Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 08 1993 PC Minutes6-8-93 1 JUNE 8, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 8, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 4, 1993 were approved as amended. ZMA-93-07 Forest Lakes Associates - Petition to rezone 2.3 D, Planned Unit Development and 2.6 acres from PUD to R-1 to facilitate the exchange of land between the Forest Lakes South PUD (ZMA-91-04) and an adjacent property. Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcels 26E and 26F, is located in the eastern portion of the development (Block C). This property is in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is located in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) recommended for Medium Density Residential (4.01 - 10 dwelling units per acre). Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's original proffers. Mr. Blue asked if the adjacent property owner (Farinholt) would give up the right to use his driveway, which currently crosses this property. Mr. Tarbell stated it was his understanding that an agreement had been reached between the applicant and Mr. Farinholt about the access. Mr. Blue asked if there were any plans for Forest Lakes South to be able to ultimately tie into Rt. 643. Mr. Tarbell explained that the Forest Lakes property currently extends to Rt. 643, but it is through the floodplain of Powell Creek. He could not recall if there had ever been plans to tie into Rt. 643. Mr. Cilimberg added that a tie into Rt. 643 had not been pursued at the time of the original plans because of the uncertainty about the alignment of the Meadowcreek Parkway. (It was determined that the connection Mr. Cilimberg spoke of was "further down" than the one Mr. Blue was referring to. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the one referred to by Mr. Blue was not a 6-8-93 2 part of the original Forest Lakes PUD and he did not know if that property has been acquired by the applicant since. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. Regarding the Farinholt driveway, he explained the agreement is that Mr. Farinholt will vacate all rights -of -way "once our road off of Rt. 29 has asphalt and sub -base surface." He continued: "There can never be a right-of-way across our property only." Regarding a connection to Rt. 643, he explained that "the original rezoning had shown a connection at almost the same location to the Meadowcreek Parkway, but not all the way to 643 because we didn't own land all the way to 643. It envisioned coming through at almost that identical location on our property. We were going to provide a 50-foot right-of-way for the potential connection to the Meadowcreek Parkway because of the difficulty with dealing with VDOT and their lack of recognition of that being a potential location of the Meadowcreek Parkway." Mr. Blue noted that if the Meadowcreek Parkway is never built a connection to 643 would be good planning. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that ZMA-93-07 for Forest Lakes Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The motion passed unanimously. SP-93-15 Ram RSE Communications (applicant) Crown Orchard Company (owner) - Petition to issue a special use permit for an approximately 300 foot tower [10.2.2.6]. The proposed tower is located on Carter's Mountain. Property is described as Tax Map 91, Parcel 28. This site is zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area IV). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Mr. Blue's questions, Mr. Fritz confirmed that staff was recommending approval of this tower (with no designated specific use) because it is anticipated that it will be able to "pick up some of the expansion" of the existing towers on Carter's Mountain, all of which are at capacity. He also confirmed that staff would not recommend approval of any more towers on Carter's Mountain until this one has reached its capacity. Mr. Fritz added that staff feels: (1) Because this is an existing tower farm, the additional tower will have a limited negative impact; and N 6-8-93 3 (2) This tower provides substantial capacity which, hopefully, will alleviate the need for new towers either on Carter's Mountain or in other locations. Mr. Blue expressed curiosity about this proposal. He noted: "It seems like a good thing, but I just wonder if you create some sort of competitive or non-competitive monopoly because we hesitate to approve towers elsewhere and this particular applicannt will have capacity and nobody else would, because you are saying you would not approve another applicant there until this capacity is used up." Mr. Fritz responded: "We would likely not recommend approval, that's right." Ms. Huckle liked the idea of the tower being available to different users. She noted that some towers may have capacity but will not allow competitors to use their towers. Mr. Johnson stated: "I think we have to be careful how we interpret that. This is a private commercial enterprise and for us to sit here and say that somebody has to be on his tower because we won't approve anything else, I don't think will stand up. We are letting the applicant set the fee for being on his tower and the third party has no alternative. I don't think that's our perrogative." Mr. Fritz responded: "To say that we wouldn't approve it is somewhat presumtive. We have always looked at whether or not there is capacity as one of the things to determine whether or