No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 26 1992 PC Minutes5-26-92 1 MAY 26, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 26, 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; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler,. Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Blue. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 12, 1992 were approved as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the May 20, 1992 Board of Supervisors meeting. ZTA-92-02 - Donnie Dunn - Petition to amend Section 30.4.2.2 to permit the storing and bottling of spring water by special use permit in the Natural Resource overlay District. Deferred from the May 19, 1992 Commission meeting. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. It was staff's conclusion that the positive factors of the proposal outweighed the negative and therefore staff recommended approval "with the addition of language to clarify the intent of the NR district, supplementary regulations governing spring water extraction and bottling, and a definition of spring water." The applicant, Donnie Dunn, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --He was comfortable with staff's recommended language. --The water -bottling industry (in Virginia) is regulated by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, assisted by the Department of Health. --The effect on the quantity of groundwater will be minimal. --Trucking will involve "mid -range vans." --The Water Resources Manager's comments were positive. --The process involves: (1) Preparing the site; (2) Installation of a reservoir or holding tank for collection of the water; (2) Moving the water to a building to be bottled. (The exact type of bottle has not yet been decided.) 12" 5-26-92 2 --The use of chemicals is not envisioned unless the Health Department should require some type of purification (which would be a chlorine injection system). --The bottling process, including sterilization, etc. has not yet been discussed with the Health Department. (The applicant had wanted to get County approvals before finalizing plans.) --The site (TM parcel 737 and 738) is 65 acres located on Rt. 601, 3.5 miles north of Free Union, in the Buck Mountain Reservoir. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Andersen expressed concern about the possibility that the operation, though small initially, could grow to the point that the quantity of water extracted could create problems. She felt the rural areas were to be protected for agricultural and forestal uses. She concluded: "It is not presently addressed that we use these springs, and since we have not presently addressed it, I would like to hold off on making this issue at this time." Ms. Huckle stated: "I agree. I think this use is inconsistent with the first two most important intents and goals of the Zoning Ordinance --protection of the agricultural forestal uses and the lack of commercial use that is not involved with that and it is also inconsistent with the groundwater preservation goal." She felt that it was impossible to determine if adjacent properties would be effected. Mr. Johnson addressed comments made by Ms. Huckle and Ms. Andersen. Regarding water quantity, he stated he would rely on the opinion of the Water Resources Manager, i.e. "the impact will be neglible and probably difficult to detect." With respect to the effect on the agricultural/forestal district, he stated: "I think we must recognize that in this county there is probably no agricultural activity which can stand on its own relative to the return on investment. Consequently, in order to protect the agricultural and forestal district, we can best do that by having viable operations in their area, particularly when they don't adversely affect the area." He quoted the following from the staff report: "The utilization of spring water may enable the preservation of agricultural forestal lands without subdivision of land." He did not think agricultural areas could be protected indefinitely "with uneconomical operations." Mr. Johnson suggested the following changes in the proposed text ("in the interests of clarity"). --Add the words at the surface (Section 3.0) after the word derived in the definition. 92_6-y 5-25-92 3 --In Section 5.1.33(c) add the words on site after the word facilities. --Delete the last sentence in 5.1.33(c) which disallowed the use of additives or artificial carbonation. Mr. Johnson noted that this could interfere with Health Department requirements and also because he felt it "adversely and unintentionally limits the operation to what the operator might find economically desirable and necessary." (Mr. Fritz explained that the sentence referred to by Mr. Johnson had been recommended by the Zoning Department to remove the possibility of additives such as syrups (e.g. coca -cola) being added to the water.) Rather than deleting the sentence, is was later decided that the sentence would remain, but the following would be added at the end: other than that required by regulating agencies for purification purposes. (Though Mr. Johnson agreed to this suggestion, he stated: "I still think it is superfluous and it is another way of complicating the applicant's life with some more verbage that he has to live with." Ms. Huckle asked: "What is the point of having spring water if you add chlorine to it? Then it's just like what you get out of the tap." Mr. Grimm stated he could support the petition. He felt the use could be operated in such a way so as not to -adversely the agricultural forestal district. Ms. Huckle was in favor of the addition of an additional regulation, i.e. "that the entire watershed of each particular spring be protected from pesticides and herbicides." (This suggestion had been made to her by the regional Health Department in Lexington.) Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that this is a Zoning Text Amendment and tailoring zoning text amendments to one person is to be avoided. Mr. Nitchmann stated that he could support the proposal, including Mr. Johnson's suggested changes. Mr. Johnson moved that ZTA-92-02 for Donnie Dunn, to amend Section 30.4.2.2 and Section 3 to permit the storing and bottling of spring water by special use permit in the Natural Resource Overlay District, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff with amendments as follows: --Add the words at the surface (Section 3.0) after the word derived in the definition. --In Section 5.1.33(c) add the words on site after the word facilities. --Add at the end of 5.1.33(c) the words other than that required by regglating agencies for purification ur oses. 'Veo 0 5-26-92 4 --Add the words for off -site consumption. after the words Wring water, in Section 30.4.1. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.. Discussion: Ms. Andersen asked the question: "If you will allow your local water to be sold now in small quantities, will you later let your local water be sold in large quantities? Our community is growing." Ms. Huckle added: "The population is growing very fast, but our water supply is not." Ms. Huckle felt this was a use which was not needed for the benefit of the whole population. She stated: "This will impact not only adjacent landowners but all people who use the reservoir." Mr. Grimm pointed out that the use will be by special permit and each application will be considered separately. Mr. Nitchmann added that the Commission would depend on the comments of the Water Resources Manager on each particular proposal. The motion for approval passed 4:2 with Commissioners Huckle and Andersen casting the dissenting votes. ZTA-92-06 - To amend the Commercial Office zone to provide for medical and pharmaceutical laboratories. The request originated with staff. The public purpose to be served is "to increase available office service uses to implement the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Johnson asked about the source of the definition. Mr. Keeler explained that one of the definitions had been taken from Andersen's American Law of Zoning; he could not recall the source of the other. Mr. Johnson wondered if the definitions had been "appropriately researched by counsel and experts in the field to be sure that they say what we want them to say." Mr. Keeler explained that the County Attorney had expressed no concerns about the definitions. Mr. Bowling commented that his only concern was the use of the word ethical in the definition of pharmaceutical laboratory. Mr. Keeler explained that the intent was to differentiate between "ethical medicine" vs. "quackery." -Q4l 5-26-92 5 Mr. Johnson stated that he was definitions, he simply wanted "professional in this area." not opposed to the them to be reviewed by a Mr. David Westby, representing the University Real Estate Foundation, stated that the proposed language "from a real estate standpoint, meets the definition of what we were interested in." He agreed that it would be a good idea to have someone at the medical center review the language. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding the origin of the amendment, Mr. Keeler explained that this amendment was "already in the works and is being brought forward now to accompany (the UREF) application." Mr. Nitchmann expressed no problems with the proposal. Regarding Mr. Johnson's concerns, Mr. Cilimberg commented: "If you were to recommend what's here, we could run it past university people suggested by Mr. Westby, and if they suggest any additions, we will be sure the Board is aware of that, or if it is a substantial change, we will bring it back to you." Mr. Bowling again questioned the inclusion of the word ethical. Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZTA-92-06 related to medical and pharmaceutical laboratories be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff, "with the understanding that it will be taken to the proper people at the University for review of the definitions.'t Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Z A-92--y03 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation - Patition to rezone 53.52 acres from PD-SC, Planned Development -Shopping Center and R-10, Residential to CO. Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 17B and 17B1, is located on the south side of Fontaine Avenue east of and adjacent to the Route 29 Bypass in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 6) and is recommended for community service and medium density residential 4.01 - 10 dwelling units per acre). AND SP-92-13 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation - Petition to allow supporting commercial uses [23.2.211] and _V&A 5-26-92 6 research development activities [23.2.2.12] on 53.52 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 17B and 17B1, is located on the south side of Fontaine Avenue east of and adjacent to the Route 29 Bypass in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 6) and is recommended for community service and medium density residential 4.01 - 10 dwelling units per acre). Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval of both petitions. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Keeler offered the following additional explanation: --Fontaine Avenue was a major component of the review. A waiver, dealing with reduction of vertical curviture requirements, has been requested from VDOT. If the waiver is not granted, more grading will be required for site preparation. --The site will be seeded and stabilized after the completion of rough grading. --All landscaping on the perimeter of the site will be included in the first phase of development. --All proffers on the property will apply to any use on the site. --Administrative approval of all "phases of development and site development plans" is one of the incentives for planned development. --A traffic light at the intersection with Fontaine Avenue will be installed by VDOT (at VDOT's expense), based on improvements to Fontaine Avenue which UREF is proposing. UREF is also covering the Forestry Department's contribution to the total Fontaine Avenue road improvements. [NOTE: Regarding VDOT's offer to install the traffic light, Mr. Johnson noted that previous developers have been required to install lights. He felt it important that the record show that the County felt that, in this case, there was a "tradeoff" between VDOT and the developer based on the fact that the developer was assuming more than his share of normal obligations relative to the road and in turn VDOT was excusing the developer from further responsibility for the light. He concluded: "We have to treat all applicants the same or give good reason why."] Regarding the proffer related to,landscaping in the median strip, Mr. Johnson asked why the proffer [1(d)] addressed only "west to the bypass" and not also to the east. Mr. McKee, the applicant's engineer, later addressed this question and explained that the median to the east tapers in such a way that it would be difficult to plant significant landscaping, though some small plantings were anticipated. (Mr. Keeler noted that any landscaping in the median would have to be be approved by VDOT.) 5-26-92 7 Mr. Johnson noted that plans for improvements to Fontaine Avenue have already been planned "as a result of demands other than this project." He stated: "Under those circumstances, the developer of this project should not be held responsible for financing those improvements which are not the result of his (development)." (Mr. Keeler stated that the Fontaine Avenue project is in Phase IV of the CAT Study and Phase I projects still have not been completed.) Mr. Keeler described, in some detail, the plans for improvements to the ramps. When it was recognized that plans for Fontaine Avenue were at the end of the CAT Study, VDOT had been more "receptive to having actual pavement improvements than signalization improvements" because acquiring traffic signal money is easier than changing the order of improvements to the primary system. He concluded: "So we recognized, VDOT recognized, and UREF recognized, that for VDOT to upgrade this road was going to be way off in the future and that many of the improvements were occasioned to get access safely to the property, and, in return for the signal, UREF felt it would be more desirable to make the improvements --more attactive--than to have a partial construction out there, and VDOT would in some fashion ensure that the signal is installed." He also noted that UREF would need "double lefts out of the site" which are only possible with a traffic signal. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the CAT Study had determined the necessity for three lanes, and this development has caused the need for a fourth lane. He felt the developer should only be responsible for the fourth lane. Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant would be contributing 24-26% (+ median) of the cost of the improvements, though their share of the traffic generatation would be only 16-18%. He concluded: "They are contributing more than their fair share." Mr. Bowling pointed out that this was acceptable because "it is a proffer." Mr. Cilimberg added that the Board, when considering rezoning requests, wants to see benefit not only to the developer, but also to the community. He also noted that if the improvements to Fontaine were left to the Six -Year Road Plan, they probably would not be funded in the foreseeable future. Mr. Keeler noted that the current plan "is far more conducive to this site than previous plans for this property --it is significantly less building area and substantially less grading." He also noted that the applicant has attempted to stay out of all the sensitive areas. Mr. Johnson asked if this plan had any effect on Rt. 782. Mr. Keeler explained that the only effect 782 has on this ,,4 5-26-92 8 plan is that "they may have to pull the grading lines back some." He noted, however, that the Board of Supervisors will be asked to abandon a short section of Rt. 782, though it is desirable that the right-of-way be retained so that it can be used for emergency access. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. David Westby, Director of the University Real Estate Foundation. (He was accompanied by Mr. Bob McKee, engineer for the project.) He had no additional comment, but offered to answer questions. Answers to Commission questions included the following: --Fontaine Avenue improvements will be completed with Phase I of development. --only insignificant landscaping (low shrubs and groundcover) will be possible in the median strip to the east of the entrance (proffer id) because of the narrow width of the median at that point. (It tapers.)' [Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that proffer le would address median improvements also.] --Internal bike paths have been considered but have not been designed into the plan at this point. A bike path will be provided along the south side of Fontaine. --UREF will examine each potential tenant, including those who will be purchasing sites, on a.case-by-case basis. A set of design guidelines will have to be followed by all site developers and all plans will have to be approved by a Design Committee (a sub -committee of UREF). Nothing will be higher than four stories. --"The squares/boxes that you see on the plan are more or less representative of the building envelope and not necessarily the footprint of the building because, of course, at this time we don't know what those footprints might be." (McKee) There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. ZMA-92-03 was discussed first. Mr. Johnson stated that though he supported the proposal, he felt there was a "dangling aspect," i.e. "the lack of comment relative to fiscal impact." He felt this had been an issue in the past and seems to have been ignored in this case. Regarding the issue of the taxing status of UREF property, Mr. Bowling commented: "According to the three -party agreement between the City, the County and the University, that portion of the property which is not used solely for academic purposes is subject to taxation." Mr. Bowling concluded that the property is presently taxed, "but if they a66� 5--26-92 9 sell it to tax exempt entities, that situation may change." Mr. Westby confirmed that this was accurate. Ms. Huckle concluded: "So we can assume that this development will have a plus fiscal impact on the community." Mr. Johnson asked: "How can we do that? We haven't assumed anything like that since I've been here. The last comprehensive evaluation of something just like this, in 1989, the fiscal impact of that, although it was larger, was about eleven and a half million dollars ($11,500,000). Mr. Cilimberg addressed this comment: "In 1989 the request was to expand existing growth areas --to add commercial, industrial, office property --to provide more of an inventory for potential development. The question of fiscal impact came up there because it was beyond what we had already planned