HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 08 1994 PC Minutes11-8-94
NOVEMBER 8, 1994
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 8,
1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, Those members present
were: Ms. Babs 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. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. David. Benish,
Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Larry Davis; County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
October 25, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cihmberg briefly summarized actions taken at the Noveiber 2, 1994, Board of
Supervisors meeting.
ZMA-94-12 River Heights Associates - Petition to rezone approximately 63 acres from Rural
Area to LI, Light Industrial. Property, described as a portion of Tax Map 32, parcels 5 (part
of) and SC (part of) and Tax Map 33, Parcel 14 (part of), is located on the cast side of Rt. 29
approximately 0.5 miles north of the North Fork Rivanna River in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This site is located in a designated growth area and is recommended for Industrial
Service in the Community of Piney Mountain. Deferred from the November 1, 1994
Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that this request
does not address all Comprehensive Plan provisions or enable adequate assessment of utility,
transportation and other iwpacls. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this request."
Mr. Dotson asked staff to explain the distinction between the solid red area vs. the area
outlined in red. Mr. Fritz explained that the solid red area showed the area that is proposed
for rezoning. Mr. Dotson asked if all the area proposed for rezoning is within the area
"where the Plan was amended to show industrial service." Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively.
[NOTE: Mr. Dotson raised this question again later in the meeting.]
The applicant, Mr. Wendall Wood, addressed the Commission. He asked that the plan which
his comments would refer to be displayed for the Commission. [Mr. Fritz complied with Mr.
Wood's request, and noted that the plan was not proffered. He explained that this plan was a
sketch of one potential layout of the property.] Mr. Wood directed his comments to those
factors which were listed as "unfavorable" aspects of the proposal in the staff report. His
comments, and answers to Commission questions, included the following:
--He identified the prospective user of the property as the Foreign Science Technology
Center (FSTQ. [NOTE: At times during the discussion, FSTC wm also referred to as
i16
11-8-94
GSA/General Services Administration.] FSTC has narrowed its search for a site to 3
perspective properties. The other two sites are the UREF industrial Parr on Rt. 29 north and
ptopoty, at the intersection of Rt. 29 and Airport Road (the ."Joe Wright site").
--FSTC is requesting the use o€15 to 20 acres of the property.
--Site studies have been performed (e.g test borings, archeological and environmental
studies) on the site shown on the left on the plan.
--A 240,000 square feet building is proposed, with parking .Lor 1,000 vehicles.
--"We have proffered the protection of the entrance from Rt. 29 with Herring Branch.
We have shown a size of road that would handle any development that would go in there --
showing a 4-lane divided road going into the site. We control the property on all four sides
of the site, even across 29." The county has control over the size and width of the right-of-
way through the site plan process.
--Mr. Wood offered to have the zoning revert back to RA, should FSTC not ultimately
choose this site. [NOTE: Mr. Davis addressed this issue later in the meeting]
--When Iooking for potential sites, this site was pointed out to FSTC, by county staff,
as a potential site. [Mr. Cilimberg addressed this comment later in the meeting.)
--Scwcr is 800 fW, from the property. The applicant (Mr. Wood) has entered into an
agreement with Albemarle County Service Authority and UVA which "adequately speaks to
sewer." The existing capacity of the Camelot Treatment Plant is 365,000 galslday_ It is
presently using 100,000 gals/day. For comparison, Mr. Wood stated that presently GE is using
20,000 gaWday.
--Noting that the road shown on the plan ends at the property line, Ms. Imhoff asked
if Mr. Wood knew what that road would connect to. Mr. Wood explained that it would
connect to the adjoining property.
Ms. Huck -le asked why the request is to rezone 63 acres if FSTC needs only 16-20 acres. Mr,
Wood explained that FSTC has not yet determined which part of the two potential sites on
the property would be preferable_ He stated he would ba willing to reduce the zoning to the
specific acreage needed by FSTC if this property is the finial choice. Ms. Imhoff asked if Nk.
Wood would then plan to amend this rezoning request. He responded: "I am willing to do
whatever it tapes to achieve that...that we would amend the request in a downward fashion to
accommodate the 16-25 acres that they want." He was not sure how this would be done.
Expressing the feeling that this request is premature given the fact that the plan is unproffered
and lacks detail, Mr. Blue asked if the applicant had considered negotiating with GSA,
"contingent upon rezoning." Mr. Wood responded: "They have requested me to -do this_" Mr.
Blue felt there wasn't enough information for the Commission to make a "definitive decision"
on the request, but if the applicant "already had a deat and knew what --Aus going on,
contingent upon rezoning," it would be a "smooth" review. Mr. Wood responded; "Life
would be, great if it was that easy, but that's not the way the real world operates." fir_ Blue
pointed out that this plan has not been proffered.
Mr. Wood offered to "proffer that plan."
lq%
11-8-94 3
Ms. Imhoff expressed discomfort with reviewing rezonings that were not mature. She
cautioned that the Commission shoed not be writing proffers for the applicant_ She felt Mr.
