Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 18 1994 PC Minutes10-18-94 OCTOBER 18, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 18, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Balls Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine, Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of planning and Community Development; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; Ms.Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr- Larry Davis, County Attorney. The meeting was called to order to 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of October 4, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended. ZMA-94-15 Phdil2 A. SAUsane - Proposal to rezone 7.87 acres from R-1 (1 dwelling unit per acre to R-10 (10 dwelling units per acre), with proffered plan showing 34 dwelling units. The prop", described as Tax Map 78, ]parcel 581, is lercated off of State Rode 20 and Garnett Center Drive, immediately north of Wilton Country 14ames, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The site is recommended for low density residential (1 to 4 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 3. The applicant was requesting deferral. to November 1, 1994. MOTION: Ms, Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that ZMA-94-15 be deferred to November 1, 1994. The motion passed unanimously. p- - 9 HUlt lnvesttraent C-otm ..vainy - petition to allow the establishrttelpt of a dtve-through. window for a bank (Section 25A.2.21. Property, described as Tax Map 78, parcel 72 (portion of), is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Route 250 and State Farm Blvd in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property consists of 2.2 acres zoned PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial and within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay .District. Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Because of staffs determination that the proposed titmitlg radius was inadequate and thus would cause conflicting trafFc patterns, staff recommended denial of the request. (NOTE: Staff had suggested possible changes to the design but, at the time the report was written, no changes had been proposed by the applicant.) Mr. Blue asked staff why the applicant had not offered alternatives when learning that staff could not support this proposed layout. Ms. Hipski responded that she believed the applicant Io-19-94 2 was considering alternatives, but none had been presented to Staff at the time the staff report was written. Ms.Imhoff asked if there had been discussion about moving the drive-thraugh lanes to the northwest side of the building. Ms. Hipski responded affirmatively. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton. He first addressed Ms. Imhoff question. He explained that consideration had been given to shifting the building's position, but shifting would make the drive -through window more visible from Rt. 250, which is a concern of the ARB, and there are also considerations about the internal layout of the building. He also stated that the applicant had represented to the bank that it would face State Farm Boulevard. Mr. Melton distributed some aerial photographs to the Commission whieh he referred to as he described an alternative design which the applicafft was considering. (NOTE: Staff had not seen this design.) He explained in detail proposed changes to the design, which he stated would alleviate some of the traffic conflicts. He stated VDOT had given its approval to the turn and taper lane (shaded in blue), which was meant to alleviate some of the stacking problems on State Farm Blvd. He disagreed with staff s assessment of the situation and felt there must be some reliance on the common sense of drivers to make the plan work. He pointed out that the vehicles will be traveling at very low speeds when on the bank property. He felt there would be no problems with a plan with a "32-foot entrance, maintaining a 24-foot aisleway, coming up on the left-hand side, with 28 feet coming in." Ms, Imhoff felt this plan represented a "real unfortunate placement" and was "a disaster waiting to happen." She felt the drive -through could be placed on the northwest side of the building and with screening, the ARB's concerns could he satisfied. She was interested in discussions which had taken place with the ARB's planner. She clarified that she was not suggesting that the building not face State Farm Blvd, rather she was suggesting that the drive -through window be moved to the northwest side. (Mr. Melton stated the ARB's planner had told him. the ARB "prefers" to see the window as shown,) Ms, Imhoff pointed out that the key word was "prefer." Ms. Huckle agreed aesthetics were important, but, on the other hand, she felt this plan was a "potential disaster." Some Commissioners continued to point out problems with the plan. Mr. Melton continued to defend the plan, again stating that there must be some reliance on driver courtesy. Mr. Blue felt the site