HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 19 1995 PC Minutesn
12-19-95
DECEMBER 19, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 19, 1995, Room 7, 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 Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative; Mr. Ron Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant
County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 and a quorum was established.
[NOTE: Commissioner Vaughan, Mr. Kamptner, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Keeler and Ms.
Higgins did not arrive until 7:00 p.m.]
WORK SESSION
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan
In response to Commission directions to staff that those areas most amenable for
development in the next five years be identified, Mr. Benish described the location of
the areas to the north and south which staff had identified as meeting this criteria--i.e.,
to the north, only the area surrounding the existing industrial area in Piney Mountain
(approximately 600 acres in one ownership) --to the south, primarily west of Rt. 635
including an area encompassing most of the Biscuit Run drainage basin, south from the
Polo Grounds to the stream, and from Rt. 20 to Rt. 631. Also included was the Jessup
property, a 600-acre "core" west of 631.
The area in the Hollymead growth area which staff deleted as being less amenable
was described as "north of Proffitt Road, east of Rt. 785, with an eastern boundary of
the Norfolk -Southern Railroad and the North Fork Rivanna River, and with a northern
boundary of the North Fork Rivanna River."
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about the fact that the 600 acres to the north is
under one ownership and the development of the Jessup property would not address
the goal of providing more affordable housing. He said: I think we are burying our
head in the sand if we think, by not designating what we originally discussed (3,200
acres), growth will not occur. It is going to occur, perhaps not in the next 3 or 5 years,
but it is going to occur in the next 20 years. We have to have the visibility for that to
12-19-95 2
happen because we can't stop people from coming here and we can't stop babies from
being born,.... It's a fact of life and we have to manage it somehow. To go back now,
to almost ground zero, in my opinion, is a travesty to the people who want to live here
but have a hard time affording houses within this community. It's still a supply and
demand situation, and the bigger the supply the lower prices on property will be. If we
make this recommendation, I know what will happen to that land. I think we need to
look at this from an affordability issue and as a long-term issue. The present Plan has
resulted in 65% of the growth occurring in the urban area. (What we are considering
now) will stop that from happening and we will revert back to where we were several
years ago when we had small areas of expansion going on. I can't support this. I think
this is unfair to the average working man in this community to do this."
Mr. Blue said he agreed with Mr. Nitchmann, "with one difference." He asked: "What
would you think if we didn't designate anything but we had a commitment from the staff
that if somebody who wanted to develop property, in this area we are considering,
came forward with a proposal for a CPA at any time, the proposal would be given full
consideration and staff would not take the position that the proposal would have to wait
until the next Comp Plan review. Mr. Nitchmann said he had proposed a similar
approach previously. He said he would want this position clearly stated in the Comp
Plan. He also thought these areas should be designated as potential growth areas.
**mow, It was noted that there are presently 4,700 undeveloped acres designated as growth
area, with approximately 2,400 of those having some constraints for development. Mr.
Dotson calculated that the additional 3,200 acres which was originally discussed would
bring the total to almost 8,000 acres, which represents 2.3 times the anticipated need
for the next 20 years. Mr. Dotson noted that the designation of an additional 1,200
acres (instead of 3,200) would result in 2 times the anticipated need for 20 years. He
said: "So it's not closing the door."
Ms. Huckle said she supported a study, referred to by Mr. Benish, which would
determine the "outer limits" of growth area because there are physical constraints to
some of the land. She expressed concern, however, that this could lead to
"hopskotching" development which would make it difficult to achieve efficient use of
infrastructure.
Ms. Imhoff expressed some concerns about the potential development of the Jessup
property. She said she had walked the property and found that there are many ponds
and streams present. So the property will not "take much density," and will, therefore,
develop in large -lot, high priced homes. Ms. Huckle said she had also walked the
property and thought it might be possible, with cluster type, neo-traditional
development, that it could achieve a desirable density.
12-19-95
Mr. Jenkins urged the Commission to make a recommendation. He said he could have
supported the original 3,200 acres, which he thought was "good planning and sends the
right signals. However, based on citizen input, he said he could support the 1,200
acres now being considered provided a statement is included in the Plan that the
County will entertain CPA's which might be proposed on the other properties which
have been discussed.
Mr. Dotson asked if staff had any language to propose which would address Mr.
Nitchmann's and Mr. Jenkins' suggestion. Mr. Benish responded: "The language is
actually to address the study that we proposed --in lieu of designating a full expansion
area to address what we perceive to be the 20-year demand, to do a very small
incremental expansion , then to identify the study to provide for the outer limits of
growth. That language really wasn't to address Mr. Nitchmann's specific question, but
we could incorporate language like that."
Mr. Blue pointed out that if some language is not included as suggested by Mr.
Nitchmann, then when another Glenmore-type development is proposed, all those
groups who are opposed to growth will be able to justifiably argue that "this isn't in the
Comprehensive Plan."
Ms. Imhoff thought the study proposed by staff is the correct "vehicle" to address Mr.
Nitchmann's concern, otherwise it will just be a carte blanc situation.
Mr. Nitchmann stressed that of the 4,200 acres presently designated, over half is not
developable. He said it was difficult to comprehend not recommending any expansion
near the new high school. He pointed out that the property on the east side of Rt. 20,
which some Commissioners feel would result in strip development and , therefore,
should not be included, has an owner who is ready it develop it. Mr. Blue said the
property on the east side of Rt. 20 would be suited for Camelot or Briarwood-type of
developments, which presently represent the most affordable housing communities in
the county.
MOTION: To move the item forward, Ms. Imhoff moved that the Commission support
staffs recommendation for those areas totaling approximately 1,200 acres described by
staff at the beginning of the work session. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Nitchmann said he would not support the motion unless a statement is included in
the Plan which says proposals will be given fair consideration on the other 2,000 acres.
He again stated: "I think this is a travesty of justice to the people of this community."
12-19-95 4
Mr. Dotson said he thought this recommendation should be put forth with the statement
that "it is providing room for expansion and growth, that this number of acres,
discounting that some of it may not be available right away, nonetheless is roughly
twice what we need over the 20 year period in combination with what we've already got-
-that this is a plan for growth, not a plan for no growth."
Ms. Huckle said she could support the area in the south, but she could not support "that
much land in the north, because of problems with transportation, until there is some
other way to get to town besides Rt. 29."
The motion failed to pass (3:3) with Commissioners Dotson, Imhoff and Jenkins voting
for the motion, and Commissioners Blue, Huckle and Nitchmann voting against.
Mr. Dotson proposed an alternative recommendation, i.e. "the southern area as
originally proposed, and no expansion in the north" (all that shown in red and yellow on
staffs map, including the portion east of Rt. 20). (Mr. Benish said the total acreage
suggested by Mr. Dotson was 1,700 acres. The inclusion of the Jessup property would
make it about 2,000 acres.)
Ms. Huckle said that with higher density development of the already existing growth
area, it is not really necessary to replace, acre for acre, that area being lost in the
*ftW Earlysville and North Garden Villages.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that the southern area (as described above) be
recommended for addition to the growth area. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Blue made the following statement: "I am probably going to vote against all growth
areas. I would like to have seen a procedure for designation of those areas we know
are going to grow which would say we will be willing to receive CPA's and ZMA's, in due
course, at any time. But even without that, I have been to every public meeting we
have held and listened to hundreds of citizens, and with very few exceptions --in the
business community and developers --I find absolutely no support (for growth). The
people who live there don't want it. ... They say that designating the rural areas as
growth areas to protect the rural areas is wrong. I'm not sure it is. That has been the
philosophy of this Commission since I have been on it, and I think the fact that we
haven't convinced the people of that is a failure of leadership. I'm not willing, at this
point, to go ahead and vote against all those people, saying that I know better, because
I don't think I do. I thought we were doing the right thing for the last couple of years,
and I still think so, but that's not what the people want. So, unless somebody has a
very unique idea of how to do this, I suspect I will be voting against any growth area
expansion."
C7 -
12-19-95 5
Mr. Nitchmann said he thought one of the reasons for expanding the urban ring was to
provide insight for utility planning for the next 20-30 years. He said he had seconded
Mr. Dotson's motion with reluctance because it had not included any area in the north
which is destined to grow because of the University's research park.