for that we felt was accommodating our needs. This is in the growth area established for the use,'and our ability, currently, to evaluate fiscal impact of commercial/industrial/office types of development is pretty much non-existent and because of that the Board of Supervisors has determined they want to commission a committee that they are going to select, to look at fiscal impact in terms of overall growth management objectives. They are going to be working towards, potentially, a fiscal impact modelling process that could be used to evaluate any kind of development in terms of change to our current Comprehensive Plan. In terms of rezoning considerations, the only rezoning considerations that we ever have done fiscal impact analyses on are residential because there is a direct measure there that we can apply. We haven't done that to its full extent. We have noted that our analyses have been very cursory and it needs to be furthur refined. But until we go through this whole fiscal impact assessment process, that we want to do on the County level with the aid of a model, it's hard to do ---it's very hard to do. In terms of a commercial -office type project such as this, there are direct and indirect revenues and expenditures to the County that we really don't have a good handle on right now, not even to the level that we can try to assess residential development proposals." Mr. Johnson concluded: "So the answer to my question is 'We don't know how." (Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Until we've finished the process and the Board of Supervisors has recognized that.) Mr. Johnson felt this "should be addressed." He pointed out that this development can bring many new employees to the area and "there will definitely be a fiscal impact.+' �G � 5-26-92 10 Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the proposal is totally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan "which does not call for residential use here." Ms. Huckle moved that ZMA-92-03 for University Real Estate Foundation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Commission then discussed SP-92-13. Mr. Johnson noted that he supported the special permit request with the recommendation that condition No. 1 under 23.2.2.11 be deleted which he felt was "superfluous and unduly limited the applicant.". (Staff had already expressed no opposition to this deletion.) Ms. Huckle asked if the commercial area was for the use of the general public or if it was intended for the convenience of only -those persons who are employed on the property. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the intent was primarily to serve the employees of the park, but outside users cannot be restricted. Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-92-13 for University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 23.2.2.11 Supporting Commercial Uses. (No conditions.) 23.2.2.12 Research and Development Activities Includin Experimental Testing and 23.2.2.13 Laboratories -Medical and Pharmaceutical 1. Compliance with Section 4.14 Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance. In order to provide accomplishment of the phasing plan as proposed as well as to allow variations in the development schedule, staff should be granted authority over approval of all phases of development as well as administrative approval of all site development plans (and subdivision plats, if any). Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-92-20 Crozet Church of God - Petition to construct a church with day care [ 14 . 2 . 2 (3 51 and l ©. 2.2 (7) ] can 5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property described as Tax Map 55, Parcel 96A is located on the south ,.a1_11 7 5-26-92 11 side of Rt. 824 approximately 800 feet west of Rt. 250 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Johnson asked why there were no comments from VDOT. Mr. Fritz responded: "They are not included because the comments were made before and ... adequate sight distance can be obtained. There were no negative comments. They were successfully addressed in past requests." He explained that adequate sight distance will be a condition of approval of the site plan. The applicant was represented by Mr. Les Rousey, Pastor of the church. He offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-92-20 for Crozet Church of God be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Administrative approval of the site plan. 2. Seating capacity to be determined by adequacy of septic system, not to exceed a maximum seating of 250 persons. 3. Approval is for worship and related church use only. Day care or other such uses will require an amendment to this permit. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Annual Report - The Chairman thanked Ms. Andersen for her work on the report. (Ms. Andersen thanked staff.) Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Annual Report be approved and passed on to the Board of Supervisors. The motion passed unanimously. Letter to Pat Mullane - Mr. Grimm read a letter of appreciation which would be sent to Mr. Mullaney in recognition for his work on Walnut Creek Park. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Nitchmann congratulated Mr. Keeler for his work on the UREF report. .�268 5-26-92 12 Mr. Johnson asked staff to look into ways to expedite the abandonment and gating, as soon as possible, of Rt. 782 {in the vicinity of the UREF property. He felt the section in question was a "mecca for all kinds of illicit affairs and was a catastrophy waiting to happen." He did not think keeping it open for emergency purposes would be productive. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff would make the Board aware that the Commission had supported all aspects of the rezoning which included the recommendation that Rt. 782 be removed from public use. Regarding emergency accessibility, Mr. Cilimberg stated: "We don't want to just foreclose the emergency access possibility because of the unique potential needs of the Knob Hill community --having only one access now --and the possibility that the access may be needed, even if very rarely. He explained that it is envisioned that the road would be gated, with keys provided to only emergency services. No official motion was made. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary a6q