Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 20 1996 PC Minuteson 8-20-96 1 AUGUST 20, 1996 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 20, 1996, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chairman; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair; Mr. William Finley; 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. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; and Mr. Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Tice. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The Commission recognized former Commissioners with Certificates of Appreciation. Ms. Monica Vaughan was present. Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at their August 7th and August 14th meetings. CONSENT AGENDA - Monticello High School Final Site Plan Mr. Lilley explained how the plan had been amended in response to Commission concerns. Primarily, the ballfield locations were shifted so as to allow for the preservation of an undisturbed tree buffer along the property line adjacent to the Willow Lakes Subdivision and townhouses. Some technical changes related to grading and runoff control were also incorporated into the plan. The architects and a representative of the Education Department were present but offered no additional comment. Mr. Dotson said he was satisfied that the plan complies with the conditions previously set. Mr. Loewenstein agreed. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SP-96-28 Hydraulic Road Animal Hospital - Proposal to expand the existing animal hospital [24.2.2.4]. Property, described as Tax Map 61 K, Block 9, Parcel 1 contains 0.9 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. This site is located on the west side of Hydraulic Road approximately 250 feet north of Inglewood Drive/City Limits in the Jack Jouett District. This area is recommended for Urban Density 96.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in ,, Neighborhood 1. 8-20-96 2 Ms. Huckle read the following statement: "The County Attorney says I do not have a legal conflict of interest in this case, but I wish to state for the record the following information. While my husband, Dr. John Huckle, built this animal hospital in 1954, and at presents rents a small office on the second floor, there is no professional or financial connection with Dr. Doss or his animal hospital. I can render an objective and fair decision in this case." Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He pointed out that approval of this permit will bring a non -conforming use into conformity with the Ordinance. The report stated: "Approval of this request will result in a reduction of the negative impacts on adjacent property. Therefore, approval of this request may be considered consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare. ... The request is generally consistent with the provisions of 31.2.4.1.... Based on the reduction of negative impacts, staff recommends approval of this special permit." Staff also recommended approval of a waiver of Section 5.1.11 to allow a modification in setback requirements. Staff felt the modification would result in an improvement to the existing situation. Staff answered Commission questions about the site layout. The applicant was present but offered no additional comment. ,,; There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Dotson said he thought this plan was "a step in the right direction." MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that SP-96-28 for Hydraulic Road Animal Hospital be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. No outdoor runs shall be permitted. All existing outdoor runs shall be enclosed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any expansion of the existing building. 2. Development of the site shall be in general accord with a site plan titled "Hydraulic Road Animal Hospital" initialed WDF 8/8/96. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved that SP-96-28 be granted a modification of Section 5.1.11 to allow for a reduction in setbacks. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-96-15 Lloyd and Patricia Wood - Petition to amend the proffers of ZMA 95-18 to add Light Warehousing as a permitted use on Tax Map 61, Parcels 124E and 124E1. This site is 9 `t. 8-20-96 the location of the existing Putt -Putt miniature golf course which is located at the intersection of Rio Road and Putt -Putt Lane in the Rio Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 2. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to acceptance of applicant's proffers. Staff also recommended approval of a waiver of Section 4.12.3.2 to allow a modification of parking requirements, i.e. that parking be allowed on a separate lot. The applicant, Mr. Lloyd Wood, addressed the Commission. He said the purpose of the proposal is to "clarify the intent of the Light Warehousing for the entire adjoining property which was approved by the Board in February, 1996." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that ZMA-96-15 for Lloyd and Patricia Wood be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. The motion passed unanimously. ZTA 96-03 Pavilion at Riverbend - Petition to amend the zoning ordinance to add Outdoor Amphitheater as a use by special use permit in the PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial district. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that an Outdoor Amphitheater can be accommodated in the Zoning Ordinance should the opportunity and convenience such a facility would provide to the County be determined to meet a need beneficial to the public welfare. However, such a use should only be permitted in locations where the public infrastructure can accommodate this use, particularly as to traffic, and where surrounding land uses compliment the nature of an Outdoor Theater. With this in mind and in review of the Comprehensive Plan, staff believes that Outdoor Amphitheaters are only appropriate by special use permit in the PD-MC zoning district within those areas designated as Regional Service and Office/Regional Service in the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to explain how they had arrived at their recommendation that the use was appropriate only in the PD-MC district. Specifically, why did staff feel the use was not suitable for other commercial and industrial districts? Mr. Fritz responded: "We quickly determined, because of the potential impacts of this type of use, that none of the conventional districts--Cl, HC, LI, HC, C--were appropriate. It was our opinion that only through a planned development approach could the issues of an outdoor amphitheater be appropriately addressed. Planned Residential Developments and Planned Unit Developments clearly are not suitable. Planned Development Shopping Center allows for all uses permitted by -right in a commercial district, but allows for fewer uses by special use permit than the other commercial districts. The district does provide for a comprehensive f2,7 +, 8-20-96 review. It does not provide for all the uses by special use permit provided in other commercial districts, and based on a review of the permitted uses, staff opinion is that outdoor amphitheater was not an appropriate designation. The Planned Development Industrial Park was, and is, intended primarily as an industrial and office/employment area and does include very limited non -supporting commercial activities. Those commercial activities that it does permit are supportive of the industrial designation of the primary use. It was our opinion that the use of industrial land for a purely commercial designation was not the best use of industrial park land. The Planned Development Mixed Commercial district provides for the widest variety of uses. It permits all uses by special use permit and by -right of all the conventional commercial districts we have. It allows for an overall review of the development and access. It recognizes that large scale development may substantially reduce the functional integrity and safety of public roads if permitted with unplanned access. So simply by the intent provision of the PDMC District, it appeared that this was the most appropriate designation for this type of use. Further it appeared it would need to be by special use permit to allow very careful analysis of the impacts of an outdoor amphitheater on both the PDMC District in which it was located as well as on the adjacent properties." Mr. Dotson asked staff to name those properties which currently have PDMC designation. Staff listed: Berkmar Crossing (Berkmar and Rio Road), Peter Jefferson Place (Rt. 250 east), State Farm (Rt. 250 east) Encore Investment (just east of Putt -Putt on Rio Road). Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that it is staffs recommendation that, within the PDMC district, this use should only be in an area designated for Regional Service or Office/Regional Service in the Comp Plan. (Berkmar Crossing and the Encore Investment site are not in Regional Service designated areas.) Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to explain its position on the question of whether or not the community "needs" this type of facility. Mr. Fritz responded: "We made a general statement statement that a community of this size is such that an outdoor theater is appropriate to serve the recreational and entertainment needs of the community. There is no quantified number that says when you reach a certain population you need to provide this type of facility. We were unable to find anything that gives you that clear an answer. In review of the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, it includes such things that 'the Ordinance is intended to improve the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the citizens of Albemarle County.' The proposed ordinance amendment does not, in and of itself, improve the public health or safety. The proposed addition of outdoor amphitheater would provide for a facility not currently provided for in Albemarle County which can serve the public convenience and does serve to provide more diverse opportunities in the county.... Staff is unable to determine that the need for such a facility must be provided for in the County. There is not a clearcut need for the County to provide this type of facility (but) the Ordinance does make a general statement 'to provide for the convenience and welfare of the citizens.' We are unable to make a positive finding that this is a necessary facility within the county, nor are we able to make a positive finding that it is not a necessary facility. We've identified 8-20-96 a zoning district where we believe this could be accommodated in the event it is determined to be a facility of value to the County." Mr. Fritz pointed out that the staffs review had not focused on any certain size for this type of facility. Staff did not research whether or not similarly sized communities have this use. Ms. Huckle thought the first question to be answered was whether or not there is a community need for this type of use. Mr. Fritz agreed and pointed out that the staff report states at the beginning that "the recommended action is based on the determination that such a facility is needed to fulfill a need that is beneficial to the public welfare." Should that determination be made, then it is staffs recommendation that the PD-MC District be amended to allow for this use by special permit. Ms. Huckle made the following statement: "While the Zoning Ordinance should allow many legitimate uses of property, it should not allow uses which "negatively impact the public health, safety and welfare." An outdoor amphitheater can and often does impact all three. (1) In other locations we have heard of knifings, shootings and riots at large amphitheater events. (2) The crowds of people arriving and leaving at the same time can cause traffic jams and auto accidents. (3) These cars also give off high concentrations of gases, causing air pollution. (4) The noise from the performance can damage the hearing not only of the audience in the amphitheater but also the residents of the area. (5) In some locations the chemical auto emissions left on the parking lot can cause pollution of the water used for drinking by downstream residents. (6) While the audience may come to a concert now and then, the "unintended audience" of nearby workers and residents will have to listen to the "music" every time there is a performance. This could be very stressful and interfere with other activities. Staff is unable to determine that an amphitheater is a need which must be provided for in Albemarle County. Neither can I. Small concerts can be accommodated at the Downtown Mall facility. For large concerts the Nissan Pavilion is only an hour away. Many local people drive to Wolf Trap for an evening's entertainment though it is farther away. To allow such a use in the Zoning Ordinance is the first step on a very slippery slope. We have been down that road before with the Outdoor Drama site. Once this use is in the Zoning Ordinance it raises expectations by applicants and narrows the options available to the county. Let's not handicap the County in this way." The applicant was represented by Joe Phillips. His comments included the following: --The applicant's studies show that this community can support this type of use. --Though staff has not recommended that such a use "must" be provided for in the county, the applicant feels "such a use, properly done, is desirable and can be an asset to the community." --The addition of outdoor amphitheater to the Zoning Ordinance will "serve to provide more diverse opportunities in the community." --Existing similar facilities--Culbreth Theater and the Performing Arts Center --are not large enough to support traveling theater companies. AT OR 8-20-96 6 --The applicant agrees characteristics of this type of use are such that regulations beyond those of a by -right use are needed. --The applicant agrees with staffs comment that "there are no health or safety aspects of the proposed use which cannot be addressed by the regulations of a zoning text amendment." Public comment was invited. Videla Falka (Key West Subdivision) asked questions which were specific to the amphitheater which it is anticipated the applicant will construct should this zoning text amendment be approved. Those questions included: How large a facility is planned? What type of audience will performances be geared to? What size audience with the facility accommodate? She supported Ms. Huckle's comments, particularly that further study is needed to determine whether or not this use would be an asset to the community. Mr. Nick Smith (representing the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association) addressed the Commission. He said the Neighborhood Association is not opposed "in general" to the idea of an amphitheater. It is recognized that an outdoor amphitheater may be desirable somewhere in the county. However, there are concerns about the way the zoning text may be written and the subsequent impact on neighborhoods in general. The Association feels it is critical that regulations prohibit the development of this type of facility on any property which would negatively impact a residential area. He expressed the feeling that this is an "end run" play by the applicant to try to place the amphitheater at Riverbend. Ms. Florence Buckholtz (Woolen Mills neighborhood) said public amphitheaters do not belong adjacent to residential neighborhoods. She felt it was "fiction" to say that the site has not already been chosen for this use. She said she had attended a meeting of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association the previous night and all those present were opposed to this project. Mr. Fran Lawrence, (Woolen Mills Neighborhood) expressed opposition to the zoning text amendment. He called this type of facility a "noxious use." He said the county does not need this type of facility. He did not think it would be possible to find a site anywhere in the county which would not negatively impact some residential neighborhood. He suggested it would best be located on an Interstate highway "where any noise would wash over the Interstate highway, (and) in a county where there is an aggressive need for development." Mr. Will Kerner (Woolen Mills resident), said he was open minded about the proposal. He urged the Commission to listen to the developer's plans and then make its decision as to whether or not it can be developed in a responsible way. He felt the County would benefit from an amphitheater which would serve a variety of uses. d � 3*4w.- 8-20-96 7 Mr. Aer Steven expressed support for the proposal. He could not understand how any facility which would bring music to the area could be considered noxious. He thought it would be an asset to the County. Ms. Nancy Fletcher expressed support for the proposal. She said the area does not currently have an adequate amphitheater or concert hall. Mr. Thane Kerner (resident of East Market Street in the city and a professional concert promoter), expressed support for the proposal. He understood the concerns of the Woolen Mills residents, but he stressed the current issue is whether or not this type of use is needed in the County. He felt strongly the facility would be an asset to the community. Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Kerner whether he feels this use would benefit the county's young people. Mr. Kerner said he feels teens are much safer at a controlled event than at some other less supervised activities. Mr. Bud Treakle described a similar 5,000 - 7,000 seat facility which he visited recently in Atlanta (Chastain Amphitheater). He expressed support for this use "somewhere" in Albemarle County. He said site specific issues could be addressed during a special permit review. Ms. Huckle pointed out that Atlanta is a much more densely populated area than is Albmarle County. Mr. Treakle agreed but said it is up to the developer to determine if such a use is economically feasible in this community. Ms. Huckle questioned how the developer would be able to recover his five million dollar investment if he could not attract performers which require large crowds. Mr. Treakle pointed out that the proposed facility is more than an amphitheater --it is a multi -use facility. The applicant was allowed final comments. Mr. Phillips explained this facility will differ from the downtown amphitheater in that it will have a better sound system, better lighting, better staging, and fixed seating,. It will also have refreshment and restroom facilities. Addressing "site specific" comments which were made by some members of the public he stated: "I object to the comment that what we're trying to do is an 'end run' on the community. We have been up front and open about everything that we have done to this point and what we intend to do from this point. We have been knocking on doors in Woolen Mills and have held an open neighborhood meeting in an effort to identify concerns, regardless of where it is developed." He asked the Commission to keep an "open mind" because he felt the project, properly done, would be an asset to the county. Mr. Nitchmann asked for information as to how the applicant's demographic study had been performed, i.e. how was it determined that there is a need for an amphitheater, of some size, in this community? Mr. Jim Morris, speaking for the applicant, said economic studies were performed and comparable areas were studied. Those studies had shown the need for an average of 3,800 attendees at 30 events per season (early April through September). This does not include 8-20-96 those activities which would produce little or no revenue such as farmers' markets, graduations and charitable activities. Mr. Morris said it is his understanding the applicant will contribute the facility, at no cost, for activities such as graduation and farmers' market. Charitable events will probably have to cover the costs associated with the use of the facility. He stressed that this is a much smaller, "by far", facility than the Nissan Pavilion. He said currently there is no facility in this community which provides the staging requirements for theater. This facility would accommodate a touring company with dressing rooms and appropriate staging facilities. Mr. Morris said the studies performed had not been broken down in terms of the entertainment needs of different age groups. He said, however, that the study had focused primarily on the 20 - 40 age group. Mr. Loewenstein asked if studies had been broken down into local users and out-of-town users. Mr. Morris said no attendance "beyond county borders" was considered in the study, though it is certain there will be users from surrounding counties. Only local advertising is envisioned. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle recalled the discussions which had taken place during the review of the outdoor drama theater. She felt the problems for this use would be the same, regardless of where it might be located. She disagreed with Mr. Morris' statement about lack of facilities for touring theatrical companies, saying she had attended several such performances at the Charlottesville Performing Arts Center. Mr. Dotson felt it was ironic that many of those who spoke seem to know much more about this type of use than does the Commission, yet it is the Commission which must make the decision. He said the Commission is being asked to consider a use without first knowing fully what the developer has in mind. He said he thought it was premature to be voting on the zoning text amendment when many of the items which are unknown at this time will be known by September 24th (the date set for the hearing on the SP). He said if forced to take action now, he would not be able to support the Zoning Text Amendment. However, if given the opportunity to consider the ZTA in conjunction with the special permit and the site plan he would be able to "consider it further with an open mind." Mr. Dotson said this is a use which is "unique" and the County is likely to have only one such use, if any. Therefore, it needs to be considered in its unique qualities with all the aspects of the proposal. He thought it would be "ill advised" to make a generic zoning text decision without knowing the specifics. Mr. Cilimberg said this is a dilemma which has been discussed by staff. He said: "There is a lot we don't know about what might end up being in the zoning text amendment that we haven't identified that could end up influencing our recommendation regarding the zoning ,.. map amendment and the special use permit. Without the zoning text amendment identifying 8-20-96 9 those things, we can't address them. On the other hand, there may be aspects to the particulars of the type of development, not necessarily the location, that may lead to further provisions in the zoning text. ... We can bring that to you, (but) I don't know that we will be able to bring you the full recommendations of a zoning map amendment and a special use permit at that time, but we can say 'this is the project as proposed, this is the kind of facility that's proposed,' --obviously there's a locational consideration as well. And we can make an assessment as to how that relates to what the zoning text amendment calls for. Listening tonight there are other provisions which come to mind which could be put in a zoning text amendment regarding location and proximity to other land uses. There could be provisions regarding size. If the county believes there is a need, it may be that it should not be beyond a certain size because of the type of impact it might have. I think the size and location aspect of this have been clear for quite a while. But more information about the facility itself might result in other supplemental regulations." Mr. Nitchmann wondered if a deferral might be in order so as to allow time for a work session to be held. In that work session the applicant could provide more detailed information about the facility and perhaps the staff could get more information also. He said he had some of the same concerns as Commissioner Dotson. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission could defer action to allow time to receive additional information. He added that staff would have to rely on the applicant to provide more detailed information about this type of use, because staff has no expertise on this type of facility. Mr. Cilimberg said it was his understanding that Commissioners Dotson and Nitchmann were more interested in knowing more about the characteristics of this type of facility, including size, than about specifics related to the site. There is also the question of how this fits with neighboring land uses. On the question of community need, Mr. Cilimberg said this is a determination which the staff cannot make. The applicant may be able to provide more information as to how he feels this facility will meet a community need. Mr. Cilimberg said if it is the consensus of the Commission that this is a use which is not desirable anywhere in the county, then that decision could be made tonight. However, he said he did not perceive all Commissioners were ready to come to that decision at this time. Mr. Finley said he was not ready to deny the zoning text amendment at this time but it seems the text amendment is the first step to getting the specific proposal before the Commission. He questioned getting the applicant involved in the development of zoning text amendment language because what would then happen if we used his advice and his data to prepare a text and then he comes forth with his plan? It seems to me he has worded in some biased consideration. He thought the zoning text amendment would open the door for consideration, and then the special permit, site plan and public hearing procedures would have to be completed before it could become a reality. M 8-20-96 10 Ms. Huckle compared this situation to the outdoor drama theater process. She said once the zoning text amendment was approved, "it was like opening a door that you couldn't close." Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the outdoor drama theater had passed both the Commission and the Board and he did not agree with Ms. Huckle's comparison. He said the process which had been followed showed that county citizens were in favor of that facility. Mr. Nitchmann said if he had to vote now, he would vote "yes" because he feels there is a community need. He said the special permit process will cover all the concerns, regardless of the site. He thought it would be unfair not to give the proposal a fair hearing. Mr. Loewenstein said the issue for him is whether or not there is a community need. He said he was not yet convinced of that need. He felt there were many potential negative impacts with this use which might outweigh public convenience. He said he would want a work session to focus on the question of community need. He also did not think comment should be limited to a specific applicant and suggested that comment should be sought from a variety of neighborhood groups and community arts groups. Mr. Dotson said he thought the question was "work session vs. continue the ZTA to the time we actually review the already -filed application for a rezoning and special permit." He said: "I'm not sure we are not deceiving ourselves in a study session if we are not looking at the proposal with all the details and as much information as we could know. So if we have a study session it seems to me it should be a study session on the ZTA, the rezoning and special permit so we know exactly what we're talking about." Mr. Nitchmann feared hearing all the items together could --if it is decided the negative factors of this specific site far outweigh the positive --negatively impact the Commission's consideration of the question as to whether or not this use is one for which there is a need in the county. He did not want this particular site to influence the Commission's action on the zoning text amendment. Mr. Dotson addressed this saying: "I think it is a question of do we say the prototype is what has been proposed, or do we imagine a prototype that hasn't been proposed. I'm more comfortable with deciding on what has been proposed." He said he did not oppose a work session, "so long as it is on the specific proposal that's being made as opposed to a generic one." Mr. Loewenstein again said he would not want generic discussions about the zoning text amendment to be limited to detailed consideration of this particular site. The Commission continued to discuss whether or not to hold a work session before acting on this zoning text amendment or to hear all items --the ZTA, ZMA and SP--at the same time (on September 24th as already scheduled). 8-20-96 11 Ms. Huckle said she did not think the decision on the ZTA should be based on this applicant's proposal "because there is no guarantee the applicant will build the plan he presents or that he will build it at all." The applicant's representative, Mr. Phillips, said he shared some of the Commission's confusion as to how to address this issue generically, separate from the issue of the site. The applicant expressed no opposition to a deferral to September 24th. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that ZTA 96-03 for the Pavilion at Riverbend be deferred to September 24, 1996. Ms. Washington seconded the motion. (Mr. Nitchmann described the September 24th meeting as a "quasi work session/voting session.") Mr. Cilimberg asked if it was the Commission's intent that the ZMA and SP also be heard on the 24th, as they are now scheduled. Mr. Nitchmann indicated all the items should be left on the agenda and "if it turns out we can handle them all we will, and if it turns out we can't, then we can't." The motion for deferral to September 24th passed (4:2) with Commissioners Loewenstein and Huckle casting the dissenting votes. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Tice was appointed to serve on the Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committee. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. M