjamin Dick. He said all problems have been
addressed and the applicant has no objections to any of the recommended conditions.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Candace Smith and Mr. William Blass, residents of Ivy, spoke briefly in support of
the request.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that the Site Plan Waiver
Request for Cafe No Problem be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit shall not be issued until the following approvals are received:
a. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan.
b. Engineering Department issuance of a Runoff Control Permit. This will include
approval of plans and computations for runoff attenuation and filtering, and the sewage
pumping station and force main. The "Runoff Control 100' building and septic setback"
will coincide with the "WRPA buffer limits" and must be shown on the plan.
c. Engineering Department approval of final grading and drainage plans and
computations.
d. VDOT approval of right-of-way improvements.
e. Water Resource Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment outlining
mitigation measures for encroachment in the WRPA buffer.
f. Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with state and federal
agencies regulating activities within jurisdictional streams and wetlands.
g. Engineering Department receipt of a copy and proof of recordation of a County
standard Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement for any
facilities proposed for Runoff Control.
h. Engineering Department receipt of a copy of the State Health Department approved
plans for the sewage pumping station and force main, and certificate of operation from
the Department of Environmental Quality.
i. Engineering Department receipt of certification, by a Professional Engineer licensed
`- in Virginia, of the structural adequacy of the existing septic tanks for installation beneath
the parking travelway area.
�v�
on
7-16-96 3
j. Albemarle County Service Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
approval of sewer discharge point and water meter location.
k. Deletion of the two parking spaces at the entrance to the site adjacent to Route 240.
I. Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the following conditions are met:
a. Building Official approval.
b. Fire Official approval.
c. Health Department approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
Noise Ordinance
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report.
Commission comments and questions included the following:
HUCKLE
--Have the new noise measuring devices been field tested? "Have
measurements been taken from the property line to the source (of the noise)? How far
away does a sound source have to be before it has an unacceptable reading at the
property line?" ANSWER: Ms. McCulley seemed to be unclear as to the meaning of
Ms. Huckle's question. She responded, however, that it would possibly depend on the
type of noise which is being generated.
--Has consideration been given to two separate zones where there would be
more strict regulations for subdivisions with small lots where people live closer together
vs. larger lot developments where people are not so close to their neighbors? Aren't
there some areas which would not require such "extensive management?" ANSWER:
"It might be possible to separate residential districts into two districts (but ) I don't know
if we can make a distinction based on property size."
--"I'm in favor of this ordinance. I'm sure there are many places it's needed. But
I'm not sure it isn't going to cause a lot of unhappiness among those people who move
to the country because they believed they would have more freedom to do what they
want to do than would be the case if they have close neighbors." ANSWER: "At a
minimum, we need to be sure that we exempt things that are essential parts of the
County's goals in that district. For example, we need to be sure that we exempt from
regulation certain agricultural and forestal activities."
NITCHMANN
ao 7-
I
cm
7-16-96 4
--Have the new devices been used to test any of the sites about which there
have been noise concerns over the past couple of years? (e.g. ACAC and the Boar's
Head tent) ANSWER: Ms. McCulley explained that the new noise meters have just
recently been acquired by the County so field tests have not taken place.
--How does staff foresee this proposed ordinance will apply in industrial areas?
Will higher levels be permitted in industrial areas than in commercial or residential
areas? ANSWER: The maximum level will be determined based on the "receiving
zoning," i.e. the zoning which is on the property which is receiving the noise. Ms.
McCulley anticipated that most existing uses will be able to comply, though some may
need exemption permits.
--How do we include in this ordinance "guidelines as to what can happen?"
Example: "Is there some way that once this is in force, you will be able to take this new
equipment and come before the Commission and Board and say'We have done a test
and found that a light sound is x number db's. If you approve this it could become a
problem with the neighbors?"' ANSWER: "When working with noise regulations, it is
very difficult to know exactly what to associate with a cold number. It will be helpful to
visit some recently approved uses and take some sample readings and then report
back to the Commission on those findings."
DOTSON
--Can consideration be given to combining exemption permits, exception permits,
and temporary permits into one permit? "Workability is important in this type of
ordinance." Some temporary events must be judged on their own merits.
--Can examples be given for "nuisance noise?" A nuisance noise might be
defined as one which "doubles the amount of sound that is normally in place, even
though it does not violate the normal standard."
--"In terms of noise (from pre-existing uses), could we think of it differently than
we think of uses? I think of 'uses' as more of a structure or a category. They're sort of
a given --you either have it or you don't. Noise is on a scale. Would it be possible to
say even it there is a 'grandfathered' noise, perhaps it could be amortized so that over a
period of time it (could be brought into compliance)? A noise is controllable and
downgradable, unlike a use or a structure."
