HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 30 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 30, 1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
March 30,1999 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were: Mr.
William Finley, Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. William Rieley; Mr.
Rodney Thomas; Mr. William Nitchmann. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning & Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms.
Susan Thomas, Senior Planner; Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineering. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -
Washington, Vice -Chairman.
A quorum was established with 6 of 7 members present.
Approval of Minutes — March 16,1999 and February 23,1999.
The minutes of March 16, 1999 were unanimously approved as amended; the minutes of February 23,
1999 were unanimously approved as presented.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda
The Chairman solicited unscheduled items from the public. None were offered, and the meeting
proceeded.
Consent Agenda — Highlands at Mechums River Phase 2B — Request to approve a Critical Slopes
Waiver and Open Space within area zoned Rural Area.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda.
CPA 97-05 Brass Inc. 1Willoughbyl — Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for property
consisting of approximately 53.89 acres located in Urban Neighborhood 4, described as Tax Map
76M(1), Parcels 2A and 2B, lying east of Fifth Street Extended (State route 631) and north of Interstate
64, within the Scottsville Magisterial District. The proposal seeks to change the designation of the area
from Industrial Service to Regional Service, to support the eventual rezoning from LI, Light Industrial,
to C-1, Commercial or PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center.
Mr. Finley announced that those intending to speak should sign-up on the sheet provided outside the
meeting room.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, noting that the request is for re -designation from Industrial
Service to Regional Service; the request is for one or more superstore establishments with associated
retail. The superstore will be a maximum of 210,000 square feet with 90,000 in associated retail; the
identity of the proposed retailers is not known to staff. Ms. Thomas indicated that this information has
never been a part of the request. She noted to Commissioners that four attachments have been provided
in addition to the four provided in the staff report that was previously presented when the item was
initially deferred, indicating that the new information is the result of various requests of Commission
members. Ms. Thomas informed them that staff had prepared two versions of language for the CPA —
language re -designating this site for Regional Service, and language re -designating the site for
Community Service as staff recommends. She submitted language prepared by staff and made it
available to the public (Attachment "A"), and noted letters from the public provided to Commissioners,
adding that she has received some telephone calls — six opposed to the project and two in favor of it.
197
Ms. Thomas reported that the Engineering Department (at the Commission's request) has prepared a
conceptual cross-section of the site and a conceptual layout, prepared by Glenn Brooks. Mr. Brooks
addressed the Commission, stating that he created his renderings with a topo map originating from Point
"A" (the Food Lion parking lot) and took a photo looking toward the site; from various plans the county
currently has (Lowe's, Wal-Mart, Sam's plans), he got an overall concept of what area the site would
take for a superstore and associated parking on the site, and transposed it in concept to the proposed site.
Mr. Brooks said he established Point `B" from I-64 and drew a line from there and from Point "A"
through the site to give a cross section to illustrate what the grading and layout would entail. He noted
that his drawings indicate how the site would be flattened and become a large parking and building
layout. He emphasized that he studied the topo to try to get "a reasonable balance" of what would be cut
and filled and graded, noting "with this concept, it pretty much takes the whole site."
Mr. Rooker asked how the footprint would change if the property would be developed under
Community Service instead of Regional Service. Mr. Brooks responded he would need something more
specific to make that assessment. Mr. Rooker asked what the total square footage of building would be
under Community Service; Ms. Thomas said that the maximum size per individual structure is 65,000,
with 250,000 maximum. She noted that, "we use Community Service for the mixed -use as sort of an
umbrella, and the idea was that there would be a residential component, a retail, and an office. So
there's an awful lot of flexibility in that still at this point." Ms. Thomas confirmed that 250,000 square
feet of Community Service retail would be the upward limit for retail under this designation if the site
were limited exclusively to commercial development.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that the footprint would change if mixed use were incorporated.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is anything under Community Service that requires that the buildings be
disconnected. "Could you develop an Albemarle Square type shopping center in a [Community Service]
area?" Staff confirmed that you could. Mr. Rooker asked, "Under the 65,000-foot limit per building
under Community Service, technically you could link together three buildings of 60,000 feet in the form
that you see in a typical strip shopping center, and that wouldn't violate the 65,000 square foot limit per
building?"
Mr. Benish replied, "As long as they were different uses."
Mr. Brooks said in that situation you could get by with more differences in grade for the building
footprints, but usually those uses tend to mix parking and use the same parking areas. "I would still
expect most of the site to be disturbed, but you would have more leeway on how much difference in
grade you could have between establishments."
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be possible, then, to have an Albemarle Square type shopping center or
Dart Drug (now Whole Foods center) under Community Service.
Mr. Benish said yes.
