HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 18 1992 PC MinutesFEBRUARY 18, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, February 18, 1992, 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. V. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. William Fritz, Senior
Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and
established that a quorum was present.
SP-91-69 Crenshaw's Auto Service Inc. a licant
Charlottesville Realty Company owner - Proposal to locate
motor vehicle sales and rental on 2.26 acres zoned C-1,
Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. (The
existing service station is to remain). Property, described
as Tax Map 61W, Section 2, Block A, Parcel 1, is located in
the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Route 29 and
Greenbrier Drive in the Charlottesville Magisterial
District. This site is located in a designated growth area
(Neighborhood 2).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff opinion is that the limited additional traffic
generated by this use does not aggravate the existing
entrance conditions. The additional favorable factors
offset this negative factor and therefore staff is able to
recommend approval of SP-91-69 subject to ... conditions."
Mr. Fritz distributed copies of an Official Determination of
Zoning Violation which had been issued on the property. He
noted that the applicant had submitted the special use
permit request prior to the issuance of the violation.
Mr. Fritz confirmed the gas station use would continue.
The Commission discussed briefly the internal circulation on
the site and the extreme slope of the Greenbrier Drive
entrance.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about the possibility of
stored cars being parked along the front of the property
(Rt. 29). Mr. Fritz explained that Condition No. 2 would
allow the Zoning Administrator to take action should any
violation occur.
96'
2
2-18-92 Williamson- to e
by Mr - Bruc ed by Texaco
The applicant was represented ci been fort notice • rental
explained that Mr. Crensh aEq havery little n the car he could
vacate his Pantops site, % ith awar ter
explained that the appl i c ant %,Ta cn then a�n lossuof to
business would be in via 1 at i1n th t �,�oul crew ath
e Cer d at e
not cease that operation ti. ithC�nlpanY .wh' on stressed that
contract with the car r s r-L t a t 13.am5 the rental t
severe financial hardshi-Mr' . Wil at ortion of his Contras
applicant has carried on p �n1 the con 1nu�a a Sfbusa yssl out
business which would enst� z'� On
continu the viol special
with National Rental and eLOLS
of necessity, even after the �-ssuhad appleYdreces in -was notice
permittinmantdimelytfashi o'nen f �Ve days of t
from Texaco). consisted Ond car re"f r in
It was determined Mr. Cr rzsY�a "r s eusaless Th pUslne s does
automobile repair, some Lit = =Y`a�� usage'
addition to the usual ga �- s z a t ion %, in the
not include a towing sere z rowisi°n Mr
t� ernerge�`cY situation • ested
It was determined there �- rZ is typeuaftion and SugMr.
zoning ordinance to addr= s this sit Hance • i asked
Blue expressed concern a l .� irk tho °r Crenshaw the prose`
that perhaps this was a f that JAr accelerate alie also
Williamson explained, ho���' rS t0 re -quest'
member of the Board of S � �, 5,.E = r 1sa that Ing
and Supervisor Bowerman r a =4' _ �n�rethat the
to grant aout.
noted, and Mr. Bowling c _a �= rmeaautY3ority carried
Administrator does not h ``=' the �g be7 ng strator has
Amini
temporary waiver while t.lr�� e�nG c3 Zonirg ass cons nt order and
Mr. Bowling explained thi of a
flexibility only in the -'" _=~ �" tplaced befc
the enforcement mechanic--.'&� -� the matter was
There being no public cc -+ r nt o Ser'
the Commission. for Crensh for approval
Ms. Andersen moved that �g1� 59 erviS°r
be recommended to the Bo- x^ ®� Sum s'
subject to the fallowing G and �tlo� u3cltil a Certifica iew B
1. Use shall not c � xs , em the p rchj-tectural own
Appropriateness is issueE< - Y invited too 'those
Are Se t
2. Storage areas s - _ y Qf Ot and the total
ot l exceed
Westfieldplat " and initial le _ 2/ c>r9r ental TADF Shall not
vehicles available for
any one time.
2-18-92 3
Mr. Blue seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he ws "unalterably opposed" to the
request on the basis of highway safety. He referred to
sections 1.4 and 1.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance --"to reduce
or prevent congestion on the public streets." He described
the traffic patterns and highway layout surrounding the
property.
Mr. Grimm noted that the staff report states that the
traffic from this use will not significantly change the
existing conditions. He stated he would support the motion.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about the disregard for the
violation though he understood the applicant's predicament.
He, too, felt there should be some provision in the
ordinance to address such situations.