--There should be some consistency in the times noted throughout the
document. Three different morning times are cited--6 a.m., 7 a.m. and 8 a.m.
FINLEY
--How was the Task Force established? How were participants chosen?
ANSWER: The list of participants was generated by the Chamber of Commerce. Staff
chaired the committee. All but three people were from the Chamber of Commerce list.
Those three were: a VPI acoustics specialist; an engineer who has been involved in
the development of acoustic regulations previously; and an Industrial Hygienist from
UVA who works with OSHA noise regulation.
TICE
a��
M
7-16-96 5
--Does staff envision any potential conflict with these regulations and the
county's desire to promote infill development? Would this make infill developments
more difficult to accomplish? ANSWER: Staff will have to study this question when
developing these regulations.
--Would activities which are exempt from these regulations also be exempt from
the nuisance noise regulations ?
--Referring to item 1(h)— "Authorized operation of a public facility or operation of
equipment by a public agency." --he asked: "Are we setting a different standard for
public facilities vs. private by including this, and would it not be better not to have a
blanket exemption for public facilities, but rather require that any public facility would
have to follow the same procedure as a private facility?" ANSWER: "That would be
consistent with the County's policy on how we regulate our own uses."
Public comment was invited.
Mr. John Horniff commented on how the regulations may apply to rural areas. He said
consideration should be given to the fact that a noise introduced into a quiet rural area
at night, even at 55 decibels, would not blend in with the pre-existing environment.
The Commission took no action on staffs report. Staff is to report back to the
Commission on findings of field research and will prepare a draft of the proposed
ordinance. A second work session will be set after those two steps have been
accomplished.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if readings could be taken at property lines which are close to a
public swimming facility and to a nightclub type facility. Ms. Huckle asked that the
research include measurement of the "distance from the source of the noise to the
receiving property line."
WORK SESSION
Zoning Text Amendment for Industrial Square Footage
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report concluded with the following
recommended Resolution of Intent for the Commission's consideration:
"...to amend the Zoning Ordinance to require issuance of a special use permit for any
establishment exceeding a specified aggregate building floor area whether or not
located on a single or multiple tracts of land. This requirement shall apply to:
1. Any use allowed by right in 27.0 Light Industrial, LI, 28.0 Heavy Industrial, HI,
or 29.0 Planned Development -Industrial Park PD-IP; and
2. Any use allowed by right in 22.0 Commercial, C-1, 23.0 Commercial Office,
CO, or 24.0 Highway Commercial, HC; provided that the use is also allowed by right in
,-;2 v9
7-16-96 6
27.0 Light Industrial, LI, 28.0 Heavy Industrial, HI or 29.0 Planned Development -
Industrial Park, PD-IP."
Commission comments and questions included the following:
HUCKLE
--Perhaps the best way to approach this is through the number of employees
because the square footage can vary significantly and "it is the number of employees
we are concerned about and not the building because it is the employees who have
children who will need schooling and that is where the problem comes in. " (Mr. Keeler
said he could not envision a way to limit the number of employees which a business
has.)
FINLEY
--Is this square footage to be a "cap" or a "point which triggers the need for a
special permit application." ANSWER: It will be the point at which a special permit
application would be required.
--Has any consideration been given to the creation of a Task Force to study this
concept prior to the adoption of any changes to the Ordinance? Do you think "the rank
and file of the County" desires the amendment which is under consideration. He
favored getting feedback from other county organizations and from the Chamber of
Commerce. He asked if consideration should be given to the question of what is the
potential impact of this proposed amendment on the future of the County? (Mr.
Loewenstein addressed these comments by pointing out that a fair amount of feedback
has already been received by the County, including the county -wide survey which was
performed several months ago. He said, however, he would not object to the creation
of a Task Force.)
DOTSON
--The staff report implies that staff feels what the Commission is considering here
is "unusual and unfair." What is being considered is "not a cap, but a threshold." He
cited a few of many instances in the Ordinance where a "threshold" triggers the
requirement for a special permit: A rural preservation development requires a special
permit, a conventional rural development does not; a temporary sawmill is by -right, a
permanent one requires a special permit; veterinary services off -site are allowed by -
right, but if permanent, a special permit is required; a quarry, up to 50,000 cubic yards
is by -right, beyond 50,000 cubic yards requires a special permit. Based on the many
examples which currently exist, he said he sees nothing "unusual" about what is being
considered. In terms of "fairness," and whether it is fair to require a special permit of
the very largest industrial users, he pointed out that the following uses presently require
special permits: churches, a gift/craft/antique shop, private schools, day care centers,
swim/golf/tennis facilities, rest homes, funeral homes, etc. He concluded: "In terms of
fairness, I don't think we are off -base in thinking about a special permit for some of the
largest industries.... We limit an accessory structure with a home occupation to 1,500
square feet. We're now talking about industries of, perhaps, 150,000 square feet,
7-16-96 7
which is 100 times larger. That doesn't strike me as unfair. Certainly, we have the
authority to determine the process by which we judge each case, both according to the
rules and also on its own merits, and it seems to me we have a lot of precedents in the
examples I've cited...." [Mr. Finley later expressed the opinion that the restrictions
placed on many of the uses cited by Mr. Dotson were related to factors other than
growth and economics. Mr. Keeler said it was staffs intent to point out that this
amendment could not apply to all properties because some are protected by the Code
of Virginia.]