Addressing Mr. Blue's statements about public sentiment, Ms. Imhoff thought the
compromise position was to at least replace the land that is being lost by the removal of
the village designation from Earlysville and North Garden, though not necessarily on an
acre -for -acre basis. She said she would like to see a more moderate inclusion than
the motion reflects. She also said she agreed with Mr. Nitchmann that there will be
pressure for residential development on Rt. 29 North and it will be needed before
transportation is ready. (Ms. Huckle said it probably will not be needed within the next
five years.)
Mr. Jenkins said he could support the motion except for the inclusion of the area east of
Rt. 20. He agreed that this land will ultimately be developed, but he thought it was
premature to include it at this time.
Mr. Dotson's motion to designate all the southern area failed to pass (2:4) with
Commissioners Dotson and Nitchmann voting for the motion, and Commissioners Blue,
Jenkins, Huckle and Imhoff voting against.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved that the "orange stripped area" to the south be added to
the growth area. This motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that all the southern area under discussion, including the
Breeden property, but excluding the strip to the east of Rt. 20, be recommended for
designation as growth area. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
The motion passed (4:2) with Commissioners Dotson, Jenkins, Nitchmann and Huckle
voting in favor, and Commissioners Blue and Imhoff voting against.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed the hope that the Board of Supervisors will consider the
addition of area in the north.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Commission agreed there should be reference in the Plan to
the other areas which will say "they are a higher priority for consideration for Comp
Plan Amendments. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that such a reference could also result
in proposals not being given consideration for properties which are not included in the
reference. He pointed out that Glenmore had been approved because it "made sense"
at the time.
CR
12-19-95 6
Mr. Blue said he favored a reference as suggested by Mr. Cilimberg. He explained he
felt things have changed to the point where it would be much more difficult for another
Glenmore-type process to occur. Mr. Nitchmann agreed.
Ms. Huckle questioned whether a reference should be included until after staffs study
to determine the "outer limits" of growth has been completed.
Ms. Imhoff said she would like for there to be an acknowledgment in the Comp Plan
"that the Work Program and benchmarking for whether or not the Plan is working, is
that you have this study clearly articulated." She thought this might satisfy everyone.
She also thought it was important to state that the reason the amount of growth area is
being limited is because of the expectation that in -fill development is going to occur.
Mr. Nitchmann said he agreed with Ms. Imhoff about the in -fill statement.
(Commissioners Dotson and Jenkins did not respond to Mr. Cilimberg's question.)
The Commission briefly discussed the recommended changes to the text which were
suggested by Citizens for Albemarle.
Ms. Imhoff said she had no problems with the changes identified by staff.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the changes suggested by staff be approved. Mr.
Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Blue again expressed the feeling that though he believes that the protection of
agricultural -forestal resources is very important, he does not feel it is more important
than the protection of other things such as the water supply.
Ms. Imhoffs motion passed unanimously.
The Commission briefly discussed the Work Program - (Action Agenda for Chapter 3).
The following additions were suggested by the Commission:
--A study to determine whether there is a community need for "outdoor theater"
to be added to the Ordinance, and, if so, identify places where such a use could take
place. (Mr. Nitchmann thought there was a need for such a facility which could be used
for many purposes, e.g. fair- grounds, farmers' market, craft shows, etc.)
--Consider the possible addition of Park and Ride facilities in the County.
Ms. Imhoff thought the Action Agenda would need to be "revisited" after the completion
of discussions about the Rural Areas have taken place.
12-19-95
7
The Commission delayed action on the Work Program until the end of the meeting.
The meeting recessed from 6:35 to 7:00 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:00 p.m.
The minutes of December 5, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the December 13th Board of
Supervisors meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
Precision Sports Surfaces Preliminary Site Plan - Request to allow
construction/grading on slopes of 25% or greater and to allow one-way circulation to
minimize travelway width.
and
Thurston Drive - Proposal to vacate a portion of a dedicated public road - Finding of
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that the Consent Agenda be approved. 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 (29.2.2.2). Property, described
as Tax Map 32, Parcels 413, 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. Deferred from
November 28, 1995 Commission Meeting.
Mr. Dotson explained that though he is a tenured faculty member of the University of
Virginia, the nature of his employment is such that it does not prevent him from
participating in the review of this request in a fair and objective manner.
12-19-95 "
Mr. Andersen noted that he, too, is an employee of the University and a non -voting
member of the Commission. He said he would not participate in the discussion.
