HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 23 2012 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
October 23, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 23, 2012, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, and
Calvin Morris, Chairman. Members absent were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chairman. Julia Monteith,
AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Brent Nelson,
Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Susan Stimart, Economic
Development Facilitator; Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business
Partnerships, J.T. Newberry, Senior Planner, Francis MacCall, Counter Planner; Bill Fritz, Director of
Current Development; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
Due to time constraints to attend a funeral family night Wendy Shaver, with Albemarle Towing, spoke
regarding ZTA-2010-00004 Industrial Uses and the need for locations to accommodate towing uses.
There being no comments, the meeting moved to the next item.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of Minutes: 7-17-2012
Mr. Morris asked if any Commissioner wanted to pull an item from the consent agenda.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Smith seconded for acceptance of the consent agenda.
The motion carried by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted the consent agenda item was approved,
Items Requesting Deferral
SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping
PROPOSED: Campground with 24 sites for recreational vehicles, 24 tent sites, building for office and
restrooms. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety
and protection from flooding SECTION: 10.2.2.20 Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: Baber Lane, Howardsville, at the intersection of James River
Road (Route 626) and Howardsville Turnpike (Route 602) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 139A0000001600,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
139A0000001700, 139A0000001900, 139A0000002000, 139A0000002100 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Samuel Miller (Scott Clark)
AND
SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery
PROPOSED: Howardsville Canoe Livery: Canoe -rental livery with use of campground building for office
and storage (see SP201000049) ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas -
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); FH Flood
Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding SECTION: 30.3.05.2.1 (2): Water related
uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and river crossings of transmission lines
of all types. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in
development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: Baber Lane, Howardsville, at the
intersection of James River Road (Route 626) and Howardsville Turnpike (Route 602) TAX
MAP/PARCEL: 139A0000001600, 139A0000001700, 139A0000001900, 139A0000002000,
139A0000002100 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Scott Clark)
APPLICANT REQUESTING DEFERRAL OF THESE SPs TO THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Morris noted the applicant is requesting deferral of SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping and SP-
2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery to the November 13, 2012 meeting.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Randolph seconded for acceptance of the applicant's request for
deferral of SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping and SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping and SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe
Livery were deferred to the November 13, 2012 meeting.
Public Hearing Items
AFD-2012-00006 Carter's Bridge Additions - Notice is hereby given that the Albemarle County
Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive public comments regarding the addition of the
following parcel(s) to the Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District (Albemarle County Code § 3-
222) on October 23, 2012, at 6 p.m., in the Auditorium of the Albemarle County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia: Tax Map 112 Parcels 16J and 16K. The parcel(s) proposed for
addition are approximately 268.85 acres in size and are located on Fry's Path (Route 627) approximately
one mile north of Plank Road (Route 712). The Albemarle County Agricultural and Forestal Advisory
Committee has recommended approval of this addition. (Scott Clark)
Scott Clark noted this was the only application received for this fall's round of addition to the agricultural
and forestal districts.
Proposal: Addition of two parcels (Tax Map 112 Parcels 16J and 16K) totaling 268.85 acres to the
District. This land was previously included in the District as a single parcel —it was added in October,
2007, and then removed in July, 2008 (during the last review). It has since been divided into two parcels,
the smaller of which is 39.52 acres.
Approximately half of the proposed addition includes soils rated as Prime or Locally Important by the
Comprehensive Plan. Essentially the same area is rated highly for hardwood production in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed addition of two parcels would increase the total acreage of the Carter's Bridge District to
8,895.
44mw Committee Recommendation:
On October 1, 2012, the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
the proposed addition to the Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
There being none, the public hearing was closed, and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of AFD-2012-00006
Carter's Bridge Additions.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that AFD-2012-00006 Carter's Bridge Additions would go to the Board of Supervisors on
a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
AFD-2012-00007 Blue Run Review - Periodic (10-year) review of the Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal
District, as required in Section 15.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia. The district includes the properties
described as Tax map 22, parcel 10; tax map 35, parcels 22, 23, 24A, 26, 26B, 26131, 26C, 26D, 28A, 29,
31, 32A, 41A, 41E, 43; tax map 36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels 4A1, 4A5, 24, 24A, 24B; tax
map 50, parcels 5, 5B, 32A, 41A, 41Q, 42A, 42A1, 43, 45B, 47, 47A, 4713; tax map 51, parcels 13, 14.
The district includes a total of 4,219 acres. The area is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive
Plan and the included properties are zoned RA Rural Areas. (Scott Clark)
Scott Clark summarized the staff report. This is the periodical review 10-year review of the Blue Run
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Purpose of the review: Each district is reviewed (usually every 10 years) "to determine whether the district
should be continued. ... Both the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission provide
recommendations to the Board as to whether the district should be terminated, modified or continued."
• History of the Blue Run District
• The District was created in June, 1986, and originally included 1,185 acres.
• The District now includes 40 parcels and 4,219 acres.
• Last review: 2002
Committee Recommendation: On October 1, 2012, the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory
Committee recommended renewal of the Blue Run District for a 10-year period.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, with The Free Enterprise Forum, asked in the process for identifying and reviewing these
districts are the adjoining property owners told of the diminution of their property rights by these actions. If
having an agricultural forestal district next to your property impacts what you can do on your land it seems
as though you should have that information to have the opportunity to speak. For the record, the Free
Enterprise Forum believes that agricultural forestal districts are a good thing. They think it preserves
agricultural uses and it is much more like renting than a permanent conservation easement and allows
flexibility for the owners. That being said he just wanted to ask a question with regard to notification of
neighboring property owners especially when some cases, as in this case, where they are being
effectively surrounded by the district.
Mr. Morris asked if staff wanted to address that.
Mr. Clark pointed out the county does notify the adjacent property owners of the hearings regarding these
items. The first notification is actually for the owners in the district because during the review is the only
time they are permitted to easily withdraw from the district themselves. So that is pretty early on in the
process. Then they do notifications to the adjacent owners. The adjacent owners would get the standard
notification letter that they would for any other public hearing.
Mr. Randolph asked that Mr. Cilimberg address this point. He asked is there any evidence of a
diminution of property values as a result of soil district protection.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 3
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Cilimberg replied in recalling over the years he has been here, there have been on occasion
V%W consideration of agricultural forestal districts adjacent to properties where there has been a request for a
special use permit. He did not remember too any cases where there was a recommendation against a
special use permit because of its location next to an agricultural forestall district. It may have happened
on one or two occasions. However, he can't recall that specifically. For those not in a district he would
say that the potential impact is very minimal in terms of their rights. Of course, all of their by right
allowances would remain. Only in the case of a special use permit location next to a district might that
come into play. He could not recall any cases where they have recommended denial based on that.
However, it may have been on one or two occasions that it occurred. He also knows that agricultural
forestal districts can have some effect on public projects, such as the routing of a new road. In the earlier
days of the Western By Pass and some the routes they were looking at he thought that actually spurred
the number of requests they got for agricultural forestal district designation at that time. However, that is
really not a property rights kind of issue. That was more of a public project's consideration. From his
experience he did not see it as being a significant impact at all.
Mr. Randolph agreed that was the way it struck him. The common sense notion is that in this region and
area a special use permit for a cidery with the noise and nuisance effect will have a greater effect on
property values than an agricultural forestal district designation around it. He would see that as more of a
compelling issue affecting property rights and property values than the agricultural district in this case.
He just wanted that clarification from staff.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out there could be the case where an agricultural forestall district if it were created
next to a development area might be considered as having some kind of impact on the ability of the
development area to develop under the comprehensive plan. However, that has not been the case either
here. They have been fairly careful about agricultural forestall district designations where development
areas are existing or potentially where they might expand.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter before the
Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of AFD-2012-00007
Blue Run Review.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that AFD-2012-00007 Blue Run Review would go to the Board of Supervisors on
December 5, 2012 with a recommendation for approval.
SP-2012-00024 Verizon Wireless Va. Dept. of Forestry 'Buckingham Circle" Tier III Personal
Wireless Service Facility
PROPOSED: Request for installation of a 110 foot tall "steath" monopole structure ("monopine") and
associated ground equipment.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office — offices, supporting commercial and
service; residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre); EC Entrance Corridor — Overlay to protect
properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along
routes of tourist access
SECTION: 23.2.2.15 Tier III personal wireless facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood 6; Office Service — office uses, regional
scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and
conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES
LOCATION: 76 feet SW of Natural Resources Drive on the Forestry Dept. Headquarters TAX
MAP/PARCEL: 07600-00-00-017AO
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Sarah Baldwin)
err►'
Sarah Baldwin presented a PowerPoint presentation to summarize the staff report.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
This is a request for installation of a Monopine=monopole structure designed to look like a pine tree on
tax map 76, parcel 17A, which is roughly 33 acres. It is located near an existing parking lot on the
Department of Forestry site and accessed from Natural Resources Drive. The surrounding area contains
vacant R-1 and CO land.
The proposed PWSF facility will be 110 feet tall with a top elevation of 616 AMSL. The applicant is
requesting three waivers, which staff is supporting.
- There is a request to waive the requirement of the reference tree for the monopine. The
surrounding trees are arranged from 30' to 50' lower than the monopine.
- There is a request to waive the diameter of the base of the tower, which will be 54".
- There is a waiver request since the proposed antennas will be more than 12" from the structure.
Staff is supporting the waiver requests because of the location and the lack of visibility.
Staff inquired about safety standards of the monopine. The applicant has stated that the monopine must
meet all of the regular safety standards all towers must meet including the branches, which also must be
water proof and have a UV protective coating. The applicant can further speak to that if necessary. The
applicant has submitted an example of a monopine.
Staff attended a balloon test on September 12 and viewed it from various areas. It is slightly visible from
Fontaine Research Park and briefly visible along the 1-64 Bridge over the Norfolk Southern Railroad. The
applicant has also provided photo simulations of the monopine. Views include on -site views adjacent to
the parking lot and views from Resources Drive and the 1-64 Bridge.
Factors Favorable:
1. The ARB finds that the proposed location of the facility will minimize visibility such that no significant
negative impact on the Entrance Corridor will be created. However, their opinion is specific to this
site and the treatment, and does not endorse this monopine treatment to be used on a wider scale in
circumstances where the pole exceeds the recommended height above the surrounding trees.