--He felt the answer to deciding "what's large," is to use "best professional
judgment."
--"I felt we were just (in the staff report) getting what was negative about this and
some of the usefulness and potential benefits of an appropriate threshold, well defined
and applied equitably and fairly, could, in fact, be of some benefit in terms of
addressing the unique characteristics of a few very large proposals that might possibly
come before us. And it should be a net with very big holes in it so that most go
through."
--In conclusion, he supported staffs proposed Resolution which he felt "captured
the intent of the spirit of what (he) was trying to express."
LOEWENSTEIN
--The accuracy of the figures is important regarding the ZTA itself because "it
does address a formula to look at in coming up with the establishment of a threshold
size. It is important to remember that what we are considering creating is a threshold
for things yet to be built."
--He disagreed with the statement in the staff report which said that "past
business location and expansion has taken place without discomfort to the community."
He said this Planning Commission and past Commissions have heard mean citizen
complaints and concerns about negatives impacts which already exist. "Given the
scale of all types of growth that has occurred, I think the impacts increase over time as
the development of the County continues."
--Regarding the option to allow limited expansions over a specified, continuous
period of time, "I have some concerns about effective monitoring for such an approach."
— "I would like to look at the existing zoning and back things out of it that we know
are going to be covered by the provisions of (the Code of Virginia) and we know are,
therefore, not going to be subject to the provisions of this ZTA. I'd look carefully, not at
what we've already done, but what we could currently do under existing zonings and
how the proposed threshold might impact that. I'd like to see some numbers. That
seems critical. The ultimate question is 'How effective will establishing a threshold on
building size, by -right, be?"'
--How long would it take for staff to provide a report on the number of currently
zoned properties which could be impacted by this amendment? Mr. Loewenstein felt
this information should be reviewed by the Commission prior to making a decision as to
how to proceed with this amendment. ANSWER: Mr. Cilimberg said this could be a
time-consuming task. Staff will have to work with the schedule of the County Attorney's
office.
,;2-//
7-16-96 8
--In conclusion, he supported the Resolution recommended by staff.
NITCHMANN
--This could have either a positive, or a very detrimental effect, on the future
economic vitality of this community.
--"Do we really understand who we are as a County in terms of what are the
assets of the County and what are the limitations of those assets, whether infrastructure
or natural resources or employment levels? It is difficult for me to try to set a limit
without knowing whether or not a limit really needs to be set, or without knowing all the
key parameters."
--76% of people who responded to the County survey favored greater job
opportunities.
--He expressed support for the formation of a committee, to be made of
representatives from all interest groups.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that the Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to
consider the amendment of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to require
issuance of a special use permit for any establishment exceeding a specified aggregate
building floor area whether or not located on a single or multiple tracts of land. This
requirement shall apply to:
`%NK 1. Any use allowed by right in 27.0 Light Industrial, LI, 28.0 Heavy Industrial, HI,
or 29.0 Planned Development -Industrial Park PD-IP; and
2. Any use allowed by right in 22.0 Commercial, C-1, 23.0 Commercial Office,
CO, or 24.0 Highway Commercial, HC; provided that the use is also allowed by right in
27.0 Light Industrial, LI, 28.0 Heavy Industrial, HI or 29.0 Planned Development -
Industrial Park, PD-IP;
and that staff provide a report on acreage that might be involved in this proposal as a
first step to evaluating how, or whether, to proceed with the amendment which is being
contemplated.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
[NOTE: Mr. Dotson's original motion did not contain the phrase "to considerthe
amendment of...." After some Commissioners expressed concern about the definitive
implications of the motion without the word "consider", Mr. Dotson amended his motion
as stated above. Also, the last phrase of this motion, which was direction to staff, was
added after further discussion.]
Discussion:
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concerns about the implications of adopting this resolution at
this time. He was also concerned about the definitive sound of the motion. Mr.