Mr. Keeler summarized the status of the application: "Staff opinion is that there are still
unresolved issues with the proffers which are primarily editorial and language issues.
We believe those can be addressed before the petition goes to the Board of
Supervisors." Mr. Keeler also said that staff had received a letter satisfactorily
addressing four of the five issues listed in staffs memo dated December 19th--(1)
Disposal of hazardous wastes [Proffer 2.2(c)]; (2) Water usage [Proffer 4.4]; (3) Right-
of-way dedication for grade separated interchange [Proffer 5:4]; and (4) Dedication of
fire station site v. Compliance with design guidelines.
Regarding the fifth issue --"The meaning of 'convey' as questioned by the County
Attorney." --Mr. Keeler explained: "Conveyance in proffer 6.1 (dealing with active
recreation and the ball fields) will be fee simple conveyance at terms acceptable to the
County. Conveyance in proffer 6.3 (dealing with the greenway along the North Fork
Rivanna River) will be fee simple conveyance as a gift."
On the issue of water usage, Mr. Keeler explained: "While we have proposed one way
to restrict water use, since the Planning Staff does not know exactly how water use
should be restricted, we would hope that you can recommend approval subject to the
applicant working with the County representatives to arrive at an acceptable
mechanism for restricting water consumption. UREF's initial proffer in this regard was
that any use which would use more than 125,000 gpd would require a special use
permit. The County Attorney's office raised the question of what will occur if there are
several uses which meet, but do not exceed, that limit." Mr. Keeler explained further:
"Overall there would still be a cap, but the aggregate effect right now is unknown
because the number of uses within the park is unknown. Mr. Keeler suggested
different approaches might be to (1) direct attention to water consumption by individual
uses; or (2) Set a cap on the park itself.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, read a
prepared statement which compared the applicant's rezoning application to the
Comprehensive Plan recommendations which were adopted in 1994 in response to
UREF's request for an amendment to accommodate this project. Her statement is
made a part of these minutes as Attachment A.
Mr. Robert Kroner, representing the Economic Development Division of the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, read a statement supporting the
request. His statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment B.
12-19-95 9
Mr. John Sacuto, representing the Steering Committee for Lake Acres, read a
statement which described discussions which have taken place with the applicant. His
statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment C.
Mr. Fred Lamp, President of Micro Aire, expressed support for the proposal.
There was no further public comment.
The applicant's representatives, Leonard Sandridge, Ellen Miller, and Dean Sincala,
responded to public comments and to Commission questions. Their comments
included the following:
--Proffers related to the floodplain and greenbelt open space have been revised
to limit improvements in those areas. All that can be placed in those areas are utilities
and trails.
--The proffers will be revised to reflect the addition of supplemental plantings to
buffers, where appropriate, so that screening will be improved.
--The sidewalk will be extended from Rt. 649 to the last development parcel and
the open space exhibit will be modified to reflect this change.
--VDOT and County staff have determined the applicant's proffers to be
acceptable and they have also determined the applicant's proffers satisfactorily address
the needs for Rt. 649, "needs which will be necessary whether UREF develops this site
° or not." The applicant has agreed to "devote money, at the county's election, to help
accelerate the time schedule for Rt. 649, improvements that are now slated for
construction in 2001."
--In reference to the temporary modular buildings, referred to in proffer 3.1, "we
have eliminated this term from that section of the proffers."
--The applicant has agreed to the Planning staffs recommendation that support
commercial will not exceed 10% of the development of any given phase.
--A note has been added to the Application Plan stating that "no free-standing
support commercial, except the Day Care Center, will be built before 500,000 square
feet of development exists."
--Regarding the timing of the construction of the Hotel center, the language in
the Application Plan has been amended "so that it is clear that the County makes that
decision, not the University Real Estate Foundation or the University."
--The conceptual land use plan has been amended to show all 6 land uses and
that has been submitted to the Planning staff.
--The applicant has "proffered and committed to provide project reports to the
County not less than every three years."
--The applicant has proffered that either the University of Virginia Foundation or
the University of Virginia will retain a seat on the Design Review Committee.