2. This facility will provide advanced technology service and support a larger project to provide fourth
generation (4G) services; therefore, contributing to the general health, safety and welfare of the
public.
3. No objection has been received from the adjacent property owner (Fontaine Research Park), which is
where the structure is visible.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy looks unfavorably on mitigating visual impact by
creating more visual impact.
2. The height of the monopine relative to the surrounding trees increases its visibility primarily on site
and from the adjacent property.
It is Staffs opinion that an artificial tree of this scale could actually draw more attention and generally this
approach should be avoided. However this site is mitigated due to limited visibility at this location.
Recommendation:
o Staff recommends approval of this Tier III Personal Service Wireless Facility with the modifications
(special exceptions) provided herein.
o Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this application to the Board of
Supervisors, staff recommends the conditions as outlined in the staff report.
o Staff recommends approval of the modifications for this personal wireless service facility for
Sections 5.1.40(c)(3), (d)(5) and (d)(6) under the special exception criteria of Section 31.8 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
VOW Mr. Loach asked if there is any chance for co -location on this tower since they were going away from a
number of the usual provisos, such as the reference tree.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 5
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Baldwin replied yes, she believed there is a chance for co -location.
Mr. Randolph suggested this be called a Mono Sequoia instead of a Monopine since it is so big. He
pointed out the color of the Mono Sequoia in the pictures is green yet the specifications in Section
5.1.40(d)(7) indicate that each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color. If approved and
erected the monopine if brown will look like a dead monopine. He questioned if Section 5.1.40(d)(7)
should be revised in some way so each metal monopine shall be a dark green natural wood color, which
would certainly blend in more with surrounding trees. He noted this is a metal structure and not a wooden
structure. He was a little concerned because the brown would really look like a dead tree. However, it is
just an observation.
Ms. Baldwin noted that she had an example of what it would look like. The actual bark, if they want to call
it that, is brown. The limbs are brown. However, the pine needles on it will be green.
Mr. Dotson noted he had a question about our policy that emphasizes visibility. He asked how our policy
specifies the point from which they would judge visibility. In other words, the images they provided are
from 1-64, Fontaine, and the parking lot and does our policy address where they look in order to judge
visibility.
Ms. Baldwin replied it was either in the policy or the ordinance itself and addresses the nearest residential
areas and visibility and then areas of concern such as Entrance Corridor or other scenic areas.
Mr. Dotson pointed out that might explain the Buckingham Circle reference.
Ms. Baldwin noted staff actually did go by Buckingham Circle and it is not visible at all.
Mr. Randolph asked how adaptive this structure is to 5G and other iterations of technology coming down
the pike.
Ms. Baldwin replied that it was for 4G. However, she was sure the applicant can speak to that fact.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Laurie Schweller, attorney with LeClair Ryan, represented Verizon and requested a recommendation of
approval for the special use permit for this first 110' monopine or mono sequoia in Albemarle County.
She made the following points:
• They are requesting this special design for this particular location because the Department of
Forestry requested it. They have never requested one before and understand the Architectural
Review Board is not inclined to see a monopines at every single site. The primary location of
visibility for this site is actually the Department of Forestry land. It is quite visible from that
building and so they wanted it to look like a tree. From the office park parking lot they can see the
top of it. However, otherwise it is pretty much not noticeable. They drove around the surrounding
residential neighborhoods and up and down 20 and 1-64 and found the only place they could see
it is the overpass bridge that goes over the Norfolk Southern Railroad. Both westbound and
eastbound it can be seen over the treeline just for a brief moment. Therefore, they think the
visual impact is fairly minimal.
• Because of this particular design they are able to do a full array. They have a three sector
antenna array so all of the antennas are on one plane. So they are offering the PCS, the cell and
the LTE all on that one antenna array. That leaves it open for potential co -locators or other
technologies if those were required later on. Their site plan does show three locations for
antennas for the one they will be using and two potential other locations. She would be happy to
answer any questions. In response to Mr. Dotson's question about the Buckingham Circle
reference she noted the names of the Verizon Wireless sites are arbitrary and selected by their
RF engineers just to give a frame of reference. Therefore, it really was not referring to visibility
from that neighborhood but just for reference.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Smith asked who receives the remuneration for rent this project's lease
Ms. Schweller replied she believed the lease is with the Commonwealth.
Mr. Smith asked when the balloon test was done.
Ms. Schweller replied the balloon test was done the first week of October around the 8th
Ms. Baldwin pointed out the balloon test was done on September 12tn
Mr. Smith asked were the commissioners notified.
Ms. Baldwin replied that she was not positive that the Commissioners were notified. However, she knew
the Architectural Review Board was.
Mr. Smith pointed out he was not notified of the balloon test
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and
the matter before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Loach noted to be honest he thought this monopine is dumb and they should just put the pole up. He
questioned why the Department of Forestry would want to look outside their window and see a plastic
Christmas tree going up 110'. It kind of puzzles him. However, he did not know how they would craft
language. He thought that it is needed. The visibility is only towards the Department of Forestry, but he
did not want to see a monopine there. He would support the lovely java brown going up, but not a phony
tree.
Mr. Dotson said one of benefits he could see of this is that it might have a tourism value. Since it would
be unique people might want to come and see it. He did not know. He thought they could handle the
traffic impacts. He was concerned about the precedent of the mono pine and was concerned about the
precedent of not complying with or even coming close to the reference tree. The reason he asked about
visibility is that the Department of Forestry and Mines, Minerals and Energy are located there. It is a
public street and people will see this rather huge tower right at the edge of the public street. While it has
limited visibility from more distant sites it has got extreme visibility from the interior. Therefore, he will not
be able to support it.
Mr. Franco echoed Mr. Loach's comment that it is silly. He thinks they need the service and it is an
appropriate site to have a pole. However, he did think it is silly to have it dressed up like a tree because it
brings more attention to it than a pole would.
Mr. Smith suggested they ask the applicant if it would fly if was not a tree. He asked if the Forestry
Department would approve it if it was not a tree.
Ms. Schweller replied that she can't say for sure. It was a requirement in part of their lease. Therefore,
they would have to go back with them and discuss it.
Mr. Dotson noted that several of the Commissioners have said there is a facility needed in this general
vicinity. He asked if they have exhausted all other potential locations that might comply with the
ordinance.
Ms. Schweller replied that the way the process works is the RF engineer identifies the general area where
the service is needed. Then our site acquisition people look at lots of different properties and identify
those that would serve basically at that ring. She did not know what the process was for choosing this
✓' particular site. She referred the question to Stephen Waller, zoning consultant.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
Stephen Waller, consultant with GDN Sipes, said he had been working with Verizon Wireless, on this site
since 2008. The reason this site is called Buckingham Circle is because there is a huge dead spot for
service providers in there. There is a site on the opposite side of the street called Gold Eagle, which is
the site the Commission approved for an extension of a brown monopole sometime earlier this year.
Even with that site the service still does not get into the Buckingham Circle neighborhood and on that
back side going out to Fontaine Road Extended. He made the following points:
• This location was chosen by the RF engineers because of its height above Buckingham Circle
and its ability to shoot into that neighborhood. The other site is on the other side of 1-64 from
Buckingham Circle. When they go into the Forestry Department they will notice it is uphill. They
have a site that has good topography and good elevation above the target area that they are
really trying to shoot into and they also have a situation where they have property that is large
enough to set the site away from any property lines and basically be interior to their property. It
really is a combination of everything. Everything just worked to where this site is the best location
for it. To try to go back down to the Fontaine Research Park and get on to one of the rooftops
they still have the hill that rises up to the Forestry Department so they are still not getting into that
Buckingham Circle area. Therefore, that site does not really serve its whole purpose of getting
onto that side of 1-64 as well.
• Personal wireless service facilities are hypothetically allowed in every zoning district. However, if
they really want to plop it down into Buckingham Circle first they would have to find a property
that would be large enough to place a facility and meet the setbacks. Then they also have to deal
with the neighborhood association and things of that nature. Going back and picking up this site
from 2008 with the Forestry Department and having their input is great. This is like a pilot site for
them. They feel if it works and that the design is proper then it could fit in some other areas
throughout their property.
• When they went through the ARB process they understood that it is not an end all, be all solution
for Albemarle County. But, it also gave them an opportunity to kind of partner with them. He was
not sure if it is fully explained in the staff report but the design of this particular monopole that
they are proposing is also based off of a design that was put in place on the property of the
1prr Greenbrier Resort in White Sulfur, West Virginia. It is on the National Historic Registry.
• The discussion of java brown came up, but the amount of money that is being put into this site
that kind of sets it apart from other monopines you see is taken up in a lot of the design aspects.
Instead of having just a painted pole with fake branches on it, the pole would be wrapped in fake
bark. So it will have the texture of bark. There are some photos that they provided to staff that
did not come across in the staff report. There are several before and after photos where they see
the pole and the branches and all of the parts that go into it lying on the ground. It conveys how
much money and work that is put into this particular design, which again was accepted by the
West Virginia Department of Historic Resources to go on that nationally recognized historic
property.
• The Department of Forestry visited five sites. There are others nearby at Mont Pelier, Mount
Vernon, and Colonial Williamsburg. When they visited the site that Verizon Wireless built at the
Greenbrier Resort they decided that was the design they wanted to have. This is where they are
in that part of the process with having a lease where they were told that this is the design they
wanted them to have in order to further the lease. So they are in a situation where they are trying
to please the state by providing the design they basically mandated within the leasing process,
but also trying to provide service in this area to these customers in the Buckingham Circle area
who again happen to have very spotty coverage if any coverage or accessibility to any of the
carriers that are providing locally. This is how they got here.
Mr. Dotson asked if they were approved for a monopole that was not a monopine then would the flat
panel antennas be a possibility as opposed to the type that are proposed here. He thinks it was
necessitated because of the camouflage.