not it is appropriate." Mr. Johnson questioned the following statement in the staff report: "Due to its location off the ridge line, the tower structure will be higher than most existing towers, but will result in a tower elevation compatible with the other towers in the area." He wondered if the statement would be more accurate if it said "will result in antennae elevations compatible with antennae in the area." Mr. Fritz responded: "The point we're trying to make is that the starting point for this is lower than all the others, but its finish point, above sea level, is going to be very similar to all the existing towers." Mr. Johnson also called attention to the issue of strobe lighting, quoting from the staff report: "Staff does not support strobe lighting as it represents the introduction of a different method of obstruction marking which would cause this tower to stand out from other existing towers." He pointed out that the applicant feels that strobe lighting, pointed upward, would be less objectionable than any other type. Mr. Fritz confirmed this was a difference of opinion between staff and the applicant. He stated it was staff's intent "to try to maintain continuity in the existing method of obstruction marking for those towers on Carter's Mountain, instead of introducing a new one." He indicated 91 6-8-93 4 it was up to the Commission as to whether or not to agree with the applicant's opinion on this issue. Mr. Cilimberg added that staff's position is also influenced by prior concerns that have been expressed about strobe lighting on towers by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Blue asked if the State aviation agency prefers strobe lighting. Mr. Fritz stated it was his understanding, that "it doesn't make a hill of beans difference" for this specific tower. He stated that there had been no opinion expressed "that it should be strobed for safety." It was determined that strobe lights would be lit 24 hours a day, but red lights would only be lit at night. The applicant was represented by Terry Wright. Regarding the lighting issue, he offered the following clarifications: --The overall structure height will be approximately 1,700 feet above mean sea level. It will be shorter in overall height than three other structures on the mountain. --The applicant has petitioned the FAA for relief from the requirements to mark the structure because "we are within .2 mile of three structures which exceed our overall height." The applicant feels there is a reasonable chance the FAA won't require any marking of the tower. --In the event that lighting is required, the applicant has also petitioned the FAA to allow strobe lighting in place of red beacon lights and orange tower markings. The applicant feels strobe lighting provides improved visibility. If only strobe lighting is not acceptable, the applicant would prefer a dual lighting system (strobe during the day and red at night) because this would require less maintenance to the tower in terms of painting and would also make the tower less visible than if it must have orange markings. --Because of the slow response time from Federal agencies, the applicant may be forced to go ahead and mark the tower because "we don't have time to wait." --The applicant's preference for strobe lighting is based on the desire to reduce the visibility of the structure from the ground. Mr. Wright confirmed that there would be some dishes on the tower. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Based on the applicant's comments, Mr. Johnson suggested that condition No. 3 be changed to read simply "Staff approval of lighting." There followed a discussion about the amendment of condition No. 3 (related to lighting). Mr. Cilimberg offered the 4 6-8-93 5 following amendment: "There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. In the event that lighting is required, only red lighting shall be used for nighttime obstruction marking. Dayling tower lighting for obstruction purposes is permitted. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground." Mr. Grimm stated he could support the request. Mr. Jenkins wondered if this lighting arrangement would effect any of the other towers on the mountain, i.e. would others object to painting their towers. Mr. Blue asked if a request for the same type lighting on another tower would be approved. Mr. Bowling stated it would depend on the conditions of each particular special permit. Mr. Blue asked: "But if we would be willing to do it for this one, why wouldn't we be able to do it for others, even if we had to change those conditions?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "The only reason you might not be willing would be due to a proliferation of strobes...." Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission that the applicant may not be required to do any lighting because of the other towers that already exist in the vicinity. Mr. Johnson pointed out that a strobe light requires much less maintenance than painting. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that SP-93-15 for Ram/BSE Communications(applicant) Crown Orchard Company (owner) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower heights shall not exceed 300 feet. 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. In the event that lighting is required, only red lighting shall be used for nightime obstruction marking. Daylight tower lighting for obstruction purposes is permitted. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground. 4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional tower, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section. The motion passed unanimously. 6112 6-8-93 0 Report to Plannina Commission from AdHoc Committee on Education and Training Mr. Benish introduced the topic. He explained the intent of the Committee. Commission comments included the following: HUCKLE: Referring to No. 6 on the past page, she felt the idea of "underwriting by the private sector, guaranteed by the County " needed to be clarified. (Mr. Blue agreed. Mr. Johnson pointed out that "this is a consideration to be defined by the task force. This is not a committment in any way on the part of anybody at this stage of the game.") JOHNSON: He explained the task of the Committee (composed of three members) was to "analyze, from their positions of expertise, and determine whether it is appropriate and potentially profitable to go ahead and define an effort." He recommended that it be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for implementation. He asked that emphasis be placed on the following items: (1) It should be considered in terms of "applying it to an initial pilot program from which success or failure, or changes, could be obtained, rather than having it go whole hog initially and having it fall down and not do anything; (2) Regarding the composition of a Task Force "(a) Productivity of a task force is, within limits, inversely proportional to its size; (b) Task force membership should be selected from those having professional experience in the disciplines represented by these 14 activities. In order to optimize their objectivity, they need not be current members of these, however, In addition to experience, available time is of next importance in their selection." and (3) The Task Force should be chartered to deliver their final report within 12 months. Informal progress reports should be submitted at intervals of 3 months." GRIMM: He concluded that the report indicates that the Committee feels that a training program, to benefit primarily the lower economic sector workforce, is something which should be undertaken. He questioned some of the figures in the report, particularly the statement that 4,700 people in the County are below the poverty level. He noted that there are a significant number of people in the City also below that level which were not included in that number. (Mr. Blue also had questioned this number.) He felt this falls in the category of providing for the "welfare" of the public. NITCHMANN: He questioned why the school system has not already been providing students with basic life skills and training. "One thing that has to be a part of this document is a strong message to the Board of Supervisors that it is to-5 6-8-93 7 apparent that our educational system is lacking in basic life skills training of those children in the schools today." He felt that the numbers indicated that the educational system has not been providing these skills. He noted, however, that he felt this type of education was primarily the responsibility of parents. He felt that should be part of this document and felt it should be one of the recommendations to be addressed by the Task Force "at a more accelerated rate" than the entire study will take. He suggested that Dr. Pasquale (Education) be asked to appear before the Commission to address this issue and report on what would be involved in instituting some type of life skills program in the last three years of the high school curriculum. JOHNSON: Though he agreed with Mr. Nitchmann's comments, he cautioned against including this at this time because "the last thing we want to do is raise a red flag between the Board of Supervisors and the Education Department." He felt it was not the purpose of this document to point blame at any particular group. He felt it would be most productive to allow the Task Force to define the approach. He felt Dr. Pasquale would not be able to answer Mr. Nitchmann's question without a lot of study and further definition. He noted that this is a national problem. ANDERSEN: She invited Commissioners to participate in, or observe, the City's tutoring program so they would have a first-hand opportunity to deal with those students whom this training would be designed to help. She pointed out that there are many reasons these children have problems, other than the education system's possible inadequacies. She expressed support for the Committee's report, but noted that she felt making charges against particular groups would not be productive. JENKINS: He felt the document should be forwarded to the Board because that would help with the visbility of this problem. GRIMM: He felt this document could provide direction for the new Housing Coordinator position and could also be helpful with the upcoming review of the Comprehensive Plan. HUCKLE: She commended the Committee for having produced a very useful report. She asked that the record show she desired that Item No. 6 (last page) be clarified "before (she) could support it wholeheartedly." She also stated she could not support No. 2 on the last page (related to the County Economic Development Program). MOTION: Mr. Johnson moved that the Ad Hoc Report on Education and Training be forwarded to the Board with the recommendation that The Task Force be chartered to deliver 4'/ 6-8-93 8 their final report within 12 months, with progress reports submitted at intervals of three months. Mr. Blue seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Johnson expressed the hope that the Task Force would be comprised of a reasonable number of members. Ms. Andersen noted that she would not support No. 2 (as referred to by Ms. Huckle) "coming before" the review of the Economic Development Plan. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question as to why she felt the review of the Economic Development Plan should coincide with the Comprehensive Plan Review, Ms. Andersen explained: "Because it will gel and come together then, the public will be involved then and it won't be considered in a vacuum." Mr. Nitchmann: "I think this Committee came up with a good idea here and if we're going to go to all the trouble to train all these people to get better jobs, if we're not going to try to get them better jobs, then we're wasting our time here." Ms. Huckle felt there will be a number of jobs available with a number of projects which are "already on the drawing board." The previously stated motion to pass the report on to the Board passed unanimously. Pro oral Re: Parks and Recreation Fees Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, responded to Mr. Johnson's memo of May 30, 1993, recommending some changes in current County practices related to recreational fees. He presented an analysis of how a reduction, or elimination, of fees would impact revenues. A summary of those figures was as follows: 1. Elimination of all fees for youth 18 and under: $34,990 2. Elimination of non-resident fees, assuming no change in attendance: $9,770 3. Eliminating fees for youth under 18 (12 & under at Parks) plus elimination of non-resident fees: $41,245 In answer to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Mullaney confirmed that the third figure would change to approximately $36,000 if just "city" non-resident fees were eliminated. (.S 6-8-93 9 Mr. Mullaney pointed out that recreation fees vary among localities depending on the philosophy of the governing bodies. He felt a change in the County's fees would best be considered during the regular budget cycle because a loss of revenue is an expense. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Mullaney: "If, per chance, the Board within a week said 'Go ahead,' could we get this implemented by the 4th of July?" Mr. Mullaney responded: "It would be difficult on some programs because, for instance, the summer playground program is going to start about a week and a half before the 4th of July and we're already taking in those funds. We'll take in the lion's share of those funds in the first week of that program, so that would be difficult." Mr. Johnson: "What if they told you tomorrow night to go ahead and do this, then you could stop taking in those funds immediately." Mr. Mullaney: "Right. We would stop that." Mr. Johnson: "In other words, within limits, the program is possible." Mr. Mullaney: "Right. There would be people who have already bought non-resident season passes that would want refunds. All that stuff could be worked out." Mr. Johnson suggested: "The non --resident fees should be limited to just considering city residents as residents not outside the county as residents. That cuts this down to about $36,000." He felt $36,000 was a very small part of a $96,000,000 budget. He felt the benefit of getting youth involved in activities and off of street corners was well worth it. In answer to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Johnson confirmed that his proposal envisioned an exchange type program with the City. Mr. Blue agreed that though the potential social benefits were desirable, "The bottom line is, ... if you're going to continue the same program and have more staff, you're going to have to have $40,000 more in tax revenue." Mr. Johnson felt it was simply a matter of giving this a high priority. Ms. Huckle felt the proposal had merit and was worth consideration, but during the regular budget process. 44 6-8-93 10 Mr. Blue stated that he would support the proposal but he was unwilling to "lead a charge" on the idea because he did not think it was possible to implement it by July 4. He noted: "Even if we were able to do it, I don't believe the City would do it." Mr. Johnson asked that the Commission recommend the proposal to the Board of Supervisors, to be considered at their June 9th meeting, with the recommendation that the program be implemented as soon as possible, so as to be effective this summer. Ms. Huckle pointed out that city youth would have difficulty finding transportation to the county's recreational facilities. Ms. Huckle felt the proposal needed further study before she would be able to endorse it. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that the proposal presented by Mr. Johnson be passed on to the Board of Supervisors (with the recommendation that the figures presented by Mr. Mullaney be adjusted to reflect that non-resident fees apply only to the City of Charlottesville, and that elimination of non-resident dues for City residents be dependent upon reciprocal arrangements with the City) and to move forward with the proposal as quickly as possible. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Ms. Huckle noted that she voted for the motion with reservations. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. DB V` V. Way Cili erg, IVecretary W