Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP199500041 Action Letter 1996-06-05 _,., _ _._ _ -----.--...-- --"-.--- _J,. ~ -fr. -_.__._-_._~-_._-----"-'------_._-- ---.- ~_...- -_.. June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (page 29) 000:160 _. "",\- ;'t:,~'t.:>:~~~ f;; ..;,; ~;. their eight steering committees this summer. VACo has forwarded a document listing all of the 1eqislation passed in the 1996 session, as well as a list of all carry-over bills. Staff has no recommendations for legislation that would effect the entire state, which is what VACo is requesting. If the Board wishes to identify any legislative priorities, staff will prepare summaries for discussion at the June 12 meeting. r , Mrs. Thomas said House Bill 1513 requires that water and sewer connec- tion fees bear a substantial relation to allocable costs, and it sounds rather innocent. In this community, the Albemarle County Service Authority, has a carefully worked out way of assessing costs to new connections. This bill could tie the county up for years in court. She thinks that Bill Brent is working on that, but maybe this Board could reemphasize that point. Mrs. Thomas said she was at a meeting yesterday on geographical informa- tion systems (GIS), It was noted that House Bill 1007 is a proposal to set up a state-wide GIS using mostly private money, and a state authority. It is a way to get something the state needs, and she thinks the County might also find it useful without putting an enormous amount of state money into it. Mrs. Humphris noted that Mrs. Thomas is now chairing the VACo Finance Steering Committee, Mr. Tucker is serving on the planning, Public Works and Natural Resources steering committee, and she still serves on the Health and Human Services Steering Committee, so Albemarle county is well represented. There were no suggestions for legislation to be forwarded to VACo at this time. Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Personnel Matters, Legal Matters and Property Disposition. At 12:17 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Marshall that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider personnel matters concerning appointments to boards and commissions and an administrative review; under subsection (3) to consider acquisition of property for public use and the disposition of an interest in a specific public property; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion and specific legal matters relating to an insurance contract. n The motion was .econded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Executive Session. At 2:00 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ~ ! , Agenda Item No. 15. ZMA-95-04. The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation. Petition to rezone approx 525 ac from RA, PD-IP, R-l and LI to PD-IP. The property is located S of the North Fork Rivanna River between Rt 29 & Rt 606. TM32, P's 4B,6,6A, 19,19C. Rivanna Dist. The site (in the community of Hollymead) is recommended for Industrial Service by the Compre- hensive Plan. This request also includes the following special use permits: SP-95-40, Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical; SP-95-41, Supporting commercial uses; SP-95-42, Hotels, motels, inns. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 25 and April 1, 1996.) Mr. Keeler said the Board and Planning Commission held a joint public hearing on this rezoning request in April. All materials since that meeting, including the Commission's recommendation, have been forward to the Board. The Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 1996, took the following action: I. ZMA-95-04 Universitv of Virainia Real Estate Foundation - The motion to approve the rezoning and accept the appli- cant's proffers failed by a vote of 3-4. II. Should the Board choose to approve ZMA-95-04, the Planning Commission has offered the following recommendations regard- ing the accompanying special use permits. .''-~"" , "~,' ;~;)~~, ~~ .::,;,~t~.. ",;/},)~,~~'~;~~i:J~7{::;'- June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) , ;..>;;.,-~;, ;.'; ".,:..~ ~",l';~'l--,~;\'.. .'- 0001.61. n A. SP-95-40 Laboratories - Recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. compliance with Section 4.14 Performance Stan- dards of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Building location shall not be less than thirty (30) feet from the perimeter buffer areas to adjoining properties not located within the development. B. SP-95-41 SUDDOrtina Commercial Uses - Recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. In addition to proffered limitation not to ex- ceed five (5t) percent of total floor area, commercial uses shall not exceed ten (lOt) of total floor area at any time during phased de- velopment. c. SP-95-42 Hotels, motels. inns - Recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted. Such hotel, motel, inn shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms. 2. Conference facilities (other than those as may be provided by individual occupants) shall not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the hotel/motel/inn, but total gross floor area of lodging and conference fa- cilities shall not exceed 190,000 square feet. III. The planned development provisions permit the Board's action to "include specific modifications of PO [Planned Develop- ment] or general regulations as provided in Section 8.5.4 as recommended by the commission." (Section 8.5.5). In this case, the Planning Commission recommends the following