Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 30 2002 PC MinutesApril30, 2002 The Albemarle County Planning Commission and the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission held a joint work session on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 4:00 p.m., in Meeting Room 235, at the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting and public hearing began at 4:00 p.m. Albemarle County members attending were Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; William Rieley, Vice - Chairman; William Finley; Tracey Hopper; Rodney Thomas; Pete Craddock; and Bill Edgerton. City of Charlottesville members attending were Craig Barton; Nancy Damon, Vice -Chairperson; Kevin O'Halloran; Eldon Wood; Kathy Johnson Harris and Herman Key, Chairman. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Michael Barnes, Planner, and Steve Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner. Call to order and establish quorum Mr. Loewenstein, Chairman of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, called the meeting to order and established a quorum. Nancy Damon, Vice -Chairman of the City Planning Commission, called the meeting to order and established a quorum. Joint City/County Planning Commissions Worksession: CPA-01-04 — Albemarle Place — The proposal to amend Tax Map 61W, Parcels 19A and 19B Comprehensive Plan designation from Industrial Service to Regional Service to support an eventual rezoning from LI, Light Industrial to PUD, Planned Unit Development, for the purposes of creating a mixed residential office, and commercial development. The properties consist of approximately 62.24 acres and are located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District *'f'` and in Neighborhood 1. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) Michael Barnes presented the staff report and a slide presentation. He noted that they tried to shape the agenda so that they were focusing on the retail analysis study and the traffic analysis. Next week's work session would focus on the land use being specific to the site and the superblock. They were trying to maintain a focus on what determines a superblock, specifically the Hydraulic superblock that is defined by Route 29, Greenbrier Drive, Commonwealth Road and Hydraulic Road. A brief overview of what has changed since the last joint meeting is that the residential use has increased and the office use decreased. There are still a lot of structured parking uses shown in dark blue. The northern third of the project does not replicate what is in the southern portion of the site. The applicant had brought some of the other uses out towards the road. Again, staff will focus on those issues next week. He showed a cross section of the site and how it relates to the road. He noted that some of the uses had been mixed with residential over the commercial. As he presented the slides, he explained the proposed uses. Staff is recommending approval of the land use. We believe that the comp plan amendment needs some language improvements and needs to be worked on. Steve Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner, did a market analysis for the County. He is here to answer any questions. The applicant also did a market analysis. Both of these studies showed that the community in the next ten years could expect between 1.7 and 2 million square feet of gross leasable retail area to be demanded within the next ten to eleven years. These studies looked at what the current trends and demands are within our communities and how much leakage there is in the market. One of the other questions was where in our community will we meet that demand. Currently, there are three proposals. Mr. Cilimberg asked that he give the square footage of the project. Mr. Barnes stated that the square footage for the project is roughly 800,000 square feet of retail, 260,000 square feet of office and 700,000 residential or 600 units in the Albemarle Square. The town center focuses primarily on the retail component and they did not have any numbers for the residential Albemarle County Planning Commission Meeting 167 component. It is roughly in the same neighborhood as the retail. Both of these added together would be 800,000 plus square feet. Mr. Herman Key, City Planning Commissioner asked how he saw the market analysis detained since it appears that these three projects eat up the market demand for the next ten years. Mr. Barnes stated that was a good question. Mr. Rieley arrived at 4:20 p.m. Mr. Barnes stated that it was not clear because it would depend upon how much the market would allow. He pointed out that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors would make the decision. Staff does not have an answer for the question at this level. Mr. Key stated that from a market standpoint, there is only so much spending and that jeopardizes the project. Mr. Loewenstein asked if Steven Allshouse had any comments to make on the market analysis that he did for the County. Mr. Cilimberg noted that it was easy to lose sight of this when you are working with the comprehensive plan and trying to set out land use, infrastructure and public improvements that are to accommodate twenty years and beyond. We are focused here on three projects and a projection that is ten years out. But, in reality when land use gets on a map, history tells us that it does not all get developed all at once and it does not all develop within five years necessarily. The market, the private decision and the decision made by the County all play a role in this. You don't know in that decision making process when it might be identified that one or more of the projects is happening too soon and it might not be time for that project specifically. But, certainly in trying to accommodate from a land use, transportation, and infrastructure standpoint, we really need to be planning out beyond this nine or ten years that this market study shows. Ultimately, it may mean the phrasing of projects. He pointed out that was worth keeping in mind. Mr. Barnes stated that there is a limit, but it also demonstrates that there is a demand. Mr. Key stated that this could be debated for a while, but he was just trying to follow the justification. Mr. Thomas pointed out that this plan was not all retail since 39 percent of this plan was residential. Mr. Barnes noted that actually it was about 45 percent residential since the changes were made. Ms. Hopper asked what the projected time was for building this out, and Mr. Barnes stated that the full build out was in 2006. Mr. Loewenstein asked if Mr. Allshouse had anything to add? Mr. Steven Allshouse stated that Mr. Cilimberg had summarized it well. He noted that it would be built in phrases and would not be built out all at once. Mr. Barnes pointed out that the other component of this was the traffic and how they would meet the demand, which would affect all of these projects. The traffic study did several scenarios. They asked the applicant to focus on and provide some of the figures from the scenarios that they did. He focused on the four slides dealing with the traffic study. Randy Kemp, of Randy Kemp and Associates, stated that on figure 12 d) Hydraulic Road and Route 250 should actually be level service d) with the public improvements that were identified. Albemarle County Planning Commission Meeting 168 Bruce McCloud, one of the developers from New York, stated that you have to have a pre-existing commitment. He pointed out that just because a project is approved does not mean it will be executed in a short time. Mr. Craddock arrived at 4:36 p.m. Mr. Barnes stated what they were driving at here was that with or without this project, these intersections are going to be a problem in the coming years. This is shown in red and indicates that something needs to be done. He noted that the applicant needs to be a part of the solution, but they do not hold the keys to provide a solution by themselves. With that said, the applicant has shown us some improvements that they felt would make the situation not as bad as it would be without them. Going back to the Hydraulic/29 Road intersection, it is roughly the same or about 4 seconds difference, which is still a f). What they are saying is with their site and with the improvements shown in yellow through a series of signal timings and better coordinating the signals, they could get a lot of efficiency. By adding, turn lanes; you make yourself no worse off with them than without them. Mr. Rieley stated that the level is 86.6 with the applicant's improvements and the existing conditions are 74.1. Mr. Barnes stated that in 2006 without them would be 90. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that in 2006 there would be a new existing condition. Mr. Barnes stated that the point is there needs to be something bigger done than what this applicant is proposing. The County and City both have a vision for Route 29 North. Improvements to this intersection would benefit the County and the City of Charlottesville. They both want something done, but the question is how do we get there. There is a question of cooperation for a common goal between us to determine how to get this done. Staff has generated a series of possible solutions, but these have not been run through a traffic model to determine what will work. What we are saying is if we like this land use in this area, how can we achieve it. One of the solutions is creating parallel roads to Route 29 to offer more alternatives. The intersection improvements circled in red are suggestions. In addition, some phasing of developments in the County and City, creating mass transit opportunities, and transportation - managed solutions are some ideas. Ms. Hopper asked if the SLC proposal was explored for building underneath. Mr. Barnes stated no, because the traffic study did not look at grades separating the two roads. He pointed out that a grade separation at this intersection does not solve the problem. The light actually buffers this intersection. If you take out the light, then the traffic arrives sooner. These three intersections are a system and need to be thought of as such. They need to work together to determine how best to resolve this. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Rt. 250/29 interchange was part of the analysis and in fact some of the improvements were recommended there. There is a point that we need to back up to. That is that we can leave the comp plan industrial and it will develop as maybe some offices, as industries or nothing. However, we would still have this problem without any of it. We have an infrastructure problem in the City and the County for whatever we have to deal with in terms of growth and development. This project is certainly contributing long term to that, but so is every project in the City and County on Route 29 that happens. If we do not deal with it as a community, it does not matter what we do with this land use since we are still going to have that problem. We cannot change the land use in the comprehensive plan, but we better well change this and deal with it. That is something that hopefully is being addressed through the project, Chart. If this is the problem, then the City and County need to address the issue together. Now the question is does that mean that we do not change this land use because we think it may contribute to the problem when something else and other things that happen are also going to contribute to the problem. Do we look at the land use and say that it stands on its own as a potential better land *ftw use, more fitting what we would like to try to achieve in the County and possibly for the community in Albemarle County Planning Commission Meeting 169 general than what we have now. It is almost two questions here. One is what are we going to do about an issue that really exists for this community that has nothing to do with this project. What we will be doing to do in our land use plan is very much about this project and about that whole superblock. How, if we make a change in the land use which we think is a better land use than we have there, can we deal with some of those problems that are transportation related right up front in terms of the way we amend that plan. It does not assure that anybody gets a rezoning approval tomorrow, next week or a year from now. Hollymead Town Center is now into a rezoning, but it is not yet on the table for that kind of action. But at least it gets us moving in that direction of trying to address the things that are truly important to the community both in transportation and land use. Mr. Loewenstein agreed with what had been said. That needs to be our focus not just for today, but also in future sessions. Mr. Rieley agreed with the general principles. He believed that there is a nexus between this proposal of land use change and transportation improvements that are important to acknowledge at the front end and are important to gravel with early on because of the fact that it is going to involve City/County cooperation in solving them. The reason that I hate to disassociate it, since land use is one thing and transportation another, is because of the physical location of things within this area. Both are directly affected according to how these intersections or interchanges are handled. I hate to move too far into this without having all of the options on the table as things that have been considered. The City has put forth a vision that is noted on a slide that looks very similar to the SELC illustration. Those two have a lot of appeal both from the perspective of how this area will develop and from the efficiency of handling the traffic. While I agree that one does not necessarily depend entirely on the other, the problem is certainly not going to go away regardless of what happens. He felt that they should be looking at all of these options together, including the interchange possibilities and the urban design implications of that as we look at the comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Barnes agreed, but asked when and how they could do this with the CPA and ZMA. How we deal '+ with things in the County now is that we deal with many of the practical aspect issues at the rezoning stage. What you are proposing here is a big process that needs to be thought through. At the rezoning stage, we think that when it comes to the road design potentially for what you do in this intersection for the phasing of the development, you have to leave enough room for potential improvements. Those questions can be dealt with at the rezoning stage. Mr. Cilimberg stated that since we know this needs to be done as a CPA, we should set out what those expectations are. To that sense, truly it is not just about putting a land use designation on a map. It is also about the infrastructure improvements and the way it has to be looked at and accommodated as land develops. Mr. Loewenstein stated that because of the scale of this project and the potential impact over long term with two jurisdictions and a major highway involved, he felt that this may suggest that we play a little bit with how the process might otherwise work. Several people have articulated that the transportation component of this is critically significant regardless of who develops there or what precisely that looks like. Anything that goes in even now under existing by -right use would have an impact on a situation that is already terrible. He suggested that they try to get as much of this analysis done as broadly and early on as possible. He felt that the SELC is one component that ought to be factored in. Mr. Key noted concerns about any project that was built north of Route 29 because if nothing happened that the intersections would still have an unacceptable level. The traffic impact will be very significant particularly if this project is built. Mr. Edgerton stated that Mr. Cilimberg's comments were right on target. He stated that they needed to address this with staffs help if they increase the flow of traffic through those intersections. He asked if the developer decided not to pursue the rezoning, were they talking about the same impact on the infrastructure. That seems to be the bottom line of the whole thing. Staff can ask the developer to make Albemarle County Planning Commission Meeting 170 provisions to allow for additional lanes or maybe through traffic. If the property was developed by right tomorrow, would it have the same impact on the property? Mr. Barnes noted that staff has nothing definite without a plan to review. Mr. Edgerton noted that it would be hard to calculate. Mr. Barnes stated that there are many variables here. Ms. Hopper stated that staff was making an opposition argument. It will not improve things, but it will not make it worse. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that they focus on the CPA from the standpoint of changing the plan Mr. Thomas stated that the traffic study was broad. Currently a regional traffic study is being done, but the last one was done in 1994/1995. CHART was currently working on getting it done, but he was not sure if they would receive the funds. He pointed out that nothing would help that intersection except taking some of the traffic off the road to another road. Mr. Rieley noted that every study that he knew of has suggested that interchanges on that roadway are more effective than a parallel roadway in addressing traffic flow and the area of service. Mr. Barnes stated that only so much traffic could be placed on one road Mr. Rieley noted that one of the realities of integrating the transportation issues with the urban design component in this is that the vision of the physical configuration of what this area is going to look like has limitations if we continue to add turn lanes. These images are beginning to look like the widest street in the world. We are losing the urban quality that we are trying to get if we approach the traffic problem this li%W way. That is why he would like these two things thought of together. n Mr. Cilimberg stated that was the point that Michael made in his report that we have probably gotten to about the limit on the number of lanes that could be added