Wood was asking the Commission what the proffers should be. She asked that Mr_ Davis
comment.
Regarding W. Wood's oMr. to "zone 20 to 60 acres, to be determined later," Nh% Davis did
not think there was any legal way to accomplish that. He explained: "The property that is to
be rezoned needs to be specifically identified and until that 24 acres is definite, you can't just
zone 20 acres, to be determined."..
Regarding Mr. Wood's offer to have the zoning revert back to RA if FSTC does not choose
this property, Ms. Huckle asked if that were legal. Mr. Davis responded: "No. Zoning is a
leVsl"ative action and once the property is zoned it reimaips -Qnied until another legislative
action rezones, it.. So there is no way for the property to be rezoned to Light Industrial and
then to revert back to another zoning classification without another xoving application."
Mr. Dotson asked if all the property which was a par of the Crimp Plan Amendment was
owned by Mr. Wood. Mr. Wood replied affirmatively. Mr. Dotson stated: "So it would be
possible for you to bring in the whole property for a unified development approach, in the
sense that you control it.* Mr. Wood questioned whether such an approach would be in
anyone's best interest because he did not feel there was presently a need for so much
industrial property. He pointed out that there has been only one large business (GE) to locate
in the County in the last 14 years. Mr. Dotson expressed concern about developing the
property in.. "little sinall.. pieces" which_ could result in. "all of a sudden, you've grit the package,.
but you never planned the packago." ThPDgb he mated that he had itot been. a part of the
Commission at the time the Comp flan was amended to designate this property fox industrial
use, it was his understanding,, from the reports be had read, that the intent had been to "look
at this as a uniffied piece." Mr. Wood reslp-w & "f think it's all ia. whut you consider little
pieces." Mr. Wood questioned the classification of half a -million square feet as "a small
piece."
Mr. Dotson, asked stiff to comment on the "precisions with which Comprehensive plan
boundaries are drawn." He felt there appeared to be approximately a lfl% discrepancy
between the boundary in the Comp Plait Amendment and the area shown in solid red. He
thought this proposal seemed to be "taking a little bigger bite_" He felt, in both cases, the
boundaries seemed to be arbitrary. Mr. Benish explained that the boundaries in the Comp
Plan had been adjusted, as much as possible, to match physical features, without expanding
too far beyond the initial request. He explained: "it was difficult to find physical features
which were close enough to the proposed site, so there were some arbitrary limos dmwn, In
terms of what is being requested, we did question a small percentage to the south by the
river...." Mr. Ciliinberg added that "it would have been much cleaner with a development
plan."
9X
11-9-94
Mr. 'Wood stated: "Based on where the PSTC did their test borings, we would be willing to
reduce that boundary to the site on the left --the one that they have done all their research on.
... That's what we would be willing to request and that, for sure, falls well within the
Comprehensive Plan designated area."
Ms. Imhoff expressed a desire to bear public comment. She noted, however, that she felt
staff had assessed the request very accurately. She felt that this proposal was premature and
that the applicant needed to go back and address all those issues identified in the staff report.
Mr. Wood expressed the feeling that he had already addressed those issues. Ms. Imhoff
responded: "You've not done it in a way that is legally before us in terms of a rezoning
application. You have done it verbally, but it is my understanding that you would need to
revise your application; you would need to identify the exact acreage and location; and you
would need to proffer this type of development plan." Mr. Davis confirmed Ms. Imhoffs
statements were accurate.
Mr. Wood expressed frustration with the system given the fact that the potential -user was told
by the County that this was a potential site.
Ms. Imhoff stated: "I think staff has been very consistent on this rezoning, as they have been
with other applicants and we have gotten more detailed information on other rezonings." She
stated that other localities in which she has worked would never have accepted this as a
rezoning request in its present form.
Regarding Mr. Wood`s statement that the stag had identified this site for the appt cantT Mr.
Cilimberg explained: "We were contacted by GSA and made aware of multiple sites (they
were considering). There were many more than the 3 he has mentioned. We told GSA. very
specifically that we were not going to recommend anything to them.... What we told them
was (1) whether the property was in the Comp Plan and how it was designated, and (2) how
the property was zoned. We did respond to questions regarding the process for bringing a
piece of property into compliance with the Comp Plan. In this particular case, we did
indicate that it was shown in the Camp Plan for industrial, but it would need to be rezoned if
it were to be developed by a private user. We made similar comments for every site that was
questioned, depending on the circumstances for that site. So there was no recommendation
made. They made their decision in terms of narrowing down the field to the final sites. We
purposely told them we didn't want to be involved in that. We did not want to get into
steering users in any direction. We did not want to show any favoritism."
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Kathryn Hobbs, representing the League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission
and read a prepared statement which expressed support for staffs recommendation to deny the
request. (See Attachment A.)