was "tight." He wondered if too much building was being crowded on too little land. He did not feel as strongly as some other Commissioners about the design, though he did feel it was "awkward," 1--le did not feel the conflicts would cause safcty hazards, but he felt the design would be a disadvantage to the bank because any problems would reflect on the bank. He did not feel the Commission was qualified to make a detailed analysis of the changes in the plan which were being proposed by the applicant. [NOTE: It / (v3 10-18-94 was at this point that Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the staff had not seen the plan presented by 1 &. Melton.] Mr. Melton felt the proposed changes in the design met the Ordinance requirements. He also felt it was not the planning staffs job to design site plans. Ms. Imhoff commented on statements made earlier as to whether or not the regeust was properly before the Commission: " This is not by -right; this is by special permit so there is every reason why the Planning Commission should be having this discussion. The reason it is by special permit, I believe, is because many times drive -through windows create these exact problems. We are not micro -managing site plans; this is very legitimately before us as a drive -through." Mr. Blue agreed that it was properly before the Commission, but he pointed out that the Commission is not expert on issues such as turning radii, etc. He agreed that he would have preferred that all the differences would have been ironed out by staff . Mr. Nitchmann asked if there was really a need for 108 parking spaces. Mr. Melton explained that number of spaces had been a requirement imposed by the bank on the applicant. Mr. Nitchmann concluded that a lot of the site is being used for parking which perhaps could be used to create a better traffic pattern. He pointed out that the proposed design could become even more of a problem in the future as this area becomes more developed and the bank's use increases considerably. Regarding the ARB's concern about visability, he stated that they have made mistakes in the past, as has the Commission, and he felt the applicant should have argued more strongly "to put the drive -through on the back side of the bank and leave the front of the bank where it is." Regarding parking, Mr. Melton stated it has been his experience that businesses are constantly needing more parking than is required. Mr. Blue questioned how the Commission could tarn it down if all the requirements of the Ordinance have been met. He felt, however, that it was not a good plan. Ms. Huckle pointed out that looking out for public safety is a charge of the Commission and she felt this would not be a safe traffic situation. It was determined that the bank (Guaranty Savings & Loan) was purchasing this property, with a completed building, from the applicant, Hurt Investment Company. Mr. Barry Musselmann., Executive Vice President of Guaranty Savings & Loan, addressed the Commission. He stated the bank has aproved the initial site plan and does not foresee any problems with traffic entering the site and moving to the right. Regarding concerns about traffic moving to the left, he suggested that it would "make perfect sense" to make a traffic pattern where all traffic had to go "right to left and go around the building." The bank wanted the drive -through window to be placed as proposed "to protect the integrity of Rt. 10-18-94 4 250," and also to keep the "branch" on the front of the building. He did not think walk-in customers would want to park at the back of the building and then walls all the way around to the front. He explained that putting the window on the rear of the building would take up space which is planned for other purposes. Mr. Blue again expressed the feeling that most of the issues of concern to the Commission were things which directly effected the bank's customers. He did not feel that was a "particular safety issue for the public at large." He felt it would be an inconvenience, but if the bank had no concerns, he questioned the basis for a denial. Ms. Imhoff commented: "If we didn't have that authority, ... we wouldn't even bother having this public discussion. I think we are required to have a discussion about the safety." Referring to the staff report, she pointed out that there are three sections of the Ordinance which the proposal has not satisfied. She felt there were some solutions available to the applicant: e.g. extend the planter, closing off the left lane, forcing all traffic to the right. (Mr. Musselmann felt this would cause an inconvenience to the walk-in customers.) Mr. Blue asked Mr. Buddy Edwards, the applicant's engineer, if he felt the plan meets the requirements of the Ordinance. Mr. Edwards responded: "The Ordinance doesn't say that it must be this, or it must be that. I think some of the problems we're having (are the result) of different opinions." Mentioning the slow travel speed at which vehicles are moving through a drive -through. window, Mr-. Edwards did not think there would be any problems. He felt it should be possible for a vehicle entering the site and taming right to be able to do so without causing the vehicle coming from the drive -through canopy to have to stop. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Though Mr. Dotson asked for staff comment, Mr Cilimberg stated that staff had just been given this plan (at the meeting) and had not had time, tQ review it, Mr. Nitchmann stated he would have trouble supporting the plan which was reviewed in the report, given the fact that staff feels it does not meet three sections of the Ordinance. He felt it would benefit the applicant to request a deferral to allow time for the applicant to meet with staff on the alternative plan presented to the Commission tonight. Mr. Blue agreed. Ms. Huckle, was in favor of taking action because she felt the applicant had had the opportunity to present these changes to the staff, but had not taken advantage of that opportunity. Mr. Nitchmann suggested that the applicant might want to have another meeting with the ARB. He also questioned the need for 108 parking spaces. (Mr. Blue pointed out that this would be headquarters for the bank and would not be just usual backing services.) 10-1 s-94 MOT, ION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-94-29 for Hurt Investment Company be deferred to November 1, 1994, Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed. unanimously. CPA-94-1 University Real Estate Foundation - Proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to include within the Hollymead Community 297 acres located west of Route 29, north of the existing Hollymead community boundary, south of the North Fork of the Rivanna River, and west of Route 606 composed of Tax Map 32, parcels 4B, 6A, 19 (part of), 6 (part of). If incorporated into the Hollymead Community, the subject acreage would be designated for Industrial Service use. The applicant is seeking this land use change to permit the development of a University -related business park. The applicant presently owns 228 acres directly south of this area which is currently zoned Planned Development -industrial park (PD-IP). Ms. Huckle advised the public that the Commission would be accepting public comment, but would not be taking action on this item until a later meeting. Mr. Baker presented a brief staff report. Ms.lmhoff expressed concern about stating a maximum building limit in the Comprehensive Plan. She wondered if this was done in any other sections of the Plan. She questioned whether the language "total buildable area is 3,000,000 square feet" should be in the Comp Plan, or if the statement should be more general in terms of uses. Mr. Baker explained that it does not appear in any other section, but it was included here because of concern that, given the available average, it could exceed this limit. He did not think staff would have any objection to it not being included. Ms. Huckle was in favor of the language remaining, based on Mr. Baker's explanation. Mr_ Cilimberg explained that in the 1982 and 1989 plans growth area statements had been fairly general in nature. But since 1989, there have been several amendments where the recommendations sections have been much more specific, at the urging of the Commission and Beard, based on public and applicant comment. Ms. Imhoff explained she was concerned about "just how much this amendment becomes the de facto rezoning." She favored wording more along the lines of "shall not exceed 3,000,000 square feet." She felt the proposed wording "almost looks like a guarantee." (After hearing Ms. Imhoffs explanation, Ms. Huckle indicated she agreed.) Referring to the transportation section, she recalled there had been discussions that this development could generate the need for potentially two interchanges. She slid not see that reflected in the staff report. (Staff called attention to the section of the report which addresses this issue_) Regarding protection of the water supply intake area, Ms. Imhoff recalled having suggested that the area be designated as a non -building area. Mr. Baker explained that the language used in the proffle is comparable to the recommendation agreed upon by a majority of the Commission at the last work session. (Ms, Imhoff noteV.d she had missed this meeting.) 10-18-94 6 Mr. Dotson asked about a North Fork Industrial Park Traffic Impact Study which was referenced in a 1993 letter. He asked if that study could be made available to the Commission. Mr. Baker explained the study referred to by Mr. Dotson had been submitted as part of a prior rezoning request. He explained that a new traffic study will be required with this rezoning request. Mr. Dotson expressed an interest in seeing the previous study. (Later in the meeting Mr. Cilimberg explained that this study had been for the "expanded area only" and not for the total area. He said the report was available in the Planning Office.) Mr. Blue questioned the statement in the section on Water and Sewer Improvements which implied that a decision had been made as to the solution for supplying sewer service ("by a pumping station at Camelot and a forced main back to the Powell Creek interceptor"). He recalled that this had been only one possible solution and did not recall that a final recommendation had been made as to the ultimate solution. Mr. Baker explained this was the current language in the profile and staff had not revised the entire profile. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tim Rose. He was assisted by Mr. Dean Sincola, Mr.Leonard Sandridge and Ms. Ellen Miller, Mr. Rose again summarized the main points of UREF's proposal. Highlights of his comments included the following: --The Park is a 525 acre parcel, purchased in 1987_ Water and sewer facilities are already on the property. Phone, electric and gas are to the edges of the property. There will be road access from Rt. 29, Rt. 506 and Rt. 649. --The property is a rolling terrain with some open fields, some wooded areas and some steep slopes. --The applicant has by -right development of 7,000,000 square feet on the southern portion (225 acres which is presently zoned PDIP). The northern portion (the subject of this Comp Plan Amendment) is zoned rural, and this amendment would result in an additional 500,000 square feet development. The realistic yield on the southern portion is 2,500,000 square feet. The applicant is asking that the northern portion be designated in the Hollymead Growth Area as Industrial Service property so that it will have consistent zoning with the southern portion. The plan reflects a total of 3,000,000 square feet of development. -The University vision is to create a university -related business research park. --It is felt that university -industry relationships is an important component of maintaining the University of Virginia's status as oiie of the nation's leading institutions of higher education. --The park is seen as "the way to engage in joint research opportunities for faculty, for internships for students, post -graduate employment and spousal employment for people affiliated with the university." This will be a quality development which will result in quality jobs for this community. --Buffers will be on all edges of the property and along the North Fork of the Rivanna River. (A buffer "considerably larger" than 100 feet, iR open space. is planned along the river. Ms. Miller defined "considerably larger" as hundreds of feet.) The applicant feels there are ways, through Best Management practices, to minimize the impact to the raw water intake area (approximately 22 acres). The details of how this will be accomplished will be clearly spelled out after approval has been received. /4T 10-18-94 --On the issue of housing impact, UREF has said "we will be happy to discuss further ways in which we can work with the community to understand and, hopefully, promote providing housing for the jobs we hope to create over the long term." (This statement was made by Ms. Miller.) --By approving this request, the County will be allowing UREF to plan for a total land holding of 500+ acres over the long term and will allow for addressing the sensitivity of the land uses (critical slopes, stream corridors, etc.). --UREF recognizes that it has a special responsibility to this community and this responsibility continues for the long term. The applicant is not driven by short-term requirements for gains or for profits. It is anticipated the buildout of the Park will be 15 - 25 years. Ms. Huckle asked if the applicant was planning to proffer out any of the by -right uses (or special permit uses) for the Light Industrial area. Ms. Miller indicated the applicant would be willing to "look at that." She could not answer more definitively. Ms. Huckle later asked the same question of Mr. Sandridge. Mr. Sandridge did not feel he could answer the question, "legally," but offered to get an answer. (Ms. Imhoff pointed out that consideration of a Camp Plan amendment is not the time that proffers, such as those suggested by Ms. Huckle, would he offered. Ms. Imhoff felt that "more verbage is needed in this Comp Plan amendment to give a greater sense of security of what is envisioned for this property because this conceptual plan is not going in our Comp Plan.") Mr. Sincala confirmed the applicant would be willing to meet with the County staff to address this question. Mr. Davis explained: "If uses are permitted by -right in a district that they are requesting a rezoning to, the only way you could limit those would be if a developer voluntarily proffered to eliminate those uses." Ms. Imhoff asked if it would be acceptable for the Comp Plan amendment to say "it is our vision for this acreage of land that this would be an industrial park with these characteristics." Mr. Davis explained: "Often, if the Comp Plan suggests that there are incompatible uses which are in the district which the zoning request is seeking, the applicant