Mr. Rooker asked if a Fashion Square type facility would be possible, but Mr. Benish indicated that it
exceeds 250,000 square feet — it is roughly 500,000 square feet total, and the anchor stores probably
exceed 65,000 square feet each. Mr. Rooker asked if it would be possible to build a totally enclosed
"mall" under Community Service designation provided the square footage met the requirements. Mr.
Benish said theoretically, it would be possible to configure a design to address the maximum limits,
adding that, "What this is trying to do is set a cap on the character and scale of development. It's
I I R
certainly not a small scale, but doesn't take you to a super -regional type scale where you are at a half -
million square feet."
Mr. Rooker commented that the current proposal under Regional Service could reach 300,000 square
feet, and in Community Service the total square footage could approach 250,000 square feet with the
only significant difference being the size of the individual buildings versus one large building under
Regional Service. Mr. Benish agreed.
Mr. Finley asked how parking would differ with Community Service versus Regional Service. Mr.
Benish said the parking requirement would be based on the use itself, and whether it's a Planned
Development shopping center versus a straight Commercial Zoning for a particular use. Mr. Benish
said, "Theoretically, just because there's a cap on the size the potential for parking is also capped by the
maximum square footage; whereas, Regional Service allows for greater development and therefore,
more parking is required to support that. But there isn't any unique difference between parking
requirements for Community Service and Neighborhood Service."
Ms. Thomas added that with a mix of uses, there may be opportunities for complimentary parking, but
added that that would be more difficult if everything were of a retail nature. "The mix of uses, we hope,
might lend themselves to getting the most out of the parking."
Mr. Benish noted that staff s recommendations specifically address a desire to minimize to parking. He
stated that under the Regional Service category of the Comprehensive Plan, residential can be a
secondary use; for all categories except Industrial Service, staff recognizes the possibilities for mixed -
use development, so Commercial Districts end up usually apartments and attached housing as potential
secondary use. In this proposal, no residential was requested.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Brooks how he determined the amount of parking and grading shown on his
schematic drawing.
Mr. Brooks said he used parking areas from sites such as Lowe's, Wal-Mart and Sam's and used that as
a general square footage to match against the building square footage to form an estimate of what it
would take to serve the proposed 210,000 square foot building. He noted that, "there is a distinction
between those areas that are required by our ordinance, and the areas that sites of this nature typically
have, which are 150 to 100 percent more than what the Zoning Ordinance requires. And that's generally
true for all these large department store sites." He added, "I couldn't get as much parking as Lowe's had
on their site, but almost." Mr. Brooks said his drawing shows 120% if what the code requires, whereas
the typical Lowe's or Wal-Mart would be 150 — 200% of what the code requires. "They generally just
like more parking at their stores."
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant had indicated where the soccer field — which the applicant had
mentioned would be proffered — would be located, and asked if, given the scheme presented for building
and parking, there would be space for such a field. Mr. Brooks said it was proposed in the floodplain,
and would still be available taking his schematics into account, but added that the county's water quality
measures are recommending that the buffers remain undisturbed. Mr. Rooker asked if there would be
room for the greenway space around the streams — as the applicant had agreed to proffer — given the
parking and building scheme presented. Mr. Brooks responded that there would be, noting that "the site
itself is all occurring up higher on the ridge than the floodplain areas, so it should still all be available
for these kinds of things."
Mr. Rieley commented that the top of the knoll has some huge trees — spruce and oaks — and asked Mr.
Brooks if there is a way, given the amount of grading to be done, to spare some of these trees.
1?9
Referencing a site map presented, Mr. Brooks answered that on the southern side, there is a possibility
of saving trees around the property line near the floodplain; for the rest of the site, it would probably not
be possible "given this magnitude of impact."
Mr. Rooker commented that the staff proposed language to the Comprehensive Plan to Regional Service
addresses breaking up the parking area with plantings and stated that staff s suggestions to address
aesthetics and environmental concerns in both possible changes to the Plan are "exceptionally well done
and helpful." He then asked Mr. Brooks if the applicant could meet code, have a building of this
potential magnitude and still meet the requirements that staff has put forth in the CPA language.
Mr. Brooks responded, "this is just general areas. It's taking into account parking islands typically 5 to
10 feet wide spaced along the parking lot... those things will be in the parking area... as far as breaking
them up further than what you see in a parking lot that meets code now — it would be challenging from a
design perspective because you are limited by code in that you have to have spaces that serve your
building within 500 feet... trying to keep it all around the building is challenging if your also trying to
break it up."
Mr. Loewenstein asked what percentage of the hill would have to be "modified" in order to create a
scheme similar to what Mr. Brooks presented. Mr. Brooks responded that it would be difficult to assess
the volume but added, "generally speaking I could see cuts as much as 20-feet and fills about the same
along the edges." Mr. Loewenstein asked what percentage of the total developable site coverage would
require earth moving and redistribution of the ground. Referencing the site map presented, Mr. Brooks
said that all areas would be disturbed except those beyond the loop road that goes back to the furniture
warehouse and the area between the pond and the creek.