173
I1-8-94
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the
Commission and read a prepared statement which expressed support for stags
recommendaiton to deny the request. (See Attachment B.)
There being no further public comment, Mr. Wood was allowed to address one of PEC's
comments about what they believed to be his unfulfilled promise (at -the time of the Comp
Plan Amendment) to request a rezoning of this property back to rural areas if "industry V
did not proceed at that time. Mr. Wood explained that he had made an "overture to do that"
but had been advised by County staff that he should not. He indicated he was still willing, as
a matter of honor, to fulfill that promise, but he stressed that he had been asked, "by officials,
not to do that."
Ms. Huckle asked staff to comment on why Mr. Wood had been advised not to rezone the
property back to RA. Mr. Keeler responded: "In the meeting we had with Mr. Wood today,
that issue came up. I believe he just said that we recommended that it not be done. I don't
believe we made a recommendation one vvay or the other. I believe what I said, in terms of a
traditional land use approach, to amend: the, Comprehensive Plan on A Monday to find this land
suitable in the future for industrial development and then to take it out of the Plan on
Tuesday, doesn't seem to be an orderly type of approach, 4n terms of classic planning." Mr.
Cilimberg added: "There were discussions around the last Comp Plan Amendment
consideration, and I think it was stated there that the expectation was if it were made
industrial area, it would remain industrial area until the Comp Plan review would look at it
again. So I think with the review going on, it is inappropriate just to remove it. Mr. Wood
is entitled to request whatever he would like, but I think even that would be considered within
the review process."
There being no further applicant or public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-94-12 for River Heights Associates be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial, based on those reasons listed in the staff
report. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Nitcbmann expressed the feeling that the applicant was trying to do the right thing in
terms of trying to satisfy the demands of a potential client with a piece of property that has
been designated as an industrial site. He agreed, however, that there should be more detail
provided before final action is taken on the request. He suggested that perhaps a 90-day
deferral was in order to allow the applicant time to inake obaages to the proposal.
There followed a discussion as to the implications of a 90-day deferral in relation to the time
requirements of the review period. Ms. Imhoff did not think there was sufficient time for a
/W
11-8-94
90-day deferral. She noted, however, that the applicant could request an indefinite deferral, if
he so chose.
Mr. Davis explained: that the Ordinance requires "you to act within 9tt days after the first
meeting of the Commission following the date the application was submitted." He was
uncertain of that particular date. There was some question as to exactly how to interpret the
Ordinance, i.e. " 90 days from the date of this Commission meeting, or 90 days from the date
the application was submitted?" Mr. Davis felt there was some ambiguity in the way the
Ordinance was worded. Ms. Imhoff stated it had been her experience, in another locality, that
the interpretation was a very conservative one, i.e. the clock had begun "upon receipt" of the
application. Mr. Davis agreed that would be his interpretation, but he explained this was a
determination for the Zoning Administrator to make, and she might interpret it differently.
Ms. Huckle felt this question should be answered. She pointed out this item had already been
deferred once.
Given the lack of a definitive determination as to the Ordiance requirements, Ms. Imhoff felt
it would be "much cleaner" to either deny the request, or see if the applicant might want to
request an indefinite deferral. Noting the amount of work that staff had put into the request,
she expressed a preference for denial. The applicant could then start over.
Mr. Jenkins noted that though there originally had been an unknown user ("company X") at
the time of the Comp ]Plan Amendment, the current prospective user is now known to be a
"neighbor." He was concerned about the lack of input from FS`fC. He indicated he was in
favor of taking action and passing the request on to the Board, who would then, with the
benefit of the Commission's minutes, take whatever action they deemed appropriate.
Mr. Dotson noted that he did not feet a delayed Commission action on this request would
place this property at any disadvantage in terms of FSTC's final selection given the fact that
the UREF property (one of FSTC's other possible sites) is not currently zoned industrial
either.
Mr. Blue asked when the proposal could be re -submitted in the event the Board should deny
this request. Mr. Davis explained that "substantially the same application" could not be re -
filed for one year. Mr. Blue was somewhat concerned about this possibility, because it could
place this applicant out of the running if FSTC needs to make a decision in less than one
year.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the key words were "substantially similar." It could not be re-
heard within that one-year period if the subsequent proposal was for a "63 acre site, with no
details." She again stated: "With all the staff work that has gone into it, I think it needs to
be denied and let the applicant start over."
/c/5. -
I I-8-94 7
On the question of what is "substantially the same," Mr. Davis explained this would be a
case -by -case review. He stated: "But, certainly, if the application was for a 20-acre site and
had proffered conditions which nailed down the use, in my opinion, it would be substantially
different. That would be the Zoning Administrator's determination ultimately, from a legal
standpoint."
Mr. Dotson asked: "I€ it came back, the same 63 acres, but was not Light Industrial, but
PDIP, would that be substantially different?" Mr. Davis responded: "That would certainly be
a factor that would be considered in making that determination."