modifications: n n a. Uses and treatment of "open space" shall be as defined in and governed by the proffers of this petition. Since "open space" is not required for a Planned Development - Industrial Park and provision of open space is voluntary by the applicant, the open space areas shall not be governed by Section 4.7 of the zoning ordinance. b. So long as this zoning petition remains in force, SP-95-40, SP-95-41, and SP-95-42 shall not be subject to abandonment under Section 31.2.4.4 of the zoning ordinance. Nothing contained in the foregoing state- ment shall preclude the Board form revocation of any special use permit for wilful noncompliance as set forth in Section 31.2.4.4 of the zoning ordinance. c. As to special use permit approval as may be required under proffer 4.4, such review and any conditions imposed thereunder shall be limited solely to issuance of water usage. d. The terms General Office, Light Industrial and Flex Industrial as set forth in UREF, Volume 1, Part IX shall, in addition to zoning ordinance definitions, guide the Zoning Administrator in use determinations. In the event of definitional conflict between the zoning ordinance and UREF descriptions, UREF descrip- tions shall apply. In such case in which more than fifty (SOt) percent of the floor area for a Flex Industrial use is devoted to office use, the entire floor area shall be deemed to be General Office. In such case in which less than fifty (SOt) percent of the floor are for a Flex Industrial use is devoted to office use, the entire floor area shall be deemed to be Light Industrial. This provision shall apply only for determination of compliance to the development schedule for determination of maximum square footage by type of use. This provision shall not apply to calculation of parking requirements or other require- ments of the zoning ordinance, nor to any requirements of the Uniform Statewide Building Code nor to any other ordinance or regulation related to type of usage of buildings and structures. IV. While not included in its action, staff advised the Planning Commission that the letter of December 19, 1995 from UREF to the Lake Acres residents should be incorporated as a part of i'~:-;~~" ~-r 0001.62 June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) ';::....1_' .. 'ir,':;!"!.~4.-.", ~ '.- the official record to acknowledge that certain proffers are reflective of the content of that letter. n Mr. Keeler said should the Board choose to approve ZMA-95-04, the county Attorney has reworked the Commission's actions into the form of a resolution. The only comment that staff has in that regard is that there were some recommendations from the commission that were postured as being modifications of the Zoning regulations which are authorized under the Planned Development provisions. These are not actual modifications, but are more clarifications to guide future staff, particularly the Zoning Administrator, in terms of making interpretations of the action. Mr. Cilimberg said the commission also adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance that would apply to some industrial and commercial zoned uses. n j . I I , Mr. Marshall said he does not have any further comments. He has not changed position on this rezoning. He then offered ~tiOD to adopt the proposed Resolution to Approve ZMA-95-04, University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation. Mr. Martin ..cooded the motion. Mr. Marshall said he feels the County has gotten all the proffers it is going to get from the University. He thinks this is the best deal the County is going to get. His understanding from representatives of the University is that they are not willing to make any more concessions and that they will develop the 2.5 million square feet in the southern part of that park, if the Board does not approve the request. Mr. Marshall said he would prefer the Board proceed with this proffered plan. Mr. Martin said Board members. have read all the minutes of the commis- sion meetings and discussed this request many times~ At this time, he does not think there is any reason to go over the pros and the cons any further. He personally has considered all the pros and cons, and after reviewing them all, he is leaning more towards support of the proposal. In his opinion, several years ago, the University began working seriously with staff trying to incorporate their expectations. Using the comprehensive Plan and zoning Ordinance, he thinks the University did a good job. Throughout the process additional proffers have been negotiated. He thinks it would be an injustice to deny the University after their good faith effort throughout the process and given the rules, regulations and expectations they have met. He strongly supports this rezoning request. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the impact of this project on the community has always been the issue. She agrees that there is an amazing level of agreement at this time, but there still remains a large concern, and that is not bad treatment on the part of the County. This process started with a comprehensive Plan Amendment with a great deal of concerns expressed by the community, but the Board said it would deal with the concerns during the rezoning. She is not sure that was the right thing. She thinks the Board may have treated the University unfairly at that point in some ways, but it did make a listing of things it wanted addressed in the rezoning application. Some issues were dealt with more thoroughly than others. since the Board cannot condition a rezoning, it has to wait for proffers to be developed by the applicant. This is an artificial-kind of situation, but she can see why it may have led the University to feel they had given and given and still the Board was asking for more. It is because the Board could never sit down and have the kind of direct conversation about what its concerns were and the best way to address them. It seems to her the remaining major concern is the sudden impact on the County's infrastructure. A large influx of children can ruin a couple of school years. Everybody is concerned about roads, police and the budget. The Board does not want to have a sudden increase in these demands. The University has taken some steps to deal with these issues by having a phasing proposal, but it does not realistically provide any limita- tions. The University has been advised that it cannot impose any real limita- tion or no one will come. n Mrs. Thomas said there is a regular in Boulder, Colorado which has limitations of the sort that no one here is even dreaming of and that city is so popular that they have filled up all of their applications until the year 1999. There is a lot the County can learn from the development of the Boulder park. She feels the Board owes that to the community. The University may not always own that property. This is a rezoning that goes with the property, therefore, the issue is not about a level of trust of a particularly entity. She thinks the Board should defer this rezoning so that it can discuss how to reach a mutually agreed upon goal which is to get a handle on how the Univer- sity can develop an attractive park and have the clients that are important to the health community, but also not knowing when there may be a large influx of people to the community when there is no way they can be dealt with responsi- bly. Mr. Marshall said he has some information about the park in Boulder which does not exactly agree with Mrs. Thomas comments. Mrs. Thomas said she talked to the planner who is in charge of nonresidential development. Mr. Marshall said he talked to a person who manages a principal process management and relocation consultant firm in Boulder. The last paragraph of the letter from this person states: "It is useful to comment on a situation in Boulder, colorado that directly affects my clients and is similar to actions being .j' ": ~.;~, <"':'~. '.';:';;~,:'~it, .;.~~,....:~.\.t~.l:<Z;':i.-',,';?:''',;~:,~;'1::Y 000163 June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) , .......,~ :;..' n considered by Albemarle county. Boulder is a town with many of the same attributes as Albemarle county. It has a major university, attractive setting, proximity to a large metropolitan area and a highly educated work force. A few years ago Boulder implemented growth restrictions which are now adversely affecting local companies by restricting their ability to grow. Recently the Planning Board termed the decision to implement commercial growth restrictions a major mistake and a major headache to implement." MrS. Thomas said commercial growth was put on hold because the City Council wanted to be able to respond to more requests than they are able to respond. Mr. Marshall said there are businesses that cannot grow and are thinking about moving. Mrs. Thomas said their allotment system is not one that she thinks anyone here would want, but the system affects existing businesses in the same way it affects people who are moving into the area. Albemarle's Comprehensive Plan clearly supports expansion of existing busi- nesses. She is not saying Albemarle County should do what the City of Boulder did because she thinks they made some major mistakes. The reason that situation is relevant is because the question was raised that if there was a plan limiting development, would companies be willing to come to the area. It almost has to be a hypothetical question except Boulder has done it and so far exceeded their allotments, companies are waiting in line. Mr. Marshall continued with the letter which states: "Based on more than 20 years experience in the relocation industry, he can confirm that a key decision-making factor for companies is whether or not a site will allow it to grow comfortable over time. As such, any regulations that would lend uncer- tainty to the ability to grow will significantly diminish a site's attractive- ness." Mr. Marshall said he thinks the University is trying to keep that open so they do not loose a good company. He does not want to put a company in the position of having to come back to this Board, if it needs to expand due to growth. Mrs. Thomas said she has never been in favor of anything that requires a company to come back before the Board unless it has a very large addition. She thinks a limit like 150,000 square feet would still protect the community from a company bringing in its entire Chicago operation when they began as a two-person office. She does not agree with putting stringent limitations on a company to keep it from growing. n Mr. Martin said he does not see this as a pro community versus a pro business decision. Most of the people he knows are in favor of the park and are in favor of what it will do. In his opinion there comes a time when a decision has to be made, and not defer the issue any longer. Mrs. Humphris said the key in Mr. Marshall's comments was "grow comfort- ably over time". She thinks that is the key to this whole issue. She supports the North Fork Research Park. She wants it to succeed; however, the hang up she has is