HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 22 2002 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
October 22, 2002
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 22, 2002 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Vice -Chairman; Rodney
Thomas; Bill Edgerton; Pete Craddock; Tracey Hopper; Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; and
William Finley.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development;
David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Stephen Waller, Senior Planner; Michael
Barnes, Planner; and Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Loewenstein invited public comment on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being
none, the meeting proceeded.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — October 9, 2002.
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the Board of Supervisors actions for October 9, 2002. He stated that
Board took the following actions:
• Approved extensions for two special use permits, SP-2002-035 & SP-2002-047 for Korean
Church.
• Approved an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, ZTA-02-003 — Uses, for accessory uses
clarifying those uses in the Ordinance.
• Approved the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, ZTA-02-004 — Stormwater Management
Facilities as a stand alone use in all zoning districts. They decided to include those by right in
the Rural Areas District as relevant to the other districts. The Planning staff and Planning
Commission had recommended that it be by special use permit. They asked that staff
develop some supplementary regulations that would be applicable to stormwater facilities so
that there would be some regulations attached to those facilities when they are located in the
Rural Areas.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes — August 20, 2002 and August 27, 2002.
Mr. Finley moved for approval of the consent agenda as presented.
Ms. Hopper seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Deferred Items:
SP-2002-040 Central Telephone Company of Virginia — Alltel - Request for approval to allow
the replacement of a microwave dish on an existing personal wireless service facility by
amending a special use permit condition (SP 98-21) that prohibits the attachment of additional
dishes. This application is being submitted in accordance with Section 23.2.2.3, which allows
microwave transmission towers and their appurtenances, by special use permit. The property,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 22, 2002 488
described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C contains approximately 1.366 acres, zoned CO. This site
is located on the south side of Route 631 (Rio Road East), approximately 1/8 mile east of the
intersection with Route 29 North, and near Fashion Square Mall. This property is located in the
Rio Magisterial District, within the area designated as Neighborhood 2 by the Comprehensive
Plan. (Stephen Waller) DEFERRED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Waller stated that this was an item that was deferred from the September 17th meeting. At
that time the Commission requested that the applicant submit some additional technical
information regarding the microwave path analysis for the tower and its location in relationship to
the other sites that this site would be working with. Also, they requested some schematic
information showing the size of the proposed tower and the proposed microwave dish that would
replace the existing dish on the tower. Staff was requested to work with the applicant on some of
the recommended conditions of approval. At the last meeting there were three sets of
recommended conditions. After working with the Zoning Department and the County Attorney,
staff has revised the wording of the conditions. The applicant and staff are both more favorable
with this language.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any questions for staff. There being none, he opened the
public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Peter J. Caramanis, Attorney with Tremblay & Smith, LLP, stated that he was present
representing Alltel who was the applicant. Last month a few questions arose regarding this
application. He noted that they have addressed those through submission of the additional
documents that were requested which are contained in Attachment E of Mr. Waller's report. He
stated that he worked with staff and the County Attorney in coming up with a set of conditions that
were agreeable to everyone. He stated that the recommendation speaks for itself, and asked that
the Commission approve their application as submitted.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Loewenstein closed the public hearing and placed
the item before the Commission for action.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of SP-02-040, Central Telephone Company of Virginia — Alltel,
with the conditions as altered and changed.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if he meant the existing conditions listed in the current staff report.
Mr. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Finley seconded the motion.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was any further discussion.
Mr. Rieley stated that the only question he had was the remaining discrepancy between the 100
foot mounting height as it is described in the illustration showing it at the same level as the 95 foot
one. This is a question that came up at the last meeting. He asked what the resolution was of
that?
Mr. Waller stated that the applicant did not submit a new photosimulation
Mr. Rieley asked if the proposal remains at 100 feet.
Mr. Waller stated that their proposal does remain at 100 feet.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 22, 2002 489
Mr. Rieley stated that he did not see anything in the supporting data sent that shows that 95 feet
won't work. He stated that was one of the issues that was raised. He noted that it should be at
the same elevation as the one that is there.