Mr. Blue expressed understanding of Mr. Johnson's position.
However, he felt this was a timing situation which was not
the fault of the applicant and to disapprove the request
would result in the end of the applicant's business. He did
not think the applicant's case should be prejudiced because
of the violation given the unique circumstances of the
situation.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, it was ascertained
only automobiles and mini -vans were offered for rental.
The previously stated motion for approval passed (6:1) with
Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
CPA-92-01 Piney Mountain - Consideration of an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan to expand the Piney Mountain Village
boundaries to include an area for Industrial Service use.
The area is east of Rt. 29N, west of Rt. 600 and north of
the North Fork Rivanna River.
Mr. Benish distributed copies of two letters of opposition
which had been received.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report. Staff recommended
denial of the request for the following reasons:
--Sketchy information prevents a full evaluation of the
proposal;
91
2-18-92 4
--No change in circumstance has occured since approval
of the Annual Report of the Comprehensive Plan, which
includes a recommendation to conduct a comprehensive
evaluation of growth area expectations;
--Piecemeal changes in the Comprehensive Plan can limit
the County's opportunity to efficiently plan for and utilize
potential expansion areas;
--Lack of an economic development policy and fiscal
impact model make it very difficult to evaluate economic
benefits/costs to the County in order to provide a balanced
evaluation of the proposal.
Mr. Grimm asked staff to describe other industrially zoned
areas. Mr. Benish explained that though the Comprehensive
Plan designates over 1,000 acres, a large portion is subject
to slope and floodplain limitations. (He noted that all that
land may not be zoned industrial at this time.) He stated
that the topography of the county is such that it does not
lend itself to large industrial developments. Two sites in
the Hollymead area were identified as being similar in
characteristics to the property under review--i.e. sites of
100+ acres with predominant areas in slopes less than 15%,
limited areas in floodplains, suitable soils. He noted that
much of the industrial inventory is in smaller parcels. He
added that the industry in question had seen these two sites
and did not feel they were suitable.
Mr. Benish explained the process staff follows when
allocating land use in the Comprehensive Plan, i.e. "to
estimate land use needs based on future'economic development
potential an economic base analysis is done to determine
what is reasonably anticipated to be employment needs over
the length of the plan." Then an attempt is made to
allocate 112 times" the estimated acreage to provide
flexibility in accommodating industrial usage. For
industrial service designation 114 times" is allocated. Mr.
Cilimberg added that the Commission and the Board had
settled on the "2 times" as being an appropriate measuring
point for this area.
Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Benish to elaborate further on the
Piney Mt. site. Mr. Benish explained that with the
constraint of 15% or less slopes the "developable" area is
considered approximately 75 acres, but more area is
available if that constraint is not applied. Mr. Johnson
noted that the business has indicated 100 acres is needed.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Wendall Wood. His
comments included the following:
2-18-92 5
--The unidentified company had begun looking for a site
since November, 1991 and has narrowed the search to five
sites.
--County staff (as well as local realtors and others)
met with representatives of the Company and showed them
possible sites including the two Hollymead sites described
by staff. [Mr. Wood noted that he owns 100% of one of those
sites and 60% of the other.] Originally, the UREF site on
Rt. 29 had been selected, but because of topographic
problems had been determined to be unsuitable.
--The State Department of Economic Development directed
the industry to this area.
--The industry has represented itself to be a clean,
non-polluting, research -oriented business, similar to
GE-Fanuc. In regard to this representation, Mr. Wood stated:
"If they are lying to us, you have an opportunity to quelch
that. I, as the property owner, will not sell the property
to them if they have lied to us."
--It is not unusual for large industries to follow this
procedure of non -identification; GE did not identify itself
early in the process when it made the move to Albemarle
County.
--Only those persons who are financially secure will be
opposed to the proposal.
--The community will not survive if employment for
future generations cannot be established.
--This site had appealed to the company because it is
relatively flat and is not visible from Rt. 29.
Mr. Wood asked that the following "stipulation" be placed on
the request: "If this industry is not who they say they
are --a like -GE Company, a non-polluting company and a
totally clean industry --I will tie that to this application
and I would like to make this application for a short period
of time. I would like for this application to be for 60
days. ... And if this company does not locate in Albemarle
County, this land will convert to exactly what it is today,
rural agricultural. ... I request that."