to Route 29 to solve the problem. Ms. Damon asked if these studies took into consideration a major change in how people would travel? Mr. Barnes noted that we could study this to death, but this was beyond what the applicant can do as well as beyond what the County can do. The solutions that you are talking about whether it is a shuttle service, bus service, or increasing the density so that it becomes a walkable corridor are all great ideas as far as a long term solution. But the question is how do we get to that solution from here? Mr. Loewenstein asked if the study consider that, and Mr. Barnes stated that it did not. Ms. Hopper stated that the large infrastructure issues affect the City and the County and then beyond that the Virginia Department of Transportation and the State. She asked if there was any way that they could sit down and lay out a master plan. She noted that the Chart and the MPO committees are involved. She acknowledged that there were resource problems. She pointed out that one of the things that the Disc model says that was stressed repeatedly during this meeting was that you build your infrastructure while you are looking at your applications. She asked if there were any plans for this? Mr. Cilimberg stated it was concurrency. He noted that was an interesting point because we are so far behind in that concept here. It is probably not even on the radar screen in terms of dealing with development in this corridor. He noted that we are not close. Mr. Key stated that maybe now is the time to make that a number one priority. This project heightens the awareness that this is a political problem. Albemarle County Planning Commission Meeting 171 Mr. Loewenstein noted that the Virginia Department of Transportation was a part of the problem. He noted that it was easier said than done, but he agreed. Ms. Hopper suggested that both the City and County Commissions and Boards focus on the issue and unite. Mr. Key stated that this would be a continual problem if we keep discussing the issues without dealing with the problems. Mr. Wood stated that storm water is a big issue particularly at K-Mart. He noted that the report stated that the potential limit of the capacity was unknown. He asked how close he would get to the limit on this project. Mr. Barnes stated that the limit is based on the infiltration problems upstream from the site. If you have a big storm and many rainwater flows in there, you get spills. If you correct that problem, then the capacity problem may go away. The folks at Rivanna said that they do not have a good handle on what the problem is. They need to look at it more carefully. This could be an issue. Mr. Wood stated that the plan on the wall could be integrated to the shopping center across the road. Mr. Barnes noted that they were talking about the Comprehensive Plan and what they would like to see. The reality of the site might be different. When you get to the rezoning question, you ask what can you accomplish and what cannot you accomplish. The applicant has given us a lot of information at the beginning and we are almost overloaded. When we get down to the details, we lose sight of the overarching thing. The plan for the super box was what we wanted to look at first. That is what we are trying to do here. When we get back to the rezoning site, it may be the fact that they can't make this road connection to the shopping center maybe because it is too close to this intersection or because the road is too close to the Sperry factory and they can't get that land. Obviously, one of the improvements that this plan has over the previous one is that the street in this section aligns between these two roads. Then if the factory ever redevelops, then we get that connection. This plan does not have the site connections between the two developments that we would like. Alternatively, if this road were aligned here, maybe the development would be on this side of the block. Our ultimate goal is to align those things up, but it may not be possible. Mr. Cilimberg noted that we might not be able to accomplish all of that in the rezoning. What we would want to do in the rezoning is to make sure we accommodate what the Comprehensive Plan amendment called for. This means if this were the pattern of Ridge Street layout that we want to make sure that nothing is happening in development that would foreclose that possibility. We might not be able to make every connection initially because they might not have the control of the land to do that. At least their street system would line up to allow for those connections. They do not have any control over the Sperry property itself. In their acquisition, they did not get access to the existing Sperry entrance. Ideally, we would want to have that. We should not foreclose that possibility for the future even in this development if we could not get it. Mr. Finley asked where they go to from here. He pointed out that they know that the development will create more storm water and more traffic. He asked if they should concentrate on the master plan to see if we think it is a good project and then see if there are feasible solutions. Mr. Loewenstein stated that today we are talking about a land use change in the Comprehensive Plan. The application that generated that request is not necessarily the application that will end up there. We do not know that yet. Right now, we are looking at the possibility of changing the land use so that the application that will be before us at the time of the rezoning would fit the Comprehension Plan as amended. The large issues were transportation, which was one of the biggest ones, infrastructure issues, storm waters and others. Even without that land use change, there will be problems down the road. With the land use change, there might be problems as well. He felt it was important to look at the big picture right now. He noted that many the details will come later, but the land use was what they were Albemarle County Planning Commission Meeting 172 M focused on at the moment. The transportation issues are very important and they do need to broaden the focus of the traffic study. He stated that this was one work session with many more to come before they actually considered the CPA. Mr. Cilimberg stated that they have discussed some of the external factors that this project affects and also that affects this project. Those external factors, if you were to amend the Comprehensive Plan, need to be pretty clearly laid out in that amendment. The amendment is not just about this super block in that sense. If you were to amend the plan, those external elements need to be very clearly addressed and some expectations set on how they would be dealt with. The other part would be going back and looking at the immediate super block. In particular, looking at the proposal for development of part of that super block in the context of a Comp Plan Amendment and the land use proposal for immediate infrastructures that they propose, the land use relationships and so forth. That part we propose to discuss with you next week. That is the other part that would need to be addressed in a Comp Plan Amendment. That is the way he could lay it out for them as a way to approach this, if the plan were to be amended. Mr. Barnes stated that one place that clarification would be helpful is obviously in these external factors with or without the change in the land use. In dealing with the land use, do we want to resolve the transportation issues? Mr. Loewenstein stated that they wanted to do it concurrently. Ms. Hopper stated that they should tie the two issues together. She felt that there was a consensus of both the Planning Commissions that the traffic and infrastructure issues have to be addressed before we say yes this a superior land use to the current situation and the CPA changes are better. She asked if they could tie that to these external issues. Mr. Loewenstein felt it would be important to do that if they were going to put emphasis on that. Ms. Hopper asked if they could put more pressure on the County to make that more on the front burner. Mr. Craddock stated that personally he did not know how much pressure you can put on anybody because he has lived here all his life and Route 29 was pretty much as bad as it was when he was a kid, only bigger. That Hydraulic intersection will still be the same in five years if something does not happen to that Sperry property. Mr. Rieley stated that this is relevant to not only the transportation issues, but to issues like storm water in which there is a connection between private initiative and public responsibility to make sure that these things are handled. We should look at all of these things relevant to this proposal as an opportunity to get all of the things that need to be done. He felt that the storm water system has to be looked at into Meadow Creek and beyond. There are things that can be done on site as well as things that are a public responsibility that a project of this scale gives us an opportunity to look at realistically. Mr. Edgerton stated that there were two points which staff raised that were worth mentioning. One was that there is a real mix of what the applicant was proposing on the south and the north part of the project in the scale and theme of development. He would like to hear from the applicant if there is any flexibility there. Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that some of that they would be dealing with next week. Mr. Edgerton asked about streams. Mr. Barnes noted that they would deal with streams next week. Mr. Key stated that he had a process question in if the City would have some input in that. Albemarle County Planning Commission Meeting 173 Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that they would consider the infrastructure needs up front, particularly because of the situation with the Virginia Department of Transportation that affects both jurisdictions. He asked Mr. Cilimberg if he would like to speak to the process. Mr. Cilimberg stated regarding the process, their hope was to lay out for you today what we thought were those things that you were interested in at the last work session in addressing. In particular, that was transportation issues and the market affects in the broad sense of what this particular project might have in count for total market for demand and so forth. We need to give some general context to what this particular area means to the community. It would be very good to establish that the transportation issue was not one much bigger than this project or even the super block proposal as a comp plan amendment. He felt that everybody has agreed that was the case. From a process standpoint, the question is if this particular Comp Plan Amendment is delayed to allow that bigger issue, which has existed for some time and probably, will exist for some time, to be further addressed. Or does the Comp Plan Amendment move forward with an acknowledgement and a direct tie to the things needing to be addressed before any true development can start taking place. Mr. Rieley agreed with the way he has addressed street connections. He would like for them to have an equally clear vision of the target for more of Route 29 and how the intersection/interchange is handled with the limits of the street widening and addition of lanes. How can the vision that has been articulated by both the City and the SLEC be accommodated and have that has a strategic target. That would not necessarily be the solution. They do not want to make a decision that locks them into something that they do not want. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was something that he was not sure they could get their hands around entirely right now. That puts the issue of amending the plan in some uncertainty. On one hand, they could consider an amendment to the plan that would recognize those things, but that may not be identified very well. Or we could not amend and try to identify them better before we do. It is a time question on whether to deal with it now or later. Mr. Rieley asked to what degree does the reality that the interchanges have been removed from the six - year plan. What practical effect does that have on our deliberations relative to the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Cilimberg stated that if they feel that those interchanges and any other improvements in the corridor are important to be considered and to be studied and potentially be built, then they should say so in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the County's position has not changed on those things necessarily. To complete the process element of this, our other intent was that next week we would be more focused on this area in terms of the things that could be done with this if the plan were to be amended? We had hoped that with getting the external aspects and the internal aspects addressed during these two weeks, that we might then have a better idea of the ability to proceed with an amendment to the plan or if more would have to be done. We felt that we might be able to proceed with something and bring you some ideas based on this work session and the next. He felt that the transportation issue was going to be the toughest issue to get their arms around in terms of anything specific. So we will have to get some direction from the Department of Transportation and how the Commission feels the degree of transportation identification should be made in this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Loewenstein added if they decide to do that, how could they best achieve it in working with the City and VDOT. Mr. Kidd stated from their perspective, they would like to have dialogue, discussion and the opportunity to make input. Mr. Loewenstein stated that the fact that they were meeting jointly certainly indicates that they were taking it very seriously that they need to work together. He pointed out that Mr. Thomas was a representative on CHART and MPO. He asked if a member of the City Commission was a member. He suggested that they take this discussion back to the Chart meeting for their consideration. This was Albemarle County Planning Commission Meeting 174 something that needed to be considered on a regional basis. He noted that they have many possibilities on how to address this. Mr. Thomas noted that they have traffic studied Route 29 North to death. He asked what would happen to the property if they changed the Comp Plan now and can this development take place. Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that the Comp Plan Amendment does not guarantee anything because there is still the rezoning application. Mr. Thomas asked if the traffic issues would hold up the Comp Plan being amended. Mr. Loewenstein noted that was the question. Mr. Key noted that solutions have been thrown out, but nobody feels that they are the proof. He favored moving slowly and having these solutions thought out and answered because it has both short and long term consequences. Mr. Barton noted that it would be good before we leave tonight to have some idea of where this discussion is heading. Ms. Damon asked if the MPO was currently actively discussing this? Mr. Cilimberg stated that the City and County were active with the MPO Committee, CHART and UNJAM on all of the transportation issues. There is an active recognition of this problem at that level. He felt it was going to be a integral element of the CHART and UNJAM process whichever one you want to call it. Sometimes you can over committee these things to death. We have responsible individuals and bodies and let us make sure they understand that this is something that needs to be addressed. Mr. Barton asked that the two Commissions make a resolution or pass a motion that said that at a joint meeting they would like these issues to be focused on or have the heat turned up on it. Ms. Hopper asked that the Chairs to jointly monitor this and get back with us soon to keep the issues on the front burner. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was not on the front burner not because it is not understood or recognized in the Chart process. It is not on the front burner in terms of any program to do it or to make improvements and to really actively be aggressively undertaking them. We do not have any monies in any programs to do that. We trip all over ourselves in the ones that we have. Mr. Loewenstein preferred to see them work on these issues at next week's meeting. They will continue to meet, but he was not sure they could achieve a specific way this evening to deal with that part of the problem. They need to seriously take it into account. He would suggest that the representative of CHART and MPO bring this matter up at the next meeting and that comments are provided to the Commission. He asked that they bring any suggestions back to next week's work session. Mr. Cilimberg stated that in the interest of time to progress with these issues, maybe the City and County staff can get together to work on these issues. It probably will not be before next week's meeting. They certainly can work together on identifying some very pointed and direct kinds of actions that need to be undertaken for recommendations on how to tackle the problem of the Route 29 corridor. Even if we do not change the land use, we may very well want to change our Comprehensive Plan to incorporate this. We can get back to the City and County Planning Commissions with that. It will be very transportation focused. It is really about handling the problem no matter what happens. We are going to have to deal with. They want to talk with VDOT on how this all fits together and talk with the staff of MPO in order to come up with a plan of attack that could be incorporated in the City's as well as the County's Comprehensive Plans. This is something that really needs to be addressed. Then next week we could focus on what it is about this particular area, within this super block area, that we do and do not like with Albemarle County Planning Commission Meeting 175 n what has not been put on the table. He asked that the local transportation issues be tied into this area. He asked what time they wanted to have the work session next week. Ms. Damon asked for the meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m. due to the City election. After discussion, the Commissions reached the following consensus: The City and County staff with assistance from VDOT need to work together on a process and a strategy to address the U S 29N Corridor traffic problem. They tasked staff to get together and come up with recommendations that could be considered as part of this CPA. The next joint City/County work session on CPA-01-04, Albemarle Place, will be held on Tuesday, May 7 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 to the Planning Commission's regular meeting at 6:00 p.m. in Meeting Room # 241. (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Taylor, Recording Secretary) Albemarle County Planning Commission Meeting 176 °•� April 30, 2002 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 6:00 p.m., in Meeting Room 241 at the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting and public hearing began at 6:00 p.m. in Meeting Room # 241. Members attending were Jared Loewenstein; Chairman; William Rieley, Vice - Chairman; William Finley; Tracey Hopper; Rodney Thomas; Pete Craddock; and Bill Edgerton. Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Steven Biel, Planner; and Michael Barnes, Planner. Call to Order and establish quorum Mr. Loewenstein called the meeting to order and established a quorum. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public Jeff Werner, representative for Piedmont Environmental Council, stated that this issue was not on tonight's agenda. This is about the 29 by-pass and the conversation will apply as the Commission sees fit. This is from notes from the recent public hearing. According to VDOT's own study, the Base Case on 29, which was the widening of Route 29 with grade separated interchanges, would raise the level of service on Route 29 from F to B regardless of whether or not the by-pass is built. Thereby, it fulfilled the primary stated purpose of the original project. If the by-pass is built, this is from VDOT's own information, and the grade -separated interchanges are not, the level of service on Route 29 would remain F. Concerning through -traffic time, a VDOT document of July, 1990 obtained under the FOIA, indicates that approximately only one minute of travel time is saved by the by-pass as compared to the improved BASE case. The BASE case is the widening that has been done with the interchanges. VDOT has never released this information to the public. Additionally, a December, 1994 report from a VDOT consultant, which again was obtained from FOIA and never released to the public, concluded that a grade separated interchange at Hydraulic Road would reduce delay time by 80 percent with or without the by-pass. Finally, the cost estimates of interchanges have been estimated at less than one- third of the total cost of the by-pass. If the by-pass were built, the concern would be what will be left for any improvements such as the intersection at Hydraulic Road. Consent Agenda: Mr. Loewenstein asked if any Commissioner wished to remove an item from the consent agenda. If not, he asked for a motion for approval. SUB-02-25 Woodlands Cove Preliminary Subdivision Private Road Request — Request for authorization to construct one private roads in a subdivision. (Karl Guiller) Approval of Planning Commission Minutes — March 19, 2002 Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the consent agenda as presented. Ms. Hooper seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Items Requesting Deferral SP-00-057 St. David's Anglican Church (Sign #89, 90) — Request for special use permit to allow a church in accordance with Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for church buildings and adjunct cemeteries by special use permit. The property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 68 is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District on Colthurst Drive (Route # 1001) at the intersection of Colthurst Drive & Barracks Road (Route # 654). The property is zoned RA. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. (Scott Clark) DEFERRED Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes — April 30, 2002 177 FROM THE MARCH 19, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO MAY 21, 2002 Mr. Loewenstein stated that the applicant for SP-00-057, St. David's Anglican Church, is requesting deferral until May 21. He asked for public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission. Mr. Edgerton moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral to May 21. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The Commission unanimously deferred SP-00-057 to May 21, 2002. Deferred Items: SP 2001-033 Bethel Baptist Church (Sign 34 & 35) — Request for special use permit to allow the construction of a 6,944 square foot expansion for a church sanctuary, classroom and fellowship hall, in accordance with Section (10.2.2.35) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for church uses in the Rural Areas. The subject parcel, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 25, contains approximately 3.004 acres, zoned RA. This site is located just east of Route 29 North at the intersection of Burnley Station Road (State Route 641) and Watts Passage (State Route 600). The property lies within theRivanna Magisterial District in the area designated as Rural Areas 2 by the Comprehensive Plan. DEFERRED FROM THE MARCH 26, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Mr. Biel presented the staff report as follows: Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a special use permit to allow for the construction of an additional building containing a sanctuary, classrooms, and basement (Attachment A). The proposed addition would contain 7,480-sq. ft., for 10, 720sq. Ft., including the existing building. There would be an additional 26 parking spaces provided, for 54 parking spaces. The proposed building would be connected to the existing church by an enclosed breezeway. The applicant is also requesting to use two storage sheds (constructed without approval) as temporary classrooms (Attachment D). Upon completion of the proposed sanctuary, the temporary classrooms would be used as storage for church -related items. Update: At its March 26 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested the applicant provide more detail in regard to showing the proposed lighting in the parking area and to provide the topography on the site plan. In addition, the applicant was requested to provide building elevations for review by the Planning Commission. Finally, the Engineering Department was to provide comments on the BMP/stormwater basin. In response to the Planning Commission requests, the applicant has submitted the following: 1. Lighting has been shown in three locations on the current concept/site plan (one pole with a double head and two wall -mounted). The installation of the lights would be in accordance with Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Building elevations have been included in Attachment A. 3. Topography also has been provided. Engineering has requested off -site topography be provided with the submittal of the site plan application to show drainage from the BMP/stormwater . basin outlet to an adequate channel. A drainage easement may be needed on TMP 21-24A1. This issue would be addressed at the site plan stage. The Engineer has reviewed and approved Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes — April 30, 2002 178 cm drainage calculations. The Engineering Department has also requested all parking areas and travelways used by the church, excluding the driveway to the' residence, be paved. Engineering has computed the trip generation for the church with the proposed addition to be 984 trips per week. In accordance with Section 4.12.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, paving would be required for the access aisles, parking areas, and loading areas when there would be more than 350 vehicle trips per week. Landscaping or curbing would be installed between the parking lots and the driveway to the parsonage. This barrier would be installed to ensure a safe and convenient access to the church and the residence as described in Section 32.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Creating a barrier would eliminate any possible confusion as to where the separation is regarding the parking lot and the driveway for the residence. Additional conditions have been added to address the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. These new conditions are listed under the Conditions of Approval and are in bold Italic. Petition: Request for a special use permit to allow the construction of a 7,480 square foot expansion for a church sanctuary, classroom and fellowship hall, in accordance with Section [10.2.2.35] of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for church uses in the Rural Areas. The subject parcel, described as Tax Map 21-Parcel 25, contains approximately 3.004 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. The site is located just east of Route 29 North at the intersection of Burnley Station Road (Route 641) and Watts Passage (Route 600). The property lies within the Rivanna Magisterial District in the area designated as Rural Areas 2 by the Comprehensive Plan. SUMMARY: wr+ Staff has identified the following factors favorable to these applications: 1. The Land Use Plan suggests that churches are supportive to the rural areas in the County. 