Mr. Waller replied it would be possible to do that. However, any time you can increase the number of
antennas from the flush mount design from a coverage area standpoint with all those aspects of
performance the coverage and level of service provided is going to be better. Right now because they
were looking at doing a design that would have the branches on it to cover up the antennas and then
have the antennas colored to fade away within those branches the Verizon Wireless design was based
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
off of having a full sector with 9 to 12 antennas. Another part with dealing with flush mounted antennas is
the antennas are set up in sectors. There are three sectors at a standard site. If they have one antenna
pointing in that one direction and it has two types of service combined within that one antenna, then if that
one antenna goes down then they lose both of those services pointing in that direction. Basically, the
beam spreads out like a pie shape to try to connect those three sectors based on those three antennas.
So if one antenna goes out in a standard flush mount there is going to be an amount of time where
everyone who is getting service off of that one antenna is going to suffer a loss of coverage. There are
several reasons why there is a preference for more antennas. With the understanding that they can't just
go up and do a full array in working with the Forestry Department there was an effort to disguise that
array.
Mr. Smith asked how they would climb the tower.
Mr. Waller replied that it would be pretty much the same way that a climber would climb a tree. The
photos provided with the existing tower shows the different phases of assembly. It shows the different
places where there are holes in the antennas. Another interesting fact is in the beginning when the tower
goes up the branches on the lower ends because there is no other carrier who has identified that they will
use this tower yet and if another carrier can make use of this location and use of the lower heights he was
sure it was something they would look into using. However, as of right now basically the design that they
are using for three levels is the same as the one that is done at the Greenbrier. Any future carriers would
have to get their own ground lease with the Forestry Department. Verizon Wireless does not make
money off of leasing tower space. They make money by having the best coverage available to their
customers. In the future if someone else did want to come in and co -locate below those denser branches
would be replaced with a wider set of branches so those branches could then cover those lower
antennas. It is pretty much a situation where that is how it is maintained. They would have to pay to
replace those original branches for branches that are planned to provide screening to additional antennas
from theirs.
,ww Mr. Loach asked staff to bring up on the screen Attachment D. It is the picture that shows the monopine
from the Forestry Department. His viewpoint is that is the most important view. He could see if they were
trying to use this monopine to the right in the cluster of trees to make it less visible. However, where the
monopine is proposed right now it just reminds him of something from back from the early science fiction
movies where a tree got a nuclear radiation and not is coming back for revenge. It just looks so
unnatural. With that said he does not mind the pole. He could live with the pole because he thinks that is
reasonable.
Mr. Franco noted with that said his understanding from outside the property it has little to no visual
impact. This picture is from within the property. So while he thinks it is silly he thinks it is the landowner's
decision.
Mr. Morris agreed with Mr. Franco. It sounds like they are in between a rock and a hard place. They have
really done a lot of research on this. This is what the property owner wants. The ARB has given their
approval. If they go back to just a solid pole they are probably putting them back a good two years. That
was a guess on his part.
Mr. Franco noted he was less concerned about the time period and all of those things. Again, he thinks
service is important. However, if it is only impacting the owner of the property, it is still the state in this
particular case, and then he leaves that up to them. That said he would like to make a motion.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of SP-2012-00024 Virginia
Department of Forestry "Buckingham" Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the
staff report.
Mr. Morris asked to modify the motion slightly that they choose to recommend approval
Mr. Franco agreed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
The motion passed by a vote of 4:2. (Dotson & Loach voted nay)
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2012-00024 Virginia Department of Forestry "Buckingham" Verizon Wireless
Tier III PWSF would go to the Board of Supervisors on November 14, 2012 with a recommendation for
approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, as follows,
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and
site plans, entitled "Buckingham Circle Rawland Monopine," with a final zoning drawing submittal date
of 9/25/12 (hereafter "Conceptual Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as
shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting height
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Color
f. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded to make a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors to approve modifications for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3), (d)(5) and (d)(6) under the special
exception criteria of Section 31.8 of the Zoning Ordinance for SP-2012-00024 Virginia Department of
Forestry "Buckingham" Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF for reasons outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Kamptner clarified that in looking at the drawing the D5 special exception the staff report noted that it
was going to allow an increase in the diameter of the base. It looks like they also need to be allowed to
expand the diameter at the height of the pole.
Ms. Baldwin pointed out it was her understanding that is okay and within the regulations.
Mr. Kamptner noted the drawing shows 2' and the regulations put a limit of 18" at the top of the
monopole.
Ms. Baldwin agreed that it needs to be clarified that it needs to meet that.
Mr. Kamptner noted there was one other special exception that was needed for one other provision,
which he did not write down that they discussed.
Mr. Morris pointed out it was the height of the structure in relation to the reference tree.
Mr. Franco noted it was the height and the color.
Mr. Kamptner noted between now and when this goes to the Board staff can work with the applicant
regarding the color of the pole itself, the branches, and the needles so that all of those issues are clear.
Amended Motion: Mr. Franco amended the motion as it stands with an addition to include the two
recommendations as staff works them out to address color and diameter of the pole.
Mr. Smith seconded the amendment to the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:2. (Dotson & Loach voted nay)
'err Mr. Morris noted the modifications for SP-2012-00024 Virginia Department of Forestry "Buckingham"
Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF would go to the Board of Supervisors on November 14, 2012 with a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 10
FINAL MINUTES
recommendation for approval of the modifications for special exceptions of this personal wireless service
facility as proposed with an addition to include the two recommendations as staff works them out to
address the color and diameter of the pole.
1. Section 5.1.40c)(3) — no antenna to project more than 12 inches from a structure
2. Section 5.1.40(d)(5)-maximum base of the diameter
3. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-height of the structure in relation to the reference tree.
SP-2012-00025 Verizon Wireless — Piedmont College — Tier III PWSF
PROPOSAL: Tier III personal wireless service facility on 157.49 acres. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: Chapter 18 Section 10.2.2.48 of the Albemarle County Code, which allows for Tier III personal
wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT: To protect properties of historic, architectural, or cultural
significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Institutional, Neighborhood 4, Institutional uses allow for a range of public
uses including schools, universities and public recreational facilities. LOCATION: 1800 Monticello Avenue
(Route 20)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07700-00-00-02500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville (Brent Nelson)
Brent Nelson presented a PowerPoint presentation to summarize the staff report.
• This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility on tax map 77,
parcel 75 located at 1800 Monticello Road. The applicant, Verizon, is proposing to install a 90
foot tall Tier III Personal Wireless Service Treetop Facility, along with associated ground
equipment. The top of the proposed monopole will be 14 feet above the 78 foot tall reference
tree, indentified as a 24" caliper Pecan.
• The proposed facility is to be located on a 158 acre parcel split by the 1-64/Route 20 interchange
with the proposed facility located in the northwest corner, north of 1-64. The parcel is mostly
wooded and home to the Piedmont House rehabilitation facility. The wireless facility is to be
located approximately 165 feet west of the Route 20 right-of-way at the edge of the lawn
surrounding Piedmont House. The property is adjacent to the Charlottesville city limits and
surrounded by areas both urban and rural in character with developments that include Piedmont
Virginia Community College. The existing access drive is used to access the proposed facility.
• A balloon test was conducted on August 29, 2012. During the site visit, staff observed a balloon
that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole. Routes 20 and 1-64 were
traveled to determine the extent of visibility of the proposal. The balloon was only visible just
above treetops, and for a very short duration, along Route 20 (just south of the interchange with I-
64) as shown in the photo taken by staff and along 1-64 (just east of the interchange with Route
20) as shown in the photo. While the balloon did not have a wooded backdrop in both locations,
the height of the balloon was such that the lack of backdrop did not have a negative impact. It is
Staff's opinion that at the fourteen foot height, the low level of visibility is not expected to have a
negative impact on the Entrance Corridors, the Route 20 Virginia Scenic Byway and nearby
properties.
Factors Favorable:
• The monopole is located so that it is only visible right at treetop level and for a short duration
along Routes 20 & 1-64.
• The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal visibility from
the Route 20 & 1-64 Entrance Corridors.
Factors Unfavorable:
• The proposal is within the Route 20 Virginia Byways Overlay District. The impact is mitigated by
the limited visibility of the site.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this facility at fourteen (14) feet above the tallest tree
with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 11
FINAL MINUTES
The Planning Commission's role in this case is the following:
• To recommend approval or denial of modifications for Section 5.1.40 (d)(6) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
To recommend approval or denial of the special use permit for this Tier III personal wireless
service facility.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. There being none, the public hearing was opened and the applicant
was invited to come forward and address the Commission.
Laurie Schweller, representative for Verizon Wireless, said even though this parcel is along the scenic
byway of Route 20 there is such a minimal visual impact that they did not see the one negative impact as
a negative. Therefore, there are only positive factors here. It might help their deliberations to note that
for Alltel in February of 2009 this site was approved as a Tier II treetop facility because by their
measurements they determined that it met the qualifications. When they merged with Alltel and took over
this site Verizon Wireless did another tree survey and determined that the reference tree is actually 14'
taller than the proposed 90' monopole. Because of that they are requesting a recommendation for a Tier
III approval. That is the only requirement under the ordinance for which they are requesting any
modification. Otherwise, it is perfectly in line with a Tier II personal wireless service facility.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Randolph and Mr. Dotson seconded to recommend approval of granting the modification of
Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance for SP-2012-00025 Verizon Piedmont College Tier III PWSF to
allow the special exception for a Tier III personal wireless service facility at fourteen (14) feet above the
reference tree for reasons outlined in the staff report.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted the modification for SP-2012-00025 Verizon Piedmont College Tier III PWSF would go to
the Board of Supervisors on November 14, 2012 with a recommendation for approval.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Dotson seconded to recommend approval of SP-2012-00025
Verizon Piedmont College Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2012-00025 Verizon Piedmont College Tier III PWSF would go to the Board of
Supervisors on November 14, 2012 with a recommendation for approval, as follows:
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommends approval of SP-2012-00025 Verizon Wireless —
Piedmont College — Tier III PWSF subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, as follows,
Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled "Piedmont College
Rawland Monopole (University of VA Real Estate Foundation Property) prepared by Justin Yoon latest
revision date 9/25/12 (hereafter "Conceptual Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development,
as shown on the Conceptual Plan.:
— Height
— Mounting type
— Antenna type
— Number of antenna
— Distance above reference tree
— Color
"%AW — Location of ground equipment and monopole
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 12
FINAL MINUTES
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission recessed at 6:57 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:02 p.m.
