HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA-17-008_ACSPCA_April_24_Attach_3ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 5, 2017
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
September 5, 2017, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium,
Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Tim Keller, Chair; Karen Firehock, Vice-Chair; Daphne Spain;
Mac Lafferty; Pam Riley; Jennie More; and Bruce Dotson. Absent was Bill Palmer,
University of Virginia Representative.
Other officials present were Elaine Echols, Chief of Planning – Long Range, Andrew
Gast-Bray, Deputy Director of Community Development/Director of Planning; Sharon
Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; Mark Graham, Director of Community
Development and John Blair, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Mr. Keller, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda
Mr. Keller invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
There being none, the meeting moved to the next agenda item.
Consent Agenda
a. Approval of Minutes – July 11, 2017, July 18, 2017, May 2, 2017 and February 14,
2017.
Mr. Keller asked if anyone wanted to pull an item from the consent agenda. Hearing
none, he asked for a motion.
Ms. Spain moved, Mr. Dotson seconded to approve the consent agenda, which was
unanimously approved by a vote of 7:0.
The meeting moved to the next item.
Work Session
CCP-2017-0002 Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 04500-00-00-08600 and 04500-00-00-08800
LOCATION: 3355 Berkmar Drive
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
2
PROPOSAL: Request early input from the Commission on potential SP amendment and
ZMA to permit the renovation and expansion of the CASPCA.
PETITION: Potentially request an amendment to SP200700044 and a rezoning of 2.53
acres on Parcel 88 from the R-6 Residential Zoning District, which allows residential
uses at a density of 6 units per acre to C-1 Commercial, which allows retail sales and
service; residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Properties are located in the Places29 Development Area.
Master Plan shows uses for Parcel 86 as Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial (no maximum
density); supporting commercial, professional office; research and development, design,
testing of prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, and packaging. Residential is a
secondary use in this designation. Parcel 88 is shown as Urban Density Residential
(6.01-34 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial,
office and service uses.
(JT Newberry)
Mr. Newberry said he would lead the Commission through a work session on CCP-
2017-00002 Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA. Before getting started, Mr. Newberry
pointed out a typo on page 8 of the staff report in the paragraph above the
recommendation that instead of the extended parking area was related to the existing
facility, which should say, “The expanded parking area was relegated to the existing
facility.” Mr. Newberry said the purpose of tonight’s work session is to provide guidance
and input to the applicant for a future application and we are trying to understand what
the best next step in the application process is. One item that was missing from the
staff report was just the fact that the Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA does a wide
variety of service for the community; it serves as both a private animal shelter as
defined under the State Code, but it does provide pound services for both the city and
the county. Therefore, there is that public use aspect of it that was not noted in the staff
report. In an overview of the proposal, which was attachment C from the staff report,
the first four phases of the plan expansion relate to the existing facility; the proposed
cathouse is an expansion; some treatment to the front of the building was planned to
the north side of the building that the applicant would provide further input on. There is
an expanded parking area out to the front of the site and a training facility shown in the
footprint, which would support the function of the existing facility now.
In the zoning map of the area, he pointed out parcel 86 which contains the existing
facility. The proposed training center would encroach just a little bit to parcel 88 to the
south; the orange represents the R-6 residential zoning district and the pink represents
the C-1 commercial district. Mr. Newberry noted that on the zoning map our GIS
system is incorrectly showing some of the limits of previous rezonings cited in the staff
report. ZMA-1998-26 you can see the limits going around parcel 90 but in actuality the
limit of that rezoning was to this parcel and further up to the north ZMA-1988-21 was
indefinitely deferred – this was a request by Falconer Construction to rezone this parcel
from R-6 to LI, Light Industry and that was indefinitely deferred and never acted upon.
Mr. Newberry said staff is taking the steps to correct the GIS map.
Mr. Newberry noted the next slide is the Comprehensive Plan map showing the existing
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
3
SPCA facility that is shown in the designation for Office/Flex/R&D/Light Industrial as
shown in the purple color. Then parcel 88 to the south is in orange and that is the
Urban Density Residential designation. The next slide mirrors Attachment E, the
Comprehensive Plan Map, zooming in on the area where there is that potential
encroachment for the training center. Attachment E although it is probably unclear on
the printed materials that you saw was trying to measure the distance to which
approximately the Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial designation encroaches onto parcel
88. It is probably between 30’ to 40’ as it extends along the boundary.
Mr. Newberry noted the next slide is a list of discussion questions staff is hoping to get
feedback on from the Commission tonight. Before we turn it over to the applicant and
the public Mr. Newberry said he would mention staff’s position on the questions.
Discussion Question 1
Should this proposal require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to move forward?
Staff’s position broadly is just that because of the limited scope and scale that would not
be necessary in this case.
Discussion Question 2
This question was related to voluntary limitations on a rezoning whether or not
proffering out any uses would be appropriate. When the original rezoning for the facility
was done, the Western Bypass was envisioned between the existing facility and this
residential area. Therefore, there was not much thought put into uses in whether or not
there needed to be any limitations on compatible uses or not, but it is staff’s position
that would be appropriate in this case especially as the Western Bypass is not going
forward.
Discussion Question 3
The third question related to what used to be called waivers, we now call special
exceptions and there are supplemental regulations as well as district regulations that
would apply. It is staff’s position that these would likely be appropriate in this case and
there can be conditions on those waivers to ensure that there is the right amount of
compatibility between an expanded SPCA and any nearby residential use.