Ms. Huckle expressed support for the motion for dental. She felt it was too premature for the
Commission to make an "informed, intelligent decision at this time."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if Ms. Imhoff would consider changing her motion to one for indefinite
deferral,. Ms. Imhoff expressed the belief that an indefinite deferral cannot be proposed by
the Commission without the applicant's having specifically requested such a deferral. Mr.
Davis confirmed this was correct. He explained that if the applicant were to make such a
request, then Ms. Imhoff could, if she wished, withdraw her previous motion and a new
motion could be offered.
Noting once again all the staff tune that .had gone into the .review, Ms. Imhoff once again
stated she favored a denial, with the applicant starting off with a new slate. However,
because she understood the desire to have a good relationship with this project, she stated she
would be willing to withdraw her motion, if the applicant were to request an indefinite
deferral.
The applicant was asked if he wished to request an indefinite deferral. Mr. Wood once again
addressed the Commission. It was not clear, initially, whether he was requesting an indefinite
deferral or not. It& Imhoff asked him directly: "Me you requesting an indefinite deferral?"
Mr_ Mood replied: "I think that is probably what it boils down to." Assuming an indefinite
deferral, he asked when he would be able to get the item back before the Commission.
After the applicant has submitted additional information, Mr. Keeler explained that it would
take approximately 4 weeks for the staff to respond and get the request back to the
Commission. He explained the clock would start again when the applicant refines the request
and submits new information to staff.
Though Mr. Keeler pointed out that an indefinite deferral would require re -notification of the
item; Mr. Davis questioned the accuracy of this statement. Since the public heating had
already been held and clokd, he did not think there was any legal requirement that the item
be readvertised. It was agreed that it has been the Commission's policy to re -advertise an
item which has been changed, so that the public will have a chance to respond.
/ ,7(o
11-8-94
Mr. Wood asked: "So the only difference for an indefinite deferral is that it has to be
readvertised?" Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively.
Mr. Dotson noted that given the fact that there is substantial work needed on the request, he
felt there would be sufficient time for re -advertisement.
Mr. Wood stated: ".I'll ask for an indefinite deferral, I guess."
Ms. Huckle advised the applicant not to hold back on the details of the proposal when he
comes back before the Commission. Mr. Wood continued to state that he could not offer
details if FSTC did not make him aware of the details_
Ms. Imhoff withdrew her previous motion for denial. Mr. Dotson withdrew his second to the motion.
Ms.Imhoff expressed the feeling that the County is "extremely generous in deferring things
and allowing applicants every opportunity, and I hope this doesn't put an undue burden on
staff, who I think did a really good job on this project."
MOTION: Ms_ Imhoff moved that the applicant's request for an Indefinite Deferral of ZMA-
94-12 be accepted.
Mr_ Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with Commissioner Vaughan casting;
the dissenting vote.
SP-9-4-3Q James F. & Ester C. - Petition to amend SP-82-61 to allow the
construction of ten tourist cabins. Property, described as Tax Map 71, parcel 3 is located on
the south side of U.S. Route 250 approximately 0.75 miles west of 1-64, (this is the site of the
existing Jellystone Campground). This site is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. This site is not located in a designated growth area
(Rural Area 3).
Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant was requesting a deferral to November29, 1994. He
stated that staff and the applicant had arrived at a solution which will require revisions to the
application and a new staff analysis, thus the request for a deferral.
The applicant's.representative, Mr. Richard Carter, confirmed Mr. Fritz's statements.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr_ Nitchmann, that SP-94-30 for Jaynes and
Ester McDonald be deferred to November 29, 1994. The motion passed unanimously.
CPA-94-1 _University Real Estate Foundation - The applicant is requesting the amendment of
the Comprehensive Plan Land Usc Map to include within the Hollymead Community 297
/g7-
t1-8-94
acres located west of Rotue 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 use.
AND
CPA-94-2 Kessler Grout) South Forest Lakes - Proposal to amen tie 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 1 into the Hollymead Community. The property under
question is located east of Powell Creek, north of Rt. 643, west of the NwMk Souther i
Railroad and southeast of the Greens at Hollymead. If incorporated into the Hollymead
Growth Area, theesu,..bOct acreage wog id be designated for low dcnsity residential laud k 0-
4 dwelling units per acre).
Though the staff report for these two proposals was combined, the Commission would take
separate actions.
[NOTE: The public hearing for these two items had been meld 2 weeps previous.]
Mr. Dotson advised the Commission that though he is an employee of the University of
Virginia, after consulting with the County Attorney, both he and Mr. Davis agree he has no
personal interest in the University Real Estate Foundation. In order to comply with the State
and. Local government Conflict of interest Act, he disclosed this information on the
appropriate form, which he signed and dated November 8, 1994. He concluded that he felt he
could fairly participate in the action on this: request.
Mr. Benish presented a brief staff report. He teporled the only outstanding issue as being the
recommendation to limit development within the North Fork Rivanna River water supply
intake area (page 3 of the proposed amendment).