Public Hearing:
ZTA-2010-00004 Industrial Uses — Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.14.5, Certified engineer's report,
5.1.10, Junk yards, 5.1.15, Sawmill, temporary or permanent, 5.1.20, Sale and/or storage of petroleum
products including kerosene, gasoline, and heating oil, 5.1.21, Dwellings in commercial and industrial
districts, 5.1.31, Body shop, 8.5.5.2, Review of site plans and subdivision plats, 26.1, Intent, where
permitted, 26.3, Permitted and accessory uses and structures, 26.6, Height regulations, 26.10, Minimum
yards requirements, 27.1, Intent, where permitted, 27.2, Permitted uses, 27.4, Additional requirement,
28.1, Intent, where permitted, 28.2, Permitted uses, 28.4, Additional requirements, 29.1, Intent, where
permitted, 29.2, Permitted uses, 29.5, Additional requirements; by adding Secs. 5.1.49, Dry cleaning
plants, 5.1.50, Foundries, 5.1.51, Outdoor activities, 5.1.52, Outdoor storage, 5.1.53, Rendering facilities,
5.1.54, Slaughterhouses, 5.1.55, Tire recycling yards, 26.6, Site development and use; and by repealing
Secs. 26.2, Application, 26.4, Standard ratios, 26.5, Off-street parking and loading requirements, 26.7,
Performance standards, 26.8, Sign regulations, 26.9, Minimum landscaped area, 26.11, Utility
requirements, 26.12, Site planning — external relationships, 26.12.1, Vehicular access, 26.13, Building
separation, 27.2.1, By right, 27.2.2, By special use permit, 27.3, Minimum area required for establishment
of district, 28.2.1, By right, 28.2.2, By special use permit, 28.3, Minimum area required for establishment
of district, 29.2.1, By right — Category I, 29.2.2, By special use permit — Category I , 29.2.3, By right —
Category II, 29.2.4, By special use permit — Category II, 29.3, Minimum area required for creation of
district, 29.4, Number of permitted uses; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This
ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to industrial uses by adding definitions pertaining to
certain industrial and common use classifications (3.1); amend the requirements for the certified
engineer's report (4.14.5); amend and add supplemental regulations applicable to several uses that are
industrial in character (5.1.10, 5.1.15, 5.1.20, 5.1.21, 5.1.31; 5.1.49, 5.1.50, 5.1.51, 5.1.52, 5.1.53,
5.1.54, 5.1.55); amend the regulations for the review of site plans and subdivision plats within the PD-IP
zoning district (8.5.5.2); and amend the industrial zoning district regulations by revising each district's
stated intent, the uses allowed by right and by special use permit, the area of certain uses allowed by
right and by special exception, the accessory uses allowed and prohibited, and other uses prohibited, by
renumbering and reorganizing those district regulations, and by repealing certain regulations (26.1
through 29.4).
Mr. Cilimberg presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. This has been an
initiative underway for more than two years. There have been prior phases of amendment that has been
enacted that put into place, as an example, the performance standard updates. This is dealing with
industrial uses and how to hopefully modernize our ordinance to deal with the kinds of businesses and
industrial activities in today's world. Most recently back in May they had a work session on this particular
zoning text amendment. The Planning Commission provided some direction, which staff has followed up
since and have covered in the staff report. He would not get into all of the particulars but certainly can
answer any questions the Commission might have regarding what they have covered in the staff report.
Background and Efforts -to -Date
Efforts to amend the Industrial Districts have occurred simultaneously with the review of the Target
Industry Study and update to the Comprehensive Plan:
— BOS passed Phase I of Industrial ZTA (6/2/2010)
— BOS adoption of Economic Vitality Action Plan (8/2010)
— BOS passed Phase II of Industrial ZTA (1/1112011)
— BOS discussion of results from Target Industry Study (3/2/2011)
— Industrial and Interstate Interchange Roundtable for Comprehensive Plan Update
(11 /28/2011)
`�nr — PC Worksession on Phase III of Industrial ZTA (1/31/2012)
— 2"d Worksession on Phase III of Industrial ZTA (5/15/2012)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 13
FINAL MINUTES
Objective
• To modernize the industrial regulations to provide greater flexibility for today's industrial uses
while preserving the integrity of the industrial districts and accommodating target industries.
New Ordinance Language
• Moves to "broad categories" of by -right industrial uses and specifically lists other uses that may
be subject to special use permit or treated differently than by -right in some cases.
• Provides for industries noted in the Target Industry Study
• Broadens by -right uses and expands opportunities for "blending" industrial and commercial uses
(commercial in industrial; industrial in commercial)
Broad Categories
Most new industrial uses will fall under the following general categories.
Man ufacturing/Processing/AssemblylFabrication/Recycling (Includes BR BR BR BR
Agribusiness and Food Processing Target Industry)
Storage/Warehousing/DistributionfTransportation (Includes Data Center BR BR BR BR
and Agribusiness and Food Processing Target Industries)
Laboratories/Research and Development/Experimental Testing (Includes
Biosciences/Medical Devices and Information Technology` and Defense BR BR BR BR
Security Target Industries)
The resolution of intent before the Commission tonight covers allowing industrial in commercial districts
and they would bring back that language to the Commission next month. It is a fairly quick matter they
can deal with, but one the Commission presented at their last work session and agreed they should move
forward with.
Mr. Cilimberg quickly reviewed the essence of the amendments were about. There was a lot done to
address bringing language in the ordinance up-to-date more from a housekeeping perspective.
Obviously there were a number of changes that dealt with uses themselves. The three broad categories
of uses are shown. He noted, too, where particular target industries would fit under these broad
categories of by -right uses. These are not the only uses that would be allowed in those categories. He
just wanted to point out as an example in the manufacturing/processing/assembly/fabrication/recycling
category that would include agribusiness and food processing target industries. Again, noted here as well
are other activities, businesses under the target industries for the county that would be allowed by right
through the general categories.
Under each category are also a number of uses that either will not be allowed or allowed by special use
permit in the different districts. Those are listed separately. He did not go over each one of them.
However, they are grouped under the broader categories of industrial use types. One use type that does
not have any uses listed that are otherwise not by right is the laboratories/research and development and
experimental testing. This is really a combination of a number of types of uses that existed in the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 14
FINAL MINUTES
ordinance previously either by special use permit or by right. They did include in the ordinance definitions
for this particular area because this has a specific and particular relevancy to the target industries for the
county. Then there is the question of office uses, which has come up previously in the work sessions.
They have tried to address offices that would have some kind of relationship to industry differently than
offices that might exist independent of industry, such as a doctor's office, but without completely removing
any by -right status for independent office. Currently some do exist in industrial areas and they did not
want to create an automatic nonconformity in the ordinance.
They identified independent offices at a square footage size that they felt was reasonable to allow
independent office uses by -right either under existing circumstances or in the future. But, also for those
that would get larger than 3,000 square feet to have a provision for a special exception. That is a process
that is rather new in the county but has essentially involved the staff making recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors for approval in some cases. They also could be recommending denial. The denials
they would probably see in the special exception process, whereas the approvals would go directly to the
Board. In this case they have made one modification tonight that they would like the Commission to
include in an action in making a recommendation to the Board that the 3,000 square feet is going to be
based rather than based on a building size. Essentially it is a 3,000 square foot limit to the individual use
at the site that can be by -right. Above that would be special exception. There would be a continuing
allowance for industrial offices, which are offices operating in conjunction with the industry. That is all by -
right. Then their supporting offices as well that have a percentage of gross floor area that is allowed as
they might support the primary industry operating at a site.
On the commercial use side they have the possibility that the Commission had agreed they would want to
move forward of C-1, CO and HC uses being permitted in the industrial districts by special use permit.
That is on the first line in the presentation chart of the particular commercial uses. There are other uses
allowed that are allowed by special use permit. Much of this is retaining what already exists in the
ordinance today. In both cases they are increasing the percentage of gross floor area if possible. This
is particularly important for the subordinate retail sales because it really allows a business producing
something to retail the sale of that product at their industrial location. In both cases they are proposing
that a 25% area be available by -right and above that is a special exception.
Previously staff talked about one new residential use possibility for multi -family dwellings. That is not
available today. The idea is multi -family dwellings might be a good fit for having employees live close to
where they work in some industrial locations, particularly in a larger complex of industrial. That is a
special use permit in the LI District. It is not allowed in the HI district.
The Summary Table really summarizes what he just mentioned in terms of what is currently allowed and
what is proposed. Basically it is to show how the particular kinds of uses of office, commercial and
residential could now be allowed through either by -right or special exception under the proposal. As well
they talk here about what would be proposed under a subsequent amendment that would allow the
industrial uses from the by -right categories in the Highway Commercial (HC), C-1 and Commercial Office
Districts. That would be the subject of the resolution of intent tonight and the particulars would be brought
in a subsequent hearing. This staff was hearing in their latest Round Table would open up possibilities
for small start up industrial type uses to have more location possibilities. They think this is also a good
addition to their allowances and one the Commission did initially see in the last work session. There are
other uses that already exist in the ordinance that are still specified for various types of activities both
public and private.
There is a list of prohibited uses, which they don't have now in the ordinance. This they think is a
valuable addition so that there is an understanding of those kinds of industrial activities that would not be
allowed.
Prohibited Uses
1. Incinerators. The establishment or use of an incinerator.
2. Manufacture of certain products.
3. Sludge. The storage of sludge.
4. Toxic wastes. The disposal or storage of toxic wastes regulated under the federal Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.).
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 15
FINAL MINUTES
(See Attachment D and Attachment F at end of minutes)
Recommendations
• Approval of ZTA-2010-00004 (Attachment D of Staff Report) inclusive of modifications to refer to
rural areas district rather than agricultural district in 26.4 Minimum yards and refer to GFA (gross
floor area) of use rather than of building for independent offices in the office use table. This was
pointed out in Marcia Joseph's email that staff feels should be modified before it is enacted.
• Approval of Resolution of Intent re: by -right industrial uses in commercial districts as outlined in
the staff report's Attachment F
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff
Mr. Loach asked what controls are there regarding the uses for laboratory, research and development.
He asked if they would allow is somebody wanted to come in and do experiments with dangerous
biological or radiologist material. He asked if that would be by -right.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that they have the recently updated performance standards for industrial uses. They
also have the prohibited activities, which include toxic wastes. He referred to Ms. McCulley in terms of
how they might treat something such as biological materials.
