Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 28 1995 PC MinutesL"J 11-28-95 NOVEMBER 28, 1995 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 28, 1995, in the Auditorium of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of November 14, 1995 were amended as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA: 1994 Planning Commission Annual Report %ow Ms. Imhoff suggested the following additions to the report: --All Comp Plan work sessions which took place in 1994 should be included; --A list of all Commissioner committee work. Mr. Nitchmann suggested the addition of action taken for those items reviewed by the Commission. Wray Partnership Modification Request - To allow the reserve drainfield for one parcel to be located on an adjoining parcel. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff that the Annual Report and the Wray Modification Request be approved. The motion passed unanimously. Western Ridge Modification Request - To allow double -frontage lots in the Western Ridge subdivision. Mr. Jenkins expressed concern about the fact that the map included with the staff report "stills shows a 240/250 connector road." He believed the road and bridge which will be built to serve this property will actually be the connector road. He thought the road should be named Park Road "starting right now." He said it is inappropriate to show /( y 11-28-95 2 two roads crossing the railroad. Mr. Lilley explained the map reflects what was approved by the Board for the rezoning, i.e. "provision for the connector road though no guarantee that the connector road will be built there." Mr. Lilley said the map is consistent with what was shown on the application plan. Mr. Cilimberg added: "The Board's approval accepted this road as a road separate from the ultimate 240/250 connector. That was part of the legislative action of the Board." Mr. Jenkins said: "That's what I'm against. I think that's a problem. I'm interested in getting it unapproved.... We don't need two roads across the railroad and we don't need a plan that acts like it's there." Mr. Jenkins said he wanted the Commission to address this issue at the appropriate time. Mr. Jenkins said he did not want to take the item off the Consent Agenda, and Mr. Cilimberg explained that a zoning action would have to take place to address Mr. Jenkins' concerns. Ms. Huckle recalled that the land between the railroad and Rt. 240 was zoned Industrial. It was her understanding that there was to be a buffer between industrial and residential property. She asked: "What happened to that?" Ms. Imhoff thought the applicant had "talked about a dedicated open space buffer area." Ms. Huckle said she thought double frontage lots would be of less concern to a purchaser than having a lot back up to the railroad. Mr. Lilley explained that the subdivision plat is still under review. He said staff will double check the lots and their separation from the railroad against the application plan. Ms. Huckle said she did not think it was a good plan. Ms. Imhoff suggested that the item be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the December 5th agenda, under Old Business, so that the subdivision plat can be checked against previous discussions. It was the decision of the Commission that the Western Ridge Modification Request be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the December 5th agenda. Capital Improvements Program - Fiscal Year 1996/97 - Fiscal Year 2000/01 Mr. Benish briefly explained the CIP process. He then summarized the proposed expenditures for the five-year period. Mr. Lilley addressed specific questions which were raised by the Commission at its November 7th work session. (See staffs memo of November 28, 1995.) Alternative language to the justification statements was proposed to address each of the questions raised by the Commission. M 11-28-95 3 Ms. Imhoff asked how the Commission's comments and suggestions are made available to the Board. She asked particularly about comments she had made about the GIS system and the Athletic Field Study. Mr. Blue pointed out that those comments were reflected in the November 7th minutes, and those minutes were passed on to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said both the minutes and staffs November 28th memo will be forwarded to the Board along with other CIP information. Mr. Nitchmann suggested the minutes be included with the CIP packet and not sent along separately as they normally are. Mr. Blue asked why there was funding proposed for the Meadow Creek Bicycle Trail. He thought once these trails have been included in the Bicycle Plan they will be funded by VDOT. He asked if the amount shown is in addition to what would normally be funded. Mr. Benish explained it depends on the location of the trails. Those which are adjacent to travelways can have the full cost covered by VDOT. However, "the plan to date has indicated a separated facility --a pathway that was a bicycle and pedestrian pathway --which probably would not be eligible for VDOT funding." The amount shown is the County's share of that cost. Mr. Benish confirmed that the reference is to the County portion of the Parkway from Rio Rd. south, back into Charlottesville. Ms. Huckle questioned why a separated bike path is proposed, if it is more expensive and there is no guarantee it will be used. �%W Mr. Nitchmann expressed the following concern. --Confusion among some police officers "over the ability for them to be reached in 97% to 98% coverage in the County." He said: "I hope during the CIP review the Board gets Mr. Martin to advise them as to exactly what is happening. I think the Board needs to be updated as to the status of this situation so that our officers have the ability to be contacted easily, or to make contact easily with the Base Station without having to fiddle with channels, etc. If there's not enough funds in the CIP to fix this then I think we most definitely need to take the $199,000 that we are allocating for landscaping and move it up into this year to give our officers better coverage out in the field." There was no public comment on the CIP. Ms. Imhoff expressed the following concern. --"I do think the County should be performing its own athletic field studies and I think it is inappropriate to fund $20,000 for an outside consultant when there are a lot of other needs in the County. If any money is spent on the consultant, it should be spent on trying to assess how we can get a good and upgoing GIS system. I'd like to see the County make a good investment for planning and real estate development and GIS." CM 11-28-95 4 Mr. Dotson said he feels the next step in the CIP process is to "link it more closely with the Land Use Plan." He said: "I think this, the Land Use Plan and the Fiscal Impact Model need to be joined." Ms. Huckle was opposed to funding $30,000 for beach playground equipment. She did not think beaches needed enhancement and there are more worthy projects on which the money could be spent. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Capital Improvements Program 96/97 - 2000/01 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, including the amended justification statements proposed by staff. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan - Proposed revision to the "Developed Environment' Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, which includes County Land Use Plan. Major recommendations include (1) expanding the designated Growth Areas of Hollymead, Piney Mountain and Neighborhoods 4 and 5 and along Route 20 south and Route 631; (2) deletion of the Earlysville and North Garden Villages as designated Growth Areas; and (3) encouraging higher gross densities of residential and non- residential development and more infill development within designated Growth Areas. Mr. Benish briefly described the review process and listed the most significant proposed changes. Public comment was invited. Warren Estes (resident of Rt. 785/Proffitt Rd area) - He was opposed to the designation of the Proffitt Road area as a growth area without further study of the impact. Elizabeth Petofi - She suggested the Preddy Creek property be used for horse and ATV trails. She hoped this could be added to the Plan. John Snyder (Pritchett Lane) - He was opposed to the designation of the Proffitt Road area as a growth area. He cited inadequacies of the road system. Keywood Cheves (resident of Proffitt Road/Jefferson Village) - He presented a petition, signed by 31 homeowners in Jefferson Village and along Proffitt Road, which opposed the designation of the Proffitt Road area as a growth area. He did not think the infrastructure could support additional growth. Joseph Rhames (Old Lynchburg Road) - He said his land adjoins the proposed growth area south of town. He asked if his land could be included in the growth area. 11-28-95 5 Kathy BryantlChris Greene Lake Road) - She was opposed to the proposed northern growth area and the expansion of the Research Park. She thought the roads and schools could not accommodate more growth. She was also concerned about pollution of water resources. She suggested that only that acreage which is being lost by the removal of Earlysville and North Garden should be replaced. Gary Coleman (Ashton Rd., adjacent to Glenmore) - He referred to a petition he had presented to staff which contained 20 signatures. His concerns were about the loss of the natural aesthetic resources of the County. He was opposed to commercial development at Glenmore. He suggested a slow and cautious approach to growth. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the potential schedule for the remaining Land Use discussions. Mr. Nitchmann said he thought the following items still need to be revisited before the Commission makes its final recommendation on the Land Use Plan: --How much property is still developable within the current growth area and why is it not being developed? What can we do, from a zoning standpoint, to make it easier to develop that property--e.g. should critical slopes restrictions be changed in order to encourage in -fill? --How much land is designated for growth which is not available because it is not for sale? --What are the acreages of the parcels which are presently in the growth area? Mr.Nitchmann said he believes growth is inevitable and there will certainly be growth in the area around the new high school. He favored a 5:15 work session on December 5th with a decision made at that time as to whether or not action could be taken on either December 12th or 19th. Mr. Benish did not think it would be difficult to provide the information requested by Mr. Nitchmann in a concise report. He said this information had been included in a March 14, 1995 staff report. (Ms. Huckle asked that everything be "labeled very precisely" so that it is understandable.) Ms. Imhoff supported Mr. Dotson's earlier suggestion that Commissioners bring to the December 5th work session written comments, which can be shared, as to "what we agree on, what we have questions about, and which of the citizen comments you would like to see incorporated." She said she had been very impressed by the Citizens For Albemarle proposed edits and she hoped many of those comments could be incorporated. Mr. Dotson again suggested that all Commissioners offer written summaries as to the topic areas about which they have concerns, with enough copies of those comments for 11-28-95 6 the entire Commission. He said he was most impressed with "the extent to which there is concern about the proposed growth in the northern area." He said: "My question is 'if we didn't have growth in the northern area, where would we have it if we were to have the same amount of expansion acres that we're talking about right now'? Or, if we were to have less growth in the north, are there some parcels that seem more obviously ripe and others that might be deferred for some period of time? ... If we put in the amount of residential expansion that we are talking about and if we rezoned the business park and we've got other industrial lands up there, is that area going to be in balance between the jobs and the housing that are in that area? Have we not provided enough housing to balance with all those jobs? Are we providing too much? To what degree is there a balance, thinking of that as a community or a sub -community?" He questioned whether the staff could address that issue by December 5th, but he thought it would be useful. The Commission's discussion ended. The Chairman advised the public that action would not be taken at the December 5th meeting, though it may be taken on December 12th or 19th. SP-95-39 W. Ararat Lodge - Petition to construct a masonic lodge [10.2.2(2)] on 2.11 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 121, Parcel 32A is located on the southeast side of the intersection of Route 715 and Route 714 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated Growth Area. (Rural Area IV) The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that SP-95-39 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. SP-95-35 Woodmen of the World - Petition to establish a Lodge Hall on approximately 2.6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(2)]. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 9J1 is located on the west side of Route 606 opposite Quail Run in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. (Rural Area 1). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Fritz explained the conditions were taken from previous approvals for similar uses. Ms. Imhoff asked how the proposed use compares to the adjacent music school. Mr. Fritz said the proposed structure is larger, but the total square footage of all the structures on the music school site is probably larger. Ms. Imhoff asked about 11-28-95 7 restrictions on evening activities. She asked if there were any comparable uses in the rural area. Mr. Fritz again said the conditions were taken from previous approvals for other lodges. Ms. Huckle asked if it is a requirement that activities take place indoors. She said some functions, such as auctions, can be very loud. Mr. Fritz said the only limitation is condition No. 1: Use of outside amplification devices for sound shall be prohibited. The applicant was represented by Pete Riccotta. His comments and answers to Commission questions included the following: --He asked for wording that would allow screening on the north border to be omitted with the written permission of the adjoining neighbor. --Regarding the unfavorable factor identified by staff that the use is in close proximity to a residential unit, he pointed out that it was the owner of that residential unit who sold the property to the applicant, with full knowledge of what was planned. --Owners of the property on the other side have no objections to the use. --Woodmen is a non-profit, community/family oriented organization. He described Woodmen of the World as "a life insurance company which supports, through the profits of the company, the fraternal activities of the organization." Similar organizations include Knights of Columbus, ELKS, and Moose. The organization contributes to many local projects. --He asked that the allowed size of the building be increased from 3,750 square feet to 4,000 square feet (condition No. 5). --Woodmen lodges in other areas occasionally rent their facilities for other uses. --No one will be working in this facility. --This jurisdiction (Albemarle, Greene, Madison, Buckingham, Nelson, Charlottesville) has approximately 1,200 members. Meetings are usually attended by 12-15 adults, plus some children. A large facility is needed to accommodate events such as picnics, Christmas party, etc. Public comment was invited. Mr. Larry Taylor, a resident of Chris Greene Lake Road, objected to the additional commercialization of the area, which he fears will continue. Ms. Linda Zuvier, a resident of Lake Acres, asked how parking would be accommodated on the site. Mr. John Pace, a member of the lodge, explained that parking requirements of the Ordinance will have to be met. Addressing a written comment received by the Commission, he said the organization never has late night parties. He described some of the community activities performed by the lodge, e.g. Halloween party for children in local hospitals, nursing home visitations, etc. He stressed that no alcohol is served at 11-28-95 0 any function, nor is it allowed on the property at any time, by any organization, and there are no late night parties. Ms. Annette Willis, President of Woodmen of the World Lodge, spoke in support of the activities of the lodge. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann asked why clubs are treated as commercial enterprises. Mr. Fritz explained: "It's a non-residential use, by special permit in the rural areas, and falls under the category of clubs, lodges, civic and fraternal, and patriotic organizations." Mr. Fritz was unaware of any complaints about the lodge's present use of the church for its meetings. He said there had been no complaints on a former County site which was owned by Woodmen of the World many years ago. Mr. Nitchmann asked if a condition could be added restricting the usage of alcohol. Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively. Mr. Fritz confirmed at least a portion, and possibly all, of the site is within the Airport Noise Impact Area. Regarding the applicant's request about the required screening from the property to the north, Mr. Fritz said staff would not recommend changing the condition because the property could change hands at some future time. He also said the buffer is intended to act as a buffer between residential and non-residential uses. Regarding the request for an increase in the allowable square footage, Mr. Fritz said staff would not oppose an increase to 4,000 square feet. Ms. Huckle asked if any of the other similar lodges are on rural land. Mr. Fritz said the Mt. Ararat Lodge, approved some time ago, is on rural property as are the Moose Lodge and the ELKS Lodge. Ms. Imhoff expressed concern about some types of uses in the rural area, particularly in terms of intensity, which can be expanded over time. She said she was not comfortable that the proposed conditions of approval have nailed it down to a rural area intensity. She was also concerned about the scale of the building. She recalled that one of the reasons she had supported the music school is that it was an adaptive use of an existing building. This proposal is for a new structure. She concluded: "For me, would like to err on the side of protecting the rural character and I don't think I can be supportive with these conditions at this point." �%w Mr. Blue pointed out that though the area is zoned rural area, it is not truly a rural area. / 7 09 11-28-95 F61 Ms. Imhoff responded: "That may be your opinion, but it is zoned rural area and there are people who live in that area and consider it to be a rural neighborhood. For me, this use does become of a scale and intensity that I would not think of as a use --if I bought a house in the rural area --that I would have next door to me." Ms. Huckle noted that this is an insurance company, which does "good things as ancillary to that" business. Mr. Nitchmann said he did not view this as a commercial use, rather this is a "group of individuals who come together through a common thread which happens to be insurance, but part of that insurance is also the camaraderie and the good they are trying to do for their children and the citizens. I think we need more of that in this community and in this world. I don't have a problem of this." MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-95-35 for Woodmen of the World be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Use of outside amplification devices for sound shall be prohibited. 