Mr. Rooker asked how that estimate would change if the property were developed as Community
Service.
Mr. Brooks responded, "It all depends on the volume [if] you're talking about the square footage and the
parking required... if it's the same, I wouldn't envision that much difference. It would have a different
look and feel, but as far as disturbance, it would probably be similar."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if it would be more difficult to design the site with a number of different large
stores because of the requirement for each large 60,000 square foot store to have its own loading docks,
dumpster facilities, etc. He said, "I don't know where you'd save a lot in grading, because you're going
to have to accommodate those roads and those paths for those [stores]."
Mr. Brooks responded, "It would be more complicated." He added that it would depend on the uses,
how they are laid out, etc.
Mr. Loewenstein commented, "In any scenario, very significant quantities of earth are going to be
disturbed."
Mr. Brooks said, "Sure. One of the things to keep in mind also... the trees on this site are fairly tall in
places, so the hill looks — when you look at it from 5th Street — bigger than it is, because of all those trees
on it."
Mr. Rooker asked, "If the applicant were to build a 200,000 square foot light industrial building on the
property today, under the current zoning which is permitted... and he were to put in the requisite amount
of parking necessary for that building, would you see any substantial difference between the footprint
for that type of building and the footprint for the proposed Regional Service use."
110
Mr. Brooks responded, "I wouldn't see any difference in the footprint of the building. The parking, I
think, would be much reduced, for an industrial type use."
Mr. Nitchmann commented, "That's not necessarily so. If it's a large-scale distribution center for a
publisher, for instance, it could take the same scale because there's no maximum in Light Industrial
what size the building could be." He cited an example of a large industrial building in Orange County,
stating, "Under the by -right use, you could end up with the same type of scenario we're talking about
here, with actually no abilities to do a lot of things that would permit us to do under this rezoning
application."
Mr. Brooks said, "That's a good point. In my experience, because there's no maximum, we see a lot of
those areas taken up as storage yards, loading docks, places to park trucks... the amount of parking the
county would require for the public would be a lot less."
Mr. Benish added, "It would depend significantly on industrial use. An industrial use with shift work
may have less requirements because of the shift work — it may have more because of the overlap of
shifts and how labor-intensive it is. Generally speaking, are parking requirements are less for industrial
than they are for commercial. But it really depends on the operation."
Ms. Thomas added, "The industrial use is less likely to want more parking than what's required,
probably, than the large scale commercial use."
Mr. Finley asked if it were by -right industrial if there would be any stream restoration, greenways, or
soccer fields.
Ms. Thomas replied that there would certainly not be a soccer field, but the water protection ordinance
would apply just as it does to the proposed project. She added that staff would hope to get cooperation
in terms of a greenway, which in most cases is going to be floodplain area that's not developable.
Mr. Nitchmann said under the water protection ordinance, a developer under the by -right use would not
be required to restructure the stream, but would just be required to protect it from run-off.
Mr. Benish responded that they would just be required to meet the minimum provisions of the
ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said that if the current proposal were granted, the county could require stream protection
measures that exceed those required by the ordinance.
Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to expand on the statement under both sets of proposed language that
"principles of sustainable design will be incorporated to a significant extent in site development."
Ms. Thomas said that the concept is not currently within any of the county regulations, but was intended
to suggest that where there's a choice between a couple of different ways of doing things — particularly
in light of the water resources on the site — staff would hope that the choice that created less impacts and
less in the way of long-term costs would be chosen, whether it's breaking up or minimizing parking, or
trying to develop complimentary parking, or the way in which the building is designed, use of natural
light in the building, etc. "The applicant has a lot to do with how that gets implemented, but it's to
suggest that there's a better way than what we've seen in past development... "
1 '; 1
Mr. Loewenstein commented, "So the degree to which design might be affected by those issues could
also affect the engineering approaches, too." (Building orientation, land grading to address reduced
impervious coverage, building materials.)
Mr. Nitchmann asked, "Who would define these principles of sustainable design. Staff?"
Ms. Thomas said staff would probably need some education on that, and possibly the Board would want
to look into that in more detail before they adopted any final form of language, and staff could explore
with the Board and the applicant what could be done.
Mr. Benish added that the private sector is doing this in some situations. "There are major retailers who
have environmentally -friendly structures that they've used in other communities. We're not starting
from ground zero, but I think we would as a county need to articulate more specifically what our
expectations are... we need more definition of what we need by sustainable."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I think certainly the characteristics of this site lend themselves to this approach,
very definitely."
Mr. Rieley said, "No matter which direction we go, whether it's Community Service or Regional
Service, these are issues that are pertinent, and I think we should put as many on the table as we can at
the Comprehensive Plan level."