There was considerable discussion about utilities,
particulary sewage service. Mr. Benish read a letter from
Mr. Bill Brent, Albemarle County Service Authority (See
ATTACHMENT A). Mr. Wood explained that of the 360,000
gallon capacity of the Camelot Treatment Plant, only 80,000
gallons is currently being used. The company in question
will have needs less than 20,000 gallons/day. (It was
determined the undentified company would be approximately
1,000,000 square feet (as compared to GE which is 380,000
square feet). It was determined that the UREF property has
reserved 81,000 gallons/day, leaving 218,000 gallons for
Briarwood and Mr. Wood's remaining properties. Mr. Wood
2-18-92 6
explained how usage is measured as houses are built and
connected to the sewage system. He stated that though 400
gallons/day/house must be reserved, a ten-year history shows
the houses actually use only 150 gallons/day. He stated
that usage no longer has to be reserved once information is
available about actual usage, thus "reserve capacity becomes
unallocated reserve" and is available to the public.
Mr. Bill Brent addressed the Commission. He described the
history of the Camelot Treatment Plant. He confirmed that
"technically, once Briarwood is developed, there should be
excess capacity in that plant." He confirmed that presently
the total capacity is allocated to Briarwood and the
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (UREF) and
that reservation runs for eight more years. After
expiration, it will be available to anyone who wishes to
connect. The contract can be renegotiated at the will of
all the parties. Mr. Brent stated that according to his
understanding of the contract, the capacity would still
remain reserved for those properties which originally
reserved it, even if the maximum is not used.
Regarding water availability, Mr. Brent stated that
presently no problems are anticipated in meeting the water
needs of "company X," even during periods of low flow. He
felt that the property might require a pump and storage tank
in order to meet fire flow requirements. Mr. Blue
questioned how utilities (both water and sewer) which were
sized to serve a certain growth area, could accommodate
increases in that growth area. He asked Mr. Brent if he
felt the existing utilities were going to "be sufficient to
meet the needs of this whole area in terms of the
engineering life of these projects." Mr. Brent responded
that in order for the North Fork Water Treatment Plant to
meet its maximum capacity (2,000,000 gallons/day), it will
be necessary to utilize Chris Greene Lake which was the
lake's intended purpose when it was constructed. He stated:
"I think the plant can continue to serve development needs
in the considerable future, and possibly into the long range
future, if the decision is made as to how water is going to
be supplied to the plant." Regarding sewage service, he
stated that any additional expansion of the Camelot
Treatment Plant would result in it being unmanagable and
with the last expansion it was decided "this is the last
time we are going to allow a band -aid approach to the
problem." He stressed that the Camelot Plant is NOT
adequate to serve the presently delineated growth area. He
stated that if this area continues to grow the ultimate
solution for sewage treatment would be a "gravity sewer all
the way up the river" which would be very expensive. He
/00
2-18-92 7
stated that in order to arrive at a permanent solution, then
the permanent growth area must be determined.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Brent confirmed
that the Camelot Plant was not "designed" to accommodate the
whole growth area. He confirmed, however, that the plant
could accommodate the 20,000 gallons/day of the prospective
company in addition to the developments it is already
designated to serve.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons spoke in opposition to the proposal:
Ms. Lois Rochester, representing the League of Women Voters
(See ATTACHMENT B); Mr. Jack Marshall, representing Citizens
for Albemarle (See ATTACHMENT D); Mr. David Van Rojen; Mr.
John Secuda; Mr. Oakley Straylee; Mr. Roy Patterson: Ms.
Pat Cross; Ms. Helen Schweso; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom,
Piedmont Environmental Council. Their reasons for
opposition included the following:
--Insufficient information make a complete evaluation
impossible;
--Historic problems with this developer's previous
developments;
--The company will NOT hire predominantly local people
and there is no way to require that it will;
--Precedent concerns based on the way this request has
been treated by County officials;
--The maintenance of the integrity of the Comprehensive
Plan;
--It must be ensured that the infrastructure can
support the development;
--There already exists sufficient industrially
designated land;
--The proposed size of the company (1,000,000 square
feet) suggests the ultimate employment will be greater than
the 700 represented;
--This is purely a real estate proposition.
Several other persons were present who expressed their
opposition to the proposal by standing briefly when asked to
do so. It was not possible to take an accurate count.
The following persons expressed their support for the
proposal: Ms Jane Ditmore (Charlottesville/Albemarle
Chamber of Commerce) (ATTACHMENT C); Mr. Grant Anthony
(Charlottesville Business Journal; and Mr. Rick Alber.