--The notes to the Zoning Application Plan have been modified to clarify that all
use locations must comply with the land use chart.
a36
12-19-95 10
--To address neighbors concerns, the applicant has committed to access all of
the lots within the site through the internal road network and not through Rt. 606, except
for the existing Quail Run Road, which was not in question."
--To address neighbors' concerns, the applicant has agreed to plant more
durable trees in the buffer zone.
--The applicant has proffered to develop and implement a preservation plan for
both the cemetery and ice pit site.
--The applicant has proffered to provide hazardous materials training to fire
personnel (as it has provided for the City and the County in the past).
--Proffers have been revised to state clearly that a minimum of 200 acres in open
space, in addition to the open space on the development parcels, will be maintained.
--The applicant feels the concerns of the PEC have been addressed (as
explained in applicant's letter dated December 8,1995).
--UREF has attempted, and will continue that attempt, to use land lease in every
instance possible. Though that was not the case in the first land transaction, UREF
does have a right of first refusal on that parcel.
--The proffers provide two options for the management of the open space --either
directly by the UREF management, or formation of an organization which will include
tenants in the Park who will participate in the management. UREF will have an on-
going role and has committed to maintaining a seat on the Design Review Committee.
The Commission discussed at some length the issue of water usage. Mr. Keeler
suggested two possible approaches --either define a type of approach without a specific
number or consider the number that has been proposed by the applicant (a special
permit required for any use greater than 125,000 gpd). Mr. Sincala explained how the
125,000 figure had been arrived at. The estimated total usage for the entire park is
500,000 to 700,000 gpd. He said the applicant had not been asked to place a total cap
on the project and he was unaware that such a restriction has ever been placed on any
other development in the community. He said: If you're going to put a limit on the
capacity we can use, then I assume you are going to offer to reserve that capacity for
the North Fork project.,Staff confirmed the ACSA envisioned no problems with
providing 500,000 to 700,000 gpd for the research park. Ms. Imhoff said she was
concerned about the potential impact to the remaining water capacity for the Piney Mt.
community. She asked if there were any obligations to provide water to any of the
other properties in the area which are already zoned for development. Mr. Keeler
explained: "The Service Authority comments emphasize that the North Fork system is
already physically connected to the urban system and it is just a matter of turning a
valve. So the Hollymead area is not necessarily limited by what comes out of the North
Fork and Chris Green Lake." Ms. Huckle thought there should be a cap placed on the
usage. She said it is conceivable that all parcels could develop at the 125,000
maximum, for a total close to 1 1/2 million. Mr. Sincala pointed out that the property
which has already been zoned already accounts for most of the water usage. The
incremental demand for this rezoning is between 100,000 to 200,000 gpd. For
12-19-95 11
comparison purposes, Mr. Keeler pointed out that if this property were to be developed
residentially at 4 units/acre, with 3-bedroom dwellings, the water usage would be
945,000 gpd. So this proposal is "below the low density urban residential." Mr.
Nitchmann thought the requiring a special permit for any use exceeding 125,000 gpd
offers a safeguard. He said staff and the applicant will have additional time to consider
whether there is a better measurement before the Board hearing. He said he relied on
staff and the applicant to address this issue. Mr. Blue agreed. Mr. Dotson said he
thought this was a "creative and useful response" to a community concern.
Referring to the residential comparison made by Mr. Keeler, Mr. Dotson wondered if the
same logic could be applied to square footage in terms of a use which could potentially
generate a large amount of traffic. Ms. Miller questioned whether "'small 'has lesser
externalities on a road system for the reason that when you have 'large' you have
employers that can do things like staggered work hours, flex time," etc., which permit
the kind of techniques that work for reducing traffic. She said she would resist applying
the same logic because she questioned whether counting the size of a user would
serve either the applicant or the County well.
Ms. Imhoff thought Mr. Dotson was suggesting that a use exceeding a certain square
footage would require a special permit. She did not think he was suggesting that there
be a cap on square footage.
Ms. Miller pointed out that traffic issues are addressed through the site review process.
Ms. Imhoff acknowledged the accuracy of the statement but noted that site plans and
subdivisions do not come before the Commission for review unless they are appealed.
Ms. Imhoff said having a special permit tied to a certain square footage would give her
a greater "comfort level" for the County. Neither Commissioner Dotson or Imhoff had
any square footage in mind.
Ms. Huckle asked why the applicant feels a Service Level D is acceptable for the traffic.
Mr. Tom Flynn (one of the applicant's representatives) responded: "A level of service D
is a commonly used and accepted standard for traffic analysis and that is the standard
VDOT has asked us to use. It is considered an acceptable level of delay at a signalized
intersection of 25 to 35 seconds at the rush hour times."
Mr. Dotson concluded from the applicant's response: "So the answer to the question is
the applicant would not be interested in attempting to apply the same logic to a kickout
based on some large square footage basis, something we might call the Motorola
provision." Mr. Sincala responded: "Yes sir, that's correct. We already have a
development cap of 3,000, 000 square feet and the water cap also provides another
sense of cap to size of user."
M
12-19-95 12
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out there are other provisions in the site plan process which
control the size of the user, e.g. the amount of parking available. Mr. Nitchmann
complimented the staff and the applicant on the work done over the past months which
has resulted in a proposal which is "coming together nicely." He thought the few
remaining issues could be addressed prior to the Board hearing. He thought this was a
"win/win" situation for the applicant and the community.
Returning to the issue of water usage, Ms. Imhoff thought it would be in the County's
best interests to have an ultimate cap on the water usage because of the question of
the cumulative impact. She thought that should be decided upon before the item is
sent on to the Board.
Ms. Huckle read the following statement: "Though I enthusiastically support this
concept, I feel there is a need to structure it so that it will be a mutually beneficial use
and a model for other commercial and industrial developments. If there is ambiguous
wording causing unintended consequences, it would be a disaster, both for the
community and the University. There are still too many unanswered questions in this
application. For this to be a successful project all these points need to be understood
by the County, the public and the future tenants. Just today I received long reports on
further clarifications which are needed. It is hard for the Planning Commission to
thoughtfully address these points on such short notice and UREF apparently has not
responded to all these legal concerns yet. We've always been told that the time to
make our concerns known is at the time of the rezoning. If we approve this today we
have no guarantee that all these loose ends will be resolved satisfactorily.
Furthermore, we've worked this long on this project so surely a few more weeks won't
be fatal. If the new Commission is given a polished, concise document to review, it
shouldn't take long. They would avoid the long study of reams of paper that we have
read so far. I would like to suggest that this be deferred until these few items in Mr.
Kamptner's report, and so on, have been ironed out to the satisfaction of UREF and the
County."
Mr. Blue said he thought a deferral would be a "completely irresponsible action by this
Commission." He thought deferring action to a new Commission would be unfair to the
new Commissioners, to the applicant and to the public. He explained that he was not
suggesting that a request be approved without the necessary safeguards, but he
thought those safeguards exist and the few remaining issues can be worked out by the
County attorney and the applicant's attorneys prior to the Board hearing.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed.
Ms. Huckle pointed out that Mr. Kamptner's report was 19 pages long. Mr. Kamptner
commented: "I met with UREF attorneys today and we worked through the proffers."
;fir, He said he and Mr. Davis, the County Attorney, "are comfortable that the overwhelming
12-19-95 13
°`'"""''' majority of the comments we had are simply to clarify what's in the proffers." He said:
"I think that between UREF and staff, they understand what they want to say, but we
were looking at these proffers in terms of who is going to have to apply them 10 to 15
years from now. We think the wordsmitting of the language can be worked out between
now and the time it goes to the Board."
Mr. Dotson noted that sometimes there may be an honest difference of opinion which
might not be realized until an effort is made to clarify the language. In those instances,
more time can be useful. He said he feels there is an obligation to "get it all clear
before it is finally approved," He concluded: 'If it is just wordsmitting, I feel that could
be done between here at the Board. If there are substantive issues, perhaps those
need to be resolved here." He asked if staff feels there are nt substantive issues.
Mr. Cilimberg said the only substantive issue which has not been addressed by the
applicant is that of the water usage and the Commission needs to give direction as to
how that should be dealt with. The other four issues identified in the staff report (and
listed at the beginning of the transcription of this item) have been addressed by the
applicant and those items will have to be addressed by definitive written proffers prior to
the Board hearing. He said all the clarity called for by the County Attorney's office, and
all those things which the applicant has proffered to do, must be specifically addressed
to the satisfaction of the County Attorney, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning
Staff prior to the item being scheduled for Board review.