Ms. McCulley replied that is correct. The performance standards would apply and then anything that
would be one of the prohibited uses as far as laboratory activity would not be permitted.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that biotech is a targeted industry. So there is an element of that type.
Mr. Loach noted he understand biotech in making pharmaceuticals and that. His worry is suppose the
government wanted to come down and set up a research center.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the federal government is not subject to our land use laws. Therefore, our
districts don't make a difference to them.
Mr. Loach pointed out he wanted to make sure there were some controls
Mr. Dotson asked how what the person spoke about at the beginning of the meeting intersects with what
he just summarized.
Mr. Cilimberg replied the towing business now has become part of the general by -right category for
storage, warehousing, distribution and transportation. As noted in a table distributed at a prior work
session, towing and storage of motor vehicles used to be by special use permit in the LI District.
Temporary storage of motor vehicles, which had a nuance of difference, was by right in the HI District
previously. Now essentially the towing type business, as well as body shops, is a by -right use under the
general categories. He did not believe the person who spoke at the beginning of the meeting was at
their roundtable. But, they did have a couple of towing business interests that came and they did talk
some about that. Those persons understood how that was being handled.
Mr. Franco asked how it applies in the prohibited uses under toxic waste the disposal and storage. He
noted that a dentist office might have chemical waste that have to be stored and disposed of properly. Is
that considered storage if they have a temporary storage.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that would be like the box outside the dentist office
Ms. McCulley replied that would not apply and that certainly is not the intent. For background, they
followed a lot of ordinances, for example in the research triangle. A lot of what they see is what Raleigh,
a;lft►. North Carolina has their prohibited uses. For small amounts of by-products of what was classified as
toxic waste that is not going to be considered something that would be prohibited because that is an
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —OCTOBER 23, 2012 16
FINAL MINUTES
accessory by-product of the main use.
Mr. Franco said it was doing something with toxic waste as opposed to generating it.
Ms. McCulley replied that was correct.
Mr. Randolph commended staff on all of the work. What they have right now is clearly a cubby hole
system because for each use there is one zoning cubby hole for it. What they have talked about in
previous discussions is how much they have tried to suggest and how staff has tried to respond in a very
sincere thorough manner to provide flexibility and adaptation. However, as he read through the minutes
he was not convinced that they are quite there yet. The reason he says that is tonight they are really
focusing more on the zoning aspects about use and he thinks they ought to be focusing on scale and
impact. What Mr. Dotson suggested earlier about a flex zone he thought was valuable because it does
allow a variety of different businesses to operate no matter whether the business is commercial, light
industrial, etc. but not residential, which needs a formula approach in measuring those businesses by
square footage and percentage of use. They could look at that flex zone and basically say that a
business could be there if the scale is small, the impact is small, and the primary and secondary uses are
consistent with the goals and objectives for the county in terms of businesses coming in and start ups
being initiated. Then it would be by -right in that situation. Where the scale gets to be larger he would
depend on a wordsmith, like Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Kamptner to put that together and define what small
would actually be. It would have to be quantified. A special use permit would be needed if the use
impacts and scale get out of the small category. They do not want the process to be too complicated
since they need to minimize the time and money for the applicant and the county so they can get to the
place they want to be. He suggested that there might be a better way to do it to make it more simplified
for applicants and staff.
Mr. Loach said he would like to see if this matrix could be applied to an overlay of the master planned
areas where it was applicable. That way the advisory councils could have looked at what the potential is
for development and to look at the size and scale to make it more flexible for use. It is important that they
know how this is going to fit.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff has discussed a lot of what the Commission has talked about in the
best and quickest way to get there. They are dealing with a lot of acreage that is already zoned. So they
had to really be cognitive of trying to modify existing zoning districts to work for properties that are already
zoned so that they are not faced with going through a rezoning process to get to something that is
different in structure than what they've recommended to the Commission. So they have that fact that they
have a lot of LI and HI zoning as well as a lot of commercial zoning and they did not want to put those
properties through rezoning process. They were trying to adapt the existing districts to existing zoning
and give more flexibility for them. Having to go through an actual zoning map amendment process on a
lot of these properties to get them into a more flexible kind of district is actually adding cost and time. That
was one objective in how they approached this. Secondly, for those properties that would come through
for rezoning that are not already zoned they really are relying on the comprehensive plan and the master
plans to guide how those zoning approvals would enable the property owners to develop their property.
Then they can apply the proper zoning district as well as the allowances under that district as those
properties seek rezoning. That is where they really then overlay the district they may be asking for as
they do in all rezoning approvals. They would overlay that district request with the actual land use or
master plan that applies. They did not go into this effort with the idea of overhauling all of the zoning
districts and readopting zoning maps because that was not a direction the Board gave them in the
beginning. The Board really wanted to create more flexibility with the districts they had. That has been
their priority approach in trying to address the need to make the districts work a little more easily for
people and at the same time recognizing it as they create these new allowances. They can then use
those in combination with land use plans and master plans for those new proposals or new rezoning
requests that come in so the Commission and Board could then see in the requests are doing what Mr.
Loach mentioned. That is adequately fitting within the land use plan. It would be pretty difficult to
anticipate every kind of size and impact for every existing industrial district and figure out how to rezone it
to be more in keeping with what is appropriate in that particular area. That would take a lot of time and
would have an effect on property owners. If they were starting with scratch where they had a comp plan
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 17
FINAL MINUTES
and they really did not have business, industrial and commercial districts at all, he thinks they could do a
lot of what he was saying. They would have the land use plan to essentially form the zoning over. They
don't have that luxury because of the acres that are already zoned. That is why they have taken this
approach.
Ms. McCulley pointed out with regards to the office use there is no event that sends someone to a special
use permit for an office use. Every situation where they exceed the 3,000 square feet it is a special
exception, which is a much simplified process than a special use permit. They were cognizant of the
major change they were making with regards to office use and try to think what an appropriately
reasonable streamline process was for that. That is what they came up with for the special exception.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out one example of how this can work a little more easily for a property owner was
Ms. Albrecht's request for the rezoning of an industrial property to Neighborhood Model. The whole basis
in staff recommending that Neighborhood Model zoning for that property was the fact that it reflected the
Places29 Master Plan in what she was proposing to do. These amendments would have allowed her to
do it without going through that rezoning process. That is an example of how they think this provides
better opportunity to fit circumstances for people. They always still have the master plans kind of as a
basis for the land use plans. That is where they see the zoning changes interacting with the plans to
create potential for landowners to exercise a little flexibility in the use of their properties. In a different
area of Places29 they would not have recommended an approval. He thought that reflects in small part
some of what Mr. Loach was saying as to how they try to match the use with the plan through the zoning.
Mr. Loach said his point would be that if in fact because of the changes in this ordinance there would be a
dramatic expansion of the types of uses of the land in the master planned area that at least at the
advisory council level they should be aware what the potential is for those significant changes. They are
talking about flexibility on one hand, but he could also appreciate the neighbors and residents in the area
who bought in the area under the pretext of the zoning when they moved in and now the rules have
changed.
Mr. Franco noted in the staff report it used the term site. However, he did not see it defined. He was
trying to understand when you limit square footage to the site what happens if a townhouse property was
subdivided so that one building could have a number of different parcels and ownerships. Is that multiple
sites at that point or is it still one site.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the term site is actually defined in a different zoning text amendment that is
working its way through. It may be in the site plan process zoning text amendment, which was adopted
by the Board. Site was intended to address the situation where they have a single development that is
composed of more than one parcel. It is to recognize multiple parcels in particular circumstances.
Mr. Franco said if he did a unified plan and had a number of buildings he would be limited to 3,000 square
feet for that development without having to go to a special exception. However, if he subdivided first and
then do the same development he could arguably have more.
Ms. McCulley noted that 3,000 square feet applies to each individual office use. On one site or one tax
map/parcel you can have a building with multiple individual separate business uses/office uses that each
are up to the 3,000 square feet. So there is not a cap and it is per separate office entity. They had that
same discussion today. It is a little bit confusing. They might need to find some language that clarifies it
a little better.
Mr. Franco said that would help. He commented on the multi -family. He is dealing with some sites in the
city now. If they are to go this route and allow multi -family or residential in there, is there a reason not to
include single-family attached.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that they did not because they were thinking of building type that they would
typically think would be industrial or business and that multi -family would be in its form more like industrial
buildings than say townhouses would be.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 18
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Franco pointed out when he thinks about Downtown Charlottesville and the Eck's building that was
industrial at one point in time and the worker housing that is adjacent to it that is all single-family
detached. It seems like if they are thinking about what he described, which was creating an opportunity
then expanding that to allow for townhouses and/or single-family attached would make a certain amount
of sense.
Mr. Cilimberg said if that is something the Commission would want to recommend they could certainly
make sure that was included in an amendment. They were being somewhat careful since they had never
really been in the residential uses other than the sleeping quarter kind of uses in industrial areas.
Mr. Dotson noted there were complex objectives here. It is a matter of balancing different ones.
However, one he understands is that they have a certain amount of industrial land and they don't want to
use that up with non -industrial uses. They want to be protective, but at the same time they want to be
flexible and allow some commercial and other kinds of uses in there. They have come up with these
definitions like supporting, subordinate and industrial offices, which could even be in the City of
Charlottesville, etc. That strikes him as really complicated, confusing and maybe difficult to administer.
He tried to think about is there a way they could protect the industrial land, allow flexibility, and not be so
complicated. What he came up with is to take a site and figure out the ground area that would actually be
developable. They would take out the setbacks, the landscaping, the parking and the circulation. He
suggested they keep at least 75% of that ground area for industrial uses and the other 25% could be
used for office. If they wanted more office, then they could go up to two stories. It would not limit the
square footage, but would protect the industrial footprint which he thought was one of the most important
objectives. If something like that could work maybe they would not have to get into these definitions of
supporting and subordinate where they have to make a judgment and if it is related. Maybe it was related
to the use at the time it was built, but now a new user has come in and all of a sudden it was no longer in
conformity. This seems to be fraught with confusion potentially. The objective is to protect places to put
industry so let's 75 percent of the footprint area.