Their primary reason for support was based on the need for
jobs. They stressed the amount of unemployment and
"underemployment" that is present in the area. It was also
/Q/
2-18-92 8
that a business of this type would bring more tax revenue to
the area.
Several more people showed their support for the proposal by
a show of hands. It was not possible to take a count.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Blue asked if there were any mechanism for "doing this
on a 60-day basis?" Mr. Bowling explained that he was
unaware of any basis for granting a "conditional
comprehensive plan amendment." He confirmed, however, that
the Commission did have the option of deferring the request
to allow time for more information to be submitted. Mr.
Blue felt a deferral would allow more time for evaluation
and it was his understanding that the applicant had
indicated that a 60-day deferral was acceptable.
Mr. Jenkins questioned the value of a deferral since the
Board was scheduled to hear the request the following day
(February 19). Mr. Cilimberg explained that, traditionally,
the Board has deferred action until the Commission has taken
action and passed their recommendation on to the Board.
Mr. Grimm stated he felt the Commission had a responsibility
to "look into this matter and give it due consideration."
He stated he was not comfortable with making a
recommendation at this time, but he questioned how much more
information would be made available if the request were to
be deferred.
Mr. Nitchmann explained it was his understanding that this
was an opportunity for the County to show this company that
it is willing to discuss its proposal. He agreed that it
was common practice for a large company to wish to remain
anonymous early in the process. He pointed out that if the
business is found to be unacceptable the necessary
mechanisms are in place to stop the process at a later time.
He felt a deferral would send the signal that "we're really
not interested," and would also send a negative message to
smaller companies, less prestigous companies, who might
consider locating in the County in the future. He felt the
company had been diligent in considering a number of
properties. He was in favor of the Commission taking action
on the proposal.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Bowling again
stated he was unaware of any way to allow a "conditional
comprehensive plan amendment" as suggested by Mr. Wood.
/a a
2-18-92 9
Ms. Huckle noted that industrial moves are often merely
"waystops on the industry's move to Mexico or Taiwan where
labor is cheaper." She pointed out that this has happened
recently in the Carolinas. She wondered what would happen
if this plant were to fail financially or decide to relocate
to another area, resulting in more unemployment and higher
taxes. She pointed out that there are already existing
sites which could accommodate this business which are
already designated for industrial use. She felt that if the
company were serious about coming to Albemarle County, "it's
not that we're closing the door in its face, it's just that
they should look at these other pieces of property." She
wondered if this site had been chosen because it is cheaper.
She stated she could not support the request for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the company had already
considered those other sites.
Mr. Johnson read a prepared statement. (See ATTACHMENT E)
At the end of his statement he made the following motion:
"I hereby move that:
(A) Based on the characteristics, limited as they are,
currently available (size and function), unqualified support
to this unidentified industry is pledged;
(B) This support is subject to change or withdrawal
with any modifications, unacceptable to the Board, of these
currently identified characteristics;
(C) Contingent upon continuation of the above support,
and with complete identification of function and operation,
and application for development within a period, not
exceeding 6 months from this approval, appropriate
modifications, supporting this industry, will be made to
applicable documents and regulations, controlling
approximately 100 acres, contingent to Rt. 29 and across
from the G.E. Fanuc operation."
After ascertaining that the motion was not intended to
approve the request for a comprehensive plan amendment, but
rather was a "motion of support," Mr. Blue seconded the
motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated: "I agree that now is not the time to
change the Comprehensive Plan for many good reasons, but I
think now is the time to make a definite committment of
support to this company as we now recognize it. Should
there be any changes, all bets are off --it goes back for
re-evaluation . "
103
2-18-92 10
There was considerable confusion on the part of the
Commission as to the intent of Mr. Johnson's motion. Mr.
Johnson explained: "We support the application as it is now
identified and we will support it up to a maximum of 6
months. We would not approve anything until it is
completely defined. The support is subject to change or
withdrawal with any modifications unacceptable to the
Board of these currently identified characteristics. If
they change the characteristics --the size, the shape, etc.,
different to what they are stated now --if the Board doesn't
like it they can cancel this pledge of support. But if this
support continues and with the complete identification of
function and operation--i.e. complete identification of the
company --and an application is made for development (is
made) by them within a period not exceeding 6 months, then
we go ahead and recommend that the Board make appropriate
modifications to the Comprehensive Plan and we go ahead with
the zoning to allow this to proceed forthwith. ... I say we
react to what we know but limit our reactions contingent
upon the validity of what we know now."