Discussion Question 4
The last question related to Neighborhood Model principles. Attachment C has the
overview of the proposal and both the zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan map
show some of the other existing buildings in the area. It would be staff’s position that
the site would meet more of the Neighborhood Model principles if that training center
were moved closer to Berkmar Drive. Mr. Newberry said staff understands there are
many priorities to balance in this case so that is a question that we wanted to get input
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
4
on from the Planning Commission. With that, Mr. Newberry said he would turn it back
over to the Commission.
Mr. Keller invited questions for staff. Hearing none, Mr. Keller opened the session and
invited the applicant to come forward and address the Commission.
L. J. Lopez, a partner at Milestone Partners, said we are here on behalf of our client the
Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA. He pointed out also present were members of the
SPCA Board, staff and members of the project team so between our group hopefully we
can answer all the questions that you might have of us this evening.
Mr. Lopez said he wanted to take a brief minute and highlight the organization in a little
more detail. He said the SPCA is a great organization; it has deep roots in this
community and it was founded in 1914 with over 100 years of community service as a
nonprofit open emissions animal shelter whose purpose is finding permanent adoptive
homes for animals. The SPCA performs an important community function by providing
pound services, as J.T. noted to the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. It
also serves this community by offering lost and found services, low cost sterilization,
rabies and other vaccinations, microchipping as well as educational opportunities,
camps, pet therapy, and dog training. The SPCA provides employment for an average
of 60 people and serves over 2,200 shelter animals a year. More than 4,500
spayed/neuter services are performed annually, 2,900 of which were for owned pets
within our community. The SPCA continues to serve at the forefront of no kill
communities in this country helping thousands of animals each year receive the care
they need to find homes or remain with their families.
Mr. Lopez said the last piece was really the impetus for the application. In order to carry
on the animal shelter public service, it was determined by the board and staff that in
2014 they undertook a master planning effort so that they can continue to care for
animals and meet the community needs for today and in the future. He said out of that
master planning effort they determined that it would include an expansion of the dog
kennel, the outdoor atrium renovation, a new cat facility, vet clinic addition, associated
site work, parking, and intake expansion and overhaul of the main building interior, new
canopy and façade. That was all to position it to provide services for the future.
Mr. Lopez said he shares the in-depth description to highlight the strong public use as
J.T. noted in his staff report the public use and service components of the organization.
He thanked J.T. and staff’s leadership on the application, as there have been a number
of variables related to it and the reason why we are here for this work session before
the Commission this evening and so they have been very helpful to date. He said he
had a few quick comments, which J.T. has already addressed a couple of from the staff
report and then we want to turn it over to the Planning Commission for conversation,
guidance and input on the question before us this evening.
Mr. Lopez said regarding the community meeting, one was not required for this work
session; however, once we have final direction on next steps for Comprehensive Plan
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
5
amendment, rezoning and special use permit, we will satisfy that as required in this
practice. Regarding Berkmar Extended, as J.T. noted, that the Comprehensive Plan in
its current form it previously contemplated Berkmar Extended but indicated that a small
area plan could be used to reevaluate the existing and future uses in this corridor. He
would offer with the nearing completion of the Route 29 Solution Package, on-going
small area planning in neighboring areas, although not currently including this area, this
application and its timing is opportune to have a discussion and reevaluate one of the
parcels that is here before you in the corridor. As J.T. outlined, the primary question
before us is whether or not the application necessitates a Comprehensive Plan
amendment prior to or concurrent with the purposed rezoning of the subject parcel 45-
88 from R-6 to C-1. The Land Use Plan indicates Urban Density Residential and within
that use, it is encouraged secondary for uses of Neighborhood Retail, Community and
Regional Retail and general commercial services of which SPCA would fall under. The
Land Use Plan and its Urban Density designation for this specific parcel supports the
uses albeit a secondary one in the proposed land use as it exists today. Further, as J.T.
clarified, which he hit all the points that he was going to so he appreciates that.
Mr. Lopez said some of the adjacent properties GIS designations is not consistent with
the map, but while some of those adjacent properties are currently residential, the
proposed land use suggests these to be Office/R&D/LI. There are many commonalities
between existing zoning and the future land use plan within the immediately adjacent
parcels; they might not be exact but there is a trend in those existing adjacent current
and future land uses. Therefore, in closing, Mr. Lopez said we are in agreement with
staff’s recommendation that parcel 45-88 does not reach the threshold of requiring
Comprehensive Plan amendment and we very much appreciate your thoughts on the
question before you, your input and feedback on the path forward for rezoning and
special use permit. He said myself and the project team are here along with the board
and staff to answer any questions you have. He thanked the Commission for their time.
Mr. Keller invited questions for the applicant before hearing from anyone else.
Ms. Spain asked Mr. Lopez to say something about why the addition cannot be moved
closer to Berkmar since J.T. mentioned that as a possibility that would avoid any
discussion of parcel 88.
Mr. Lopez replied that the master planning effort, as our land use plan is a guiding
document. He said it had preliminary engineering at a conceptual level with grade for
storm water, the managed slopes on that property with the parking adjacent to the use
and maintaining a buffer along Berkmar; it was envisioned to be the most practical
location given the current layout. He said that is not off the table for further evaluation
as we move forward and so that would be something he thinks they are open minded to
studying further through rezoning and special use permit. He said the current thinking
in 2014 was that the approximate layout, the adjacency to the facility that was the
practical location for it given the constraints, but we are open minded to evaluating
further
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
6
Mr. Spain asked J.T. to put the plan back on the screen.
Mr. Dotson asked what the training facility was.
Mr. Lopez replied that he would let Angie talk about uses for the training facility.
Angie Gunter, Executive Director, said the training facility is a dog training facility and so
it would be for members of the community to come for training classes but also for us to
work with our animals. She said we know that over a third of animals that are
relinquished to shelters are due to training or behavior needs so we want to make sure
that we get ahead of that and can really counsel folks that adopt. She said if they want
to relinquish animals, we want to be in a position to help them through training. As
mentioned earlier we also serve as the pound for the City of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County. Therefore, we feel that we have that need to be the main resource
in this community.
Mr. Dotson said he would take it that was a long term, a stage 5 ambition.
Ms. Gunter replied that was correct; that would be the last thing.
Mr. Dotson said that is in the future but how would that operate; would that be on a fee
basis.
Ms. Gunter replied it would be a fee base for public, but for the animals that we adopt
out we would probably work something out to work with those adopters for a short
period. She pointed out they would have to think through that for sure, but if someone
wants to relinquish an animal we would want to try to get them into a training first with
probably a low fee base.
Mr. Dotson asked would that be something the SPCA would operate themselves, or
would they likely outsource that.
Ms. Gunter replied yes, we would operate those ourselves.
Mr. Lafferty said he understands that you will own lot 88.
Mr. Lopez replied the Charlottesville/Albemarle SPCA owns that parcel 45-88 to the
south, currently zoned R-6 and proposed for rezoning to C-1 consistent with the zoning
of the existing facility. He said it was a use conversation in whether the appropriateness
of the zoning of that parcel’s common ownership was a unified use for the purposes of
the SPCA now and in the future and in the rezoning as we would put forward is the
Comprehensive Plan required prior to rezoning or proceed to rezoning in order to satisfy
the need of that and any input you have regarding provisions or limitations on the
rezoning as we move forward.
Mr. Dotson said he had a follow on question on that about parcel 88. He asked when
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
7
was that acquired by the SPCA and have you had that as long as you have had the
main parcel or was that a recent acquisition.
Mr. Lopez replied it was purchased in 2015 or there about.
Mr. Dotson said it was recently purchased so you could not have known that you
wanted it to be included at the time you got your last special use permits in those
actions.
Mr. Lopez replied that was correct; this is a new development in the life cycle of the
SPCA. He noted as property previously owned to the north was part of the Western
Bypass and that would be parcels 45-85A. It has changed the evolution and the need
for opportunity to expand and serve the needs of the community in the future.
Mr. Dotson said at some point it would be useful, and staff might be the ones to do this,
just to show what would have been the alignment of the Bypass and what the parcels
would be that will now be at some point offered up for development. He noted that J.T.
was nodding so he would think he was going to answer that.
Mr. Lopez replied that they did not have an exhibit of that alignment but we could
certainly follow up and provide one for future work session and/or application materials.
Ms. More asked to go back to the location of the training facility and the suggestion that
it might be moved by staff suggestion. She said it sounds like where he would like the
parking lot to be is the wooded area and asked if that was correct.
Mr. Lopez replied that he did not have his exhibitions but that was on an aerial.
Ms. More said she was wondering if the parking lot were to go in the proposed location
it looks like there are some slopes that actually go along closer to Berkmar and would
that be a possibility if that is wooded would there be ability to retain the wooded nature
of the part closer to the Berkmar Corridor.
Mr. Lopez replied that he thinks there is. This property although he thinks we may be
getting ahead into more of the technical details but expansion of Berkmar Drive and that
Corridor through there to align with the right-of-way width and dimension of Berkmar
Extended is desired. Therefore, the buffer would have to be evaluated coming from
both sides, internal, and external into the property. Therefore, we would look at that and
the desire would be to have it preserved in its current condition to the maximum extent
possible.
Ms. More pointed out she was just curious with staff’s recommendation about the
location of the parking lot and maximum screening and the ability to use what is already
there to the extent that is possible.
Mr. Lopez noted there are some competing priorities in the development in keeping the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
8
buffer as is the widening of Berkmar from a right-of-way acquisition standpoint, which he
knows, is on the table and will be eyed as we have already discussed through pre-
application meetings with staff. He said so we would have to study that in detail in order
to provide a more definitive answer as to dimension and quantify how much could be
provided.
Ms. Firehock said in looking at your site, she knows this is not a full-blown site plan, it is
more conceptual and you have a storm water treatment facility in the corner by
Berkmar; she was just wondering to what extent have you thought about using best
practices management practices, low impact development and permeable pavement.
She noted for example in front of the training facility that is a place where you would not
be bringing large tractor trailers; so it might be a perfect site to use that type of
treatment and that might be able to shrink the amount of the size of your storm water
facility significantly. She said she would like to see them make this site as green as
possible and to that thereby minimize the disturbance of the vegetation. She said in
the parking lot for the training center that it looks like you have variable space sizes and
asked are those little spaces next to the training center with bigger spaces at the top.