Mr. Franco noted his reaction to that is that there is a lot of time and effort that has gone into this. He
would hate to change track mid -way on what they are doing. To protect that 75 percent they wrote off 25
percent allowing those other uses to go in automatically. He did not think this does that. It makes a
provision for those uses to come in, but it still preserve arguably 100 percent of that footprint to be used
for the industrial type uses. So they have not completely written it off.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the public comment since the County is the applicant.
Gary Henry, founder and Executive Director of the Charlottesville Technology Incubator, said it was a
mentoring, networking and support nonprofit organization for technology start ups in the area. He was
also a management consultant for his own firm and works with a number of technology companies in the
area. In his experience he has two relative comments about this particular zoning proposal.
1. There is very little industrial zoned space in the county. That is an issue. In his management
consulting capacity he has worked both with Relay Food trying to find a location, which is a very
desirable business and a growing one in our area. It was quite difficult looking both in the city
and the county to find appropriate space. It was a danger that they would locate outside the area.
Also in working with Micro Systems and a licensee of their Siemens Energy who bought the Micro
Aire Building. That also came very close to leaving the area because they could not find a
suitable building. At the last minute the Micro Aire building became available. He was
underscoring the fact that they need to do everything they can to preserve the industrial use or
however it is zoned or conceived in the model that there is an opportunity for those kinds of
businesses to find an appropriate home. Otherwise, there is so little currently zoned industrial
space that they are going to write off in a lot of cases the kinds of jobs that could be created by
those startup companies by not having a place for them to reside here in the county.
2. Part of this proposal was also to liberalize what could happen in the commercial districts. Every
start up technology company more or less starts out in office space. Even thought they might be
making a pharmaceutical they may have a wet lab someplace else not in the office space
obviously. They could be a medical device company and they may need to have a variety of
different pieces of equipment, but they need to make sure they have flexibility to accommodate
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 19
FINAL MINUTES
them. Otherwise, they will go someplace else.
John Lowry, Chair of the Economic Development Authority of the county, pointed out he was speaking for
the EDA Group who are all volunteers for the county.
- He thanked them for their participation in the rewrite of the comp plan. He sees business land
use really as part of that rewrite. Staff has been implementing the economic action plan for 2'/2
years. Among the parts of the implementation are the comp plan rewrite, the rewrite of some of
the code regarding zoning, and the Target Industry Study. All of these are parts of hand and
glove. The county staff, in his opinion, expertly uses management by objective. What staff has
discovered in their planning process is that Albemarle County has a small amount of land useful
to business labeled Light Industrial. What the Commission is considering tonight is a codification
remedy to that deficiency. He was all in favor of it.
- To get more land zoned usefully to business is one thing, but to keep it that way is another. What
staff realized by having round tables and discussions with business people is business land can
be gobbled up for purposes that diminish the land supply for targeted industries, as an example.
Specifically, commercial buildings and retail uses preempt the true light industry use. They can
resolve the conflict by having 25 and 30 percent limits in certain categories of zoned land so the
commercial uses in a supporting role and not the primary role. He urged the Commission to
agree with this approach.
- Last staff has realized that in order to streamline the process for businesses to get up and
running either by -right or by special use permits for land a third leg was needed in the approval
stool. If a business use could not get by -right approval and a special use permit seemed too
complicated or too expensive then a new category called special exemptions seems appropriate.
The special exemptions are administratively approved and then they go to the Board of
Supervisors before the exemption was made. This is new to our county, but not to other
counties. They are only catching up with what others already do. He encouraged the
Commission to agree to this new approach in the code. He thanked them for their constructive
thinking in these matters.
Morgan Butler, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, noted this effort is one that has been
engaged in over a long period of time. There has been a lot of input into it. He thanked staff for all of
their efforts they have undergone to get input most recently being the roundtable of a couple of weeks
ago. He commended staff for taking all that input and putting it into ordinance language. It requires close
scrutiny.
- As he has made clear throughout this process the SELC supports the idea of adding some
flexibility to our industrial zoning districts, but share the concerns that have been voiced tonight by
others in the audience. They don't want to inadvertently make it harder for true industrial uses to
locate in our industrial districts, which will then increase pressure on the rural areas to open the
rural areas up to more industrial uses. They are glad to see staff is considering the idea of
allowing some of these industrial uses by right in our commercial zoning districts because they
have such a glut of commercially zoned land. He thought that was a very appropriate solution.
- He was also concerned that there are aspects of the ordinance language that are going to
inadvertently create some obstacles for those true industrial uses and make it hard for them to
compete with some of these more commercial and office oriented uses for our industrially zoned
land. He would like to take the time to walk through some of those concerns.
- The office category that is on page 14 of the attachment, he noted the idea that they would allow
industrial offices by right makes sense. But when he reads the definition of industrial office he is
very concerned that it is so vague that it basically allows any type of office. An office related to
and serving an industrial use could conceivably apply to a bank where industrial use has an
account. Related to is very difficult to nail down. He suggested that they go with subordinate
office for the office uses that would be allowed by right in an industrial uses. Subordinate being
an office of an actual industrial use that is located on the site much the same way that
subordinate is used in the retail and commercial section.
- On the supporting office part moving from industrial office to supporting office that definition is
also very broad. It essentially would allow pretty much any type of office up to 25 percent of the
industrial use area on the site. Then they could do anything more with that simply with a special
exception. He suggested they consider there is a special use permit required to go above the 25
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 20
FINAL MINUTES
percent. Also, it would be important to consider how that 25 percent is going to be calculated. If
it is calculated at the outset when a proposal or site plan is submitted that allows a situation
where the industrial part may never be built and they just get the office.
Turning to the commercial uses on page 15 he had the same concern that the supporting
commercial was very broadly defined. Up to 25 percent of supporting commercial is allowed by
right. There are no real limits on what supporting commercial is. If they are going to go above
they should consider a special use permit rather than a special exception. He has the same
concern that the 25 percent be nailed down based on existing building space as opposed to a
proposal. For example, they could say it has to be 25 percent of the industrial area at the time
they come in for a certificate of occupancy for the commercial use. That way the industrial part of
the development has actually been built out.
The 25 percent cap in the office and commercial category has no upper cap or limit. They are
talking about opening the door to multiple big boxes on the site that would fit within that 25
percent cap. He suggested there be some kind of cap, perhaps 50,000 square feet, on the size
of a commercial use that would be allowed pursuant to that 25 percent allowance.
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, took exception to some of Mr. Butler's comments. While
he understands the definition question he thinks one of the missions of this document is to make
Albemarle County open for business. The idea of changing from a special exception to a special use
perm it makes it harder. Do they want to make it harder? Quite honestly the idea of the 25 percent office
space is a good balance. The special exception is there if they want more. The special use permit
creates a higher bar. It creates a public hearing. It creates a great upset in the community for what he
thinks this community wants, which is career ladder jobs. That is what this is about. This is about making
the community open to career jobs, specifically the jobs that Albemarle County helped pay for the TJPED
Study to be in here. This lines up with the TJPED Targeted Industries. He encouraged the Commission
to pass this. There are things that could be changed in this that would make it better. They have been at
it for a long time and it is time to move on it.
r Helen Coffin, the new President at Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development, reiterated
what Mr. Williamson said. It is great to see that they are considering the target markets. They are a key
sponsor of our target market report. As they take charge and start to implement that it is wonderful to see
the commission take this proactive step this evening. She thanked the Commission for all of their
thoughtful time and attention to this.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter back
before the Commission for discussion.
Mr. Franco asked if the special exception runs with the land or the use.
Mr. Kamptner replied the special exception is quite similar to a special use permit in some respects.
Under State law they have the same meaning. They have broken them out. The special use permit
pertains to uses that otherwise would not be allowed. The special exceptions came to Albemarle County
as a result of the Sinclair case. It was initially the umbrella procedure adopted for all of the existing
waivers and modifications that they allowed under the zoning ordinance. Special exceptions are similar
to special use permits in it runs with the land and legislative in nature when approved by the Board of
Supervisors. They are defined under our ordinance in the legislative process zoning text amendment to
deal with among other things, which is relevant to this zoning text amendment, allowing the area of an
otherwise by right use to be increased beyond the threshold stated in the ordinance. That is the key role
they play here in they allow the area to increase.
Ms. McCulley pointed out special exceptions can be subject to conditions for their approval.
Mr. Kamptner agreed.
Mr. Loach asked if heard that special exceptions are administrative and don't require a public hearing.
Mr. Kamptner replied that only certain types do. One if they are a change in use, which would be a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 21
FINAL MINUTES
special use permit. Also, if they increased the bulk or area of a building by more than 50 percent within
the distance of an adjoining locality, then the city gets notice of it. In most cases it was going to be the
City of Charlottesville. Those are subject to public hearing. The way the special exceptions are set up
those should be very rare situations.
Mr. Smith asked if special exceptions are revocable in any way, shape or form.
Mr. Cilimberg replied obviously they are granted for a particular allowance with conditions and there could
be a violation. However, he did not know about revocability.
Ms. McCulley noted the county can revoke special use permits for willful noncompliance after a public
hearing.
Mr. Kamptner said our ordinance provides that special use permit can be revoked if there is
noncompliance with conditions. In his experience where there is noncompliance with a condition they
enforce the condition to get compliance.
Mr. Smith asked about the special exception.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the same enabling authority applied to the special exception.
Mr. Randolph asked if the Planning Commission will see every special exception.
Mr. Kamptner replied no. Under the policy for processing special exceptions the commission would see
only those where staff is not recommending approval.
Mr. Cilimberg added or where there is a condition the applicant disagrees with
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of ZTA-2010-00004 as
provided in Attachment D of the staff report inclusive of modifications to refer to rural areas district rather
than agricultural district in 26.4 Minimum Yards and refer to GFA of use rather than of building for
independent offices in the office use table.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted ZTA-2010-00004 will go before the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
approval on a date to be determined.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith for approval of the Resolution of Intent regarding by -right
industrial uses in commercial districts as provided in Attachment F of the staff report.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted the Planning Commission approved adoption of the Resolution of Intent regarding by -
right industrial uses in commercial districts as provided in Attachment F of the staff report. A ZTA under
the resolution of intent will come before the Planning Commission on a date to be determined.