Mr. Blue interpreted: "Essentially you are deferring it --at
least with this motion." Mr. Johnson agreed that he was
suggesting that action to amend the comprehensive plan be
deferred. He stated it was his intent "to convince Company
X that the way they have presented themselves so
far --limited as it is ---sounds great to us."
Mr. Bowling stated: "It's clear you're not recommending
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. It's clear too that if
you ever got that far you would weigh the merits at that
particular time and you may amend it or you may not."
Mr. Blue stated he did not favor a change in the
Comprehensive Plan until additional knowledge about the
company is known. He felt a more thorough study of utility
service to the site was needed, particularly comments from
the Albemarle Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority regarding design and financing. He stressed
that his reluctance to approve the amendment at this time
should not be viewed as opposition to growth per se. He
stated he did not agree with those individuals who feel that
"this potential growth situation or any growth is expensive
to taxpayers and should not be considered." He noted that
"evidence of the sort to prove any point can be obtained by
any consultant of your choice and we need to remember that
the order of accuracy of any advocate's report to prove
their position is, in descending order, lies, damned lies
and statistics." He noted that had a non -growth policy been
taken by the County 50 years ago, many of the areas leading
/Dfc
2-18-92 11
businesses would not have located here (Sperry, Comdial,
Badger-Powhatan, Cooper, GE). He explained that he had
seconded Mr. Johnson's motion because he felt it would send
a signal "that this planning body does not view growth, i.e.
a Fortune 500 company wanting to locate in Albemarle County,
as bad."
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Wood if he felt Mr. Johnson's motion
would be interpreted as a positive sign by the company. Mr.
Wood could not answer definitively. He pointed out,
however: "I bet the other four communities are not even
going through this." Mr. Wood stated that in one of his
meetings with company representatives he had speculated that
there would probably be a 4:2 vote in favor of the proposal.
The company had not been pleased with that prospect because
they prefer total community support.
Mr. Jenkins stated he did not feel there was enough
information to change the Comprehensive Plan. He stated,
however, that he could support Mr. Johnson's motion. He
stated that if the Board determines that the job issue is so
great that action should "turn on that, then it's in their
laps."
In response to Mr. Jenkins' request, Mr. Johnson once again
repeated his motion and also listed those "known"
characteristics of the unidentified company: "Fortune 500;
high technology, electronics related industry concentrating
in research, development and production of 'emerging
technologies;' employment 700; site requirements 75-100
acres; and 1,000,000 square feet building (23 acres plus
parking and residual developed area)." He stated that was
"what this motion is limited to."
Ms. Andersen noted that the Comprehensive Plan is a document
which was developed after much study and she could not make
a decision to change the Plan, "under pressure."
Mr. Cilimberg asked for clarification of the Commission's
intent. He interpreted the motion to be "a resolution of
support for the industry's proposal as we know it now. It
does not guarantee anything, but it says, based on what we
know, we support the concept." Mr. Johnson confirmed this
was accurate and added: "Enthusiastically support." Mr.
Blue added: "We're sending the message that those of us who
vote for the motion are not opposed to that type of
industry." Mr. Cilimberg interpreted this to be a
"resolution." Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
he interpreted: "You're saying you're not going to amend
the plan now. Are you, in fact, deferring that action, over
2-18-92 12
this 6 month period, i.e. you're passing the resolution on
but the action on the plan amendment you are not taking and
are deferring for up to 6 months." He felt this should be
done in two separate actions.
It was agreed that two separate motions were required.
Mr. Blue clarified that "we are not taking a position on the
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at this time, but are
willing to consider it any time mentioned in (Mr. Johnson's
motion) under the conditions of that motion.
Mr. Keeler suggested that both the CPA and rezoning could be
heard at the same time.
Mr. Cilimberg wanted it to be clear that "the motion of
support was not pre -supposing that there was going to be
changes made to the plan or the rezoning until all the
information is in your hands and you feel it is meeting what
you think it is going to be at this time." Mr. Bowling
added: "So when you hear it again you can do what you want
to. is
The motion of support as stated by Mr. Johnson passed (5:2)
with Commissioners Andersen and Huckle casting the
dissenting votes.
Mr. Nitchmann then moved that CPA-92-01 Piney Mountain be
deferred for a period not to exceed 6 months (August 18,
1992.)
The motion passed (5:2) with Commissioners Andersen and
Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
Zoning Ordinance Work Session - The Commission voted
unanimously to defer this work session to March 3, 1992.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:45 PM.
W
/Q41