will voluntarily eliminate those conflicts. So if there are specific types of uses which are inappropriate for this area, it would be appropriate to suggest that in the Camp Plan." Mr. Cilimberg addressed Mr. Dotson's comments about the intention of the PDIP district with the following: "In planned development districts we have agreements, in addition to proffers, that are reached between the applicant and staff and are of the contract leading to final approval." He pointed out, However, that that is a zoning action. It was Mr. Dotson's understanding that the Comp Plan could suggest a preference for PDIP zoning. Mr. Cilimberg replied affirmatively and pointed out that that preference is included in the profile. Ms: Hackle wanted it to he understood that thcrc were some, industrial uses which she felt would not be suitable for land on the banks of the river. (Mr. Rose commented: "And I don't think we disagree with you; we just haven't engaged in this conversation with you before and we are willing to do that at whatever time is appropriate.") /1v f 10-18-94 At Mr. Blue's request, Mr. Sandridge repeated a statement he had made at a Commission work session some weeks previous which explained why the University is dealing with the Commission through the University's Real Estate Foundation as opposed to through the University of Virginia: "It is because we agreed a number of years ago, through the 3-party agreement, that our land transactions would be handled by our related foundation, that we would agree to follow the zoning requirements, pay real estate taxes. But what we are talking about here is not an activity that the University would choose to put its endowment in unless we were seeing programatic Treasons to be involved in, this business. We have some very practical things that we are looldng for. We are looking for corporations and businesess and activities that will use the resources of our faculty and will, in fact, provide opportunities for internships, that, indeed, will work with our Health Sciences Center on research, that, in fact, will be places of employment for spouses of our faculty.... This effort is not one of real estate. Our investments in real estate for the endowment are handled on a national basis where we believe the rate of return will be maximum and, as much as we love Charlottesville and Albemarle County, that is not where we would invest if we were looking only for a total rate of return. We are looking for opportunities to expand our programs and to have the kind of programs that are going to allow the University of Virginia to be recognized as one. of the top public universities, 25 or 50 years from now, the same as it is today. For our success, that means that we are going to have a community that benefits. That is why we are in this business and that is why we are before you tonight." Mr. Dotson asked if the reason the applicant needed the nomberu part of the site was because "it contains potentially larger sites that are more upscale, and have more natural amenities?" Mr. Rose agreed that was part of the reason. He explained additional reasons are "to make this a more sensitive environmental project, to gain access to the larger sites, to gain access to the more marketable sites, and to plan the project at one time makes physical sense and makes environmental sense." He confirmed that there had been negotiations with prospective tenants who were only interested in the norther part of the site, Ms. Imhoff asked if the issue of using Chris Green Lake as a water source needed to be addressed with this Comp Plan amendment. Mr. Cilimberg replied: "I don't think so. That issue is one which will need to addressed with the overall water supply for the northern growth areas. Obviously, anything that is going to happen here, or anywhere else in Hollymead, is going to be within the available water supply or else it can't occur because it is going to have to rely on public water_ As we discussed at prior meetings, before we would add a single acre of new growth area, you already face --if this growth area now designated builds out --needing to identify alternative water or supplemental water sources anyway. So it is a foregone conclusion that it is going to have to be addressed and the issue of Chris Green Lake is one that will need to be addressed in this Comp Plan review for the growth areas, in general, to the north ," The Chairman invited public comment. /�9 10-18.94 Ms. Karen Lillilet, Chairman of the County Housing Committee, addressed the Commission, She asked that the Commission "beef -up" the staff report's recommendation related to employer -assisted housing. She described various techniques which are available to employers, depending upon their various resources (e.g. donations of land, mortgage guarantees to reduce points). To have a successful employer -assisted housing program, three things are needed: (1) The recommendation that employer -assisted housing be a part of this should be as emphatic and as