Mr. Waller stated that was in the applicant's response on page 44, number 2.
Mr. Rieley stated that the cross section certainly does not support the view that 5 feet would
make any difference.
Mr. Waller stated that they indicated that it could not be at exactly 95 feet like the other dish
because they say that the mounts of the two dishes cannot co -exist at that configuration at the
exact same height. However, Alltel will agree to move the dish down from 100 feet to a position
closer to but above 95 feet for the Planning Commission if that would be helpful.
Mr. Rieley stated that based on the information that they have that it seemed that these things are
strapped around it. He noted that he did not see any reason why one strap could not be adjacent
to the other and be effective.
Mr. Caramanis asked if he could respond to that.
Mr. Loewenstein asked that he come forward.
Mr. Caramanis stated that the chains could not overlap. He noted that his proposal was to move
this down as closely as they can.
Mr. Rieley stated that it looked like these bands were less than six inches. Therefore, they could
formulate the condition that it would be no more than six inches.
Mr. Caramanis asked for a few minutes to consult with his engineer.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that was fine.
Mr. Caramanis stated basically that our proposal is to move it down as closely as we can so as
not to overlap.
Mr. Rieley stated that the band should be no more than 6 inches between the two.
Mr. Caramanis stated that six inches would be acceptable. He stated that it would be 95.5 feet.
Mr. Thomas altered the motion, and asked if they needed to make a new condition.
Mr. Rieley offered a friendly amendment to modify the condition so that the mounting height is
95.5 feet.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that change should be made to condition 4a.
Mr. Thomas agreed to amend the motion to include Mr. Rieley's suggested condition.
Mr. Finley seconded the amended motion.
The motion carried unanimously (7:0) subject to the following conditions of approval.
1. The tower shall not be increased in height.
2. All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be used for
personal wireless service providers.
3. Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 22, 2002 490
a. Omni -directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or
seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower.
1%WW b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2)
feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower.
C. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted; no new antennas shall project
from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and
in no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the
existing structure. The replacement of omni-directional, whip, directional or panel
antennas in existing antenna arrays, shall be subject to this condition.
d. Existing arrays of directional and panel antennas that are mounted with brackets
that separate them by more than 12 inches from the structure may remain.
Provided, however that if any of these arrays are replaced at any time, they shall
be flush -mounted as provided in 3c. This condition shall not pertain to the
maintenance and/or replacement of a single panel antenna that malfunctions or
is in need of repair.
4. Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at one
time, and only as follows.
a. The existing six (6) foot diameter grid dish that is subject to this request may be
replaced by the specified six-foot diameter High Performance dish at height that
is not more than 95.5 feet.
b. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by
the same type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does
not exceed the diameter of the dish being removed, the color of the replacement
dish matches the tower, and the mounting height does not exceed that of the
dish being replaced.
C. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by a
different type of dish if the mounting height is no less than 20 feet below that of
the dish being removed, the diameter of the replacement dish does not exceed
that the dish being removed, and the color of the replacement dish matches the
tower.
d. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by a different type
of dish if the proposed mounting height of the replacement dish does not satisfy
the height requirements of condition 4c with the written approval of the Zoning
Administrator. This approval shall only be granted after the submission of a
microwave path survey indicating that the proposed replacement dish will be
mounted at the lowest possible height that allows the system to function. In such
a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the reason(s) why the proposed height
is the lowest possible height, but in no case shall the replacement be higher than
the dish it is replacing.
e. All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the
face of the pole as structurally and mechanically possible, and, in no case, shall
the distance between the back of the dish and the face of the pole be greater
than eighteen (18) inches.
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant shall
provide engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing dish
to be removed and its replacement dish, and additional information
demonstrating the mounting distance between the pole and the dish to the
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
5. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning administrator once per year, by not later
than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and that each
user is a personal wireless communications service provider.
6. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance.
7. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of
the date its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued.