Mr. Lopez replied that may be a rendering or scale issue in this since it is at a
conceptual level and getting into the site planning. He said the Berkmar Drive Corridor
has a regional storm water facility, which may satisfy our quantity components, and on
site quality, we would look to incorporate all the best management practices in LID and
permeable pavement. Although we do not have a center island in this for grading and
drainage he said any bio filter planting without curb runoff into those detention areas
would be evaluated and we have not exceeded beyond the conceptual level for the
storm water management.
Ms. Firehock suggested they might be able to shrink the footprint of that parking lot by
using variable space sizing. She said in my experience with Timmons they often just
give kind of a straight out without playing with the spacing so you might ask them if they
have tried doing that. She said because Albemarle County allows that you might be
able to shrink that footprint and thereby pull your building a little bit more out of the
encroachment into that residential zone.
Ms. Spain asked what determined the demand for the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Lopez replied Cody with Timmons Group is here who may be able to speak to the
number.
Cody Pennetta, with Timmons Group, said the parking configuration and quantity is
based primarily on historic experience with the quantity that is required and the number
of visitors is one of the other reasons the location is set towards the front. He said we
evaluated some other options that push the parking towards the back but we want
people to, especially the visitors, to come and be at the entrance and have access to
the front of the building. He said so that is what has set the location and the quantity for
the number of spaces. He pointed out the location of the existing storm water
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
9
management fixture and the existing sanitary pump station. He said it is going to be
one or the other factors that helped us consider where we could potentially put the
training facility and kind of the challenges we would see if it was there. There is also
about 30 feet of grade difference between Berkmar and the existing floor elevation of
the building that is there now. Therefore, grading and access throughout the site is
definitely one of the things we are considering as we put the plan together. He said we
are definitely considering storm water management at all sorts of levels and treatment
of terrains and trying to be creative with these sites. It is especially important in an area
where there is a lot going on and challenging slopes to deal with to try to preserve as
much as possible because it is a nice corridor and heavily vegetated in the front. He
said these are the things we are looking at early on; but have not gotten into full detail
yet.
Ms. Riley asked if the new parking lot where the current dog walk area is. Secondly,
she asked on the training center is there a stream down below and how far from that
stream is it.
Mr. Lopez replied that he did not think so since it was not registered on the GIS, but if it
is a dry discharge channel we can study that further.
Ms. Gunter asked to add in regards to the parking we did have the opportunity in a
parcel next to us where we were able to park, but we no longer have access to that.
She pointed out that we are essentially almost full daily where people are parking along
the drive and our neighbors across the road are so kind to let staff park over there. She
said they have warned me we cannot continue but the neighbors have been very kind to
us. Therefore, parking is of the essence; any given day we do not have enough space
for visitors who are parking along the drive just to come in.
Ms. Firehock noted we have one person signed up to speak from the public, David
Griffin.
David Griffin noted that he did not wish to speak at this time.
Ms. Firehock thanked Mr. Griffin for coming.
Hearing no one else to speak, Mr. Keller closed the public comment period for the work
session and asked staff to put the discussion questions back up on screen.
Ms. Echols noted that staff actually has the questions one at a time on separate slides.
Question 1
Mr. Newberry noted that discussion question #1 is on the screen and staff’s position that
is a Comprehensive Plan amendment would not be beneficial to the process because of
the very limited scope and scale of the encroachment into the Urban Density
Residential designation. Mr. Newberry said staff thinks the proposed use is similar to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
10
other uses that could be allowed in residential areas as a secondary use; this is an
opportunity for planning that buffer zone between the existing SPCA facility and the
potential for nearby Urban Density Residential development; however, staff does not
feel a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be necessary. Mr. Newberry asked if the
Commission had other thoughts to share.
Mr. Keller invited comments.
Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Newberry to comment on the secondary uses.
Mr. Newberry replied the Comprehensive Plan has both primary and secondary uses in
each designation and residential areas have other secondary uses like areas of
assembly and some institutional uses. He pointed out the SPCA has such a blend of
institutional and a little bit of commercial uses, and so staff felt like the impacts from
those were not so different from some of the other permitted secondary uses which is
one contributing factor as to why a Comprehensive Plan amendment would not be
needed.
Mr. Keller asked Mr. Dotson if he was asking more about the specifics.
Mr. Dotson replied no, he thinks that explanation responds to it since he personally
thinks it does not seem like a Comprehensive Plan amendment is the right way to go on
this. However, in not going that way if that is the outcome he would like to emphasize in
future reporting that this is consistent with the residential designation and zoning and at
the risk of creating laughter he thought about it and had said well training facility is that
like a school for dogs and schools are allowed in a residential district. He asked are
there different ways to think about this and is this sort of a hospice, a health facility or a
temporary residence. Mr. Dotson said somehow he would just like to hear some more
thinking, not necessarily right now, but that sort of says this is a legitimate use under
that rather than it is just too much hassle to do a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Ms. Echols said staff actually went down that path of is this a special use permit for a
school because the training is very much like a private school. Staff took it to the zoning
administrator to evaluate and because their public funding in their school aspect really is
secondary to the activity of the SPCA; the zoning administrator could not find that it
could be just an independent private school because it would always be affiliated with
and be a function of the SPCA. Ms. Echols noted staff also went down the path of
seeing whether it could be considered a public use because it is the pound for the
county as well as the city. However, the zoning administrator looked at that and
determined that its funding is not primarily from the public; it is from public entities; and
yes, it is a nonprofit and it raises money for the use, but the money that is provided to
the SPCA from the city and the county is not significant. She asked Mr. Newberry if the
zoning administrator was looking at 50 percent.