inescapable as possible for UREF and the employers; (2) The program should be targeted towards employees on the lower end of the pay scale; (3) It should be specifically stated that the employer -assisted housing program is available to employees hired locally as well as from outside. Mr. Tom Olivier, representing the Citizens for Albemarle, read a prepared statement. (See Attachment A.) The statement expressed concerns about the possible effects of the development on the County. In conclusion, though benefits were acknowledged, CFA was offering neither support for, nor opposition to, the proposal at this time. Ms. Bunny Murray, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, read a prepared statement. (See Attachment B.) PEC was suggesting that the Commission recommend "designating for industrial use the additional 297 acres owned by UREF, but limit the square footage of development to 2.5 million square feet." Ms. Treva Cromwell, representing the League of Women Voters, read a prepared statement. (See Attachment C.) The League supported the staffs recommendation for approval of both the UREF and Kessler requests, but identified what it believed was "two major flaws - roads and utilitites." Mr. Tom Jackson, representing the Charlottesville -Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, read a prepared statement. (See Attachment D.) The Chamber expressed support for the UREF proposal. Mr. Mark Bryant, a resident in the vicinity of the proposed development, addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the proposal. He expressed concerns about traffic, school impact, and impact on natural resources. He did not think all the questions related to the proposal have been answered. Mr. Stewart Kessler, residing 10 miles from the UREF site, addressed the Commission and expressed support for the UREF proposal. He did not think the Comprehensive Plan was meant to act as a zoning ordinance, rather it was meant to be a plan for the future. He felt the housing issue "had nothing to do with UREF." He felt that having housing near the UREF Park would reduce the traffic ou Rt. 29. He disagireed that the "creation of industry burdens County facilitites." It was his experience that the revenues produced by now industries contribute far more to schools and services than they use. / 7,0 10-18-94 10 Mr. Carter Myers read a prepared statement. (See Attachment E.) He expressed support for the UREF proposal. He felt the Research Park would improve wage opportunities, improve the tax -lase; improve housing -affordability and would be a response to the citizens' request (as evidenced by the County Survey) for more aggressive policies to spur economic growth. Mr. Cliff Fox addressed the Commission and recommended that action on the request be deferred until the completion of the Comp Plan Review. He felt the lack of a fiscal impact model made it impossible to asscss the fiscal impact on the County_ He explained that he "has a competing property for the GSA building" and he considered this to be "an interruption of the free market process." (Mr. Nitchmann felt Mr. Fox's comments were based on his role as a realtor. Mr. Fox disagreed.) Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the Commission had originally recommended that this request be considered along with others during the Comp Plan Review, but the Board of Supervisors had directed that the UREF and Kessler requests be acted upon at this time. Mr. Will Joyce, a life-long resident of the County, expressed support for the Research Park, though he questioned the need for the additional acreage_ He was in favor of a deferral on the request for the additional acreage until the impact could be studied. further. He asked the following questions: How much office space is currently available? Do we need more? Will 3,000,000 square feet of office space create a new oily" Can the City of Charlottesville compete with a new business district? How many people will the new businesses bring to the northern part of the County. Where will these people live and how will they travel to and from work? What Effect will the development have on the tax base? Where will the children go to school? Will new schools be needed? Will environmental impact studies be required? Will water quality be protected? Who will pay for the new infrastructure? There being no further public comment on the UREF proposal, the public hearing was closed. (The Chair again explained that the Commission would take action on this item at a future meeting.) -----......._..........a.......��.