If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee
that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 22, 2002 491
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of
credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-02-08 South Pantops Office - Request to rezone 24.07 acres from PD-MC (Planned
District- Mixed Commercial) to PD-MC (Planned District- Mixed Commercial) and HC (Highway
Commercial) to amend a proffered plan to allow for an office use instead of a hotel use and to
allow for an expansion of Dennis Enterprises car dealership. The properties, described as Tax
Map, 78 Parcel 73A and Parcel 13, are located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Hanson
Road in the Giant Shopping Center at Pantops and on Route 250. The Comprehensive Plan
designates these properties as Regional Service in Neighborhood 3 (Pantops). (Michael Barnes)
Mr. Barnes presented the staff report noting that the situation was confusing. Back in the 80's the
County zoned the area for the Giant Store for a Planned Development. Virginia Land Company
came in and started developing it and was required to do a plan for the entire development area.
Subsequently, the Giant Store and several of the other places were developed. The remaining
portion that is sort of out on the end of the property is what they were concerned with today. The
section number 3 was actually subdivided off, a boundary adjustment done and transferred to
Dennis Enterprises. It was somewhat unclear to the applicant at the time that was zoned as part
of the Planned Development and did not show for an expansion of a car dealership. That is the
reason that Dennis Enterprises was added to this application for consideration. It makes sense in
staffs perspective because there are a lot of grading issues that cross the boundaries of the two
parcels. For that reason, staff supported Dennis Enterprises being included on this application
and considered with that. There is another parcel that is wedged between the site where they are
asking for this office complex and Dennis Enterprises' existing building. He pointed out that one
adjacent parcel was owned by Michael Spooner and was an undeveloped parcel that sits down in
a swale. The road that was built, Hanson Road, is located on the high ground and everything
else slopes down to the bottom. The drainage moves from Route 250 down towards the river in
this direction. Along with the rezoning, Dennis Enterprises submitted a minor site plan
amendment requesting the expansion of the parking lot. For various reasons, they pulled that
plan. Currently, the plan is not active, but the Architectural Review Board is reviewing the plan.
He stated that tonight they would focus on the relationship of these two uses and how the
relationship impacts the grading. In addition, they would discuss how the structures shown in
orange are relative to Hanson Road and the Neighborhood Model. He noted that the applicant in
response to staff's comments submitted the center plan. The biggest problem with the middle
plan is that it does not front on Hanson Mountain Road and requires extensive 2:1 slopes in the
back. Staff feels that the plan would meet the Neighborhood Model better by creating more of a
streetscape along Hanson Road. Therefore, staff would prefer to see both buildings brought up
to the road and have the parking lots in the back. Having terraced down one grade, you would
still have 2:1 slopes on the back, but staff feels that there is a way to terrace it down to lessen the
amounts of 2:1 slopes which will help the Entrance Corridor issue. It also helps provide space for
internal landscaping on the project.
Mr. Rieley noted that the terracing is not shown on the plans anywhere.
Mr. Barnes stated that the applicant prefers to not have that since they don't think that the
terracing will work. While the Spooner property is not under construction and cannot be tied to
these applications, staff is encouraging them to work with the designers in order to get a
coordinated grading plan across these three properties. He noted that staff could not compel
them to work together since the Spooner property was not under consideration for the rezoning.
Since the buildings would be used for offices, staff was trying to work with the applicant to keep
the buildings up out of the ground. Those were the major issues dealing with the Neighborhood
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 22, 2002 492
Model. The applicant has agreed to provide sidewalks, trees along the street and to work on a
bus stop. Staff continues to try to get the applicant to do a better job to meet some of the
principles of defining the streetscape along Hanson Road. Referring to Attachment G, staff has
been working on ways to create a parallel road system to Route 250. The plan shows a
proposed extension of Rolkin Road to connect with South Pantops Road. This would provide
circulation back to these properties without expanding Route 250 to eight lanes as called for by
VDOT. The road plans are unofficial, would cost a lot of money and be difficult to build due to the
required extensive filling. This road wouldn't affect this site. Staff would like to explore with the
applicants their willingness to preserve this right of way for future dedication if this road was to
come about. In conclusion, the two uses proposed for this site are not counter to what is
envisioned for this area. Dennis Enterprises wants to expand their existing use. The office use
would replace the hotel on the original application plan. The items that are unfavorable about the
request include the lack of a unified grading plan; the fact that the buildings do not front on
Hanson Road and neither proposal is working with the existing terrain very well. He pointed out
that the traffic study information had just been submitted and staff has not had a chance to
interpret that. While both projects have gone before the Architectural Review Board, the ARB has
not completed their review of these projects. For those reasons, staff has been unable to
recommend approval of the rezoning request, the special use permits and the site plan. Staff
recommends that the applicant request a deferral to work on these issues if they are willing to do
that. Staff recommends the Commission to deny the requests.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he favored having a parallel road to Route 250, but he did not favor
extending the road exiting on Spotnap Road due to the close proximity of the apartments and the
senior living facility. He noted that it was not clear that the parallel road would fit in here or if it
would become reality. He asked if there were any other questions for staff. There being none, he
opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission.
Katurah Roell, representative for Virginia Land Company, spoke for the request. He stated that
the site plan for Dennis Enterprises was submitted in March. Staff decided that the land was part
of the old PD-MC and the site plan was stopped because the use was not permitted by the old
master plan. He pointed out that they did have an active site plan on the front portion of that
property and have put in pipes and preliminary graded the area. They have been talking with
Don Franco concerning the proposed grading plan for the Spooner property. He pointed out that
the 2:1 slope that they were showing currently on their site plan would literally disappear into the
Spooner site evening out to Route 250. He noted that they were trying to amend the master plan
through the ZTA in order to work out the other details. He asked for the Commission's approval
of the request for office use instead of hotel use. He pointed out that the traffic study shows that
the hotel use would generate more traffic than an office use. He passed out a handout for the
Commission's review.
Mr. Loewenstein invited further public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing
and brought the matter before the Commission for action.
Mr. Loewenstein reminded the Commission that they were also considering SP-02-13 Dennis
Enterprises — Outdoor Display, SDP-02-34 Dennis Enterprises — Minor Site Plan Amendment and
SDP-02-84 South Pantops Office Preliminary Site Plan that were listed in the staff report as well.
Mr. Roell requested that the Commission defer his requests noting that he would like to heard
again as soon as possible.
Ms. Hopper moved for deferral of ZMA-02-08, SP-02-13, SDP-02-34 and SDP-02-84 to
December 3rd as per the applicant's request.
Mr. Rieley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 22, 2002 493
ZTA-01-09 — Parking — Add Section 5.1.41, Parking lots and structures, and Section 32.7.2A,
Parking structures; and amend Section 19.3.1, By right, and Section 20.3.1, by right; of Chapter
18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would require a site plan for parking
lots and parking structures, establish site plan requirements for parking structures, require that
parking lots without structures be subject to landscaping and screening requirements, and
authorize parking as a by right use in the Planned Residential Development (Section 19.3.1) and
Planned Unit Development (Section 20.3.1) zoning districts. (Jan Sprinkle)
Ms. Sprinkle presented the staff report. Staff asks that you recommend to the Board of
Supervisors adoption of the four ordinance sections that are attached to the report. First, there is
Section 5.1.41 that says that parking lots and structures all require a site plan. Then there is
Section 19.3.1 and 20.3.1 for the PRD and PUD which changes the recommendation that the
Commission already made to make parking lots and structures by -right where you previously
recommended by special use permit. The final recommendation if Section 32.7.2A, which is an
addition to the site plan ordinance which was inserted to address the potential negative effects of
parking structures. As she tried to explain in the staff report, the text, which you saw back in
September, has changed dramatically to what they thought that they were going to do.
Therefore, it does not have the same effect in mitigating those negative effects that they intended
for it to have. Staff is considering that it might be better to go to recommending parking structures
by special use permit in all of the conventional districts. In the planned districts it won't make any
difference because they will always be reviewing the rezonings with an application plan that
shows the parking structures and those can all be by right. Because of this change in the text of
Section 32 and no being able to mitigate the effects of the parking structure, staff feels that it
would be better to go with special use permits in the conventional districts. That does not change
what is before the Commission. She asked that the Commission adopt those four things as
recommended.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that they would be hearing another Parking ZTA that addresses this.