Nitchmann said he believes that once a Resolution of Intent is passed, an item "gains
speed and it is very difficult to stop it." (Mr. Dotson agreed to amend the wording of his
motion as explained above.)
/,�z
cm
7-16-96
Mr. Dotson pointed out that the passage of a Resolution of Intent does not in any way
obligate the Commission to act on a proposed amendment, either favorably or
unfavorably.
Mr. Finley was opposed to the adoption of a Resolution of Intent at this time. He
wanted more information on the legal implications.
Ms. Huckle once again stressed that what is being considered is a threshold at which
point a special permit would be required. It simply gives the County the opportunity to
review the advantages and disadvantages of a particular project.
Prior to action on the motion, public comment was invited.
Mr. Finley pointed out that public comment is not usually taken during a work session.
He feared that there may have been others who would have attended the meeting had
they known public comment would be received. Though Mr. Nitchmann said out that
there will be other opportunities for public input, Mr. Finley noted that will happen after
action on the Resolution has already been taken.
Mr. Bob Hauser said he feels the intent of the contemplated amendment is unclear at
this point. He felt the "number of employees" concept would be very difficult to govern.
He hoped the County would not enact controls which are not really needed. He
expressed concerns about limiting the growth plans of existing businesses.
Mr. Tom Jackson, representing the Chamber of Commerce, expressed the feeling that
this amendment will send a message to businesses that new businesses are not
welcome and existing businesses cannot expand. He feared this could lead to some
businesses, who have main offices in other cities, actually leaving the area. He
suggested existing businesses be surveyed to see if they would go through the special
permit process if they wanted to expand, or would they leave the area.
Mr. Bob DeMauri, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Partnership, agreed that the
potential impact on businesses needs to be studied. He felt a great deal more study is
needed on what actually has caused Albemarle County to grow. He said he does not
believe Albemarle County has been the recipient of a large industrial project in the last
25 years. He said it has been his experience that "jobs do not equate into population"
because it is rare that a company will import employees. Companies seldom locate in
an area unless there is an existing employment force already in the area. He said
attempting "to control population growth through zoning is a very touchy and evasive
subject and difficult to pin down in terms of square footage or building size." He
suggested the way to address the growth issue is to involve the business community
and other interests as well. In conclusion, he said he felt this type of regulation would
have a significant impact on the County's economy.
al3
M
7-16-96 10
Mr. Tim Lindstrom, representing PEC, addressed the Commission. His comments
included the following:
--How effective can this Ordinance be? This is difficult to answer without
knowing how many parcels could be effected.
--A Task Force may be a good idea, but not until it is decided that there is really
"something to fight about."
--If a special permit is required before a business "of some size can become
bigger or a business which is not here now can come here," it is clear that some
business would not choose to locate here. "But should we sacrifice the character of this
community to that handful of businesses that would be so arrogant as to deny the
public the opportunity to speak to a proposal that is so big that it would be completely
out of character with the community.... We are talking about the public's right to
participate in decisions about changes which could change the character of this
community.... Are we going to say the public has no role to play (in these decisions)?"
--We must give reasonable opportunities to businesses, but the issue is one of
"balance. Isn't there some level at which we can determine that beyond that level we
are distorting the character of the community? Then the community ought to have a
chance to decide if that is realistic or not."
There was no further public comment.
Mr. Nitchmann was in favor of delaying action until the question is answered as to how
much property this amendment might actually impact?
Mr. Dotson agreed to amend his motion to direct staff to provide a report on acreage
that might be involved in this proposal as a first step to evaluating how or whether to
proceed with the amendment which is being contemplated. Mr. Dotson also agreed to
amend the motion to include the phrase "consider amending." (The motion stated
above reflected Mr. Dotson's amendments. Ms. Huckle, who had seconded the motion,
agreed to the amendments to the motion.)
Mr. Tice felt adopting a Resolution at this time gives guidance to staff and to the public.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that if it is found that the impact of such an amendment would
be minimal, then "the Commission might want to proceed differently."
Mr. Dotson said it was the intent of his motion that items 1 and 2 of the Resolution will
be discussed again in a work session after staff has prepared the report on acreage
and a decision will be made at that time as to whether or not to proceed to public
hearing.
Mr. Finley said he was not prepared to support the adoption of a Resolution at this time.
He said he does not presently have enough information on the potential impact of what
is being considered, either legally or otherwise.
�l�
7-16-96 11
The motion to adopt the Resolution of Intent passed (6:1) with Commissioner Finley
casting the dissenting vote.
Another work session will be held to discuss this topic further after staff has completed
a report on existing acreage.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
V. Wayne lilimberg
, ecret ry
DB
E9
M