the problem with the cumulative number of square footage which presents the possibility of a sudden and large burst of growth in this community that our infrastructure and capital Improvements Plan are not able to absorb. She thinks businesses and the public, in general, agree this is something we would not like to happen because then it would "kill the goose that laid the golden egg". She is hearing from the University that such a thing absolutely would not happen. She is saying that County government, because they have taken an oath to protect the public health, safety and welfare, has an obligation to this community to insure that does not happen. Given all the public input and information, she wonders why this Board cannot make some agreement to insure the future of Albemarle County which is what this vote will do. This vote will determine the direction of Albemarle county for many years because it is a major decision. Mrs. Thomas said there is no reason why a deferral should not be possible to allow the County and the University to work together on something that is so close to being right. This has not been like any other issue. Everybody has put in a great deal of time and effort, and she does not think a final decision has to be made today. Mr. Martin said there comes a point where things have gotten as close as they can get and that is not necessarily bad. This may not be the time, but waiting some more could cause everything to fall apart. n Mr. Marshall said the University is a local entity. He would rather put his trust in the University than in someone else. He thinks it is time to make a decision rather than continuously putting it off. He knows the University will go ahead and develop the park if this Board does not approve the rezoning. The Board has an opportunity to allow the park to be developed in the best way for the community. He wants good jobs and affordable housing in this community, and we are not going to get them if there is not somebody locally who cares and makes it happen. The elected officials cannot do it all and the Board needs to put its trust in other people. He would prefer to trust the University with this plan rather than have it go in another direc- tion. He thinks this Board has talked about this issue long enough. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it has been a legitimate part of the mission of the University to try to augment some of their educational services with something like they anticipate doing in the North Fork Park. Two examples are Motion Control and MicroAir which are synergistic to the Engineering School and to the hospital. Although he thinks many of the concerns that have been expressed are genuine, he does not think the park is likely to attract the _ t;'.\.:l'~"""'(:'''~:'i;~'!' ~;~'~:i"'.-Il'~r> '.~.;'9:~~''5,:<.;,.j.;:;;1 0001.64 June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) n kind of industry that does not fit in with th~ community. He thinks the university has made a great effort to deal with the concerns expressed by this Board, the general public and special interest groups to try to reach some mutually agreeable standards by which the community could operate. In his opinion the action taken by the commission could have a bad affect on this type of project. The Commission's action could drive away some of the firms that would be the most appropriate to come here for fear of some of the hoops they have to go through. He believes most firms have more than one location in mind when they are looking to go somewhere. He thinks there are self- limiting factors on the size of an organization that the University wants to attract to this location. He thinks the Board could continue to talk about this issue for months. He would agree to a deferral if he thought in another week or two an agreement regarding limitations could be met, but he does not believe there would be any more movement. He agrees it is time to decide this issue and move forward. If he thought the zoning text amendment could add something positive to this discussion, he would support it. He does not think the zoning text amendment can accomplish what people want it to do. He wishes the Board had more details of what is and is not acceptable to the University. Mr. Bowerman said his company has some business dealings with the University in its intramural department for equipment. He received an opinion from the commonwealth's Attorney that this is not a conflict of interest even though it is in excess of $10,000. He believes he can keep the two items separate and that the dealings do not influence his opinion on the application that is before the Board. He will vote on the issue. '0 ,;o}~~!' :,'J?~tt./t'\~~t. Mr. Perkins said the issue for him is that the University can do a lot with the original 225 acres. The Board has 75 percent of what it is asking. It makes sense to him, although he would like to see more phasing in on the whole project, to move forward. Mrs. Thomas said if this motion had failed or tied, it was her intent to move for reconsideration and then move for deferral. Her "no" vote was to have a deferral because she thinks the Board and university could have worked out something everyone could have been proud of. We are so close. There being no further comments, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris. n RBSOLtr:rIOII TO APPROVIl ZIIA-95-06 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGIRIA RBAL ESTAH FOtJRDATIOR Wherea., in accordance with Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia and Section 33 of the Albemarle county Zoning ordinance, a public hearing was advertised, adjoining property owners noti- fied, and a hearing scheduled on ZMA 95-04, University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, to consider the rezoning of approximately 525 acres from RA, PD-IP, R-l, and LI to PD-IP, as more particu- larly identified in the zoning application; and Where.., this application and the attached proffers are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, good zoning practices, and supported by the reasons set forth in the, staff report. Row, Therefore, Be It Re.olved that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia hereby approves ZMA 95-04 with proffers, such proffers being dated March 21, 1996 and being attached hereto and made a part of this approval. BB IT PURTBBR RBSOLVED, that included within this approval is the approval of the following special use permits with the stated conditions: n (A) SP-95-40 Laboratories, conditioned upon: 1. Compliance with Section 4.14 Performance stan- dards of the Zoning Ordinance, 2. Building location shall not be less than thirty (30) feet from the perimeter buffer areas to adjoining properties not located within the development. SP-95-41 SUDDortina Commercial Uses, conditioned upon: (B) 1. In addition to proffered limitation not to ex- ceed five (5t) percent of total floor area, commercial uses shall not exceed ten (lOt) per- cent of total floor area at any time during phased development. (C) SP-95-42 Hotels. Motels, Inns, conditioned upon: 1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted. Such hotel, motel, or inn shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms. r--' .--------- ,~~_ ...:::~.'~i...t.',-', '-..~,'~:. ~,,-:,:,"~\:,;., \';~' June 5, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) """"",",",,...;'"""" ,",-;,."""' 0001.65 ~'.... .1' '~, .~..~-' -->('---,,:"--', ;""':&'."..: 2. confe~~nc~ fa~ilities (other than those as may be provided by individual occupants) shall not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the hotel/motel/inn, but total gross floor area of lodging and conference fa- cilities shall not exceed 190,000 square feet. The time limit to commence the above special uses shall be extended for so long as the application plan for ZMA-95-04 remains valid. r; BB IT FURTHER RBSOLVED, that there are no modifications pursuant to S 8.5.5 of the Albemarle county Zoning Ordinance, but the following findings are stated for purposes of clarification: 1. Uses and treatment of "open space" shall be as defined in and governed by the proffers. Since "open space' is not required for a Planned De- velopment - Industrial Park and provision of open space is voluntarily proffered by the ap- plicant, the open space areas shall not be gov- erned by section 4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The approval of the special use permits with the extended time for commencing the uses shall not preclude the Board from revoking any special use permit for wilful noncompliance as set forth in section 31.2.4.4 of the Albemarle county Zoning Ordinance. 3. The terms General Office, Light Industrial and Flex Industrial as set forth in UREF, Volume 1, Part IX of the zoning application shall, in addition to Zoning ordinance definitions, guide the Zoning Administrator in use determinations. In the event of definitional conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and UREF descriptions, UREF descriptions shall apply. In such case in which more that fifty (50~) percent of the floor area for a Flex Industrial use is developed to office use, the entire floor area shall be deemed to be General Office. In such case in which lees than fifty (50\) percent of the floor area for a Flex Industrial use is devoted to office use, the entire floor area shall be deemed to be Light Industrial. This provision shall apply only for determination of maximum square footage by type of use. This provision shall not apply to cal- culation of parking requirements or other re- quirements of the zoning Ordinance, nor to any requirements of the Uniform statewide Building Code nor to any other ordinance or regulation related to type of usage of buildings and struc- tures. n Agenda Item No. 16. Request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle county Service Authority to include water and sewer service for the North Fork Business Park (deferred from February 21, 1996). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 5 and February 12, 1996.) Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle county Service Authority to include water and sewer service to the North Fork Business Park. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. n I J Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to reappoint William A. Finley, Jr., and Joseph T. Henley, III, to the piedmont Community college Board of Direc- tors for new four year terms beginning July 1, 1996, with said terms to expire on June 30, 2000. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas to appoint Mr. John c. Lowry to the Industrial Development Authority as the Samuel Miller District representative, with said term to expire on January 19, 2000. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, to reappoint Thelma E. Whiting and Blanche R. Steppe to a new term on the Children and Youth COmmission, with said term to expire on July 1, 1999. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motions. Roll was called and the motions carried by the following recorded vote: