Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 23 1995 PC Minutescm 5-23-95 MAY 23, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 23, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. Tom Jenkins. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Imhoff and Vaughan. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of May 9, 1995, were unanimously approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA Addition to Morman's River Agricultural Forestal District - Commission to accept application. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Consent Agenda be 1,, approved. The motion passed unanimously. SP-95-06 Robert Couch, Jr. - Petition to permit expansion of an existing Antique Shop [10.2.2(36)] on approximately 1.2 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 79A1, Section C, Parcels 10 and 11 are located on the north side of Route 250 approximately 0.5 miles east of the entrance to the Glenmore development in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2). Staff requested a deferral to June 6, 1995 due to an advertising error. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-95-06 be deferred to June 6, 1995. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-95-04 The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation - Petition to rezone approximately 300 acres from RA, Rural Areas to PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial Park. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 413, 6, 6A and 19, is located south of the North Fork Rivanna River between Routes 29 and 606 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Industrial Service in the Community of Hollymead. 5-23-95 The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. K, MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that ZMA-95-04 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. ZTA-95-02 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation - Petition to amend Section 29.2.5 and 29.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to create a Category III with by -right and special permit uses in the Planned Development Industrial Park category. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report explained the applicant's proposal as follows: Initially, the applicant proposed creation of a third use category (Category III) within the PD=1P zone. After work session with the Zoning Administrator and Planning staff, it was determined that Category (i.e. - LI uses) with addition of "hotel/conference center" would satisfactorily avail the uses desired by UREF for the North Fork Business Park. The public purpose to be served would be to implement the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan." Based on public necessity, convenience, general welfare and I*A, good zoning practice, staff recommended approval of the petition. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that this is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, thus this use will be available in any PD-IP by special permit. Presently, this applicant has the only property which is zoned PD-IP. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tim Rose. He offered to answer Commission questions. Mr. Dotson asked for a more detailed explanation as to the applicant's intent, i.e. "what is envisioned on the ground and how is it linked to the manufacturing uses." Mr. Dean Sincala responded to Mr. Dotson's question. He said it is envisioned that there will be a need for a support service, such as a hotel. He explained: "We are trying to create a park in which an entity could have light industrial, light manufacturing work, research and development, or corporate functions. As a support to any or all of those users, we would like to have the ability to have a hotel and have support commercial on site that supports businesses like copy centers, minimal food service. The hotel is meant to support the operations of the corporate entities that may locate at the Park." Mr. Dotson asked: "Might people come and stay at this facility for training in some of the latest developments to view new, high-tech processes. Mr. Sincala said those were "all reasonable assumptions." Mr. Dotson asked if the facility will be located central to the site or at the edge, along the main thoroughfare. Mr. Sincala said the 5-23-95 3 applicant is still considering those issues, but there is a preference to make all the support commercial and the hotel centrally located. He added: " We have some concern about trying to locate the hotel closer to Rt. 29... but that issue is not resolved and we are working on that as we re -submit the zoning application plan. Clearly the staff has expressed a preference that these uses be centrally located so they will be internally focused." Ms. Huckle asked if the applicant wanted to locate a hotel in this area because of its close proximity to the airport, rather than use the Boar's Head Inn, which is already owned by the applicant. Mr. Sincala replied: We had not contemplated putting a hotel there because it is adjacent to the airport. The vision is to meet a need that will be generated by the development of the site. That is not to say that off -site users won't be able to use the hotel." Ms. Huckle asked if there was a plan to construct the hotel prior to the development of the industrial uses. Mr. Sincala said a hotel was not in the initial plans of development. He thought it would probably be one of the last uses. No public comment was offered. The matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann felt the proposal "made good sense." He said most industrial parks have a motel or hotel as one of the components, as well as other support type uses. He pointed out that having this use within the Park would reduce congestion on Rt. 29. Mr. Dotson said he would prefer that the amendment language be more "targeted" than what has been proposed. He feared that the proposed language was too "open