�s�. CPA-94-2 Kessler Group South Forest Lakes - Proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to include 126 acres composed of Tax Map 46, parcels 97A(1) and 97B; and a portion of Tax Map 46B5, Parcel I in the Hollymead Community. The property under question is located east of Powell Creek, north of Rt. 643, west of the Norfolk Southern Railroad, and southeast of the Greens at Hollymead. If incorporated into the Hollymead Growth Area, the subject acreage would be designated for low density residential Iand use (I- 4 dwelling units per acre). The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. He explained that the main concern with this proposal, which had been discussed at length at previous work sessions, was preserving an alignment for either the Meadow Creek Parkway or connector roads to serve 10-18-94 11 areas north of South Forest Lakes. He briefly summarized that this can be achieved by "providing 150 feet of right-of-way parallel to the railroad track." Public comment was invited: Ms. Cynthia Hash, Chairperson for the Meadow Creek Parkway Committee in Forest Lakes, addressed the Commission. She explained that the F - G proposal shown on the developer's plan was the most favorable Meadow Creek Parkway alignment to the Forest Lakes .resider►t% and "if Forest Lakes' hand is forced, an H - C. connection ;to the Meadow Creek Parkway) would be better for the Forest Lakes community than the Tl alignment." She, "personally" expressed the opinion that "adding to current growth areas in the Comp flan is better than dotting the entire County at random." She stated that the residents were opposed to the A - B alignment and would like for a connection to the Parkway to be limited to the H - C connection. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this Plan amendment would not commit to any of the possible alignments or connections shown on the developer's plan_ The possibilities shown are "just to give a picture of what it could be and you are not being asked to make that decision." He confirmed that there is no request to take right-of-way as part of the Comp Plan amendment. Mr. Fred Gercke, Planning and Zoning Chairman for the Proffit Community Association, expressed concerns about the impact of this proposal on the rural community of Proffit. He felt some issues, such as forcing traffic onto an inadequate road like Prot Road, had not been adequately addressed. He expressed concern about "this proposal opening the doors for other proposals in the area." Mr. Blue was uncertain about the connection between Proffit and the Kessler proposal. He noted that Mr. Gercke had spoken after the Kessler proposal, but not after the UREF proposal, which he felt could possibly impact Proffit more. Mr. Gercke explained that the primary concerns were the proximity of the Kessler property to property of Proffit residents. Mr. Blue did not think this particular proposal would have much effect on the property described by Mr. Gerckc. [NOTE: Mr. Gerckc described the property as bring that owned by "Bill and Mary" which adjoins the Kessler property.] Mr. Jim Eddins, a resident of Proffit, expressed concern about the Kessler proposal. He described the Proffit area as being a "transition area" between the high density of Forest Lakes and the rural area to the east and south. He felt it would be "premature to approve an extension of the existing growth area." He asked that the Commission give consideration to the historic resources of the Proffit community when making its decision. Mr. Jared Loewenstein, President of the Profit Community Association, addressed the Commission. He referred to the good planning practice of "allowing an acreage to act as a buffer to protect rural and agricultural areas from more densely populated areas." He pointed out that the Proffit community already serves this purpose for the -existing boundaries / 74 10-19-94 12 of the HoIlymead Growth Area and the proposed expansion of the growth area threatens this concept. He asked that the Commission give careful consideration to this request to "make sure that the potentially negative impacts that this expansion may trigger, that have been pointed out by others, are not going to occur, before you act." There was no further public comment on the Kessler request. Ms. Imhoff offered the following comments on the proposed amendment: (1) She agreed with Ms. Lillilet's suggestion that the section on employer assisted housing should be made stronger. (2) She favored some language "acknowledging overall the water supply issue for the growth arrea." (3) She favored an expansion of the recommendation and description related to the buffer. (4) She favored more details, "picking up items used before --that it is supposed to be an integrated project, a well -developed PDIP, that it should incorporate and save the natural areas." (5) She was "reluctant to have language which seems to guarantee 3,000,000 square feet." She preferred language that "it shall not exceed 3,000,000 square feet." (6) She was not supportative of developing the 22-acre portion that is by the water supply intake. (7) She favored language which acknowledges the applicant's intention to protect the historic property. (S) She agreed with PEC that the language related to "fair -share road improvements" should be strengthened. (9) She felt there should be some be expansion on issues raised by the League of Women Voters, i.e. the possible expansion of Rt. 29N to six lanes and some type of "public - private" transportation system for the Hollymead/Piney Mountain growth area. Mr_ Blue stated he did not disagree with Ms. Imhoff s statements, but he felt they were more related to zoning issues. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that all. the Commission is bound by are the staff report and the language in the Comp Plan because "all the things the appI.icant told us really don't have any bearing," She agreed the applicant's intentions could be zoning or proffer issues. She concluded: "I just want everybody to be real sure of what our vision for this property is and that we put as much of that down in writing as possible." Mr. Blue expressed trust for the University's intentions_ He stated he did not want this to become a similar situation to the recent Disney proposal (in another part of the state), where the applicant finally won all the battles and then surrendered and gave it all up. He concluded: "I think there is more likelihood that UREF might decide to sell this and give it up if we got unreasonable with them, than if we try to cooperate." i73 10-18-94 13 Ms. Imhoff did not think the County has been unreasonable. She pointed out that this major amendment request is being taken out of the sequence, which shows the flexibility of the community. Ms. Huckle expressed support for Ms. lmhoffs statements. She again expressed the hope that proffers would be considered which would eliminate unsuitable uses. Mr. Cilimberg asked if there was a "general agreement among the Commission" that staff should work on those suggestions trade by Ms. Imhoff. Mr. Nitchmann expressed agreement with some things, but stated he did not want the Comp Plan Amendment to turn into a "should and shall" type of statement. Regarding the issue of housing, he commented: "If you are going to start mandating that businesses should do things, then pretty soon the government is going to start mandating what I should do as an individual citizen. I think we have to be very careful about that, not only from a social standpoint, but from a legal standpoint." He felt Ms. Lillilet was in favor of more emphatic language which would say "They shall do." Mr. Davis commented that the County did not have the enabling authority to require affordable housing as part of a rezoning application but "as a guide for the Comprehensive Plan, it is not inappropriate to have that type of goal or statement expressed and if someone wants to voluntarily accommodate the plats, they have the option to do that." Mr. Blue pointed out that the same would be true for any off -site improvements, such as roads. In response to Mr. Cilimberg's question, Mr. Dotson stated: "Somebody needs to bring us some options so that we don't have to sit here and craft them." Mr. Cilimberg suggested that some of the statements about housing should probably be included in the housing section of the Plan, which applies universally across the County. It was decided that the Commission would take aetion on these two Comp Plan Amendment requests on November S, 1994. ZMA-94-17 Resolution of Intent - To amend the Zoning Map as regards the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, to reflect changes to the Route 631 alignment. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that a Resolution of Intent to consider the amendment of the Zoning Map as regards the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, to reflect changes to the Route 631 alignment be adopted. The motion passed unanimously MISCELLANEOUS 1Q-18-94 14 Submittal Reaui.rem_ent9 - fy9s, Huclsle voiced a conterrt abort some problems which have oc.cured vn#h recent developments (14Ii.11 Creek, Emerald Ridge,Lake Reynovia, 1781 Productions). She wondered what could be done to prevent these problems frrm happening again. She suggested "beefing up the submittal requirements." Mr. Dotson felt it would be helpful, at some fltttwe time, to have at work session ou. the submittal requirenmuts.. Regarding Null Greek, Mr. Blue stated he had received notice of a meeting being held by the Inspections Department on October 27th to discuss the problems about which Ms. Huckl+e was concerned (e.g. steep driveways). Though he was cif the impression that all Commissioners had received this notice, that was not the case. Mx. Cilimberg was of the understanding that the notice had gone only to consultants. Ms. Imhoff expressed considerable concern about Special groups being singled out for notices, with citizens mops be. Ling omitted. She suggested that there should either be public notification (through the nev-spaper) or he notices should at Icast be sent to the standard a+itizcns groups. Shc felt having a anccting with just developers and s�iivcy�►3's in`v"ited "did 3iot serve iuc public purpose." 1`i�Qi'E: After the meetilig, stag confirmed that both PEC and the League of Women voters had received notice of this meeting.] There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10.25 p.m. Im. 76