Mr. Newberry replied yes, as a loose general rule.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
11
Ms. Echols noted since it was not one-half of the money that they raised and so she did
not think it could be considered a public use. Ms. Echols pointed out one thing she
heard tonight that maybe we hadn’t talked a whole lot about that may be relevant to this
conversation is whether or not there is any other use of this property for any other kind
of commercial activity because if the only thing is just that little bit of encroachment over
onto the residential designated property there are different ways you can get at how that
is in conformity because there are similarities. But, if there is a desire for it to be
available for more than just that little piece of encroachment and have a more
commercial character to it, then she thinks we are getting into an area that needs some
further evaluation.
Ms. More asked for the purposes for our discussion where do we consider the small
encroachment.
Ms. Echols pointed out the area where staff has been considering it.
Ms. More said based on that assumption she did not think it needs a Comprehensive
Plan amendment, and she thinks staff and the applicant have both outlined very good
reasons why and she agrees with it.
Ms. Riley agreed.
Ms. Firehock said she agreed as well. She said she would not pretend to be an
attorney, but in terms of the zoning administrator’s ruling that it is not a public institution
because it does not receive its majority of its fund from the city and county; it is publicly
supported charity so the IRS would look at that as an institution supported by the public.
So she feels like she could be a little more creative perhaps and would leave it at that.
Ms. Spain said she would concur with her colleagues that no amendment is needed.
Mr. Lafferty agreed.
Mr. Keller asked if this was from the earlier days of GIS when we were not as accurate
and it was just a drawing mistake.
Mr. Newberry replied looking into that a little further the server that contains the
information shown on GIS updates once a week and so his understanding is staff
believed that the problem had been fixed and perhaps forgot to set a reminder the next
week to go back and double check and it got lost in the shuffle of things. However, it is
on our radar screen now to get that updated. Mr. Newberry said he had contacted both
GIS and the folks that manage our proffer database to make sure that it is reflected
correctly.
Mr. Echols asked was your question though about where the line was and had it been
intended that Office/R&D Flex\Light Industrial would have all been on the SPCA
property. She said when we did our original mapping it was not intended to necessarily
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
12
be parcel based; but, what we were trying to do was capture in many ways those uses.
Therefore, it was possible that line if we were redrawing it more accurately would line up
with the existing SPCA boundary for the C-1 designated area. However, it is not
uncommon for there to be a little bit of wiggle room at the edge and it gets a little gnarly
depending on how far you go with where that wiggle room is. Ms. Echols said our
comfort level is high with that small degree of wiggle room for an encroachment for the
reasons that are in the staff report.
Mr. Keller pointed out having lived through the paper to Mylar to digital transitions and
the impacts it has had on a number of projects worked on through the years he was not
surprised. In fact, he was actually surprised that this is the first one that he had seen in
the almost four years that he has been here, which is a very positive comment on the
way it has been done in the county. He said since this obviously raised a bit of
heartburn when you all realized that it had not refreshed properly, he asked staff to take
a guess as to how many more of these situations there might be. He noted the reason
he asked this is if this is the sort of things staff has tracked a number of them and just
as we are doing the ZTA changes that there might be a reason to do a comprehensive
review because there are 75 parcels and we want to clear up those lines with a one-
time action.
Ms. Echols asked Mr. Keller if he was talking about clearing up where the
Comprehensive Plan line abuts a property boundary or about updating the zoning
proffer as it is applied to the map.
Mr. Keller replied yes, and noted that is a good question.
Mr. Newberry asked to clarify that by highlighting the hatching on the screen where the
GIS map was attempting to indicate there was an approved rezoning and applicable
proffers and so that database updates weekly; however, Ms. Echols is asking the more
important clarification that the boundary lines of the designations, which he thinks are
correct and has not seen any incorrect designation lines. However, Mr. Newberry
pointed out the hatching areas is attached to a parent parcel and as parcels are
subdivided; it has caused some inconsistencies so that was what he was referring.
Mr. Keller asked to go back and reference something that Ms. More was asking about
with the Crozet projects a long time ago, and asked the SPCA folks to please bear with
us, because he knows this is a bit beyond because they are all trying to work towards a
simple solution here. Mr. Keller noted it was an issue about which of these maps, the
one in the small area plan versus the Comprehensive Plan versus whatever is the
official map. He asked Ms. Echols if she thinks that the map at the highest level is
correct which would be a justification for not needing to make the changes or is it
something that would warrant us cleaning this up just in terms of some precedent.
Ms. Echols replied that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and its maps are correctly
drawn. If we were to modify the Land Use Plan to align with property boundaries, the
property boundaries could change at any time; and, therefore we would be in the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
13
constant state of trying to evaluate what the land use designation is on each parcel.