ended." He said: "If this language were to go forward, I would want to see a more careful analysis of what it could mean in terms of others that could be zoned PD-IP, where they are, how many of them there are. I would want to know that we felt we didn't have enough zoning already to accommodate hotels, motels and inns, and part of what we are trying to do is remedy a deficiency. I don't think that is what we are trying to do. I think what we are trying to do is to say that when you have a large-scale industrial park, that hotel -conference center -training facility -workshop facility can be an integral part of that, complimentary to and subordinate of in scale. I don't think that this language goes far enough to do that. I am not disagreeing with the purpose, but I am disagreeing that I think this language is yet the right language to accomplish the purpose. I would not support the language though I support the purpose. Mr. Blue asked Mr. Dotson if had any language in mind. Mr. Dotson described two main concerns: "(1) that it has to be a large industrial park in order to justify this as an ancillary and supportive service ... some thought should be given to the size; and (2) that the language state that the use be 'complimentary of and subordinate to'." He pointed out that this type of language is used in PUD's where it is stated that the commercial is in 5-23-95 4 *#ftW in support of the residential. He felt that should be included here and not left to a reference to another section of the Ordinance. Mr. Blue noted that the fact that this use will be by special permit gives the County control at the time the permit is applied for. Mr. Dotson acknowledged that Mr. Blue was correct, but he pointed out that reasons must be given when a special permit is denied. He said he feared the reasons would be so general it would be very easy to argue either way. Ms. Huckle asked if Mr. Dotson was suggesting a deferral to give staff time to look at the language further. Mr. Dotson said that was his preference. Mr. Blue asked Mr. Davis: "is there a problem, from a legal standpoint, in being able to deny (a request for hotel/conference center) at the time of the special permit, for the reasons stated by Mr. Dotson?" Mr. Davis responded: "Under existing law, the Board of Supervisors has great discretion in denying a special use permit provided that there are other reasonable uses of the property permitted by right. So I think, within the broad language that Mr. Dotson outlined, there is discretion to deny a permit even if the use is deemed to be a reasonable use; I think you can still deny it as long as you are not being arbitrary about it." Mr. Blue asked: "You don't think there is a legal problem with this, then?" Mr. Davis replied: "No. I think within this framework you could deny a hotel that you thought was inappropriate for the scale and the type of development that was being proposed." Mr. Blue asked Mr Dotson: "And that's your intent, essentially." Mr. Dotson responded: "My intent is to be clear to avoid misunderstandings down the road that what we're talking about here is a hotel conference facility, workshop, meeting facility, as well as transient lodging of a sufficient scale that it really is integral to the industrial park. And see some advantages --and if there are legal issues that you see, perhaps you could let us know --but I see some advantages in being clearer in provisions of the ordinance than (what is proposed here)." Mr. Davis responded: "I don't think there is any problem with being clearer. If the intent of the Commission is, under no circumstances, to allow the special use under the circumstances you are afraid of, or concerned about, then it might be more efficient to put that in the Ordinance so that everyone is on notice that they are wasting their time to apply at that scale. But I do want to assure you that there is a great deal of discretion under current law to deny special uses that you feel are inappropriate." Mr. Jenkins said: "In reading this, it seemed to me, while I appreciate the control that the special use permit does allow us, I was wondering why we didn't go on and say hotel/conference center right here and now. That was a question I had prior to the °"VOW meeting. I can go either way. I understand Mr. Dotson's point, but I am also I ? V M 5-23-95 5 reasonably satisfied that the special permit process will give adequate control. But it would be a little clearer to say hotel/conference center that is of a scale appropriate for the site, or complimentary uses', or whatever." Mr. Nitchmann feared that trying to come up with a finely tuned definition could result in several work sessions on the issue. He said staff had satisfied him that there is latitude for all concerns to be addressed at the time a request for a permit is presented. Mr. Dotson said he would not feel comfortable with approving this language until he had seen an assessment of other areas that could possibly have PD-IP zoning. He also wanted to know what other zoning districts hotels, motels and inns can go into "to have a better gage of whether there is a deficiency." He explained: "This has come up because a particular applicant has raised a general issue. To the degree that we can target it toward addressing that need, I think we are ahead. We haven't even looked at the other need if the other need is to justify the Zoning Text Amendment." After Mr. Keeler had elaborated on staffs position on this proposed amendment, Mr. Blue concluded: "So staff sees this as a housekeeping item." Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively. (NOTE: Mr. Keeler's comments are almost totally inaudible on the tape due to problems with the microphone.) Mr. Keeler explained that presently this is the only property zoned PD-IP and, therefore, the only place where this amendment would apply. A planned development rezoning would be required on any other property. He pointed out that there is language which says it is "intended to be complimentary of and subordinate to primary uses." He was not sure that staff would be able to arrive at a minimum acreage. Mr. Nitchmann expressed the opinion that this is a good addition to the Ordinance. He expressed concern about attempts to "micro -manage" some of these issues. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZTA-95-02, to amend uses permitted in PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial Park, to include hotels, motels, and inns, by special permit, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Dotson recalled that the CPA for this property had been for industrial service. Though he admitted that he had not re -read the CPA, he could not recall industrial office, hotel/conference center, "hotels, motels and inns" having been discussed. He felt this was a big transition,... and takes us a long way from where we started." He noted that the plan which was on display did not show industrial office. 1 5-23-95 6 Ms. Huckle said she had been "dismayed" when she first read this proposal because it had been her understanding that this Research Park would employ people in "high- tech, high -paying jobs and not necessarily ... waiters and chamber maids, etc." However, she said her position had been influenced by the applicant's statement that this will be one of the last uses developed and "in order to justify this there will be a number of offices and industries before it is built." She asked if her understanding was correct. (The applicant did not respond.) Mr. Blue said that had also been his understanding. Mr. Cilimberg said that phasing and related issues could not be addressed as part of this ZTA. Ms. Huckle concluded she would support the motion. The motion passed (4:1) with Commission Dotson casting the dissenting vote. Mr. Dotson explained he had opposed the motion because he "favored alternate language." SP-95-07 Institute of Textile Technology - Petition to permit a school of special instruction [23.2.2(6)] on approximately 12.5 acres zoned CO, Commercial Office and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 60, parcel 28 is the location of the Institute of Textile Technology. This site is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The staff report explained the applicant's proposal as follows: The existing school is nonconforming. This request is to bring the school into compliance with the zoning ordinance to allow for expansion of the library. The expansion of the library is to allow for continued accreditation of the school. The applicant has provided a description of the request which provides detail on the operations of the school. Staff recommended approval subject to one condition. The applicant was represented by Mr. Dan McCreight. He explained the proposal was the result of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools' direction to "provide appropriate study space and space for environmental protection of our valuable book collection." Noting that the facility is served by a private septic system, Mr. Dotson asked what type of activities take place in the laboratory. Mr. McCreight explained that the laboratory is a testing place for fabrics. Solid wastes are hauled away periodically, as are modest amounts of chemical wastes which cannot go into the septic system. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. a3 5-23-95 7 MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that SP-95-07 for the Institute of Textile Technology be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. Enrollment is limited to forty (40) students. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- WORK SESSION Comprehensive Plan - Growth Area Expansion and Land Use Staff was asking for a determination (as to whether or not they should be studied further) from the Commission on 2 public requests for Growth Area Designation. One request (Reid Property) was a new request and the other (Kindrick property) was being brought back to the Commission because of a staff error made during the discussion of this property at a previous work session. (1) Reid Property [Hollymead Community/Piney Mountain Village; TM 46, Parcels 30 and 30A, 54.8 acres] - Staff estimated that approximately 48 acres of this property is li%W already in the current growth area. Staff was recommending that "these two parcels be included in the Hollymead Growth Area because the current boundary includes most of the acreage. The property to the south has already been subdivided (Lanford Hills), so this property provides a logical end point for the Growth Area on Proffit Road." There was no Commission opposition to staffs recommendation. Mr. Dotson concluded: "It makes sense to move forward. We'll consider it when we consider the overall area." lm (2) Kindrick Property [Hollymead Growth Area (preferably), or in the Earlysville Growth Area; TM 32, parcels 8, 2(part) and 1 (part), 200 acres] - Staffs original report on this property (at a previous work session) had incorrectly stated that the property is affected by the airport noise and safety zones. The most recent Charlottesville - Albemarle Airport Master Plan Update (May, 1994) indicates that the property is no longer located within either the future runway protection zone nor the future (2014) Sound Exposure Contour. Other issues --future of the Earlysville Village, the use of Chris Greene Lake as a drinking water supply --still have not been resolved. The Commission's earlier determination had been that this request would be studied further in relation to the entire Earlysville Village issue. Staff explained that the RWSA is going to undertake water testing on both the quantity and quality of water in Chris Greene Lake in making its final determination as to suitability as a future back-up water supply and its future use as a recreational facility. It is estimated this information will be available within the next two months. 1�?a/ 5-23-95 8 The question of the airport runoff draining into Chris Greene Lake (which had been raised at the previous work session by Mr. Kindrick) was discussed. Ms. Barbara Hutchinson, representing the Airport Authority, explained that the Airport is required by the EPA, through the Department of Environmental Quality, to apply for, receive and maintain, a soil and water discharge permit, and also to implement a stormwater prevention program. She said the pollution prevention program is designed to protect all neighboring properties, including Chris Greene Lake. Mr. Jeff Sitler described the runoff control program. He said "the main operational areas of the airport drain, through a series of small tributaries, directly to the North Fork Rivanna River." [NOTE: Mr. Blue later pointed out that he thought some of those areas drain to the South Fork.) Mr. Sitler said the area which enters the Chris Greene Lake watershed is the "upper, northern part of the runway area (which is predominantly a grassed area), and it drains into a water impoundment and then follows a tributary to Chris Greene." (He located this area on a small map which he showed to the Commission.) He explained "that area was looked at by DEQ and determined not to be an area of concern. No fueling or de-icing of planes takes place in that area. De-icing of the runway itself is done with non -toxic chemicals. (He offered to make a list of chemicals used available.) Outfalls are tested periodically. The outfall which goes into Chris Greene Lake is not tested because it was not viewed (by DEQ) as having an impact from potentially detrimental operations." (Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the RWSA plans to do water quality testing in Chris Greene.) Comments from Mr. Kindrick were invited. He said he is aware that the outfall to Chris Greene is not tested. He also said he has been unable to find an Industrial Discharge Permit. He asked: "What is the black, tarey mass of materials in the bottom of the culvert?" The Commission confirmed its earlier decision on this property, i.e. that it be studied further in relation to the entire Earlysville Village issue and after resolution of the future plans for Chris Greene Lake. Mr. Nitchmann hoped the RWSA's testing would include an analysis of the culvert referred to by Mr. Kindrick. The next part of the work session was staffs overview of land use map changes which are being considered. Staff was not seeking specific comments or recommendations from the Commission at this time. Future work sessions will address individual requests. Staff explained their review process and presented maps showing "study areas" (i.e. potential areas for growth area extension). Staffs "priority areas to study" included an extensive area north and east of the existing urban area in Hollymead, and potential ., areas in the Rivanna Village, south of Rt. 20 and 164 in Neighborhoods IV and V. 5-23-95 9 Those priority areas had been further narrowed down to "areas immediately north and east of Hollymead and Piney Mountain and immediately south of Neighborhoods IV and V." Staff had also studied those public requests which the Commission had determined were to be given further consideration. Staff presented preliminary drafts of charts showing the growth areas development potential. Mr. Nitchmann raised questions about the omission of an area east of Rt. 20, which the Commission had determined was to be included for further study. Mr. Nitchmann said he had only missed one work session and he could not recall there having been any direction to staff to delete that area from further consideration. Mr. Nitchmann was very concerned about this omission. Mr. Blue pointed out that this is still in the planning stage and there is still the opportunity for changes. Mr. Nitchmann responded to Mr. Blue: "Then I want it to reflect what was decided at the first meeting; I want it put back in there." Ms. Huckle recalled there had been some concern that the property was "too shallow," though some residents had described it as not being as shallow as it looked." Mr. Nitchmann recalled that only one Commissioner, Ms. Imhoff, had referred to that property as "stripping." He concluded: "Therefore, I would like to have it go back to the way it was originally. Mr. Dotson described his understanding of the process to this point: 'Isn t the question in and out on this map? It was in to be studied, and now what this is saying is the staff has studied it and this is their tentative direction, having studied it." Mr. Nitchmann asked: "Based on what?" (The recording VAW equipment did not pick up staffs response.) Ms. Huckle said she would hate to see anything left out which presents "possibilities" for development in locations other than on Rt. 29. M In response to Mr. Dotson's request, Mr. Benish explained staffs rationale for the proposed RES-1 and RES-2 and for the three different commercial categories. (The recording equipment did not pick up staffs response.) Mr. Dotson asked if part of the reasoning was that this approach ( first through policy and later through ordinance) would place a "minimum" density on development. Mr. Blue recalled that Ms. Imhoff has expressed that view publicly. Mr. Davis commented on the legality of requiring a minimum density. (His comments were not picked up on the tape.) After staffs and Mr. Davis' comments, Mr. Dotson concluded: "I'm just trying to understand the rationale. What I've heard so far is that we the County and the staff, don't feel like we have detailed enough information to be overly precise about the exact residential density that would be appropriate on a given property and that a rationale for this is it gives the developers more latitude for making that assessment. I guess I was trying to get at (whether) there is a second reason that if there were some effort toward minimum density, it might be more reasonable to do so when you only had two categories instead of three. Where High started at eleven (11), that might inflict more pain and cross the threshold of pain, whereas with only two, if six is the cutoff point, maybe that would be less painful." 1;2 -_3 5-23-95 10 err Mr. Blue asked: "As we expand our growth areas beyond what is now the urban ring, and we are encouraging this high density --I don't know enough about planning to know whether this is good or not --in other words we are concentrating greater masses of people further away from the center of development with lower density in between. Is that good, bad, or indifferent?" Mr. Benish said staffs intent is to "maximize development within the area that is available." Mr. Benish continued: "To some extent you have to recognize, particularly in larger scale, cohesive developments, they are probably going to sustain themselves that way. There are existing older developments that have the potential for redevelopment --scattered, very small clusters of units, where the land uses around them have changed to high density --those are the areas that could change to higher density." Mr. Dotson concluded the discussion of the R-1 and R-2 by saying: "I think it is going to be important to look at the R-1 and R-2 with the standards for R-1 and R-2 at the same time." Staff continued their presentation and pointed out those areas which are potential "transitional" districts (a district which will allow a possibility for a combination of uses). Those areas included: west of Berkmar Drive Extended; the residual property for Sperry (off Hydraulic); area between the new high school and Cale Elementary School . He explained the uses envisioned for these areas would be "very limited neighborhood service type uses." The transitional zones would also allow high density apartments. Ms. Huckle felt these transitional areas are a good idea because they reduce the traffic on the main roads. The industrial service designation was discussed. Mr. Benish said staff has considered it as an area where office uses ("basic employment type of office uses") would be permitted. Staff looked at "broadening" the meaning of the "typical old style industrial uses" so as to provide flexibility for "flex -type" uses. Mr. Benish pointed out that the land use map does not yet reflect transportation changes nor all the Open Space recommendations. (Those will be added later.) Staff is presently looking at the City's open space recommendations and trying to tie the County's in with those in a logical pattern. For example, staff is looking at Biscuit Run as a greenway corridor, but has not yet had the chance to incorporate that onto the maps. Mr. Benish said, at this time, all the expansion areas have been shown at the low density designation. Staff intends to make specific recommendations, in certain locations, which will indicate that those locations would be appropriate for higher density development. Mr. Dotson commented on the number of different Service categories. He said: "If part of the rationale on the categories may be just to simplify it and avoid having more ,�?-3,q 5-23-95 11 *ftw categories than we need, is there a strong need for office service and office regional as opposed to just office or just office service?" Mr. Cilimberg explained the reason for the office regional designation was related to the Worrell property. (Mr. Cilimberg's comments were only partially recorded on the equipment.) Mr. Dotson asked: "Do we need neighborhood, regional and community service? I kind of think we do because you do get different kinds of commercial activities." Ms. Huckle hoped staff was considering the interconnection of the commercial areas, so as to reduce traffic on the main roads. Staff pointed out one other land use category change. Previously there has only been one "public" designation used for institutions such as the university, schools, etc. The City has two designations, Institution and Park/Greenway. For consistency in the two plans, staff is proposing to use the same two designations. Mr. Benish pointed out the location of 2 public requests (one on the east and one on the west side of Rt. 684 in Crozet). He said there are both positive and negative aspects of this property. The property on the east is a logical extension of the growth area. However, there is a lot of existing growth area in Crozet which is undeveloped. Ms. Huckle pointed out the inadequacy of Rt. 684 to accommodate additional traffic. Mr. Benish completed staffs presentation, pointing out the possible expansion areas in the Hollymead and Piney Mountain areas. Ms. Huckle wondered about transportation plans. Mr. Dotson asked what is known about potential traffic generation from the development of these areas. Staff had not yet studied the traffic question. (Comments made about transportation problems by Mr. Blue and Mr. Cilimberg during this part of the meeting were not picked up by the equipment.) Mr. Dotson asked if the Commission could be provided with a map showing the location of these areas so that the sites can be visited. Mr. Nitchmann asked for figures showing the projected population growth and the compounded annual growth rate. Future work sessions will focus on the public requests made in each of the areas. Miscellaneous Crozet Farmer's Market - Mr. Jenkins said he had been approached about the establishment of a Farmer's Market in Crozet. He had talked with the Zoning Administrator and learned that there is no provision for such a use on private property (though it may take place on public property). Ms. Huckle wondered if any :-3 5 5-23-95 12 I%W consideration has ever been given to having a Farmer's Market at the Albemarle High School parking lot. She felt this would be an ideal location. Mr. Cilimberg suggested there are some public locations in Crozet which might be possibilities (schools). Mr. Jenkins wondered if this use should be addressed in the Ordinance. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25. M on ,� 3 �-,