Deferred Item
ZTA-2012-00006 Legislative Review Process Improvements — Amend Secs. 1.7, Official zoning map,
3.1, Definitions, 4.8.1, Determinations concerning unspecified uses, 4.15.5, Signs authorized by special
use permit, 10.5.2, Where permitted by special use permit, 20.1, Intent, where permitted, 20.2,
Application, 30.1.2, Application, 30.5.5, Permitted uses by right and special permit, 31.1, Designation of
zoning administrator, authority, 34.4, Application for variances, 35.1, Fees; and repeal Secs. 1.9,
Application for land use permit; payment of delinquent taxes, 8.5.1, Applications and documents to be
submitted, 8.5.2, Preapplication conferences, 8.5.3, Review and recommendation by the planning
commission, 8.5.4, Review and action by the board of supervisors; effect of approval, 8.6, Amendments
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 22
FINAL MINUTES
to planned development districts, 20A.3, Application requirements; required documents and information,
20A.4, Application plans, 31.6, Special use permits, 31.6.1, Reserved to board of supervisors, 31.6.2,
Application, 31.6.3, Conditions, 31.6.4, Revocation, 31.8, Special exceptions, and 33 (and its
subsections), Amendments; and adding Secs. 33.1, Purpose and intent, 33.2, Uniform requirements for
the initiation of zoning text amendments and zoning map amendments, 33.3, Uniform procedures for
zoning text amendments and county -initiated zoning map amendments, 33.4, Uniform procedures for
owner -initiated zoning map amendments and special use permits, 33.5, Uniform procedures for special
exceptions, 33.6, Zoning text amendments and zoning map amendments; relevant factors to be
considered; effect of approval, 33.7, Owner -initiated zoning map amendments; authority to accept
proffers, 33.8, Special use permits; relevant factors to be considered; conditions; revocation, 33.9,
Special exceptions; relevant factors to be considered; conditions; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle
County Code. This ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to the zoning map and its
interpretation (1.7); relocate the obligation to pay delinquent taxes as a condition of applying for a land
use permit but add and update that obligation (from 1.9 to 33.4 and 34.4); add definitions (3.1); update
cross-references to related sections (4.8.1, 4.15.5, 10.5.2, 20.1, 20.2, 30.1.2, 30.5.5); relocate the
application requirements, procedures and relevant considerations for planned developments (from 8.5.1
through 8.5.4 and 8.5.6), the neighborhood model district (from 20A.3 and 20A.4), special use permits
(from 31.6.1 through 31.6.4) and special exceptions (from 31.8), to section 33 and its subsections; add
express authority for the zoning administrator to administer and enforce proffers and to keep and make
available a conditional zoning index (31.1), and allow application fees for zoning map amendments and
special use permits to be paid when the application is determined to be complete instead of at the time
the application is first submitted (35.1). In repealing the existing regulations for zoning map and zoning
text amendments in Sec. 33 (current 33.0 through 33.10), this ordinance would consolidate all legislative
zoning actions of the board of supervisors in new subsections in Sec. 33 applicable to zoning map
amendments, zoning text amendments, special use permits and special exceptions and these
subsections would pertain to purpose and intent (33.1), uniform requirements for the initiation of zoning
text amendments and zoning map amendments (33.2), uniform procedures for zoning text amendments
and county -initiated zoning map amendments (33.3), uniform procedures for owner -initiated zoning map
amendments and special use permits (33.4), uniform procedures for special exceptions (33.5), relevant
factors to be considered for zoning text amendments and zoning map amendments and the effect of
approval (33.6), authority to accept proffers in conjunction with owner -initiated zoning map amendments
(33.7), relevant factors to be considered for special use permits and authority to impose conditions and
revoke permit (33.8), and relevant factors to be considered for special exceptions and authority to impose
conditions (33.9). (Wayne Cilimberg)
DEFERRED FROM THE AUGUST 21, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the PowerPoint presentation and staff report for ZTA-2012-00006 Legislative
Review Process Improvements. This is a matter which has a lot of history and the Commission has spent
a lot of time on. He was not going into the particulars as to how they have tried to approach this and
hopefully provide for an opportunity to meet primary interests they see for applicants, staff and the public.
Obviously, they hear from the applicants that they want clarity, consistency, and reasonable predictability.
Staff really wants the information that is necessary to provide a comprehensive review and to provide for
that reasonability, which is what applicants are looking for. The public wants to be informed. Ultimately
everyone who is involved in the process of reviewing a development proposal going through rezoning or
special use permit in tracking it wants a reliable decision making timeframe. So they made initial
recommendations along those lines to the Board back in September of 2010, which the Commission has
seen before, codifying expectations, requiring the pre-app conferences, providing a community meeting
process, and maintaining dates for public hearings being those goals they were working towards.
Clarifying the Goal
• Shorten Approval Times and Cost of Development Review
• Avoid Unnecessary and Burdensome Regulations
• Maintain Opportunities for Public Info / Input
• Maintain Community Quality
1#41W Primary Interests
• Applicants want clarity, consistency and reasonable predictability
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 23
FINAL MINUTES
• Staff wants information necessary to provide comprehensive review
• Public wants to be informed
• All want reliable decision -making timeframe
Staff Recommendations Concurred with by BOS — 9/1/10
• Codify Expectations - Application requirements should reflect the issues the Board wants
routinely considered with each application.
• Require Pre -application Conference — Verify the application is complete and give early notice
of potential issues / concerns
• Provide a Community Meeting Process — Get the neighbor's concerns on the table as early as
possible
• Maintain Dates for Public Hearings — Avoid indefinite deferrals that confuse neighbors and
used in complaints about the time to approval
Staff Follow-up After 9/1/10
• Consulted with several of Albemarle's peer counties —
o Visited Fauquier and Hanover
• Common Theme -
o Pre -application preparation with prospective applicants
o QC for application acceptance
o Community awareness regarding application proposals
• Drafted Recommendations -
o Reviewed with BOS members June and July, 2011
o Roundtable meeting 7/19/11
o Joint BOS/PC/ARB Meeting 8/3/11
o PC Resolution of Intent 11/29/11
o PC Work Session 5/15/12
o Roundtable meeting 6/20/12
o PC Public Hearing 8/21/12
o Small Business Roundtable meeting 10/8/12
They have had a lot of follow ups since then. Most recently they had a public hearing in August, which
was deferred until today. They actually as a follow up at their request also held a small business
roundtable meeting on October 8'h and invited applicants who were one time type applicants or small
business type applicants that they have had in the last couple of years. Unfortunately, they only had one
attendee as he noted in the staff report. However, she provided some very good input. Since that
hearing and with the roundtable input as well they have worked to try to address some points that the
Commission raised at the end of that hearing.
Since PC Public Hearing
• Purpose for pre-app meeting and the factors to consider in requiring the meeting noted
• Purpose for the community meeting and factors to consider in requiring the meeting noted
• No changes to density definitions
• Pre-app process concepts developed (Attachment F)
• Number of days before PC meeting signs are posted further defined
• Work session purpose and alternatives described
• Small business/one time applicant roundtable held
• Intent for application plans clarified; distinguishes app plans and conceptual plans; factors to be
considered in requiring supplemental information noted
• Role of ARB staff as advisory clarified
One is really to note and identify the purpose of the pre-app meeting and the factors to consider in
requiring the meeting. It is intended to provide the potential applicant and staff a common understanding
of the proposed project, provide feedback to the applicant as to the project's consistency with the
comprehensive plan of the relevant policies, ordinance provisions, and broadly identify potential issues
'*ft"' that may need to be addressed by the applicant and confirm the information that will need to be submitted
with the actual application for staff to undertake a full and comprehensive initial review of the project.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 24
FINAL MINUTES
They have also worked to identify the purpose for the community meeting and factors to be considered in
requiring the meeting. It has been consistently encouraged as they have noted before by staff to provide
the public an opportunity to receive information about a project proposal and the applicable county
policies, regulations, and review process. They have even noted that the applicant may chose to hold
such a meeting before they even make an application and the subsequent meeting after an application
may be determined to be unnecessary.
There was some controversy in the last meeting about potential changes to density definitions. Staff
noted in the report that after further consideration it has been advised by the County Attorney that they
leave their density definitions as is. There is more research that really needs to go into that. So those
are no longer being proposed. That was one of the more controversial aspects of the last version of this
amendment.
They also have tried to further identify and outline the pre-app process concepts. That was included as
Attachment F as to how they would approach pre-apps. (See Attachment F at end of minutes) Really the
whole process of what is important is really what they are focusing on and the fact there are going to be
projects they know don't need to go through a process beyond their initial meeting with staff as the
exploratory type of meetings that they have had for several years. Good examples are as they saw
tonight with the second of the telecommunications towers, which is not going to have to go through a
mandatory pre-app meeting. There will be larger scaled projects where the pre-app process is going to
be very important and they will really want to have that opportunity for it to be mandatory.
There was the question at the last meeting of the number of days before a Planning Commission meeting
that signs are posted. They further defined that to note that it would be at least 21 days before a
Commission public hearing. It also authorizes the Director of Planning to include the requirement for
posting before community meetings are held. In those cases where it is determined that a community
meeting is needed earlier in the review process they would want to post the site so that it was understood
by folks who might be interested in attending and know that project is before us.
The work session purpose and alternatives have been described. There are two approaches to work
sessions. Both are voluntary for an applicant. One that they have had on some occasion is actually a
pre -application work session with the Planning Commission before anyone makes an application. That
might take the place of other aspects of the pre-app process if someone is coming to the Planning
Commission to get feedback on a potential project before making application. The other that has been
used more often is a work session typically at the end of the first review period by staff where the
applicant says they want to go to the Planning Commission and have them provide input on the project
and staff's comments. The Commission has seen some of those come before them as well. Those are
still processes that can take place.
The input from the small business/one time applicant roundtable focused on the extreme importance of
getting a clear understanding of the potential issues an applicant might face with their proposal and
guidance as to what information will be important to submit. That can carry considerable weight in
deciding whether to invest the time and money in a particular project. There was also particular concern
that new issues not arise during the review process. It is very important to understand the issues up front
and have the expectation in addressing those issues they are addressing the needs of an application.
The importance of internal staff communication regarding all potential issues was also stressed in that
meeting.