Mr. Rooker noted that the general language, if adopted for either proposal, would be to provide the
county with the background to evaluate a specific zoning request including whatever proffers might
accompany the request to see if it meets the general guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan language,
which contains significant environmental protection language and aesthetic protection language. "If
either of these are adopted, we are going to be able to look at the principles here in terms of analyzing
any prospective request for rezoning to determine whether or not it meets those general principles. And
the applicant might be able to meet those principles in a number of different ways."
Mr. Benish added, "Or he may find in a particular case he may not be able to meet one, and we find after
analysis at the rezoning that that may be — for whatever reason — [acceptable]. But this sets the
expectations for the rezoning that you would have on this site."
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be possible for the Commission to turn down a rezoning request because it
didn't meet the principles set out in the Comprehensive Plan for that area.
Mr. Kamptner responded, "Yes."
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Brooks if he took a rough measurement of the additional impervious area in the
scheme. He replied that he had, but did not have those figures with him. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Brooks,
"In a wooded hillside, with these kind of slopes and these kinds of soils, what would you say that a
coefficient of runoff would be?" Mr. Brooks responded that roughly 30% of the water the lands on the
site will have to be dealt with as runoff. Mr. Rieley commented that there would be about three times
the runoff if the area were developed as in the schematic. Mr. Brooks agreed.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were ways to minimize this runoff.
Mr. Brooks responded that there are engineering ways to ameliorate the effects of the runoff, such as a
pond serving as a central collection point for detention, then slow release into the floodplain area.
Mr. Brooks said that engineering can ameliorate 60 — 70% of the effects, but there will still be effects.
Mr. Rieley commented that the additional amount of impervious surface that is added to a site,
particularly developments of this magnitude, has a significant impact. "Our current ordinances do not
deal with it when it gets above a ten-year storm."
Mr. Rooker asked what the difference would be in the impervious runoff if the site were developed
Regional Service or Community Service as opposed to Industrial. He added that the Commission
discussed with David Hirschmann recommendations for additional measures to protect water quality,
and wondered if the difference in the designation of the property could be adequately dealt with by the
measures that Mr. Hirschmann recommended.
Mr. Brooks indicated that there is traditionally not a lot of difference, and the measures Mr. Hirschmann
has recommended help, although have not be implemented very often in Albemarle. "We're getting
there."
Mr. Thomas asked what would have to be done downstream on Moore's Creek to ward off flooding and
overrunning the banks — whether the property is Industrial or Regional or Community Service.
Mr. Brooks said he wouldn't recommend too many measures except fixing some bank erosion problems.
"We can help it at certain points — a bridge crossing here, a culvert there."
Mr. Rieley asked if Mr. Brooks' study required that there be grading on critical slopes. Mr. Brooks
responded that yes, on the perimeter of the site: around the front and in back of the building, and around
the pond. Mr. Brooks added, "There is a large flat section at the top of this hill, and a lot of areas that
have already been graded for the previous use that was approved for this property... it's not a pristine
natural slope. There is a section in the front that has a lot of rocks and large trees, but it's expected that
you would have to disturb a lot of that."
Mr. Rooker asked if the building as illustrated in Mr. Brooks' schematic would be visible from I-64.
Mr. Brooks responded that you would see it in the winter, but probably not in the summer.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was room left in his schematic for "substantial stormwater management
facilities." Mr. Brooks replied that he left the existing pond on the site and added, "I think if you could
leave a large pond area like that, that would be a valuable asset."
Mr. Rooker asked about the unbuilt residential capacity in Neighborhood Four if it were built out to its
maximum permitted extent, and how many more housing units could go into Neighborhood Four.
Mr. Benish said Neighborhood Five, which is more directly served by the proposed development, has
450 acres of land designated for residential use, showing between 1,800 and 4,500 units possible,
stating, "There is a fair amount of capacity... you also have to consider the issue about overall residential
capacity for all of our development areas was a driving issue in the review of the Land Use Plan. This
neighborhood happens to be one that does have some inventory in it — in part because there is some
significant land area that simply hasn't been on the market for development, and has sat designated for
development for a number of years. Overall... our undeveloped residential land area — what we
estimated during the Land Use Plan... [is] a 5 to 10 year capacity left to accommodate the future growth
that we anticipate over the next 20 years. We see that in order to avoid continuing to expand the growth
areas, we need to try to better utilize those lands we have designated, but we do recognize that we are
kind of running out of land overall in the county that's designated. This community... does have some
capacity, but there isn't much left north of town..."
�z�
Mr. Benish added that Neighborhood Four has 588 acres available that has a minimum capacity of 2,000
units and a maximum of 5,000. "Practical development is going to be toward the low to middle range of
that."
Mr. Loewenstein asked about the concentration of existing densities in that neighborhood, and how the
currently undeveloped land fits into that from a geographical perspective.
