HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 24 1996 PC Minutes9-24-96
SEPTEMBER 24, 1996
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
September 24, 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. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. William Fritz, Senior
Planner; Mr. Eric Morrissette, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney;
and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative.
A quorum was established and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The
minutes of September 10, 1996 were unanimously approved as submitted.
SP-96-34 Michael Thacker - Petition for approval of a Home Occupation Class B for
the establishment of a vehicle repair shop (public garage) on 2 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas [10.2.2(31)]. Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 39A is located on the
south side of Route 250 approximately 1.2 miles west of the Route 250-240
intersection at Mechum`s River in the Whitehall Magisterial District. This site is not
located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. Mr, Fritz said staff had received a petition of support with approximately
200 signatures.
The applicant was present but offered no additional comment.
No public comment was offered and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Tice thought staffs analysis of the petition was very thorough. He said he could
support the request. Mr. Finley agreed.
Mr. Dotson said he thought the request was supportable as a home occupation,
particularly because it is not visible from the highway. He said the fact that the
business would have no other employees also helped him to view it as a home
occupation. His only concern was with the fact that other commercially zoned
property is located in close proximity. He concluded, however, that he felt the
favorable factors of the occupation outweighed his one concern and, therefore, he
could support the request.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP-96-34 for Michael
Thacker be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
9-24-96 2
1. The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and equipping of vehicles.
No body work or spray painting of vehicles shall be permitted. No gasoline or sale or
rental of vehicles shall be permitted.
2. All work shall be conducted within the existing building.
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts or inoperable vehicles except for a
maximum of two vehicles awaiting repair. Vehicles awaiting repair shall be located in
the area noted on Attachment E or within the building.
4. Fire and Building Official approval.
5. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance improvements to allow
for simultaneous ingress and egress at the landing as it approaches Route 250.
6. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
7. Engineering Department approval of waste collection and disposal methods.
8. No employees.
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. Deferred from the August 20, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting.
and
ZMA-96-13 Pavilion at Riverbend, L.L.C. - Petition to rezone approximately 36 acres
from C-1, Commercial to PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial. Property,
described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 15C1 and 17A is located between the Riverbend
Shopping Center and the Rivanna River in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area
is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 3.
and
SP-96-21 Pavilion at Riverbend, L.L.C. - Proposal to establish an outdoor
amphitheater on approximately 36 acres zoned C-1, Commercial. Property, described
as Tax Map 78, Parcels 15C1 and 17A is located between the Riverbend Shopping
Center and the Rivanna River in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is
recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 3.
Before Mr. Fritz presented the staff report, the Chairman explained the procedure
which would be followed in the public hearing. He also asked the applicant to
�1
9-24-96 3
consider the possibility of a deferral of action on the ZMA and SP to allow time for the
City Planning Commission to review the proposal and make their comments to the
County.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He explained that staff contacted several other
communities which are similar in size and characteristics to Albemarle County.
Comments were received from only two of the localities identified. Neither of those
have this type of facility, nor do they have zoning provisions to address this type of
use. Mr. Fritz pointed out some changes in the proposed ZTA language which are the
result of suggestions from the County's Zoning Services and Building Code staff. The
modified language would aid the Zoning Administrator in enforcement. It provides for
the measurement of sound impact to take place at any "receiving area" property line
instead of the nearest property line. "Receiving area" is defined as "any area
receiving the sound."
Mr. Fritz said staff has been unable to definitively answer the question of whether this
community "needs" or does not need this type of facility. It is up to the Commission
and Board to make the determination as to whether or not this type of use would be of
benefit to the community.
Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to review again why staff has determined this type of use is
most appropriate in a PD-MC zone. Using the zoning map, Mr. Fritz pointed out those
areas which are currently zoned PD-MC. Staff stressed that it is their recommendation
that the use would only be appropriate in those areas which are designated for
Regional or Office Regional by the Comp Plan. Mr. Fritz explained staff had
reviewed the purpose and intent of each of the commercial and industrial districts.
Because of the potential impact on infrastructure which can result from this type of
use, staff concluded that the purpose and intent of the PD-MC zone, which allows for
the widest variety of uses, is the most appropriate because of the other uses which
are allowed in the zone. Staff considered the Planned Development Industrial Park
(PD-IP) and even though this use may have impacts which are industrial in nature, the
primary purpose and intent of the PD-IP district is that it be an employment and
industrial center and staff feels it would be inappropriate to use industrial land for this
type of commercial venture. Staff feels none of the conventional districts are
appropriate because of potential impacts. And based on these potential impacts, staff
feels a Planned Development approach is needed.
The public hearing was opened for comment on the Zoning Text Amendment, the
Zoning Map Amendment and the Special Permit.
The applicant was first represented by Joe Phillips. He was assisted by several other
applicant representatives who were expert in various aspects of the proposal. The
applicant's presentation addressed all three items before the Commission, most
particularly site specific aspects of the proposal. The applicant presented a
conceptual model of the project and briefly described it. Comments and answers to
Commission questions included the following:
S-L
9-24-96 4
--On the question of need, Mr. Phillips quoted from the applicant's Executive
Summary: "This is a growing area which emphasizes recreational and cultural
activities and though recreational sports are adequately provided for, there is currently
a demand for a theater and musical activities which we feel is not adequately met in
the area ... by existing facilities.... Even those who have opposed the project at this site,
have (expressed support for the idea for the county)." Mr. Phillips referenced a letter
which he had in his possession which was written by some residents of the Woolen
Mills neighborhood to the County Board of Supervisors. He quoted from the letter:
"We feel a properly planned and designed outdoor amphitheater would benefit the
Charlottesville -Albemarle Community. In principle, we do not automatically reject the
location of an amphitheater at the Riverbend site. We would like to review all issues
related to this project to determine if this site would be suitable." [NOTE: In answer
to Ms. Huckle's inquiry as to the source of the Executive Summary, Mr. Phillips said it
was prepared for the applicant by an outside consultant, Alex Glenn.]
--Noise is addressed by the County's Noise Ordinance and further by the
Supplemental Regulations. These standards are measurable and the applicant is
confident compliance with the standards can be achieved. The applicant plans to
request a variance on the allowable level at the commercial property line --from 65 to
70 decibels. The applicant feels this is consistent with the sound levels in a
commercial area. The applicant will also ask that the hours of operation be extended
to 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights.
--The applicant's traffic study shows that the traffic can be accommodated by
the existing road system, with the addition of event -specific traffic control measures
and the addition of an already needed stoplight at Riverbend Drive and South Pantops
Road.
--The lighting will be in accordance with County guidelines and ordinances.
Shielded fixtures with cutoffs will be used to minimize spillover and glare and other
means of shielding lighting, such as landscaping, will be addressed with the site plan.
This is a measurable standard which the applicant will have no trouble complying with.
--The County Police Departments have provided letters which address their
ability to provide personnel for event security, though they cannot assure they will be
able to provide manpower to completely handle all the security. A combination of off -
duty County personnel and private security will be used to insure safety and security
at the facility. The County Staff has determined that the site offers a reasonable
response time for emergency services.
--Environmental issues include parking in the floodplain and the impact of the
project on the character of the river. A "grass paving" system will be used for the
parking areas which "allows flood waters to percolate into the soil." Cut and fill within
the floodplain site development will be balanced so as not to change the profile of the
floodplain with respect the impact of flooding downstream, A buffer will be provided at
the river to address both visual impact and stability of the bank. The edge of the site
will be developed as part of the Greenway River Walk system. The applicant feels the
project will enhance the community's access to and use of the river. The applicant
feels these plans will adequately address parking in the floodplain, which the staff
identified as an "unfavorable factor" of the proposal.
--The applicant agrees with those items which the staff report identified as
favorable aspects of the proposal.
.6-3
9-24-96 5
--The applicant feels the impact to the "stream valley area in the open space
plan" will be a positive one, and will not be unfavorable as identified in the staff report.
The project will eliminate an existing sand mining operation, replacing it with a
"cultural and recreational amenity which is river oriented and which provides a
significant additional component to the river greenway path system."
--Revised traffic studies have been prepared by the applicant and though they
have not yet been approved, the applicant has been meeting with the County
Engineering staff and with VDOT and has developed specific actions which will be
made a part of the project, e.g. "a pro rata share of the installation of a traffic signal at
Riverbend and South Pantops roads."
--The applicant agrees this is a regional use, "but the Comp Plan Land Use
guidelines specifically set forth, under primary uses in a community service area, the
designation of compatible regional services uses." "We think this use follows under
this designation for the following reasons: The scale and frequency of use is such
that this is not a contirrufltrs operation which we feel significantly mitigates the impact.
The infrastructure which supports this particular area is sufficient to sustain regional
uses."