Referring to page 5, second "bullet from the bottom, Ms. Imhoff asked staff to expand on the
statement "Target opportunities for employees at the Dower income level and employees hired
locally." Mr. Benish explained that some of the wording had come from the Housing
Comm. ttec. Mr. Cilimbcrg recalled there had been discussions that employment should serve
the lower income and local residents. He said it was difficult to. say exactly how it would
"fit" in terms of the amendment. Ms. Imhoff pointed out there would be a lot more about
housing added into the Comp Plan as a result of the current review. MIT. Cilimberg added
that there will be more generdl strdtegies recommended in the Housing Section of the Comp
Man which may make the statement referred to by Ms. Imhoff redundant.
Mr. Nitchmann also raised questions about some of the wording in the "bullet" referred to by
Ms. Imhoff , i.e. "Provide a full range of housing types and costs within the Hollymead
community...." He eked who was to provide the housing. Mr. Benish explained it w"-s
I9Y
l 1-8-94 io
intended to refer to the private sector and the wording was meant to `address what the county
wants to. occur in Hollymead...but it is not specifically to mean that the county is intended to
provide the bousing." Ms. Huckle wondered if the word "encourage" would be better than
"provide."
Referring to the second "bullet" on page 5, Ms. Huckle asked about the status of the mobile
home park. [NOTE: The item refeffed to by Ms. Huckle referenced the Ridgewood Mobile
Home Park, whereas Ms. Hhckle`s question was in relation to the recently approved mobile
home park to be built in the area close to the airport.] Mr. Keeler explained that the special
permit for the park is now in the process of being perfected with a site plan.
Ms. Imhoff reported that she had met with Dr. Loewenstein, representing the Proffit
Community, and had toured the Proffit area. She suggested that perhaps there should be a
future work session to discuss how to treat "old, existing, rural communities (which are) being
pressured by development all around then." She referenced a report which she gave to staff
and asked that it be copied for the entire Commission. Idly. Benish noted that Proffit would
have to be addressed because of its location in the center of one of the study areas for growth
area expansion..
Ms. Hackle felt it was important to know what type of employment was envisioned, e.g.
"would it be ail professional people; whether they will be people who can provide for their
own housing, or will they be people who need help?"
Rioting that this is a Comp Plan amendment, Ms. Imhoff stated: "I think what that sentence
is saying is 'we want a comwanity that has a lot of diversity, has a full range of different
housing costs'." Site felt this was meant to be the spirit of the language "rather than trying to
target any one employer or break down by family groups."
Deferring to the last "bullet" on page 3, Ms. Imhoff expressed strong support for the proposed
language related to the protection of the North Fork Rivanna Diver water supply intake area --
"Protect the North Fork Rivanna River water supply intake area by prohibiting any
development or creation of impervious surfaces within this area."
Ms. Huckle noted that iTREF has expressed concern for the environment and the langtjage in
page 3 is an "example of how that can be implemented."
On this same issue, Ms. Imhoff commented: "I agree that staff, the Engineering Department,
and other people have put .forth that, technically, you can figure out ways to o-Verw e of
safeguard, to prevent problems.. Tome it is not a technical. issue,.it is a policy issue and
these are exactly the kind of areas that you should not be putting into growth areas. I do
think this Comp Plan amendment will provide UREF with enough land to Have a very
spacious accommodation for their 3,000, 000, square feet maximum proposal."
��9
11-8-94 11
Though Ms. Huekle explained that the public hearing had already been held on the U-REF
proposal, Mr. Blase felt that the applicant should be allowed to comment on Mr. Rose's letter
which indicated that the applicant is not totally in agreement with. the language proposed by
staff in relation to the water supply intake area. W. Blue pointed out that the Engineering
Department's letter states that the area can be protected with Best Management Practises
(BMP's).
Mr. Blue asked if the language proposed was such that "we are going to discourage
development in that area which drains above the water intake." Staff replied
affirmatively.Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the language reflected the Commission's
comments from the last meeting on this item.
Mr. Blue pointed out that the comments referred to by Mr. Cilimberg had not been supported
unanimously by the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg recalled that staff had specifically asked if
the Commission supported comments made at the last meeting in relation to protection of the
water intake area, and there had been no indication of any objection.
Mr. Blue asked if both Mr. Rose and Mr. Kelsey (County Engineering staff] could be allowed
to elaborate on their letters.
Ms. Imhoff expressed no opposition to Mr. Blue's request, but noted that if comment is
allowed from the applicant, then citizen comment should be allowed also. Mr. $lue did not
object.
The applicant was allowed to comment. During those comments, Ms. Huckle pointed out that
the reason UREF was seeking the additional acreage was to be, able to spread out the
development and be more sensitive to the environment. Mr. Rose confirmed the accuracy of
Ms.Huckle's statement.
Mr. Tim Rose, representing UREF, addressed the Commission. He was assisted by Mr. Steve
Driver, representing UREF's engineers. Mr. Driver explained in some detail how the area in
question (the water intake area) would drain after development. He explained that because of
the topography of the property, excavation would have to occur along the ridge line to make
the area buildable. After that excavation has occurred,, the vast majority of parcel B I and all
of parcel A will flow east and will enter the Rivanna River south of the raw water intake.
Only a "small sliver" of land between the bulls of parcel Bl and Rt. 606 is of concern and
most of that area will be included in a buffer. Thus, after the development of parcel B I and
A, none of the runoff will enter the Rivanna River north of the intake area. After steadying
the area in more detail, Mr. Driver stated he was comfortable that development in this area
should not be an issue.
There was a lengthy discussion as to whether or not the proposed wording to "prohibit"
development within this area would constrain UREF's development. Mr. Rose stated it was
UjUL F's understanding that the language "would preclude development in those areas." He
,�?00
1 t-8-94 12
concluded: "All we're asking is that as we go through the zoning process, will you at least
allow us to work with youto see if there is a way to sensitively address the issue of the raw
water intake area."
After hearing Mr. Driver's comments, Mr. Dotsoa felt that the wording would not coustiain
the applicant's development because there would be no runoff into the water intake area.
Mr. Slue disagreed, pointing out that the statement says "...by prohibiting any development or
creation of impervious surface within the area." He recalled the applicant had explained the
property would drain into the Rivanna below the water intake area after excavation, but with
the wording as suggested, they would not be allowed to excavate the area. He suggested the
wnrdivrg be changed. to "Protect the Worth Fork Rivanna River raw water supply intake area to
the greatest extent possible." He felt that would give }+oth the applicant and staff" some
flexibility at the time of.the rezoning application. s. Ellen Miller, representing UREF, later
stated Mr. Blue's suggested language would be acceptable to UREF)
Ms. Vaughan asked who would make the final determination as to the "greatest extent
possible." Mr. Slue responded: "We will, eventually, or staff will, when they come up with
their rezoning, and with site pfan&"
Mr. Driver explained how drainage world be handled on the "small silver" along Rt. 606--"a
storm, drainage system and infiltration trenches to a, BNF pond on the, other side of Rt. 606."
He stated that it is approximately 1/2 mile from the pond to the raw water intake. He felt
that any contaminants would be filtered out, through the drainage system, infiltration trenches,
and pond before reaching the intake area. He noted- that Mr. Kelsey had agreedwith his
analysis. lie felt thm would be "very little, to no risk" as a result of this development.
Ms. Huckle asked. who would be installing the drainage system, ponds, etc —TUREF or
individual developers, Ms. Miller answered: "Part of those solutions, -are, as we came back,
we would certainly expect that you would say either 'Is UREF going to put those in place, or
what measures will it take to insure that others who may acquire the property or lease the
property will do sod' I think that is totally appropriate and we would be prepared to address
that at that time_"
Ms. Imhof commented: "I think we are going to see a really complex rezoning on this.
property (with) lots of detailed proffers."
Comment was invited from MF: Jack i:619ay, Chief of Enj ideu ibg (CuuidY sa}. Mt. Rite
felt. that. Mr. Kelsey'sletter had basically agreed with what Mr. Driver had described. He
asked Mr. kelsey if his understanding was correct. Mr. kelsey responded: "I felt pretty
much comfortable with what they are proposing. In€ormati€m thAt McKee/Carson (the
applicant's engineers) has presented., just clarifies that even more. ... They have clearly
demonstrated to us, with the homework they have dome here, with more detailed topo and
some conceptual provisions of what wan be done, that reasonable means can be provided to
11-9-94 13
divert or protect the water intake_" Mr. Blue asked if Mr.Kelsey was comfortable with the
amended language he had proposed, "knowing that when you come to the rezoning and site
plan, you've got to work within that phrase." Mr. Kelsey replied: "Yes, that's fine." Mr.
Kelsey stated he had always been of the opinion that most of these items would be addressed
at the time of the rezoning. He explained a flag had been raised at the Comp Flan
amendment stage "just to get people thinking about it ahead of time."
Where followed a discussion of other possibilities for wording related to the water intake area.
Mr. Jenkins wondered if "to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department" might be
prefermble to "to the greatest extent possible." Ms. Hackle questioned *hither Mr. Blue's
wording was definitive enough. Mr. Keeler disagreed with Ms. Huckle, explaining: "To the
maximum extent possible is not to allow any development or any disturbance of that land."
Mr. Benish offered the following. alternative: "Protect the forth ]Fork Rivanna River water
supply intake area by limiting to the greatest extent possible runoff occurring from
development within the North Fork Rivanna River drainage area." He felt that would
acknowledge that development could occur, but the runoff which could occur from the
development would be limited. Ms. Imhoff asked if something could be added, to limit the
amount of impervious surface.
Ms. Cihwberg asked if the Commission was in agreement that there- should be a chanW to
the wording.
Mr. f3lue expressed the feeding that the word "prohibit" was very specific and would allow no
development regardless of what means the applicant proposed for dealing with the drainage..
He stated he was willing to consider .any wording which would eliminate the word "prohibit"
and give some flexibility to the applicant, the Count,, staff and the Planning Commission in
trying to protect the water supply area.
Ms. Imhoff suggested the Commission exprm their support for, or objection to, a change in
the language, by a show of hands. She stated she was satisfied with the language as
presented in the staff report, with no changes.
By a show of hands, only three Commissioners expressed satisfaction with the language as
presented in the staff report.
Ms. Huckle read the following statement: "I want to be, able to approve this CPA, but am
disheartened that after so much rhetorical ,concern for the environment has been expressed by
LTREF, the Est concrete suggestion For protetion of the North Fork water intake =a by
prohibiting development in that watershed area has been rebuffed by MMr. Rose's letter. of
November I st. Nothing could doom the success of this Research park venture more surely
than an insufficient water supply. We are told that the prosemt system is insufficient to
supply the area already designated for development at build out. It would be irresponsible for
us to approve more development without being sure the potential water resources were
protected. ,t is understandable that REF wants more acreage on which to spread out
11-8-94 14
development, given the physical limitations of the site. But we must remember that UREF
will not be developing the property. Other business interests are going to do that and their
bottom line is profit. Are they necessarily going to pay the extra development cost necessary
to provide effecive BMIYs? I know that engineers can design effective systems. When VDOT
built a bridge over the Rivanna giver, they did an excellent job of protecting the reservoir,
but they had an inspector on the job c`Yery work-ing day. We have seen what happens when
developers take shoat cu r or do nut implement their plans eofrectly. after the damW. is
done there seems to be precious little the county can do."
Mr. Dotson commented: "My feeling is it's a very big site. So if UREF couldn't develop this
small portion, they are still getting 98% or 99e/a or what they want. On the other hand, it is
only a very small portion --and I am even more convinced of that after Steve Driver's
comments --that could influence the water intake, and it sounds like the boundary of the water
intake is likely to be, modified anyway. tt almost qeem i like a wash either way. I don't get
real excited on either side of the issue."
Ms. Iluckle: "If we're too -Mghy-washy about his we're not going to got anything that is
going to be really useful. la's ` of just IJWF that we're dealing with. W. gut to think
about all the other people that are going to be on the site that may not have the same
environmental sensitivity that UREF says it has."
Mr. Nitchmann suggested the statement remain as presented, but with the words "which
endanger water quality" added at the end.
Mr. Blue felt the issue had been thoroughly discussed and expressed a desire to proceed with
Commission action.
Mr. Jenkins asked staff to clarify the intention of the water intake statement. Mr. Benish
responded: "It says to prohibit development within that drainage area that drains to the intake
of the North Fork Rivanna river." Mr. Jenkins asked how many acres- were involved. Mr.
Driver responded to Mr..lerldns' question. He explained that a detailed analysis shows that 79
acres currently drain to the raw water intake. Of this 79 acres, 42 acres will remain in open
space, leaving 37 acres of parcel development land within the drainage area. 18 of these 37
acres will drain to the east, below the raw water intake, after grading has taken place, 15
acres (a narrow strip along Rt. 646) of developable area will drain into the Rivanna above the
raw water intake, after grading has taken place. Mr. Blue pointed out that if grading is
prohibited, the applicant will not have the opportunity to control the drainage as described_
(Mr. Benish confirmed Mr. Blue's statement was accurate, based on the way the statement is
currently worded.) Mr. Driver concluded: "The way the statement is worded now it. would
prohibit any earth moving activity west of the natural drainage divide, which is 79 acres,"
Ms. Imhoff recalled that she had understood, at the last work session, that approximately 25
acres were involved in the raw water intake area. Ms. Iluckle asked why the acreage had
changed. Mr. Driver explained the original figures had been based on a conceptual analysis,
ao3
11-8-94
with a 200 scale drawing. A more recent analysis using a 50 scale drawing shows more
specifically what would occur if this area were developed.
In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Driver pointed out the 79 acres on the applicant's
drawing -
Mr. Nitchmann felt the discussion was becoming too technical. He again suggested the
addition of the words "which endanger water quality or quantity." He stated he was not an
engineer and did not plan to argue about the :number of acres ;involved. With the wording he
was proposing, he felt the County staff would be able to determine whether the proposal
would endanger water quality or quantity.
Both Commissioners Imhoff` and Jenkins stated they could accept MT. Nitchmann's proposed
wording. Mr. Blue indicated agreement also.
It was determined the statement would finally read: "Protect the North Fork IR.ivanna River
water supply intake area by prohibiting any development or creation of impervious surfaces
within this area which endanger water quality or quantity." Ms. Imhoff concluded: "it
makes an ambiguous statement which is good for everybody because we can hash it out at the
rezoning."