Mr. Benish answered that the concentration of development is now in the Old Stagecoach
Road/Lynchburg Road corridor in the county; there is an entire city neighborhood quadrant just north of
the river. "This is central to that existing development, including the southern city neighborhoods and
that existing development, but the 5 h Street corridor extends all the way down... [to the polo grounds].
As that growth area builds out to its southern edge, then you're going to have several miles in the edge
of that residential area."
Mr. Rooker asked how much commercial development exists in two neighborhoods that would be
served by the proposed development.
Mr. Benish replied that in Neighborhood Four there are 12 acres of remaining land — next to the land
under construction for a shopping center — at the corner of Avon Street and the connector road; there are
now 35 developable acres in the Southpoint development that are designated Community Service, which
also recommended consideration for residential as a component. Mr. Benish clarified that there are two
Community Service areas within each district; within the city there are small-scale community service
areas.
Mr. Rooker said that staff s recommendation for Community Service includes language that
recommends 1/3 of the property be developed residential, and mentioned the mixed -use development in
Crozet. He asked staff if there are any comparable places in the state where a retail area has been
required to incorporate as much as 1/3 residential and whether or not this had been successful.
Mr. Benish replied that there are similar situations in urban settings as large-scale Planned
Developments that break up in this fashion; he added that what's unique about the Brass, Inc. situation is
more of an "infill setting" — a small constrained site that the county has put some clear expectations are.
Mr. Benish said that throughout the U.S. there are emerging examples of the mixed -use concept.
Mr. Rooker said, "It made sense to do what we did in Crozet. It's substantially distant from downtown
Charlottesville, and enabled the creation of kind of a community center/town center type feel for a
property that is a long ways from downtown. There may be other sites that are like that....I'm a little
concerned about whether or not when you start out with a development that's maybe 1 '/Z miles from
downtown Charlottesville on a 50-acre piece of property whether or not it will make commercial sense
to anyone to develop that in an urban fashion, when it would seem to me that a lot of people that might
want to live in that setting can go a mile and a half down the road and experience the real thing and live
in downtown Charlottesville."
W. Benish responded that staff feels this is the "natural emergence" of that expanding area and staff
would like to see there is at least an attempt to try to address that style of development that is
characteristic of downtown; perhaps that's a logical extension into this area — as reasonable as traditional
style of development. He said that staff is finding in their research of the other CPA process is that
mixed -use development needs to be looked at in two fashions: how to mix in immediate service into
residential and how to introduce mixed -use in a service/commercial center. Mr. Benish said there are
plans underway in Northern Virginia, Prince William, Occoquan, Chesterfield and James City counties
iza
(commercial corridors). He added that he is unsure of any situation where the traditional big-box/retail
component has been mixed in with residential.
Mr. Rooker wondered if this proposal is being looked at in isolation in that it is surrounded by
`i*. , residential development with little or no commercial development. "If you introduce a commercial
development and properly integrate it with transportation, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, are you
not then creating a larger community that in effect includes both commercial and residential
components... "
Mr. Benish said, "It's what DISC is struggling with right now: when you apply these standards, do you
apply them by site or by general planning area. I think what we see here is a way to provide the
property owner an ability to have more flexibility for development, but that addresses some of the land
use demands that we have for residential, for employment opportunities... and also addressing some
opportunities for commercial; and in doing that in a pattern of development we'd like to achieve and
addressing some of the concerns of the development of the site might be better mitigated by that mix."
Mr. Rooker asked, "Are we looking at it in too small a scope? Are we singling out this 50-acre piece of
property and treating it like it's a community, as opposed to recognizing that that 50-acre site is part of a
larger community?"
Mr. Benish responded, "I think we're seeing that this pattern of development may be best suited for this
site to address some of the concerns we have and also addressing some of our bigger issues. —But I
think we feel comfortable that this is probably the best way we can address some of those site
constraints and some of those concerns about bulk and mass and also to address our residential needs
and desires to have employment opportunities."
,a4*,,,, Mr. Rooker asked if any discussions had taken place with the applicant regarding Community Service
designation, and if the applicant is interested in pursuing a plan under that designation in the event the
Comprehensive Plan is so changed.
Ms. Thomas said that the applicant has not indicated to her a desire for anything other than Regional
Service, and she has not directly asked them about Community Service versus Industrial. "I think very
strongly their preference is Regional Service. We haven't gone beyond that in our discussions."
Mr. Rieley asked if that [asking about alternatives] was a normal part of Comprehensive Plan revision.
Mr. Cilimberg said it is not, and added that one of the things that is in the application filled out for a
CPA by any applicant is the understanding that they are requesting a change to the plan for a use that
they may be interested in, but has to be put within the context of the overall uses in the area and what is
good for the overall area and in the Comprehensive Plan. "There have been changes in the Comp Plan
that have not necessarily been that asked for by applicants."