Ms. Echols said it would not be a good exercise to try to line up the parcel boundaries
with the land use designations because in some cases it is deliberate that they are not
lining up because of some kind of a feature or perhaps there is a Rural Area
development area boundary that goes through a property and so it does not line up with
any of the boundaries. Ms. Echols noted that she understands your frustration with this
and totally understands the question; however, she thinks there is enough room in the
Comprehensive Plan to interpret these kinds of situations and be broad enough in our
interpretation that we can make the right decisions about where land uses should go.
Mr. Keller agreed with Ms. Echols, supports the other commissioners and suggested
that Ms. Echols help facilitate that in the meeting with the Board of Supervisors as the
first statement. He suggested there be a paragraph in which that thought process is laid
out so that they don’t have to reinvent the wheel of this conversation that we have all
been through. Ms. Keller asked Mr. Blair since the Commission was advisory in this
and they have the information so the Commission does not need to take an action.
Mr. Blair, Deputy County Attorney replied that was correct. Mr. Blair asked the
Commission’s indulgence for Ms. Firehock’s question and some others who discussed
public use that he would try to explain some of the thought pattern that goes into that.
Mr. Blair explained our Zoning Code defines a public use as buildings and structures
funded, owned or operated by a local state or federal agency and obviously, the SPCA
is not owned or operated by local governments. As to the question of funding, Mr. Blair
said while there is not 100 percent congruence the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
has what is called a public body definition and that is how the FOIA applies to various
institutions. He said there have been Attorney General’s opinions, Virginia of Freedom
of Information Act Advisory Board opinions as well as a couple of Circuit Court opinions
that have looked through the years at things like a volunteer fire department, various
non-profits and public broadcasting. He said they have looked at what percentage of
your budget did you get from a governmental entity and they used that to determine
whether something was a public body or not. Generally, they have looked at one-half
throughout the years. For instance, there was a voluntary fire department that received
about one-third of its funding and they were not held to be a public body. Public
broadcasting back when it was funded by the state received at one time about a quarter
of its funding and it was held not to be a public body by the Norfolk Circuit Court. Mr.
Blair explained that he just wanted to provide some background on what this definition
of funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal government, but did not know if
that thought pattern was helpful
Mr. Keller asked Mr. Dotson if the issues he presented need further clarification to the
staff in order to be passed onto the Supervisors.
Mr. Dotson replied that he thinks it is a messy situation and to the degree that the staff
in subsequent reports can focus on the legitimacy of this use under this Comprehensive
Plan and possibly even zoning designation that would help clean it up.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
14
Mr. Keller asked staff to move to the second question.
Mr. Newberry noted for the second question some of the relevant history that staff
looked at was the consideration that the Western Bypass would be buffering any
residential development from any impacts created by the SPCA. Therefore, in looking
at this now knowing that will not take place it would be consistent with other rezonings
that have taken place in this area that were either designated as Office/R&D/Flex/Light
Industrial or if under the old Comprehensive Plan they were designated as transition it
would be consistent that there would be some uses that were not deemed to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the applicants in those cases proffered out
certain uses. Therefore, staff wanted to get the Commission’s feedback on whether or
not in this scenario when the existing SPCA facility was rezoned it got straight C-1
zoning and in this case staff is thinking that it would be appropriate that not all of the
uses in C-1 would be permitted on parcel 88 if it were proposed to be rezoned.
Mr. Lafferty asked how close was the nearby residential uses.
Mr. Newberry replied that the existing zoning map shows all of the R-6 zoning that is
surrounding the area and then he thinks it was Mr. Dotson that brought up an exhibit on
the bottom of page 5 that shows the parcels that are currently zoned R-6 that will be
made available for sale. Mr. Newberry pointed out those approximately add up to about
13 acres so under the R-6 zoning, they are to the north and some of them are pretty far
to the north. He pointed out there were existing single-family uses to the west and
some multi-family to the south.
Ms. Echols pointed out an apartment complex to the south that was multi-family
residential and then the other houses are to the north.
Mr. Newberry pointed out the area proposed to be sold by VDOT.
Mr. Lafferty noted as the staff report points out Berkmar is mainly commercial and this
seems to be consistent with that.
Ms. Spain said she thinks it should be compatible with residential to the extent that
noise might be an issue, which she assumed was something that would come up at a
community meeting. Ms. Spain said not knowing how much of this new activity will be
outdoors or how much will be sound insulated if the training center is all inside would be
her only concern.
Ms. Firehock said in terms of a rezoning she agreed the applicant to make the future
use more compatible probably should limit the uses they would propose under the new
rezoning. She said even though the SPCA has invested a lot in the property in the
future it could become a very hot prospect to sell and raise money for the SPCA and
build a facility elsewhere. Therefore, she thinks they need to think about the legacy of
the rezoning. She said the other point is that the training center encroaches very little
currently into that property and obviously they could eventually do more with that site
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
15
but they could offer to have a thicker vegetative buffer that is maybe wider than normal
around their site to mitigate the impacts on potential future adjoining residential uses.
Their main facility is actually quite close to the current existing building to what would be
residential behind it. However, Ms. Firehock said she thinks these things could be
worked out and to your point, she thinks it would be interesting to know if there would be
soundproofing of all the dogs learning to be good dogs or other animals you are training
there. Even just people arriving, coming and going if they are exercising their dogs
outside what would be the impacts; it would be good to know.