Ms. Hackle commented: "It also means, if it happens, what are you going to do about it --
nothing."
Ms. Imhoff disagreed. She stated: "I think the applicant has heard that we are going to be
looking very, very closely at this area. I thought nave were talking about a 20-acre site and all
of sudden for it to be 70 or 154Ei4's kind of like we. have been all over the board tonight."
Ms. Hackle commented: "We have and it makes you wonder how aeewate these folks (are)."
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that there had not been enough votes (by the earlier show of hands) to
keep the original language.
Mr. Dotson suggested the following minor changes to other sections of the amendment:
--Public Water and Sewer, page 2: Referring to the option to "abandonthe existing
North Fork Treatment facility," he recalled there had been concern about abandoning that
facility. He did not feel it should be stated in the Plan that the North Fork facility would be
abandoned. even if the systems were merged.. H p d that the. statement be modified to
indicate the Est" option would be to interconnect the systems. Attempting to determineH iffie
statement, as presented by staff, was accurate, Mr. Cilimberg recalled that there had been
concerns about pressure difference. Mr. Dotson suggested the wording could be "to abandon
or to interconnect." Ms. Huckle stated: "I don't think that even the suggestion that we
abandon it should even be in there because ivir. `,Williams has stated he would never agree to
a
11-9-94 15
abandoning 2,000,000 gallons and a plant that already exists." Mr. Blue pointed out that Mr.
Williams is no longer with the RWSA and other members of that organization had not agreed
with him No oppo%iti.on was. expressed to Mr. Dotson's suggested change to the language.
._Recommendations, page 3: He suggested the substitution of the words "mixed use
community" for "self-contained community." No oppostion was expressed to this suggested
change.
--page, 4: He questioned the meaning of "preserve" in the statement "Preserve the
identified historic features located in the area ...." He stated he would rather see a plan, as
part of the rezoning, which would address the historic features. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that
the Comp Flan language is meant to be general and it is at the time of the rezoning the
applicant wily be expected to address the plan for preserving the historic features. Ms. Imhoff
Pointe nut that the Comp Plan is used far purposes other than rezgnings. Mr. Dotson
pointed out that there are statements related to traffic studies and fiscal impact studies. He
stated he would like to see "a plan which addresses the historic features, which may or may
not mean preserving them in a literal sense." Mr. Blue agreed with Mr. Dotson. Mr. Dotson
suggested the following language: "Provide a plan which addresses the historic features
located in the area now referred to as the Worth Fork Research Park to retain historic context
and continuity, at the time of the rezoning." Ms.lmhofff suggested that "at the time of the
rezoning" be omitted. Mr. Dotson did not object. No other opposition was expressed to Mr.
Dotson's suggested wording.
There was determined to be no public comment.
Addressing a concern Ms. Huckle expressed earlier in the meeting as to who would actually
be grading sites and installing drainage measures, Mr. Feeler stated: "This precedes a
planned development rezoning. Among the things that we can negotiate with the applicant
and require is a master drainage plan for the development which would be binding on any
subsequent property owner, so it doesn't matter who is actually doing the grading —they are
bound by that plan."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that CPA-94-1 for University Real Estato Foundation be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as set forth in the text presented by
staff November S, 1994, with changes to wording as discussed by the Commission and
hereinabove described.
Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson expressed the feeling that a lot of careful "measuring" needs to be done at the
rezoning stage. He hoped a lot more information would be presented on:
(1) Job Mix - He stated he was very interested in obtaining as many manufacturing
and industrial type jobs from the site as possible. He hoped industrial sites would not be
given away to office and institutional uses.
V0 5
11-8-94 17
(2) Fiscal and economic impacts
f3) Traffic - He felt there should be a thorough, careful examination of traffic
questions.
(4) Ideas presented in Dean McDonough 's statements at a previous meeting related to
marketing strategies. He c lic;otraged € RED to '`gain all -0, C advantage they can. from those
new ideas."
The motion for approval passed, 6:1, with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
The Commission then addressed CPA-94-2 for the Kessler Group. CNOTE: The amendment
presented by staff was applicable for both CPA's and the changes made by the Commission
were also applicable for both.]
The applicant was represented by W Steve Kunkle. He offered no dent.
Therc being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that CPA-94-2 for the Kessler Group South Forest sakes,
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as set forth in the text presented by
staff November 8, 1994, with changes to warding as discussed by the Commission and
hereinabove described.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Imhoff repeated her hope that the applicant would be sensitive to the Proffit community.
The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Nis_ Imhoff reported there was an opportunity for the new Commissioner of Agriculture,
Carlton Courtier, to attend the Nevcmbor 15 meetinng= She &*cd if the Commi&sion was
interested. There was no majority support for Res. Imhoff s suggestion.
The Commission de6ded to move December 27tWs agenda, items to Jan::ary 3rd.
There being no %urther business, the meeting adjourned at 9:1 s p.m.
D.r.1
;�d