Mr. Cilimberg noted the very large crowd, which was overflowing the meeting room, and announced
that there have been concerns from the people outside about how well they can hear what's going on and
participate. He mentioned the list of people signed up to speak, containing about 40 names, and stated
that those people are inside and outside the meeting room. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that the Commission
was unable to secure the auditorium for the meeting because the municipal band is using it in
preparation for a concert. He suggested that the Commission might open the hearing at the meeting and
receive comments, and then continue the hearing to another date for those people who want to speak at
that time in the larger auditorium setting. Mr. Cilimberg said that the auditorium would be available
April 27'h .
1 15
Mr. Loewenstein said the Commission would need time to "digest public input" anyway, and hoped that
no final action would be taken at this meeting, but at the future meeting date.
Commissioners agreed that the public hearing should be opened, and continued on April 27`h in the
auditorium.
Mr. Rooker said, "I think we should allow the public to participate in a more comfortable setting... "
Prior to the public hearing beginning, Mr. Rieley stated: "My landscape architecture firm is under
contract with the City of Charlottesville to study alignment alternatives for the proposed extension of
McIntire Road through McIntire Park, and for master planning of the park itself. My firm was hired in
September of 1998; more recently the Brass proposal for Comprehensive Plan Amendment has come
under criticism from several city officials. I just want to make clear that no action by this body on this
issue will either hurt or benefit my business, personal or financial interests in any way. I also want to
make clear that there is nothing in my professional association with the city that would color my
objectivity in this matter. I will, therefore, participate in the discussion and the action, if there is any."
Mr. Finley opened the public hearing with the understanding that it would be continued to April 27 h.
The applicant's representative, Steve Blaine, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Blaine said, "The matter is quite simple. It's whether the land use designation should be changed
from Industrial to Regional Service. The applicant has not requested to develop the property for
Community Service. The Community Service recommendation came from staff— after 17 months in
this process —just about a month ago. And I think that's relevant to point out when we're making these
comparisons about impacts. The existing Industrial Designation at a. 3 FAR would yield a 700,000
square foot building as opposed to what's proposed under the recommended Regional Service
designation. We think the information that's been developed over these past 18 months in four
worksessions supports the Regional Service Designation."
Mr. Blaine continued, "One thing that should be clear from the information that has been developed is
the dominant role that Charlottesville/Albemarle play in the region in terms of regional sales... to
recognize what the growth trends are in the region, and those two factors are important to a
Comprehensive Plan decision. A clear and understandable indicator of the regional dominance of our
area in terms of a retail sales magnet are the indicators on per capita sales figures. The Charlottesville
MSA's average household annual per capita sales are 25% higher than the state average; in contrast the
localities around the Charlottesville MSA are at sales levels that are at or below state average.
Economists refer to that as `leakage'; simply what it means is more retail dollars are coming into our
MSA — our Charlottesville area — than what are going out."
Mr. Blaine stated that consumer surveys conducted by the applicant show that 45 — 48% of those polled
who shop at discount stores primarily on Route 29 live outside of Charlottesville/Albemarle and must
travel up 29 North to access these stores. He mentioned that most of these regions are growing rapidly,
which will prompt an increase from $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion in the next years — translating into
additional demand for 2.2 million square feet (or 240 acres) more retail space. Mr. Blaine referenced a
map of the Willoughby site provided to the Commission that shows the relevant likely market area for
the proposed development. "Those 48% of shoppers who come from outside the area who live in these
localities Nelson, Southern Albemarle, Fluvanna — are currently shopping on 29 North, coming either
through the city or on the bypass. What the Willoughby site provides is an interceptor for those
116
consumers at the interchange. What that means from the Comprehensive Plan standpoint is that
you're... taking full advantage of a transportation corridor for regional use at that interchange."
Mr. Blaine says the applicant has been using the Charlottesville MSA to define "the area."
Mr. Blaine continued that staff has anticipated the fiscal benefits from the proposed project would be
approximately $845,000 annually; he mentioned that there has not been a fiscal impact analysis of the
proposed Community Service designation. "If we take our experience on residential use, that typically
translates to a negative fiscal impact."
Commenting on the "Shields Report" which predicts that this development will close city businesses,
Mr. Blaine emphasized that there is "simply no evidence from our market studies or from the market
information that was provided by the county staff to support this whatsoever." He added that the sales
information submitted shows that city retail sales have remained steady despite the introduction of
discount stores over the past ten years such as Lowe's, Wal-Mart, and Sam's Club. Mr. Blaine
presented graphs reflecting this data, highlighting the per capita comparisons since 1990, which show a
trend line of increased per capita sales in the city simultaneous to the operation of the discount stores.