2. The church building has been located at the site since 1935 and expansion often ensures a continuing congregation. 3. Future activities and expansions would be controlled through the special use permit conditions. Staff has identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request: In the past, adjacent property owners have had concerns regarding future expansion. Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any questions for staff. He stated that condition number seven states that a site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. He asked Greg if this is sufficient to call the final site plan. Mr. Rieley noted that it only relates to the temporary building. Mr. Edgerton suggested that the word final be added to the condition. Mr. Loewenstein stated that the review was for the storage building. He questioned whether that was the original intent. Mr. Kamptner stated that the intent was to have a condition that would make sure that the final site plan came back to the Commission. '4%W Mr. Rieley noted that it does not read that way. Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes — April 30, 2002 179 Mr. Kamptner suggested that a separate condition be added that says that the final site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing on the matter. He asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. SPEAKER FOR REQUEST: Mr. William M. Verebely, Jr., of Verebely and Associates Architects of Chesapeake, Virginia, represented the applicant. He noted that they have addressed all of Mr. Rieley's concerns. The elevations were sent in as requested. The topo was added to the drawing as requested. In addition, the VMP was pulled away from the property line in order to add some distance. He encouraged the Commission to approve this application. Mr. Loewenstein asked for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed; and the matter before the Commission. Mr. Thomas moved for approval for SP-2001-033 with the conditions as amended. Mr. Finley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with the amended conditions as follows: 1. The church's improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be developed in general accord with the site plan entitled "Addition to Bethel Baptist Church", prepared by Scott A. Smith, and dated April 2, 2002. 2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 216-seat sanctuary. 3. Health Department approval of existing well and septic systems as well as any improvements to the existing systems. 4. Commercial setback standards for side and rear setbacks, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential uses or residentially zoned properties (including RA zoned property). The front setback shall conform to the Rural Areas standard as set forth in Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. 5. There shall be no daycare center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit. 6. VDOT approval of entrances and closures including providing entrance radii and profile on the site plan, closure of the entrance to Burnley Station Road (Route 641), the existing entrance (approximately 15' wide) to Watts Passage (Route 600) being closed and relocated approximately 90' to the south. The proposed new entrance shall meet commercial standards. 7. A site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission before the two (2) storage buildings (designated storage building #1 and storage building #2 on the site plan dated March 10, 2002) are used as temporary classrooms. A certificate of occupancy shall be required prior to their use as temporary classrooms. 8. Within thirty (30) days upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed church addition, the storage buildings shall no longer be permitted to be used as temporary classrooms. 9. The residential dwelling on the property shall be used only as a parsonage residence. 10. Prior to final site plan approval, off -site topography shall be shown on the site plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department. 11. All existing gravel areas not included in the existing and proposed parking areas and travelways shall be replaced with vegetative cover. 12. All parking areas shall drain to the proposed BMP/stormwater basin. 13. The final site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes — April 30, 2002 180 Mr. Loewenstein stated that the Board of Supervisors would hear the special use permit on June 19. Public Hearing Item: ZTA-01-06 Fill and waste — Amend Section 3.1, Definitions, and Section 5.1.28, Borrow, fill, or waste areas, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, to add definitions related to borrow, fill or waste activities, to amend the types of materials that may be placed in a fill and waste area from soil and rock to soil and inert materials such as rubble, concrete, bricks, broken bricks and blocks, and to amend the regulations applicable to borrow, fill or waste areas and activities including, but not limited to, reducing from 10,000 cubic yards to 10,000 square feet the threshold at which the activity is subject to an approved plan, requiring ongoing maintenance of the activity area, and delineating prohibited locations, hours of operation, duration limitations, and surety and reclamation requirements. (See the copy of the attached staff report.) Michael Barnes stated that he did not have that much to say tonight because Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator and Mr. Graham, County Engineer were present to answer questions about any concerns. He noted that last time he was requested to find more information on asphalt. He noted that he had made a good faith effort to compile information from the government bureaucracy from the state to federal level to not much avail. He stated that he did not find anything during his search. There was one gentleman from the University of Florida who did not respond. The effort related to wasting of structure materials focuses on the debris that comes out of the buildings themselves, like wood and asbestos. It did not talk about concrete. There were some concerns about the materials in the concrete. He stated that he would be more than happy to provide that information. He pointed out that he also had some web links. He asked for direction from the Commission. Mr. Loewenstein asked if his bottom line summary would be that essentially that the jury is out as �Oww far as asphalt is concerned. We don't really have a definite answer. He noted that initially he was interested in this and had asked that he work on this. He stated that he had searched the web for information. There appears to be one of two possibilities. Either people have opinions that are definite and they seem to be pretty evenly balanced, or people really did not offer a firm opinion. In neither case was it terribly helpful. He noted that he came to a similar conclusion that no definite study has been done. Mr. Barnes stated that there is asphalt everywhere in our environment. He noted that there was a question if that was a hazardous substance when you bury it or pave the street. It is not a satisfactory answer. It is sort of a pragmatic response to it. Mr. Loewenstein noted that there apparently was some distinction depending upon how deep you bury it. Typically, he did not think most of that debris that contains that gets buried deeply enough to be as significant a factor as it is when it is simply on top of the soil as paved surface with the run off. He found that it was hard to come up with a definite conclusion based on what he saw. Mr. Barnes stated that potentially one way of reading that is that since there is not something definitely against it, then maybe that means that there is nothing that you can go forward with. He questioned how strong that deductive logic was. Mr. Loewenstein stated that it was not that it has not been studied at all. The conclusions were not conclusive. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Graham if asphalt were not included as a part of this, if it would still be allowed to a certain degree. For instance, if you just scrapped it up and used it as the base for a y%Ww roadway being constructed. Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes — April 30, 2002 181 Mr. Graham stated that the recycling of asphalt pavement would not be considered that when we yam, use it for roads. It would be considered road base material in that circumstance. Mr. Kamptner stated that he would like to ask Ms. McCulley and Mr. Graham a couple of questions. The first question pertains to whether or not someone can create a borrow, fill or waste area without an approved site plan or subdivision plat. Is any parcel in the County open for fill and waste activity? Mr. Graham stated that the answer was yes they can right now and yes they will be able to if this ZTA is passed. That does not change. The big difference is that right now they can do it up to 10,000 cubic yards. For perspective, if you look at the lowest parking lot in the County parking lot, that is the size of that parking lot filled about 3 feet deep. That is what they can do right now without falling under a grading permit. With this change, that would change to 10,000 square feet. They feel that would be a significantly smaller impact. Mr. Kamptner stated that a borrow area is different because it was an identified use in the RA zone only. Therefore, it was only allowed in the RA zone. Mr. Graham stated that within the RA zone, the additional factor of having to comply with the soil erosion program, is that it is legal to cut the trees there. In the other zoning districts, it is not legal to cut the trees greater than six inches. Therefore, if someone comes in to submit for an erosion control plan to disturb a hillside, then there is nothing that he can do as the soil erosion plan administrator to stop him from doing that. Mr. Kamptner stated that the other question dealt with the relationship between these regulations and the critical slope regulations. He asked if you can fill and waste on a critical slope. Mr. Graham stated that this was a little tricky. The bottom line answer is that you can do a certain amount right now, and you will be able to do the same amount after this ZTA is passed. Mr. Kamptner stated that in getting responses from Ms. McCulley, Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Graham this afternoon, he thought the consensus was that fill and waste with respect to critical slopes was an issue that would be dealt with as part of the critical slopes zoning text amendment. That zoning text amendment is still being worked on. There was another question that he asked earlier. That was the idea of a maximum area of a particular parcel that could be used for fill and waste activity for a percentage of the total area or some kind of maximum. What is the practicality of something like that? Mr. Graham stated that the practicality depends on the size of the parcel obviously. What are we trying to regulate with respect to that? If we are trying to say it needs to be set back a certain distance from adjoining uses or something like that. Rather than worry about the area, the setback would be the issue there. Currently, you can grade right up to the property line. Theoretically, that borrow pit could be right at your fence line. Mr. Kamptner asked Ms. McCulley if she had anything to add? Ms. McCulley stated that in terms of the maximum area, they were not going in the direction of permitting an ongoing primary use of the property. This would be like a landfill or a dump area. That is not what we are trying to permit. That would be a different animal. It came up in the public meeting that we had. Staff does not support this idea at this time. Mr. Craddock asked if she was saying that someone could not accumulate a lot of asphalt to use later. Ms. McCulley stated that was right. One of the ideas that came up was that it was helpful for excavating companies to have a receiving site for their different activities such as soil, asphalt or Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes — April 30, 2002 182 concrete. This would be one site that they know that they can take this stuff and either fill it or ,,. waste it and keep it there. They wanted that to be allowed to continue. Basically, staff felt that was in a different direction than where they were heading with the zoning text amendment. That was really talking about a type of use. If it becomes a primary activity it is not just accessory as it relates to finding a place to put the excess cut from some other site. That becomes a primary activity that staff was not ready to support as a new use in the Zoning Ordinance. In that respect in terms of a maximum, if something goes on for a long period of time, even with a link to an erosion control plan, if it becomes an ongoing activity, then Zoning would step in and say that is a different use and is not a permitted. Mr. Loewenstein ascertained that she was in favor of maintaining the one-year time period that this calls for as well. Ms. McCulley stated that there needed to be a time period because in some settings there may be some nuisance impacts that would inappropriate to neighbors. Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing. He asked if anyone would like to speak. SPEAKER FOR REQUEST: Katurah Roell, representative for the applicant, thanked staff for organizing the meetings with the different parts of the development community. The issues that came to bear that surprised all of us was simply when they said that concrete and black top are not permitted after the interpretations that they were. Someone had interpreted because there was rock and soil in the concrete and black top fell out of that category. That had a big impact on all of us in the County. Hauling the material out to a warehouse at BFI and to Fluvanna County to dump it was not a realistic solution. The point came up by making this something that was acceptable in this County according to the Zoning Ordinance was acceptable Statewide. They wanted to also make sure that concrete and its usage is a good soil retainer and a good embankment. In talking with the Engineering Department, gabion baskets filled up with broken up concrete are great for stabilizing banks. Those types of materials used in various situations, inert as they are, don't hurt land and help all of us deal with our problems. He noted that there was a situation today and week ago where someone drove over a curve or a sidewalk and broke up a half a dump truck of concrete. What is he suppose to do with it? Haul it off to Zion Crossroads or haul it across the street and dump it in the fill area. Right now, he noted that he was stockpiling it on his site so he could figure out what to do with it. There area dozen other developers in town that have to deal with these same type of situations. There is no impact on the land. He was in favor of not allowing the dumping of stumps, refrigerators, washing machines and those kinds of items. He noted that he gets tired of cleaning these types of items off of their property when other people dump them. Enforcement is the key issue here. He appreciated the effort that the staff has made for waste areas, fill areas, borrow areas and the widely accepted materials that go in them as long they are properly done with a good inert material. He felt that they should continue to be approved with reasonable material and put in a waste area. He asked that the Planning Commission support this. Mr. Finley if the 10,000 square foot maximum without an erosion control permit have any real impact on excavators? Mr. Roell stated yes it does to the extent that you have to follow County procedure to file a plan on how you will deal with the disturbed area. He noted that personally he did not have any problems with that. Mr. Finley stated that in the past it did not require that over 10,000 square feet would not require an erosion plan. Mr. Roell stated that that it was. That was the point that Engineering has brought forth to just add clarity to this regulation. He had sat down with Ms. McCulley and talked about what was allowed Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes — April 30, 2002 183 and how this can be interpreted. This type of material needs to go somewhere in close proximity or it just affects everyone in one way or the other with our tax dollars. The material had no degradation because it got packed and covered. Mr. Loewenstein asked for other comments from the public. Jeff Werner, of Piedmont Environmental Council, noted that it was his understanding that a lot of this has to do with some road pavement that needed to be disposed of. He agreed that concrete was inert. He appreciated the applicant's concerns about the cost of disposing of the asphalt, but asphalt is a petroleum product. He could not see asphalt as an inert material. However, he knew Mr. Graham very well and he was not someone to take lightly an environmental issue. He had come up with mixed conclusions himself from various places. There was one thing he found that stood out, but he could not find more to substantiate it. It was in the federal register for the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers in one section it states that suitable material in the most recent provision of the nation-wide general permit conditions a list of unsuitable forms of fill material has been expanded to include asphalt. He pointed out that he could not find any more on that, so he would just leave that to the Commission to discuss. In his experience, background and knowledge is that a petro-chemical by-product is not concrete or something that he would consider inert. Asphalt was a recyclable material. You hear about it and read a lot about this. He really hoped that this provision would not encourage people to dump asphalt in our rural areas without proceeding with some sort of reusable process. While he could not offer any conclusive evidence since he did not know to what extent scientific research has been done, but there were certainly people that could be asked other than through the web. He suggested that they consider the recycling issue and consider that some control be place on this. Since this was up in the air, he preferred to default to finding something conclusive versus the other option. He hoped that as information comes to light on this issue, that the County has the ability to revise this decision. `ire• Fred Missel, of the University of Virginia Foundation, stated that he managed the real estate design and development for the foundation. He echoed the comments from Jeff and Katura. He supported the proposal because it makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of cutting down on truck traffic in hauling off debris from a site, particularly in an area where there might be a large demolition site. In addition, the desire to reclaim and reuse the asphalt from project makes a lot of sense assuming that it is used correctly. He noted that VDOT uses quite a lot of recycled asphalt in their projects. He asked that they clarify one piece of the language in the ZTA under Section 5.1.18(a), number 4 where it talks about restoring the area so that it approximates the natural contours. He asked that they restate that it be graded to approximate the contours of the surrounding area or maybe in keeping with the surrounding area. He stated that if you bring material in and fill a certain area, then how do you restore it to its original contours. He noted that some clarification would be helpful. Mr. Loewenstein asked for further public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Commission. Mr. Rieley stated that he does think that approximate natural contours imply that it is going to be the same as it was before. He felt that the ZTA stated what they intended it to. The language should not be changed because it says approximate. Mr. Thomas asked where the State Highway Department dumps their asphalt. He asked if they could dump it anywhere they want to. Mr. Loewenstein stated that they store some of it to reuse. Mr. Thomas asked if they dump it in Albemarle County would we have any authority over it "*MW Mr. Edgerton stated that it was forbidden right now, but if the ordinance were changed it would be Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes — April 30, 2002 184 allowed. Mr. Rieley stated that they could do this as part of their own project in the right-of-way. There is nothing that we could do about it. He noted concern about expanding the definition of inert material when there is no consensus about whether asphalt is or not. Secondly, there is a reasonable way to dispose of asphalt by recycling it. He pointed out that his inclination would be to drop asphalt and leave the rest of the ZTA alone. Mr. Edgerton agreed. Ms. Hopper agreed and noted that if they get more evidence, then asphalt could be added back in. Mr. Loewenstein agreed because asphalt did not meet his definition of inert. There is petroleum involved in its creation. He asked if anybody objected to the removal of asphalt. Mr. Roell asked to make one statement. Mr. Lowenstein noted that he would allow a brief rebuttal. Mr. Roell stated that he was glad that they brought up that point because he was not in favor of degrading the environment either. The point is that he had been contacted by Sterling Williamson about a place to recycle blacktop in the County. We were trying to figure out where they could do that because it was a grinding reprocessing plan. They are interested in doing that. It is not something that is going to happen overnight. He stated that he was in favor of helping them find a place to do that. He asked that they put a time limit on this for now to give them time to set up a recycling plant. Right now many people will continue to bury this material whether we like it or not. He encouraged staff to allow the public to bury the material for an amount of time with a warning that an effort is being made to provide a solution to the problem. Ms. Hopper noted that there are statutes that have a sunset provision that says that in a year this goes into effect. Mr. Rieley noted that he had previously asked Mr. Graham the question whether the asphalt could be taken off a road and put right back down as a road base and if that was currently permitted. That is a form of recycling that does not require a plant. That option is open as a way to utilizing materials Mr. Graham stated that a lot of road pavement that is down is not suitable for road recycling. The mix of the asphalt may be degraded to the level that it would not be accepted as road pavement. There will some road material that will never be able to be used for road pavement. A lot of this material will not end up out at BFI transfer station at Zion Crossroads. The Ivy Landfill will accept that material as clean fill material. They dispose of it outside of the controlled cells. They will bury it on the ground, just like everybody else will bury it on the ground. At Zion Crossroad, the tipping fee is $46 a ton. The tipping fee at Ivy is $7 per ton. They will either do that or take it to one of the surrounding Counties or illegally dump it some place. The important point to note there is that the State Department of Environmental Quality does not recognize the pavement as anything but clean fill material. If it can be recycled, staff will do everything to encourage the recycling of the material. We need to be aware that is not what is going to happen to all of the material. He noted that it was still a question because he has not found any analysis data. If it was buried deep enough it goes from an aerobic condition to an anaerobic condition because there is no oxygen down there. Mr. Barnes stated that you can cap something, but you still have to deal with the groundwater that goes to the site. Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes — April 30, 2002 185 Mr. Loewenstein asked Ms. McCulley if Mr. Williamson would be allowed to recycle asphalt at this current plant. Ms. McCulley stated that she would have to take a moment and research the question. She stated that it was possible that something would be considered under the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District or Heavy Industrial District. Mr. Barnes stated that it was true that not all asphalt can be recycled. That create the market question what will you do with the stuff you can't Ms. Hopper stated that they could bury it outside cells at the landfill. Ms. McCulley first made a disclaimer that this was not an official determination. This is really more of an interpretation because it was not specifically listed as an asphalt recycling plant. It appears that by special user permit in both Heavy Industrial and Natural Resource Extraction you can do this. Therefore, it looks like it is available under the current ordinance. Mr. Loewenstein asked for other comments. There being none, he asked if there was a motion. Mr. Finley moved for approval of the ZTA. Mr. Edgerton moved to recommend approval of the ZTA without asphalt being a part of it. Mr. Finley asked if he had to back off his motion. Mr. Edgerton asked that they delete asphalt as being defined as an inert material. Mr. Finley noted that he would not want that. Mr. Thomas seconded the original motion by Mr. Finley without Mr. Edgerton's comment. Mr. Loewenstein stated that Mr. Thomas seconded Mr. Finley's motion. Ms. Hopper asked if this motion was denied, would it preclude the Commission from making another motion. Mr. Loewenstein stated that it would not. He asked that the role be called. The motion for approval failed (2:5). (Thomas- Aye, Finley — Aye) Mr. Rieley moved that the Commission reconsider the matter. Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion. The motion passed (5:2) to reconsider the matter. (Finley — No, Thomas — No) Mr. Rieley made a motion to approve the ZTA deleting asphalt as an inert material. Ms. Hopper seconded the motion. The motion was approved (5:2) to recommend approval of the ZTA with the one change that excludes asphalt pavement from the text. (Finley — No, Thomas — No) Mr. Kamptner stated that asphalt materials are not expressly allowed within the definition of inert materials. He stated that he would review the ZTA language to ensure that the definition *400 reflected their vote. Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes — April 30, 2002 186 on Old Business Mr. Loewenstein asked for old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded. New Business Mr. Loewenstein asked for old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded. With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. V. Wayne Ciljlnberg, (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Taylor, Recording Secretary) Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes — April 30, 2002 187