Ms. Riley said she agreed mostly with what everybody has said previously, but it does
look like if this training facility is sited as noted on the diagram it is actually going to be
in less proximity to the residential areas than the existing uses that you can go over
there and see what the noise levels are right now. She agreed with the staff’s
recommendation that there should be should be some limits on uses to be compatible
with residential.
Ms. More agreed with staff recommendation.
Mr. Dotson said if the zoning administrator continues to feel that a training facility is not
a school then he would agree with limiting uses through the rezoning process.
Mr. Keller concurred with his colleagues. He asked staff to move on to question three.
Mr. Newberry said that question three talks about some of the specific special
exceptions that may be requested or considered in a future request that talks about the
sound proof and air-conditioned buildings. The supplemental regulations in 5.1.11
reference a 500’ buffer for structures that are not soundproofed and air-conditioned, and
if they are, there is a 200’ buffer requirement. The other applicable section that we
anticipate there could be a request to for special exception would be the buffer between
commercial and residential districts. There is currently a 20’ buffer that limits grading
and clearing of vegetation. If we need to refer to them, Mr. Newberry said he had some
of the specific language here but he thinks some of the Commissioners have already
touched on we think that could be covered during the rezoning and site planning
process, but are there any specific concerns. He thinks it could be helpful to quickly go
to a GIS map and just measure how far away it is from the lot line. He thinks that we
may find that just approximately if we were looking here the nearest lot line is a little
over 300’ away from residential or even 150’ away so it is likely that some special
exceptions will need to be considered.
Ms. Echols said we have had in the development areas these kinds of requests before
for less than the required distance for enclosed facilities and that would be a
consideration the Commission would make. However in the development areas if there
is a demonstration that they have the proper soundproofing and such that has not
generally been a problem for the Planning Commission to recommend those. It used to
be variations or modifications and now it is special exceptions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
16
Mr. Keller asked for Commissioners response.
Mr. Dotson said a question of staff in thinking about applying these supplemental
regulations are you thinking just about the training facility or all of the facility.
Mr. Newberry replied he thinks we should consider all of the facility since his
understanding is he does not believe any of the proposed expansions have new outdoor
areas. He said he thinks they are all existing, but perhaps the applicant could educate
us about if those have been identified and if they have outdoor play areas that they are
hoping to have. He said they would look at everything new since we have had no
existing complaints or problems at all.
Mr. Dotson said the way he was thinking about it is to use a term a rebuttal
presumption, and he would presume that the facility would comply with the
supplemental regulations but he would want to hear a rational why not.
Ms. More said she somewhat agreed with that and thinks the existing facility if there are
not complaints if they have been given these waivers then she is not inclined to dig into
that too much. She said if the additions to the existing structure are going to be
managed in a way that reduces sound or like staff suggested more outdoor areas and
where they are in proximity. She was more interested in the new and felt it was not
necessary to go digging into something that seems to be working well. Ms. More said
she would be supportive of exceptions as far as the proximity of the training facility and
the need to since they can deal with that in site planning to reduce sound. She noted if
that was something we hear in the community meeting, then staff can come back to us
with that.
Ms. Riley said yes, she would consider recommending special exceptions.
Ms. Firehock concurred.
Ms. Spain said she concurred as well, but just for her edification is a buffer anything
from an expanse of empty land to one that is planted with vegetation or trees because
an empty land buffer does not serve the same purpose as a treed or shrubbery buffer.
Mr. Newberry replied that it was just an undisturbed buffer whatever may exists there.
He said that sometimes we are faced with granting special exception requests to disturb
the undisturbed buffer to plant materials that would create a better buffer.
Mr. Lafferty said given that they have had no complaints in the past he would think that
they would be into the sound proofing good enough so he would go with the special
exception.
Ms. Spain asked do we know that they have had no complaints in the past, and Mr.
Newberry replied yes, to his knowledge.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
17
Mr. Keller agreed with his colleagues here. However, he has a question since we are
doing these ZTA amendments and is a buffer something that warrants a look or are you
comfortable. He said this is a rhetorical question and staff does not have to answer it
now. However, he encourages Andrew not to lose this one because we are going to be
having many areas with 29 and the other development areas that he just wonders
based on what Ms. Spain brought up whether there maybe needs to be a bit more
thought about that. He said if staff is just doing best practices and accomplishing it, that
is fine but could there be more support for staff making those best practices decisions.
Ms. Echols pointed out staff looked at some of that when we were looking at the
different setback changes and the distance between nonresidential districts and
residential districts like commercial districts and residential districts in the rural areas
and industrial districts and residential districts in the rural area. There was a lot of
discussion at that time and she thinks staff proposed some changes to those
requirements and there was a lot of push back. So it may be time to relook at it, she
just knows in the last five years there was a fair amount of resistance. She thinks it
would be worthwhile to look at what the purposes of these things are because the
undisturbed buffer came through our old form of development following sort of the rural
suburbia pattern for separation of uses. She said it may be time to look at what that
undisturbed thing means as opposed to planting and distance – what is the appropriate
distance for plantings to either screen or buffer which is less than a screen or to obscure
things. She said it may be some relevance in relooking at that, but the distance for the
setbacks was not something we were able to accomplish.
Ms. Firehock said she would concur with maybe looking into that question of what is
that buffer made up of and she would note that in my experience in looking at a number
of applications where people have said they would screen something the most common
thing they picked was Leyland Cyprus, which then dies ten years later. She said it is
picked up as a screening plant, and then it dies out. Even looking at the quality of what
is being chosen and recommending things that are long lived so that the point of the
buffer is not gone in 10 or 15 years. She said if we go there later on in a different
process, she would like more thought on that mix of things.