Mr. Blaine said, "If there's really a concern about competition with downtown businesses, then there
ought to be a concern about the staff s recommendation.... what the staff is recommending resembles the
uses in downtown." He added that there are "significant environmental benefits that may be captured
with the proposed project that couldn't be achieved under the existing by -right development." He
mentioned reports from county engineering and David Hirschmann, who has proposed measures that are
not currently required under the ordinance. Mr. Blaine said the applicant has agreed to implement these
measures, including a master stormwater management plan and streambank restoration; he stated that a
master unified plan would take into account the cumulative effect of impervious improvements that
piecemeal site planning that's occurred on adjacent tracts in the city will not address.
The applicant's engineer believes there are opportunities with the site to repair some of the damage to
the watershed and stream areas that have been caused by piecemeal development in the surrounding
area. "With an overall plan of development of the property, there's an opportunity to correct some of
the mistakes that have occurred on adjacent parcels. The applicant's engineer has also identified
significant unfiltered runoff in the area of the project that can be addressed with a regional or master
plan that would be proffered by this applicant."
Mr. Blaine concluded that Regional Service would offer community benefits, and said that they have
met with Willoughby and Ridge Street neighborhood residents.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was a more specific visual depiction of how the site might be built. Mr.
Blaine responded that they do have some renderings that give examples, but have not engineered a site
plan; he then presented drawings of the proposed layout. Mr. Blaine said the applicant could design a
site to include a soccer field, pedestrian walkways and greenways; he mentioned that the applicant
would orient the buildings so they would face away from adjacent residents. Mr. Blaine added that the
grading and tree -cutting impact from this proposal would be "about the same as the county's regional
jail project, and about 1/3 of the county's Monticello High School project."
Public comment was invited. Mr. Finley recognized speakers who had signed the posted list
(Attachment "B").
Ms. Miriam Rushfin, a North Garden resident, addressed the Commission. Ms. Rushfin said her family
was initially pleased at the possibility of a store in that location, but said "now I have a lot of concerns."
She explained that she felt this development is unnecessary, and possible detrimental to the community.
117
Ms. Rushfin said that she is concerned about the size of the store/supercenter, and added that if the store
is the same as what's north of town that "that's not being competitive and might be a stranglehold on
shopper's choices. I don't think a supercenter is necessary for my family or for my community."
"'*-e Mr. Alex Ziegler, speaking on behalf of a coalition representing local citizens and environmental groups
— including the Shenandoah Ecosystems Defense Group, the Appalachian Restoration Campaign, the
Charlottesville -Albemarle Bicycling Association, Sensible Transportation Alternatives to Meadowcreek
Parkway, and Student Environmental Action. Mr. Ziegler mentioned a number of studies already
presented to the Commission from around the country before and after the construction of "big box
developments." Mr. Ziegler stated that these studies show "a lot of negative impacts, including loss of
jobs. Some studies suggest for every job created in a big -box superstore, I'/z jobs are lost in the broader
geographical area. Another study in Vermont found that for every dollar of public benefit .... 2'/z dollars
would be loss in decreased tax revenue, lost jobs, and various other things." Mr. Ziegler continued that
staff has tried to assess the economic impacts of this project, and said that the applicant's projections are
"very much confined to the site." He continued that there has been "no serious look beyond the
resources of staff' at the economic impacts to the city and the broader geographical area. He asked
Commissioners to pursue "serious study with adequate resources — an objective study — of what this is
going to do to the drug stores, hardware stores, and other businesses in Charlottesville." He added that
the only way to do the study would be to identify the anchor store. "This is an enormous project going
right up against the border of the city. How can you know its impacts if you don't know what it is." Mr.
Ziegler presented a letter further explaining citizen concerns (Attachment "C").
Mr. David Crouch read a letter he prepared with his wife, which expressed their adamant opposition to
"any plan that would change the current zoning for this property and allow for a large superstore to be
built." Mr. Crouch continued that they "do not buy the argument that this development would be good
for those of us who live in the Southern and Western side of the County. Another Wal-Mart or K-Mart
or Target is simply not needed in this county." He said that the two superstores available are sufficient,
and stated that the proposed superstore is not that much closer to his home, eight miles west of town,
than the K-Mart. Mr. Crouch said if people from surrounding counties complain that the nearest
superstore is too far, "build [one] in their county instead." He added that these superstores eventually
lead to increased sprawl in the surrounding areas, and asked, "do we really want our county to look like
another Northern Virginia or Richmond." He said the shopping available along 29 North is more than
adequate for any person wanting to buy anything they could possibly want, and suggested keeping the
shopping along that corridor. Mr. Crouch concluded, "Let's preserve what we have left in the most
progressive means available."
Mr. Jim Hogan, a Scottsville resident for the past two years, addressed the Commission and said he
really supports the Willoughby concept. Mr. Hogan said he moved south because he wanted to avoid 29
North, but also wants to have the opportunity to shop downtown and have discount -shopping without
having to travel. "To me, it's a matter of location and convenience. And I see it's going to come
anyway, and I think that that area might be just the perfect place for it."