Ms. Sprinkle noted that it might be possible that it will not have to come back before the
Commission, but that it can just move on through the Board of Supervisors through the work
session on November 6th and on to their public hearings. She passed out a handout to discuss
concerning the parking structures by special use permit and by right and the proposed changes.
She asked for the Commission's input for the Board's work session. She noted that any parking
structure over two -levels would be by special use permit.
Mr. Rieley asked how much the special use permit fee would be for a parking structure, and Ms.
Sprinkle stated that the fee was $980.
Ms. Sprinkle reviewed the printout and explained the following:
Purposes for parking structures:
♦ To reduce the "seas of parking" by promoting 2 level parking structures.
♦ To ease the use of shared parking.
♦ To reduce impervious area.
♦ To make more efficient use of development area land.
Purposes for SP for structures>2 levels - To protect residential areas from:
♦ Large imposing structures
♦ Round the clock activity centers
♦ Traffic impacts (will be controlled by site plan)
She noted that most residential district height limitations end at the 35-foot level. The two level
parking garages would not have the same impact as a 5 story parking garage.
1*40W Mr. Cilimberg stated that the only change in the 2 level parking structures would to add R-10.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 22, 2002 494
Mr. Edgerton stated that he agreed with staffs recommendation that they could go by right since
they would see if anyhow. He voiced concern about making two -level parking structure by right
,%W" because they can be overwhelming if they are not designed with some sensitivity.
Ms. Sprinkle stated that the two level parking structures are still under discussion.
Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing and asked if there was any one present to speak
Kelly Strickland, representative for McKee Carson, stated that he had not had a chance to review
the handout, but felt that the two story parking structures sounds like a good idea. From a
developer's point of view, they look at a plan and always start with the surface parking. It is a
very big step to go from surface parking into structure parking. There are options with the two-
story parking where you can come in on two different grades without having to build a ramp,
which limits the cost somewhat. He suggested that they have a separate requirement to make it
easier to do. He stated that there were locations in the Crozet area that would benefit where the
grades come in on the corners of streets and would work well for two-story parking. He noted
that if a special use permit were required that it would open up a whole different can of worms.
Mr. Loewenstein closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission for action.
Mr. Edgerton moved to approve ZTA-01-09 to add both supplemental and site plan regulations
regarding parking, Sections 5.1.41 and 32.7.2A, and to allow parking structures in the PRD and
PUD to be by right. In addition based on the absence of c, d, and a in Section 32.0, the
Commission's previous recommendation to the Board be changed so that by -right parking
structures in the conventional districts be limited to two levels and a special use permit would be
required for more than two levels.
Ms. Hopper seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
Mr. Loewenstein stated that ZTA-01-09 — Parking was approved by the Planning Commission,
and would be heard by the Board on November 6m
Mr. Rieley asked that one slight adjustment be made to the staff report and that was to call them
applicants instead of customers.
New Business:
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission would have a joint meeting with the Board of
Supervisors on December 16tn at 4:30 p.m. to review the Crozet Masterplan framework
information. Staff will update the Commission on any developments.
Mr. Cilimberg recognized William Finley for five years of service with Albemarle County. He
thanked Mr. Finley for his contribution to the Commission and gave him a plaque.
Mr. Cilimberg recognized Mr. Loewenstein for five years of service with Albemarle County. He
thanked Mr. Loewenstein for his efforts and hard work.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that there would be a legislative lunch on November 25th from 12:15 p.m.
to 1:45 p.m. He noted that all the Commissioners were invited.
Mr. Thomas discussed the trip to Burlington, Vermont by several of the Commissioners and the
City staff. He pointed out that the trip was very interesting.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 22, 2002 495
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on
October 29, 2002.
V. Wayne Cilitnberg, Secr ry
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 22, 2002 496