Mr. Keller pointed out to Andrew that he thinks that term “undisturbed” has gotten us
into some interesting questions in terms of steep slopes and so he would encourage
him to add undisturbed as much as buffer. He said he would not dare to go to steep
slopes at this point, but the undisturbed versus managed on that again is another one of
these interesting things that maybe we over time could clean that up to clearly define
what we mean by that. He asked staff to move on to question #4.
Mr. Newberry pointed out that question #4 was worded a little bit differently in the staff
report but it was getting at the Neighborhood Model principles and particularly the
proposed parking area at the front of the site and whether or not the Commission
believes that should be relegated.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
18
Mr. Lafferty asked if they put it at the back of the site if that would be very close to the
housing back there.
Mr. Newberry replied it would be closer to the residences.
Mr. Lafferty said he did not see much in the way of other possibilities right now.
Ms. Spain agreed with Mr. Lafferty that she did not see other options, but her only
concern is the size but would defer to others who know more about the daily traffic and
the parking needs of staff and visitors to the center.
Ms. Firehock said even the elevation lens are quite faint on the sketch and you can see
that there are many steep areas. Having been to the site many times Ms. Firehock said
she thinks if you were to try to relegate it to the back and actually work it out that would
require a lot of additional paving to get the access lane to the parking to wind all around
to get it to a spot where you could fit it. In the interest of not making the county more
impervious Ms. Firehock recommended leaving it where it is. Again, with her earlier
comments of trying to play with the variable space sizing and other things to make it
less impactful and landscaping to make it more attractive.
Ms. Riley said she did not think relegated parking in this situation is very practical and/or
necessary if we can maintain a good buffer with Berkmar Drive, which there seems to
be probably plenty of trees to do that. She said having visited the site yesterday there
was high activity and thinks there is some real argument for the function of people being
able to park and get in and out of that front entrance way without having to be hit by
cars in trying to go some other way.
Ms. More agreed with fellow Commissioners.
Mr. Dotson said he would like to see one particular alternative location explored before
it comes back and that would be an area that is on the northwest side of the entrance
drive. Having been out there today he could not see well but it looks like there is some
sort of fenced exercise facility or something. He did not know whether those might be
shifted up to the area of the proposed parking lot and they might have less impact on
the vegetation and the screening than the parking lot would so he would like to see that
explored. He thinks the whole issue, this is sort of stepping back from this proposal of
relegated parking is in fact an issue. Right across the street at the Signature Spa the
parking is rather obviously in front so an equity and consistency basis you could say
that is a rationale to do the same thing here. On the other hand, if we say that we will
never achieve relegated parking. He knows that Colonial Auto has raised the issue a
little further down Berkmar where they have an entrance on Berkmar and have sort of
told us how that land is used in the positioning of that building will be an issue at a point
in the future and it has been said by at least one supervisor that the question of uses,
setbacks and relegated parking along Berkmar should be studied. At one point, he had
thought it would be part of the small area plan, but it does not appear to be since the
small area plan is not getting into that. Therefore, every time we make a decision on
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
19
relegated parking we need to think about the precedential effect of it, but that is not
necessarily a controlling factor. However, in this particular instance Mr. Dotson said he
would like to see an exploration of shifting it back to that area that he indicated on the
upside of the drive.
Mr. Keller agreed with all the points. He asked Mr. Newberry if he needed any more
input from the Commission or applicant.
Mr. Newberry replied that he did not think so and thanked them for all the feedback and
thoughtful analysis of the site.
Mr. Keller thanked the folks from the SPCA for bringing a very positive project and for all
your good work in the community.
Committee Reports
Mr. Keller invited committee reports.
Mr. Dotson reported on today’s Residential Impact Fiscal Committee that Mr. Keller is
part. He said the Committee has been looking at a series of alternative tools that might
get at addressing fiscal impacts in one way or other. Today we talked about special use
permit procedures, special districts, and road impact fees that one jurisdiction in Virginia
is using. The committee decided today having looked at all the tools that they should be
put into a matrix so we can see comparatively on one sheet of paper the advantages,
disadvantages and where it is appropriate. The feeling of the committee at this point
was we are probably going to end up proposing to the Board multiple tools rather than
any one tool. The committee discussed impact fees and that it might be the fairest way
to address by right development and development that might require a rezoning or a
special use permit.
Ms. Firehock reported the Storm water Task Force will meet on September 11th at 4:30
p.m.
There being no further committee reports the meeting moved to the next item.
Old Business
Mr. Keller invited old business. Hearing none, the meeting moved to new business.
New Business
Mr. Keller invited new business.
Mr. Gast-Bray reported on scheduling for future meetings.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
FINAL MINUTES
20
Tim Keller said there will be no Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, September
12, 2017 and September 19, 2017. Mr. Keller said the next regular meeting will be on
Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.
There being no further new business, the meeting moved to adjournment.
Adjournment
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m. to the September 26, 2017
Planning Commission meeting at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, County
Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Andrew Gast-Bray, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission &
Planning Boards)
Approved by Planning
Commission
Date: 12-19-2017
Initials: sct