Ms. Imhoff asked if the lack of phasing for the project has raised any staff concerns.
Mr. Cilimberg responded: "The phasing issue jumped out at us with the transportation
concerns. Because there are transportation improvements with this that are associated
with how this builds out, we felt that, in effect, there is a phasing plan. There is a
certain level to which they can develop under current circumstances and then under
subsequent improvements and we felt that is a phasing, in and of itself. I also think the
water usage per use--125,000 gallons --is, in effect, going to have some influence on
size of building or numbers of employees in buildings. That, too, will have some effect
on how this gets built out. We're not too concerned with that part of this because we
can deal with very specific traffic proffers.... So what it comes down to with us is the
overall water usage and whether or not you feel you or the Board needs to address
that."
Mr. Nitchmann said he did not have the expertise to set a cap on usage for the entire
project. He thought staff would be able to gather more information from the ACSA, if
more information is available, before the Board hearing.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Jenkins seconded, that ZMA-95-04 for the
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation be recommended to the Board of
.. Supervisors for approval, subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers with
�O
12-19-95 14
changes made to reflect the County Attorney's comments and with the understanding
that any changes to the proffers will be editorial in nature, and if any more substantive
changes are made prior to the Board hearing, those changes will be made clear to the
Board. The motion also supported the following:
--The requirement for a special permit for any use whose average daily water
usage is in excess of 125,000 gallons/day.
--The acceptance of the applicant's Application Plan, Road Phasing Plan, Open
Space Plan and related Phasing Plan, and Stormwater Management Plan.
--The 2 additional errata pages, one defining Support Commercial and the other
discouraging traffic on Rt. 606 in response to the Lake Acres residents' concerns.
--Staffs four recommended modifications.
Discussion:
Referring to the schedule of land uses, Mr. Dotson asked "Would the applicant be
willing to include some stipulation that more than 50% of the use --meaning
'predominantly' --would be industrial?" He felt this would give more assurance that this
is the type of project the supporters and promoters of this and the economic
development policy saw as in the community's best interest." Mr. Sincala asked that
Mr. Keeler respond to this question by stating how the application is consistent with the
Comp Plan Amendment application. Mr. Keeler responded: "I reviewed the Board
minutes of December 7, 1994, and UREF --and this is a direct quote from those
minutes --told the Planning staff that 2.3 million square feet will be categorized as Office.
400,000 square feet will be categorized as Light Industrial and 300,000 square feet will
be in Support Retail, with possibly 1/2 being a hotel. So it is clear in the minutes that
was a representation made to the Board at the time of the CPA and their current
schedule is almost identical to that, the only difference being the hotel is more than 1/2
the support commercial. Also, in some of the work papers on it, the term
industrial/office was used. I understood, from looking at the minutes, that it was always
talked about as being a good mix of uses." Mr. Sincala added: "The 2.3 million square
feet number, rather than being viewed as a ceiling, has been interpreted immediately by
everyone as something we are going to build to. If we were to apply the same logic,
we'd say the ceiling on light industrial is 3 million. What we've done, in order to perform
our traffic analysis, we had to define a mix of uses. We took the most intensive mix to
try to be conservative on projections and have said 'those will be our caps, we won't
exceed those.' Any mix that respects those caps that's different will be a lower traffic
generator.... The kind of user we're looking at, much of their space, traditionally, would
be viewed as general office space but they do in fact do assembly and light industrial
kind of work in their facility.... I think we've been consistent in our representations
throughout and I think, frankly, the generic office space is consistent with the kind of
user we'll have at North Fork."
En
12-19-95 15
Mr. Dotson asked: "So you are not interested in stipulating that it will be predominantly
industrial?" Mr. Sincala replied: "No."
Ms. Imhoff explained that her reservations were not because she did not feel this will be
a good project. Rather, she said she could not support sending something forward until
every issue has been nailed down.
Ms. Huckle agreed. She felt it was "irresponsible to approve something with so many
strings that have not been tied down." She felt approval at this time will diminish the
incentive for the County and applicant to reach agreement on some of this items.
Mr. Nitchmann disagreed with Ms. Huckle. He again stated he felt the applicant and
the staff can address any remaining issues prior to the Board hearing.