Mr. Gerald Henning, the applicant's acoustical consultant, described how an acoustical
feasibility study was conducted, i.e. "Sound contours were determined based on an
on -site visit, topography maps, site plans, schematic drawings, and a limitation of
music of 90 dba at the soundboard in the pavilion." He said the study determined that
the "pavilion will comply with the Albemarle County regulations." His answers to
specific Commission questions included the following:
"Sound will bend around, over and above the barriers (berms), but there is a
reduction in the sound level as a result of that bending." "Sound will escape from the
building, but it is a matter of controlling that sound so that it is at an acceptable level."
--The shape of the contours are such that the higher levels of sound (the
volume) will be in the direction of the river. This is a result of the orientation and
configuration of the theater. (Mr. Loewenstein noted that, based on Mr. Henning's
explanation and the contour map provided, it appeared most of the sound would
escape to the residential areas.) Mr. Henning confirmed that sound travels better over
water than it does over land. However, he said he did not think the water would have
any significant impact in this case, based on the "angles the sound will be propagating
from the pavilion."
--Mr. Finley asked what the anticipated sound level would be at the point at
which the Ordinance requirements must be met. Mr. Henning replied: "The most
critical one was the nearby commercial property. That was one of the keys in terms
of the physical design of the facility --to meet the 65 dba there. ... For other residential
property, we would have to pick a particular point and then we could calculate that,
but that is not specifically shown on this feasibility study." Mr. Henning confirmed that
no sound calculations had been performed at residential properties. He said, however,
based on the contours, there will be some residences which likely will be in the 50 dba
range.
`- --For the feasibility study, it was assumed the soundboard would be 2/3 of the
way back from the stage, at which point the sound level will be uniform, regardless of
the size of the speakers. He said the sound coming from the speakers would be
51
9-24-96 6
greater than 90 dba, possibly 120 very close to the speaker. But he stressed that the
concern is not with the sound at the speaker, but rather with what is escaping from the
pavilion to the surrounding areas. Mr. Nitchmann questioned how the manager of the
pavilion would be able to control the sound levels for each individual band.
Mr. Tom Flynn, the applicant's traffic consultant, described how a traffic study had
been performed. It was assumed, for the purposes of the study, that all 1,250 on -site
parking spaces would be occupied by patrons, and all other parking would be provided
for off site, with a shuttle bus operation moving people from those off -site areas. It
was the conclusion of the study that a letter "D" level of service can be achieved.
This is a level of delay that "is appreciable but acceptable to the average driver." This
means that persons leaving the site will have to wait through two complete light cycles
at the intersection of Riverbend and Rt. 250. Mr. Flynn confirmed that the traffic study
had taken into consideration that traffic which will be using the shopping center (but
would not be pavilion traffic).
Mr. Paul Mulhberger answered questions about meetings with VDOT and parking
plans. The applicant has submitted data and has met with VDOT twice. It is not
known when VDOT will respond. The applicant addressed all 16 items listed in
VDOT's letter of July 24. Mr. Fritz confirmed, based on the County's parking
requirements, the facility would have to provide 1,250 parking spaces (1 space per 4
seats or 1 space per 75 square feet of assembly). This is the same standard used for
uses such as churches, and movie theaters --anything which involves assembly. Mr.
Mulhberger said the applicant anticipates an average attendance of 3,800, with a sell-
out crowd only 6 to 8 times a year. Mr. Dotson asked if there is room to fit more
parking spaces on the site if necessary. Mr. Mulhberger responded: "In keeping with
the County's minimum parking requirements and trying to be sensitive to the site, we
feel as though we have fit as many parking spaces on the site as possible." Mr.
Nitchmann asked for a more direct answer to the question "Is there more parking on
that site?" Mr. Mulhberger responded: "At this preliminary site plan stage, the answer
is no." He confirmed that the applicant envisions some type of shuttle bus and shared
parking system to provide for more parking.
Ms. Sally Fields, the applicant's lighting consultant, said it will be possible to provide a
maximum of 1/2 foot candle at the property line and still be able to provide adequate
lighting on site. This will be done with a high intensity discharge adjustable lighting
fixtures, shielding and shorter poles. No problems are envisioned with being able to
meet county lighting requirements. Lighting of the parking areas will only be used
during events. A minimum amount of security lighting will be provided on the pavilion
at all times. She said she has not yet studied the question of how automobile
headlights will impact residential neighborhoods. Mr. Fritz said site review would allow
staff to address any objectionable features. In the past the issue of automobile
headlights has been addressed with dense street shrubs. It is possible, given the
rt
topography of the site, no additional screening will be needed.