2. Use shall not commence without site plan approval. The site plan shall not receive final plan approval until such time as information is provided to verify that sound generated within the building does not exceed forty (40) decibels at the nearest property line. 3. Use of the site for subordinate uses and fund-raising activities such as, but not limited to, bingo, raffles, auctions, receptions, dances shall not occur between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 4. Provision of a single row of screening trees planted 15 feet on center or a double staggered row of screening shrubs planted 10 feet on center adjacent to Tax Map 32, Parcel 9H (the adjacent property to the north); 5. The building shall not exceed 4,000 square feet. (NOTE: Changed from 3,750 at Mr. Jenkins' suggestion.) 6. Maximum occupancy load shall be determined by the Building Official and shall not exceed those limits as established by the Health Department. 7. No alcoholic beverages to be permitted on the premises. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. i'71 11-28-95 10 The motion passed (6:1) with Commissioner Imhoff casting the dissenting vote. ZTA--95-06 Pavilion at Riverbend LLC - Petition to amend Section 22.2.2 to add Outdoor Amphitheater as a use by special use permit in the C-1, Commercial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bud Treakle. He stressed that his comments would attempt to avoid "site specific issues." His comments included the following: --"Staffs recommendation does not recognize what we envision this amphitheater to be. We envision it to be a theater, both dramatic and for musical performances... a venue for high school graduations, for farmers' market, for a conference center or speakers' center, for conventions, for craft shows and community needs." --A small, intimate amphitheater is envisioned. References in the staff report are all far larger than what the applicant feels is appropriate in the C-1 zone. --What is envisioned is more similar to the Performing Arts Center or the Downtown Mall amphitheater. (Later in the meeting, Mr. Treakle said the Mall amphitheater is approximately the same size as the applicant's envisioned theater. The Mall theater will hold approximately 5,000 people.) --There is no definition for theater in the Zoning Ordinance. --The applicant feels what is envisioned fits within the guidelines of the C-1 zone, which permits indoor theaters. --The project envisioned by the applicant "is a theater which is enclosed on three sides and is open to the fourth side with a hill for outside seating area, or we feel we are closely related to the commercial recreation establishment which is allowed in the C-1 zone by special use permit." --The major concerns in the staff report seem to be size related, i.e. they envision a traffic surge at the beginning and close of an event. The applicant feels these concerns are not well founded because the number of people attending an event will vary depending on the particular event. --If you find that a theater will fit within the framework of the C-1 zone, you can then, through the special permit process, provide guidelines for the development of any specific site. --"We ask you to look at your ordinance. See if the proposed amphitheater, as we've defined it, fits within the other uses in the C-1 zone. If it does, we ask you to approve it." Ms. Imhoff noted that the only difference in the applicant's definition and that proposed by staff was the reference to "semi -circular fashion." Mr. Treakle confirmed the accuracy of Ms. Imhoffs statement. r7 11-28-95 11 Ms. Huckle recalled that a Concert Series at the University had been discontinued because it had not been financially successful. She asked why the applicant feels this project will be "financially sustainable." Mr. Treakle responded: "Because my client envisions it as a multi -use venue rather than a single -use venue. If it was just going to be a concert series, then it may not be financially sustainable." Ms. Huckle asked if the facility would be covered with a roof. Mr. Treakle said: "What my client envisions is a stage, two side walls, a covered roof over one-half of the seating and the remaining one-half of the seating is on a hillside in front, facing towards the stage." Mr. Dotson asked if the applicant views this as a one -of -a -kind facility for a community of this size. Mr. Treakle responded: "We envision this as being somewhere between the Performing Arts Center and University Hall. The Performing Arts Center seats 1,200; University Hall seats 8,000 to 9,000. What we envision... is a facility that has approximately 3,500 seats in the covered area and has additional hillside area that would allow for another 3,500 people, for a total of 7,000. But it will be small enough for those events which will only draw 2 to 3,000 people. But there is no place to go at this time. We envision this will fit in the market between what is presently available, and University Hall." Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Treakle to comment on the possible use of existing facilities, such as high school athletic fields, etc., for the types of events envisioned. Mr. Treakle responded: "Our sense is that none of the existing facilities that are available provide the same atmosphere. The advantage to what we envision building is that it will be covered and enclosed on three sides. So it will be protected from the elements." Prior to opening the public hearing, both Mr. Blue and Mr. Nitchmann stressed that the issue before the Commission was not site specific. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Terry Fisher (Chair of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club) - She supported the position of the residents of the Woolen Mills neighborhood in their opposition to this zoning text amendment. She cited the inability of the road system to handle additional traffic, and the impact on the Greenbelt. Fran Lawrence(Woolen Mills neighborhood) - He said the neighborhood had voted unanimously, at a meeting two weeks ago, to oppose this zoning text amendment. An amphitheater is more closely related, in terms of impact, to heavy industrial uses. It involves heavy traffic, late nighttime activity, noise, lights, alcohol usage, and daily, year-round activity. (He pointed out that high school athletic fields do not permit alcohol use.) He said the site being considered for this use presently functions as a buffer zone between commercial and residential uses. He suggested that this use should only be considered in Highway Commercial, PDMC or Heavy Industry zones. He noted that staff has recommended against the use in Highway Commercial, Light Industry and C-1. He said that all the uses in C-1 referred to by Mr. Treakle are indoor uses. cm 11-28-95 12 Susan McKennon (representing the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association) - She read a statement of opposition which is attached to these minutes as Attachment A. Aer Stephen (Bruce Avenue) - He felt there was a need for this type of facility in the community and suggested that site specific issues could be dealt with at the time a proposal is submitted. Jennifer Ackerman - She felt an amphitheater in the location envisioned by the applicant would have a tremendous negative impact on the Rivanna River and the Greenbelt. She urged the Commission to deny the zoning text amendment. She also urged the "County consider joining with the City to plan for the development and protection of the Rivanna River Corridor. She distributed a document to the Commission which expressed the feelings of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood. (See Attachment B.) M.L. Ray - She said she currently lives "500 yards diagonally across McCormick Road from UVA's amphitheater." She described her experiences in living so close to a 2,000 seat amphitheater, which, like all amphitheaters, is "infinitely expandable." She said 6,000 to 8.000 people have congregated at this facility at times. She said the common denominator for all the performances which take place at the amphitheater is amplification. She described the annoyance of illegally parked cars, but most significantly the sound generated by the performances. She said: "During a performance it is impossible to hold a conversation in the house, to read, to do homework, to listen to any other music, to watch television, to think, or to sleep. Our windows rattle; the walls and floors reverberate. Outdoors is unthinkable on an evening when a performance is going on. We have had to cancel planned events in the house because of an event that has been taking place in the amphitheater." She concluded: "The impact on all of the families within Woolen Mills would be devastating." She supported staffs recommendation for denial. Arthur Tinsley - (a resident of the Woolen Mills neighborhood) He said it was impossible to separate this zoning text amendment from site specific considerations. He thought the main consideration must be the impact this type of use will have on neighborhoods and though the proposed use may be a good idea, "it does not belong where it is going to effect anyone's life." Florence Buckholtz - She expressed opposition to the location of an amphitheater on the property that the applicant is considering. She expressed concerns about parking spilling over into neighborhoods and about the use of drugs and alcohol at concerts. Two individuals spoke in favor of the zoning text amendment: Mr. Bob Bressen (170 S. Pantops Drive) and Ms. Pat Jensen. Mr. Bressen thought the site under consideration would be improved by an amphitheater. Ms. Jensen supported this type of facility for the County. She stressed that her comments were not site specific. She thought this iftw type of facility could possibly fit in the C-1 zone, with controls. /�U 09 11-28-95 13 Mr. Treakle made final comments. "My client envisions wherever he builds this project, to build a project which will be environmentally sound. If built in this specific site, it would be the beginning of a greenbelt along the river for Albemarle County; it would have landscaped picnic areas; it would have a river walk area. Site specific matters can be considered at a later date when after approving this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, we bring you a specific site plan. Then we hear all of this again and we rebut with all the information you need to understand what my client envisions for this particular site. Any facility that is built at any location will have to comply with all ordinances.... It will have to be built in a location where the road structure is sufficient to support it. The question is 'if you don't build one in a C-1 zone, where do you do it?' The staff report recommends this use in a PDMC zone because it is more of a regional use as they see it. Attachment 2 of the staff report shows a comparable district to a community service district is C-1 and for a regional service district a comparable district is C-1. What was submitted to you tonight was a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to permit this type of use in the C-1 zone. If you look at the Land Use Plan discussed tonight, (in relation to this site), the road infrastructure is there, there already is higher density regional area adjacent to the property that we suggest is appropriate for this use. In conclusion, ... the threshold question is 'did the Board of Supervisors initially intentionally prohibit this type of use in Albemarle County?' (The staff report) says there was no intentional omission of that use. If there is not an intentional omission of that use, is it an appropriate use for land in Albemarle County. Mr. Fritz's report again says 'yes.' So having made those two decisions, the next question is 'where?' And if you take the Zoning Ordinance and the C-1 zone and look at what is permitted there by special use permit, you address the same issue that Mr. Fritz says you would address with this amphitheater --traffic, noise, regional in character. Hotels are regional in character. They generate traffic. They are not community service uses. Motor vehicle sales lots ... is a regional use, but it is permitted in the C-1 zone with a special use permit. Hospitals, medical centers, regional uses perhaps, but permitted in the C-1 zone with a special use permit. What I am suggesting is that what we are proposing tonight is not significantly different from what is already on the books and that is, you ought to consider all of these other factors when you consider the special use permit. But if you look at the uses permitted in the C-1 zone, this use is in harmony with those uses. The amphitheater compares favorably. If it does, then I submit someone should move to adopt this amendment to the Ordinance." There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann made the following statement: "Three or four weeks ago there was a meeting between the City and County Planning Commissions. At that meeting I was asked if I would support an outdoor amphitheater and give the citizens of the City the consideration they are due. My answer was 'yes, I would,' because I view all of you as neighbors, not as the City vs. the County. I made my comments about trying to /�J 11-28-95 14 VAW separate this zoning text amendment from a site specific special permit because I felt it was important. (However), the problem exists that the two are together. That is unfortunate for the applicant, but it is very difficult for us to take emotion out of what is logic at certain times. I, personally, do not feel that this is a proper place for an outdoor amphitheater. I disagree that this is similar in nature to a hotel or to the other uses permitted by special permit because it is not. We could discuss this in great detail, but I am going to make a motion to support the staffs recommendation and deny ZTA 95- 06." MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZTA 95-06 for Pavilion at Riverbend LLC be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Imhoff commented: "I think there has been some confusion this evening. When something is by special use permit, there is sort of this implied discussion that it becomes by -right --it just adds a few extra conditions. That is not true. We oftentimes deny special use permits in certain zones. I also think, philosophically, that not every county or city has to provide for every use envisioned by developers that come along. think maybe there is a larger question as to whether amphitheaters belong in the rural area or in the urban area. I'd like to have that discussion at a later point. I very much *4w support Mr. Nitchmann's comment that this use is significantly different from ones already allowed in the C-1 zone. Mr. Dotson asked staff: "If an applicant wanted to take the lead that you suggested that this would be appropriate in the PDMC, would a zoning text amendment be necessary for that as well?" Mr. Cilimberg responded affirmatively and explained that another advertised hearing would be required. Mr. Dotson asked: "In the rural area right now, is a use like the one proposed allowable with a special permit?" Mr. Fritz responded: "The definition that exists currently for'theater/outdoor drama' doesn't provide for this type of use. It refers specifically to events of historic significance to, and having actually occurred within, the community." Mr. Dotson concluded: "In my own thinking about this it seems to me that --and I am trying to deal with it at a level of generality-- in some ways it seems these ought to be truly free-standing where there are not residential uses around them, where there is a lot acreage and a lot of buffer. That makes me think of the rural area though it may conflict with the tranquility of the rural area. The other thing is like on the City Mall --fully integrated where it benefits the pedestrians and the surrounding commercial uses. I think the situation we're dealing with is really neither of those so I just don't feel it is a good fit." Ms. Huckle addressed Mr. Dotson's comment about the rural areas. She said: "What you might think is uninhabited territory, when something like this is proposed lots of people appear." 11-28-95 Em The motion for denial passed unanimously. 15 Mr. Nitchmann said whether C-1 is the right place for this type use or not, there is probably a need for some type of facility like this in this community and the issue should be considered at some future work session. Ms. Huckle suggested the relatively new Mall amphitheater should be given a chance. SP-95-34 Virginia Electric and Power Company (Item #2) - Petition to establish an electrical substation on approximately 7 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 93, Parcel 47L is on the south side of Route 53 approximately 900 feet east of Route 729 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. [Rural Area 4] Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Jeff Hutchinson. He explained that the substation will serve the area around Rts. 53 and 729 and will consist of two new distribution circuits to feed the area primarily east of the City of Charlottesville in the Virginia Power service territory. The present circuit which serves that area is at capacity. This additional station is needed to provide additional load relief and reliability for the residents served by this circuit. Ms. Imhoff asked if this substation will require that lines and poles in the area also be upgraded. Mr. Hutchinson said most of the work will take place "in the site." There will be two line extensions, one from the existing transmission line and the second will be the distribution circuits coming out the rear of the site to Rt. 729, approximately 200 feet. An additional pole will be added on Rt. 729 to connect the two circuits. Ms. Huckle asked the applicant about screening plans for the house that is 150 feet from the substation. Mr. Hutchinson said: "We have re -designed it somewhat to leave as much of the existing vegetation, mostly hardwoods, and some additional evergreen screening is proposed as well." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said this site is in his district and he had received no negative comments. cm 11-28-95 16 MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-95-34 for Virginia Electric and Power Company be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for 230 to 34.5KV conversion substation to be developed in general accord with Attachment E. 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Proposed and existing landscape which serves to screen adjoining dwellings shall be maintained by Virginia Power and replaced in accord with Sec. 32.7.9.2c of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 95-04 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation - Petition to rezone approximately 525 acres from RA, Rural Areas, PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial Park, and LI, Light Industrial to PD-IP, Planned Development Industrial Park. This request also includes the following special use permits: SP-95-40 - Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical (27.2.2.1; 29.2.2.1); SP-95-41 - Supporting commercial uses (27.2.2.14, 29.2.2.1); SP-95-42 - Hotels, Motels, Inns (9.2.2.2). Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 4B, 6, 6A, 19 and 19C, is located south of the North Fork Rivanna River between Routes 29 and 606 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Industrial Service in the Community of Hollymead. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The staff report stated: "At this time, staff opinion is that this petition is not 'ripe' for Planning Commission action. Therefore, staff has made no recommendation regarding this petition based on submittals received to this point. Furthermore, public hearing may identify issues not addressed by staff or the proposal." Mr. Keeler said he had received some additional information from the applicant after the staff report was complete. Improvements to Rt. 29N have been agreed upon with VDOT, but the cost of the improvements has not been agreed upon. The following items are still unresolved: Character of open space; Historic structure/cemetery preservation; Location of fire station site/timing of gifting; and Sidewalk to Rt. 649. Also, VDOT, County Engineering and the County Attorney have suggested rewording of various proffers. The applicant was represented by Dean Sincala, Tim Rose, Leonard Sandridge, and Ellen Miller. They described the development in some detail and presented slides showing the development plans and similar projects which have been sponsored by i` q 'fir 11-28-95 17 educational institutions. They stressed that this is an environmentally sensitive development which will add value to the community; it is somewhat unique in that approximately 300 acres will remain as open space; and the applicant has been, and will continue to be, responsive to the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Sandridge stressed that this development is "absolutely critical to the University as we look to the next 50 years...and to maintaining the kinds of programs that we have developed." Public comment was invited. Paul Hartman (North Pines) - He expressed concern about chemical operations which will be performed by the high tech companies which will occupy the park. He said no mention has been made as to measures to be taken in the event of an explosion or fire. He also asked about emergency measures in the event of an accident as hazardous materials are transported to the site. He thought these subjects need to be addressed before final action on the request. Babette Thorpe (Piedmont Environmental Council) - She read a statement expressing agreement with staff that the application is not ready for action by the Commission. Her statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment C. Karen Strickland (Earlysville) - She pointed out that though the applicant has repeatedly assured the County that "we are here for the long run," the first two lots in this development have been sold. She said there are many people who are concerned about this development but who do not attend these meetings because the issues are too complicated. She asked if the phasing of this development will be monitored so as to coincide with the building of the additional schools which will be needed. She expressed concerns about potential water pollution. She said: "We depend on you, as our representatives, to study these things and ask the right questions and to be strong. And even though there aren't other people here in the audience, we care about what happens." Mr. Sincala was allowed final comments. He said: "We've tried to share as much information with you as possible about how we intend to develop this park. We never represented that every page in that application was a proffer. That would be imprudent to do. We have tried to proffer things that we think are important to the County and the community, and that make sense to proffer. It would be difficult, and probably very impractical, to proffer every page in the application and that is why many of Ms. Thorpe's comments are probably true --some plans are conceptual. But all of the things we have put in the proffers are real, true, binding proffers." Ms. Miller added: "I think the best way to respond is to respond comprehensively to these issues and do so in an organized way and get the benefit of your discussion here this evening." Mr. Sincala concluded: "Ms. Thorpe represented that 13% of the property was industrial. There is no limitation that only 13% will be industrial. We could build the whole thing as industrial if we chose to. What we've agreed to is to cap the amount of 09 11-28-95 18 general office and we believe for good reason. But we think the fairest thing here is get a copy of PEC's statement and to respond to that." [NOTE: Approximately 15 people were in attendance from the Lake Acres subdivision.] There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Commission comments on the rezoning proposal were as follows: HUCKLE: --There should be a limit on water use for each business. Adequate water resources should be UREF's first priority. --Any type of development in the flood plain will degrade the river. --Open space along the river should remain in a natural, unmanicured state. --How will medical facilities dispose of medical wastes? Will there be a crematorium? --Though UREF said these buildings would be leased, the first two have been sold. "I fear you will lose control of the project." --What will happen to the "temporary" modular buildings. What assurance is offered that they will not become permanent? IMHOFF: --The proffers are too general. The commitment needs to be "pinned down." --Further discussion is needed about "what is support commercial and the timing of that commercial." This is more commercial than I am comfortable with for this scale. When will the commercial get triggered? --She expressed concern about "who decides what is 'internally justified' " in relation to the hotel. --Who decides the "compelling case" in terms of when roads will be upgraded? --The issues listed by staff "need to be nailed down, particularly the character of the open space." --The phrase "might be public access if there is capacity," is very confusing. What kind of public access are we talking about on the site? How much public access are we encouraging? How many of these sites might be gated properties or high security properties? --If there is a chance to minimize parking --maybe UREF can get creative and have a more sustainable development by minimizing the amount of paving that goes on the site. --We need more talk about the timing of the project. "I am more comfortable with things that are tied to a site plan." DOTSON: cm 11-28-95 19 --The uses are not clearly understood. The percentage of "general office" needs to be clear. Maybe there is a better term than general office. --Many different land use terms are used on the zoning application plan. There needs to be some consistency on what the allowed uses are and the same terms used all the way through. --He favored some type of process whereby the County can keep informed of the progress of the development throughout the 20-year buildout period. "How are sites selling or being leased? Why type of jobs are being generated? How's the water usage going?" He suggested some type of Advisory Committee or periodic report might be considered. --"Could the staff, when they think it's a fair share, tell us why they think it's a fair share?" JENKINS: --He supported Mr. Dotson's idea about the 20-year involvement in the progress of the development. — "I think the stressing of this time package is important." VAUGHAN: --She expressed concerns about the "proper language for the Rivanna Greenbelt in terms of maintenance (and) amenities in the flood plain." --She wanted a better understanding of why the language "The clear intent was that the County would have no rights or obligations to enforce any covenants or conditions" is included. --Why would the applicant choose not to be a member of the Design Committee? NITCHMANN: --The proffers are vague. "Who is controlling the covenants on buildings in the future?" --What control would the County have if a large water user were proposed as a use? --He was concerned about the phasing of the development in relation to the upgrading of the roads--606, 649. When will the roads be upgraded? Concern about the "integrity of the Rt. 649/Rt. 29 intersection." At what point during this buildout period will this intersection be upgraded? --"It would behoove the applicant to look to potential occupants of the development for the funding of a local fire station." --It is imperative to UVA that this be a "class project because it will reflect on UVA for 100 years." The Commission discussed the schedule for the rest of the year to determine when this ;% item could be rescheduled. It was decided the item could be placed on the December 19th agenda. In 11-28-95 Mr. Nitchmann said he hoped there would be a shorter "punch list." 20 Mr. Andersen asked that the record show that he did not participate in the discussion of this item. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved that ZMA-95-04 for the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation be deferred to December 19th. The motion passed unanimously. SP-95-33 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Proposal to expand the outdoor storage and display currently allowed under SP-93-038, extending the time frame for outdoor storage, display and sales of garden center merchandise from February 15 through July 5 to February 15 through September 15 each year, and adding six outside storage containers on a permanent basis and up to five additional storage containers on a temporary basis. Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 68D5, is located on U.S. Route 29 North in the Rio Magisterial District. This property is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 1) and is recommended for Regional Service. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-95-33 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. Miscellaneous The issue of whether or not to schedule a hearing for Phase II of the Meadow Creek Parkway before the end of the year was discussed again. Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about "rushing through" this item for the second time in an effort to get Primary Road funds. He wondered why it is crucial to make the March deadline. He thought a more business -like approach was called for. He pointed out that the Commission had been criticized for having the Land Use hearing the week of Thanksgiving and he questioned the wisdom of scheduling this item just before Christmas. He said he had spoken with Supervisors Marshall and Thomas and neither had felt there was any urgency about the March date. He suggested that Mr. Cilimberg talk to the Board about this matter. (Mr. Blue supported this suggestion.) Mr. Cilimberg said a public hearing has already been advertised for December 12th. He said he needed to know whether or not to proceed with that date so that he could stop the mailing of notices and stop the second advertisement. Ms. Imhoff thought it would be difficult to separate the Meadow Creek Parkway discussion from the Land Use discussion. She favored proceeding with the December 12th hearing. (Mr. Nitchmann said he did not oppose holding the meeting, but he did /0, 11-28-95 21 r not think action should be taken.) Mr. Jenkins questioned whether the Commission had a choice in the matter. Mr. Blue polled the Commission and determined the majority favored proceeding with the December 12th hearing. Mr. Cilimberg said he would inform the County Executive of the concerns expressed by the Commission. There being no further business, the meeting adiourned at 11:20 p.m. a