The motion passed (5:2) with Commissioners Huckle and Imhoff casting the dissenting
votes.
The Commission then took action on the three special permits.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms.lmhoff seconded, that SP-95-40 (related to
Laboratories) for UREF be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Compliance with 4.14 Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
(2) Building separation not to be less than 30 feet from the perimeter buffer areas to
adjoining properties.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr.Jenkins seconded, that SP-95-42 (related to Hotel
Conference Center) for UREF be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Not more than one hotel, motel or inn shall be permitted, not to exceed 250 lodging
rooms.
2. Conference facilities other than those as may be provided by individual occupants
shall not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the hotel/motel/inn.
3. Total gross floor area of the conference and lodging facilities shall not exceed
190,000 square feet.
12-19-95
The motion passed unanimously.
16
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SP-95-41 (related to
Support Commercial) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following condition:
1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed 5% of the total floor area exclusive of
the hotel conference use, the total floor area devoted to supporting commercial uses
shall not exceed 10% of the total floor area at any time during phase development.
The motion passed unanimously.
Noting that this had been a very complicated matter to deal with, Mr. Blue urged the
County Attorney, staff and the applicant to present this item to the Board in a clear and
understandable fashion.
The meeting recessed from 9:00 to 9:10 p.m.
Ms. Imhoff left the meeting at 9:10.
ZMA-95-19 Mill Creek Industrial Land Trust - Petition to rezone approximately 23.6
acres from LI, Light Industry to PUD, Planned Unit Development. (This land is
proposed to be added to the existing Mill Creek PUD and designated for Industrial and
Commercial use.) Property, described as Tax Map 76M1, Parcels 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
17, 18 and 20, is located on the north side of Southern Parkway approximately 500 feet
west side of Route 742 (Avon Street) in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is
recommended for Industrial Service in Neighborhood 4.
Staff requested deferral to January 9, 1996 to allow consideration of additional
applicant information.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that ZMA-95-19 be deferred
to January 9, 1995. The motion passed unanimously.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (15.1-456 Review) - Route 20/Avon
Street Connector, Monticello High School, District Park, Pool Facility and Fire/Rescue
Station.
12-19-95 17
44*" Mr. Benish explained the Commission was being asked to find that the location of the
road and the other facilities are in compliance with the Comp Plan. (Approval of design
plans was not a part of this review.)
Mr. Nitchmann asked what type of road is planned. Ms. Higgins said the Engineering
staff is seeking VDOT's approval to downgrade the road to a 3-lane cross section with
full frontage improvements at the High School.
There was no public comment on the item.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Rt. 20/Avon Street
Connector, Monticello High School, the District Park and Pool Facility and the
Fire/Rescue Station be found to be in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in
accordance with Section 15.1-456.
The motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION (Continued from 5:00 session)
240/250 Connector Road
Mr. Benish, Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Jenkins reviewed the history of the road. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff requested that VDOT study this road three years ago. To date,
staff has received no report from VDOT.
Mr. Benish offered new language to address some of the concerns about this road
raised by Mr. Jenkins at previous meetings. Though Mr. Jenkins said he preferred that
the road not be shown at all, he said he could accept the new wording as presented by
staff.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the new language describing
this road (presented by Mr. Benish) be adopted for the Comprehensive Plan and that
the road be referred to as the Park Road Connector in the Comp Plan.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson asked if the last "bullet" in the language could be excluded. Mr. Jenkins
said that the last bullet reinforces the first bullet. Mr. Dotson said he was not sure the
industrial traffic should not be on the road and, without VDOT comments, he had no
basis for making that decision.
The motion passed (5:1) with Commissioner Dotson casting the dissenting vote.
12-19-95 18
Work Program (Action Agenda) (Continued from 5:00 session)
In addition to those additions suggested at the 5:00 work session (listed previously in
these minutes), the following additional items were suggested:
--In looking toward a 20-50 year planning horizon, investigate with VDOT the
possibility of an Eastern Bypass or connector road from the Airport area to Peter
Jefferson Place.
--Add the Avon Street / Fifth Street Connector. (It was noted that this road is
already referenced in the Comp Plan.)
There was determined to be a consensus in support of the Work Program as presented,
with the addition of the four additional items.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Cilimbe
C�q