Mr. Stephen Thomas, a soil scientist who performed a wetlands study on the property,
addressed the Commission. The area had only 2 of the 3 criteria present for
9-24-96 7
designation as a wetland. No wetland soils were found. Therefore, the site is not a
wetland area. It was his opinion that the use of Grass Pavel (a series of plastic rings
anchored in the sub -base with sod on top) will not be a detriment to the site. Rather,
the material will probably enhance the stability of floodplain type soils. He said the
soils on the site are freely drained, fine sandy loams, and will not pond for extended
periods. The site is relatively flat so there will be no rapid movement of water across
the site.
Mr. Jay Stevens, a landscape architect with Invisible Structures, described the Grass
Pavel system.
At 9:05 the meeting was opened for general public comment.
The following speakers expressed their opposition to the proposal:
(From the Woolen Mills neighborhood): Arthur Tinsley; Fran
Lawrence; Greg Gilbert; Bill Maloney; Maruta Ray; John Fink (Acting
President of the Neighborhood Association); Nick Street; Susan
McKenyon (possibly McKennon); Florence Buckholtz; Carl Akerman; Kim
Mattingly; and Carol Chisholm. [NOTE: Many of Mr. Tinsley's
comments are distorted on the tape of this meeting because he was
speaking very loudly and was very close to the microphone.]
(From other areas): John Sweeney, Jr. (Belmont); Tom Walsh
(Key West); Gordon Glenhill (Ashcroft).
Their reasons for opposition included the following:
--Not enough is known about this type of use. It is far out of the norm for a
commercial district.
--The applicant has given no consideration to the residential neighborhoods.
No acoustical tests were performed on the residential properties. The applicant's
acoustical consultant said the applicant was most concerned about being able to
meet the county's requirements at the commercial (not the residential) properties.
The applicant's acoustical report was very "vague." It is impossible for the applicant
to control the sound once a concert is under way. Water acts as a conduit for sound.
It will travel farther and more clearly over the river.
--The letter of support from Woolen Mills residents (referred to in Mr. Phillip's
comments) was not from residents who will be most impacted by this facility.
--The people are the most important factor in this situation. If this facility
cannot peacefully co -exist with the residential neighborhoods, then it does not belong
at this site.
--Many events which will be held at the pavilion are like a "controlled riot"
which can occur 2 or 3 times a week.
--Any level of continuous noise, which cannot be "turned off' by individual
property owners on their properties, is not acceptable if it disrupts the neighborhoods'
tranquility. 110 decibels is equivalent to a Concord jet.
6��
9-24-96
--Events will attract people from many surrounding areas thus making traffic a
concern on all routes leading to the facility, not just 164 and Rt. 250. (e.g. Persons
coming from the north will shortcut across Proffit Road to Rt. 20.) Traffic impacts to
neighborhoods will be severe with people. This raises concerns about vandalism.
--The facility will destroy the beauty and natural area of the Rivanna
Greenway.
--Events will pollute the river with oil from the parking area, cleaning solvents
and trash from concerts.
--The Woolen Mills neighborhood has been abused for 20 years with other
projects, i.e. 164 and a sewage treatment plant.
--There is another amphitheater only 1 1/2 miles from this site (downtown
mall), so there is no need for this facility.
--The cultural benefits of this amphitheater are questionable. Elizabeth
Gatewood of the Charlottesville/University Symphony Orchestra says "there is no way
her orchestra would play here because it is not an appropriate venue for them."
Also," the venue as it has been described does not have wings, so it would not be
appropriate for dance and theater. Without changes, all we will get are rock
concerts."
--The facility would be better located on 150 acres "somewhere in the county
where there is no one around for it to bother."
--The force of the river during flood events causes debris deposits. The
proposed development will be full of movable objects.
--Sometimes undesirable projects must be approved by the county because
they have redeeming social benefits, such as a treatment plant, or a halfway house.
This project has no socially redeeming qualities.
--Negative impact on existing events such as Fridays After Five.
--What will happen to the site if the pavilion is not successful?
Ms. Chisholm described how the Woolen Mills residents have been able to hear
events which have taken place on the Cosner property in past years, property which
is farther removed than is this site. She gave as an example the travelling circus
which has visited in past years. Ms. Chisholm referenced a petition of opposition
which she said contained the signatures of 153 Woolen Mills residents and 50 others
which were obtained from users of the Rivanna Greenway.
Mr. Fink had spoken with the managers of several similar facilities and prepared a
report on their comments. He referred to his findings during his comments. His
report is made a part of this record as Attachment A.
The following speakers who spoke in opposition to an amphitheater at the Riverbend
site said they did feel there was a need for this type of facility "somewhere" in the
County: Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Lawrence, Ms. Ray, Mr. Fink, Mr. Street, and Mr. Sweeney.
Mr. Akerman, Mr. Glenhill and Mr. Walsh were opposed to the use in any location.
'.- The following persons expressed their support for the proposal:
9-24-96 9
Gracie Sterns; Aer Stephen; Joe Hall; Gary Bibb; Ray Rushton;
Pat Jensen; Ken Rogers; Thane Kerner; and Bob Bressen,
Their reasons for support included the following:
--The pavilion will add a much needed theatrical center to the community at no
cost to the taxpayers.
--Additional jobs.
--The facility will be available for local events such as a farmer's market and
high school commencement exercises.
--The project will "improve the county's side of the river."
--Increased opportunities for local musicians.
The applicant was allowed closing comments. Mr. Phillips said the applicant is
concerned about all the issues which were raised by the public and it is for that
reason that the applicant -has spent -many dollars studying the potential impact and
how that impact can best be addressed. He addressed particularly the issue of sound.
He said the applicant had specifically looked at the levels at the commercial properties
because "the commercial property line was the most difficult area to achieve the
county's standards." It was not the applicant's determination, as suggested by a
member of the public, that the commercial area was more important than the
residential area. He said the applicant met with the Woolen Mills neighborhood early
in the process and had shown them the same model which was shown to the
Commission earlier in the meeting. The applicant has also briefed the City Planning
Commission on the status of the proposal. He said the sound tests which have been
done to this point are "appropriate for the level of development in terms of where we
would go from here." There is limited utility in taking sound tests at the site at this
point because the built improvements are not in place. He said he was confident the
sound standards of the County can be achieved and can be conformed to through
compliance testing.
There being no further comment, the public hearing for the ZTA, ZMA and SP, for the
Pavilion at Riverbend, was closed at 11:15 p.m_ and the matter was placed before the
Commission.
(The meeting recessed briefly from 11:15 to 11:25.)
The Commission first discussed Zoning Text Amendment 96-03, i.e. the petition to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to add Outdoor Amphitheater as a use by special use
permit in the PD-MC district.
Recalling the process which had taken place when the outdoor drama had been
proposed in the County, Ms. Huckle doubted there is any place in the County where
this type of use would be acceptable without a great deal of controversy. She said
she feels this use is not needed in the county. She noted there are currently 5
venues for theatrical events in use in the community and there are 2 others which are
not currently in use but could possibly be used again. Also, the Nissan Pavilion is not
too far distant, nor is Wolftrap or Richmond. She called attention to an article in the
_�_V
9-24-96 10
Richmond Times Dispatch which relates the history of the Coliseum and the fact that
is; has lost money every year. She asked: "is this amphitheater worth the cost the
residents of Charlottesville and Albemarle will have to pay in loss of property values,
in traffic tie-ups, in light, noise, air and water pollution?" She called attention to an
article which says that 18 miles of the Rivanna River are already polluted. The added
pollution from this parking lot will increase that pollution. She concluded: "I cannot
support this."
Noting that his comments were directed to the question of whether or not to amend
the Zoning ordinance, "generically," Mr. Loewenstein said: "I do not want to
unnecessarily restrict this county's ability to protect the quality of life in all our
neighborhoods, not just at a site such as Riverbend, but in rural areas, potentially, as
well. I don't want to consider a zoning ordinance amendment of this magnitude until it
can be taken up as an integral part of the comprehensive plan process. I think
otherwise we are doing it piecemeal. I would prefer to incorporate any decision about
this particular type of zoning amendment into that larger review. I am not prepared to
support the amendment to the zoning ordinance."
Mr. Finley asked staff to comment on Mr. Loewenstein's suggestion, particularly in
what time frame could this be addressed? Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I think we've
looked at it from the standpoint of the Comprehensive Plan and the analysis was done
and brought to you with what we feel, at this point in time, the Plan says about our
growth areas in particular. We didn't look at this at all as a rural areas use. I don't
think, very honestly, it ever would be looked at as a rural area use. The outdoor
drama theater was a tough call in and of itself (and) was a much smaller scale. From
what we have seen of the policy development of the County, I just wouldn't envision
this kind of facility in the rural areas. So we looked at it strictly from growth area
potential and identified, through that analysis, as best we could, an appropriate type of
comp plan area and land use designation. I don't envision that would change as a
part of the development area initiative we will be going through. But it probably would
not be taken up again until that work will be completed, which is some time next year.
I just don't know that we can identify much more based on the purpose and intent of
the growth areas. But that is the kind of time frame you would be looking at if you
were to address it again."
Mr. Finley related his experiences as a parent in waiting for his children to come home
after attending concerts that are long distances away. He said he would have much
preferred that they could have attended such events closer to home. He said he feels
there is a need for such a use in the county and there could be a place where one
could be located.
Mr. Dotson noted that of the 3 types of PD-MC zones in the county (Regional
Commercial, Office Commercial and Community Commercial), this site is designated
Community Commercial. He said: "I think PD-MC is potentially, depending on the
site, compatible with all those designations and so I don't really see a benefit, nor
would I support, making the Pantops Shopping Center Regional Commercial to
accommodate this project. So I wouldn't favor a Comp Plan review. Neither would I
.6_9
OR
9-24-96 11
favor approving the zoning text amendment tonight. To me the real question is 'Do we
grant the applicant, if the applicant in fact wants it, additional time to perfect the
project to further address the impacts and questions, to reduce the scale, or to make
other changes that they would like to purpose, if they would like to purpose any?' My
own view is if they wanted one more attempt, I would be willing to give it to them. To
me the key questions are: Parking --I'd like to know where this off -site parking is going
to be, if it is going to exist.... Can parking be provided? That might be fatal to the
project. Secondly, I would like to hear from VDOT. I think the traffic issues which
have been identified are very important. The other question, and one which is more
troubling to me, is that of noise. It would be ideal if the County had a noise expert
who could review the applicant's information and advise us. I have a long list of
questions about noise (but) I don't think anyone on staff is technically skilled enough
to answer those questions. So to me, there are a number of reasons not to vote on
the ZTA tonight. If it comes to a vote tonight I would not vote in favor of the petition."
Ms. Huckle indicated she was not in favor of any additional reviews of this proposal.
Ms. Washington said this project is in her district and she has received a lot of mixed
comments from the public. She said she could see both advantages and
disadvantages but she had problems with the way the applicant had addressed certain
issues. (She was not specific as to which issues.) She concluded that she did not
support a change in the Zoning Ordinance at this time.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved that ZTA 96-03 for the Pavilion at Riverbend be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Huckle seconded the
motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Tice agreed that he did not think this question should be made a part of the comp
plan review process. He did not think staffs recommendation would change. He said
he would have liked more information about traffic impact, but that is really a more site
specific issue. He said he was impressed with the technical information presented by
the applicant, to the point that he feels "it is technically possible to do this project on a
site successfully and address the issues which are of concern to the county and to the
city." He said he was impressed by the amount of support for this type of use, even
among those who oppose the use at this particular site. He concluded: "I think we
have enough information to say that the ZTA makes sense, that it is in the welfare of
the county, and I am ready to support the ZTA even though I have some specific
questions about the site which we can address when we get to that point."
Mr. Nitchmann said he has a difficult time making the determination as to whether or
not the community needs, or does not need, this facility, "from a cultural standpoint."
He explained: "I have a real problem with that because when government starts to
step in and (make those decisions), then what else are they going to decide we need
or don't need." He said a majority of those who spoke had expressed the belief that
this was a use which is needed in the community "someplace." He said he could
�0
9-24-96
12
` support the use in the PD-MC district, because he feels staff has done a thorough
analysis of the proposal and have related that to the Comp Plan guidelines. He
concluded that he could support the Zoning Text Amendment.
The motion for denial passed (4:3) with Commissioners Dotson, Loewenstein,
Washington and Huckle voting for denial and Commissioners Tice, Nitchmann and
Finley voting against.
It was the decision of the Commission to defer action on ZMA-96-13 and SP-96-21
until after the Board has acted on the Zoning Text Amendment. Deferral will also
allow time for the City to provide comments, and for further information to be obtained
on traffic (VDOT), parking and noise.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA-96-13 and SP-96-
21 for the Pavilion at Riverbend be deferred to October 15, 1996.
The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Tice commended the Engineering staff for their innovative work on Best
Management Practices for the new Mounticello High School project.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
M:
09
V. Wayn Cilimberg, 1!re ary
(t