They have clarified the intent clarified intent for application plans. It was something else requested out of
the last meeting. They have actually distinguished application plans that go with planned developments
from conceptual plans that could accompany special use permit or a rezoning into a conventional district.
They have also noted the factors to be considered in requiring supplemental information as defined in the
ordinance where they are asking for things to be provided as part of an application.
1#4W They have clarified the role of ARB staff is advisory. If an applicant asks that the ARB review their project
in the legislative review process the comments of the ARB itself are advisory as well. That was a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 25
FINAL MINUTES
question that came up at the last meeting that they have clarified.
Recommendations
• Staff recommends approval of the most updated version of ZTA-2012-00006. (Attachment C
shows the changes — See at the end of the minutes)
• Effective April 1, 2013 — allows further development of administrative process to enact the
ordinance and provide for exceptions
Mr. Cilimberg noted the public hearing was held at the last meeting. However, the Commission can
certainly open for public comment again.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph suggested that staff in Attachment C #22 regarding the pre -application meeting insert some
wording about scale and impact as a determinant of requiring a pre -application meeting. There is nothing
that tells an applicant what might trigger a pre -application meeting. The more they can give that
information up front to applicants that they know by the nature of the scale and the impacts of the project
then the likelihood the Director of Planning is going to require the pre -application meeting will occur.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that is one of the kinds of things they want to identify in that administrative process.
That is why they want to delay inaction so they can make sure they can do that type of thing.
Mr. Randolph said that would continue over to C #26 where staff has worked in a reference to impacts but
nothing about scale in C #261. There needs to be something added about scale in C #26J community
meetings so to be consistent. The outline will be helpful on the web site. The wording used in
exploratory information gathering meetings "anticipate will continue to be regularly used" should be
changed "to be expected to be continue to be regularly used". Anticipation leaves some doubt and
expectation may be a little clearer. Under required pre -application meeting the first bullet, the first dash
the scope level of complexity, impacts might want to be in there as well, does not warrant the required
pre-app meeting. He thought that scale was perhaps covered by scope. Technically if scope and scale
are different then scale might want to be in there as well. Then in community meetings it is already in the
wording of C on page 26 about scale and impact driven. He did not think it needed to be repeated. The
only concern he had is under bullet 3 under community meetings "it is anticipated that some projects". He
suggested possibly adding some criteria in parenthesis (particularly in the rural areas will not need a
community meeting and others will). There is some wordsmithing needed on Attachment F. Otherwise, it
is excellent. Things are much more spelled out here than before. Staff has done a great job.
Mr. Cilimberg said provided they get Board approval within the next month or two staff would want to
bring back the administrative procedures for the Commission to see before the April 1st start up. Those
suggestions for changes in the procedures are helpful.
Mr. Dotson started on page 22 of Attachment C that Mr. Randolph referred to. In Section 33.4.a.2 it says
a pre -application meeting shall be held unless the Director in his discretion decides that the meeting
would not achieve the purposes, etc. He suggested comparing that wording to up above item a, which
says the Director of Planning is authorized to require. His reading is that those two are not saying the
same thing and that they should be consistent to avoid confusing anybody. He proposed that in both
cases it say "a pre -application meeting shall be held unless" for consistency and clarity. Then that is
consistent and everybody can understand that. A few pages later use exactly the same comment about
the community meeting to use that identical wording so that it is clear and consistent. He picked up on a
comment made by Ms. Long last time this was before them. It was in addition to this they should be
working as quickly as they could on improving the process information. Staff has provided some good
flow charts. Ms. Long referred to the City of Charlottesville and the descriptions they have. He looked at
those today. It is a very general flow chart with multiple colors. When he looked at our own website they
have something under forms, applications and check list that was much more detailed. There are 68
different forms there. There is a 40 page land use chart. In other words, it is much more detailed. He
thinks what Ms. Long was saying is that something that is more of a simplified presentation of the
process. He would hope and ask that maybe they could make some progress on that even while working
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 26
FINAL MINUTES
on the ordinance changes. It may actually help sell the ordinance changes if it can be presented in that
manner.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if it would be more along the lines of the flow diagram that staff included here as
Attachment E.
Mr. Dotson replied that would be helpful.
Mr. Franco made the following comments:
- On page 22 in section 33.4.a.1 for the purpose of the meeting some of the discussion that has
happened in the past is really been to talk about the quality of the submittals is what he has heard
from staff. From the public he has heard sort of level of staffing, guidance, and some of the
things he mentioned earlier. He did not think that the purpose as written here reaches out to
address some of the concerns the applicants have had. It would help to have some kind of
language in there that talks about providing the applicant that information.
- There is some language up higher about a description of the meeting. However, when it gets
down to the purpose it all seems to be better inform staff as to what is going on, but there is
nothing that says let's convey that information to the applicant so that they can provide a better
plan. He understands that is one of the reasons for doing that. He would like to see some kind of
language similar to section F on page 25 where it talks about procedures for denial. It says the
Director of Planning shall inform the applicant and then list a bunch of things. The same thing
could happen at the end of this paragraph saying that the Director of Planning will inform the
applicant as to what those procedures are and what additional information is to be required.
- Staff talked about clarification of the conceptual plan versus the application plan on page 24 #7.
It is clearer, but it looks like it is now requiring a conceptual plan. Part of what he heard from Ms.
Long and others last time is that a rezoning to a conventional zoning versus a PUD currently does
not require a concept plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it would be under the pre-app process something that they say needs to be
submitted with an application. However, he believed that the language Mr. Kamptner put earlier is to
make that at the discretion of the Director of Planning and not a requirement for every application.
Mr. Franco asked if it is a requirement now.
Mr. Cilimberg replied it is encouraged now. They don't have any requirements for that.
Mr. Franco said that it helps a lot with the questions. However, when he looks at what is required of a
conceptual plan and an application plan a lot of it seems to be the same information. It might not be used
in the same fashion. Again, he was reacting to some of the comments he heard earlier. On page 29 with
the community meetings under purpose one of the slides earlier talked about helping the public to
understand the process, the comp plan, and those kinds of issues. He thinks that needs to be expressed
in the purpose of the meeting as well. Right now it seems to fairly one-sided where they talk about it is to
inform about the project. He really thinks it is important to make part of the purpose of that meeting to
advise the citizens as to the process and what the comp plan calls for. He knows staff plans on
addressing some of that in the policies. He would like to see that in the Code.
Mr. Cilimberg said he was looking for the kind of language for some of the points that were raised in the
staff report.
Mr. Franco agreed.
Mr. Cilimberg said one thing they could do is go back to the staff report and pull some of those points out
for both the community meeting, work session meeting and the pre -application meeting.
Mr. Franco agreed. For the pre-app meeting it was really the guidance and the new issues. For the
community meeting it is process and the comp plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 27
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Smith asked who attends the pre-app meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that currently they have pre-app meetings scheduled each week. They will have the
staff that they believe would be the most involved in that review attend that pre-app meeting. Depending
on the project they could have a zoning person, engineering person, a planner, and a representation from
VDOT when they can. What they would continue to do is expect to have those staff that is particularly
going to understand the project because they would have the pre -application form people would submit.
They would know what the project is about so they can make sure they have the staff there from our side
that could advise the applicant and deal with some of the things Mr. Franco was pointing out should be
part of the pre-app process. It is not just to hear from the applicant. It was also to be able to let them
know some of the things they may have to address or need to consider in making their application.
Mr. Smith said in other words there would be somebody present to address each issue that the applicant
might have.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed. He added the staff would answer questions. In the rezoning cases they like to
have someone who would be a reviewer on the rezoning and that same person would hopefully also
understand the Comprehensive Plan, which provides a lot of the guidance, or the Master Plan if it was in
a master planned area. So they try to match the staff to the project based on where it is and what is
proposing right now. That was pointed out in a roundtable as being very important to some of the
consultants that they are hearing from people who know what they are talking about and can expect that
they will be the people reviewing their project or that information they get in that meeting is going to be
the information that will be understood by the people reviewing the project.
Mr. Franco said while they can't necessarily commit to having all senior staff at these meetings having a
result of the meeting being a written list of guidance and documents to be expected in providing that list of
issues. That list should be produced afterwards. Then they can make sure the right staff is involved.
That probably starts to at least mitigate some of their concerns.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out what Mr. Benish did in the attachment was the outline they are getting people to
submit in advance so they have a chance to actually look at and talk about what they are submitting.
Then they can make sure when they go into the pre-app meeting they can answer questions and provide
advice. Then they have the ten days afterwards to actually provide the applicant a respond and clearly
indicate what needs to be submitted in the application.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the public hearing did not have to be opened since it was held at the last
meeting.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing
was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved to recommend approval of ZTA-2012-000006 Legislative Review Process
Improvements with an effective date of April 1, 2013 that allows further development of administrative
process to enact the ordinance and provide for exceptions.
Mr. Kamptner assumed it includes the suggested changes made by the Commissioners with respect to
the purposes of the pre -application meetings, community meetings, work sessions and the other items
discussed by the Commissioners.
Mr. Randolph agreed with Mr. Kamptner that the motion includes the suggested changes made by the
Commission.
Mr. Franco seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Lafferty absent)
Mr. Morris noted ZTA-2012-00006 Legislative Review Process Improvements would be forwarded to the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 28
FINAL MINUTES
Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval at a time to be determined with an effective
date of April 1, 2013 that allows further development of the administrative process to enact the ordinance
and provide for exceptions with the suggested changes made by the Commissioners with respect to the
purposes of the pre -application meetings, community meetings, work sessions and the other items
discussed by the Commissioners.
Old Business:
Mr. Morris asked if there was any old business.
• Next week there is a proposed work session on the Comp Plan. An email came through today
from the city that has three attachments talking about in our last joint session it was
recommended that they have sub committees. Those sub committees have been recommended
for their approval. He asked the Commissioners to please take a look at them.
There being no further old business, the meeting moved to the next item.
New Business:
Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business.
• The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 30, 2012.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. to the Tuesday, October 30, 2012 meeting at
6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Room #241, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
*ftw I ) - (�a� 0
V. Wayne C11imberg, Secreta
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commissio tanning Boards)
n
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 23, 2012 29
FINAL MINUTES