Mr. Deforest Miller, representing Citizens for Albemarle, read a prepared statement (Attachment "D")
Ms. Helena Deveraux, a resident speaking on behalf of the Board of Preservation — Piedmont, addressed
the Commission, voicing their opposition to the proposed change in designation. "A development of the
size and character proposed by Brass, Inc. is out -of -scale with the community's needs, and will promote
the cycle of urban sprawl which characterizes so many regions of this country." She said that they hope
instead the county will "take this opportunity to guide for a development which is better suited to the
needs of our community." She said Preservation Piedmont is concerned about the environment, and
would like to see the topography of the land treated respectfully, and the watershed of Moore's Creek
1'iR
protected. She added they are concerned about Monticello's viewshed, and about increased traffic along
city roads, especially along Ridge Street and the southern entrance to the city. Ms. Deveraux said the
tract could accommodate "a moderately -sized discount store, small scale retail space, and include
residential and open -space components." She added that the group would like a development that
wouldn't require severe grading and paving, and hopes the site will be developed in a way that will
ensure the community's economic viability while protecting its unique landscape and character.
Mr. Marshall Slayton, Vice -Chairman of the Charlottesville Planning Commission, speaking on their
behalf, addressed the Commission. He thanked County Commissioners for the "collaborative process"
over the past year, "You have been kind to include us, to ask our opinions, to listen to what we have to
say, and we trust that you will make a decision that is in the best interest of the entire community." Mr.
Slayton said city planners "stand by" the memorandums provided to the county in the past. He
addressed the question from the last worksession regarding the city's agreement to widen 5`h Street; Mr.
Slayton said there is no such commitment from the city, and are no plans to widen it. He added that the
city believes staff's recommendation for Community Service is "the appropriate use of the land." Mr.
Slayton said, "Community Service would serve the southern residents of Albemarle County. It would
provide an amount of development that is fitting and doable without destroying the environmental
benefits of Moore's Creek and the other areas." Mr. Slayton asked that the Commission deny the
application as made by the applicant, and approve the recommendation of county staff.
Mr. John Dean of Mountainwood Road, near the site, addressed the Commission. Mr. Dean said he is
very opposed to this project. "I'm not opposed to economic development... it's clear that land south of
the city is going to be developed. As you know, it's your job to be the visionaries here, to envision what
sort of development is best... for the whole community." Mr. Dean said the process is difficult in this
case because it is divided between the city and the county. He said the neighborhood is "an urban
neighborhood in the making," as there is a city street that comes directly in. "I see this area as a center
of economic activity down the street from downtown Charlottesville. What's wrong with that? I think
that to engage in a vision based on suburban sprawl on a vision of our built environment that came out
of the fifties is looking backwards. And if you build a Wal-Mart or anything like that in that site, you
are envisioning the fifties, and believe me, that's not going to work."
Mr. Paul Grady of Crozet read a prepared statement (Attachment "E").
Ms. Nancy Hurrelbrink of St. Clair Avenue — Charlottesville spoke to express her opposition to the
construction of a "big -box" megastore, stating that such a store would have a negative impact on the
City by taking away from locally -owned stores and contributing little to the community. She added that
these stores are known to import goods made with "sweat shop" labor, and mentioned two books
published in 1998 that document what "big -box" retailers do to communities: In Sam We Trust: The
Untold Story of Sam Walton and How Wal-Mart is Devouring America, by Bob Ortega of the Wall
Street Journal; and How Wal-Mart is Destroying America and What You Can Do About It, by Bill
Quinn, a Texas journalist. Ms. Hurrelbrink cited passages from Mr. Quinn's book, emphasizing that in
small towns where Wal-Marts have opened, 75% of small-town Mom & Pop stores - particularly
clothing, hardware, drug and variety stores, have had to close because they can't compete with Wal-
Mart. She added that Wal-Marts rarely, if ever, support downtown causes — the Chambers of
Commerce, churches, schools, or even banks, and described the operation of Sam's and Wal-Marts as
"all take, no give." Sharing information from Mr. Ortega's book, Ms. Hurrelbrink said Wal-Mart is the
largest retailer in the world, but consistently comes in last among major retailers in percentages for
charity donations. She added that at least 113 of all Wal-Mart workers earn less than $17,000 per year
and have no benefits; Wal-Mart is the biggest importer of Chinese goods, many of which are made in
sweatshops with child labor. Ms. Hurrelbrink reported that Wal-Mart has a policy of establishing itself
in a community, then abandoning a store to create a regional superstore, which has left 333 empty Wal-
11c)
Marts in the U.S., more than 20 million square feet of wasted space, not counting the acres of asphalt
parking lots! She concluded by saying there are already several empty stores in the area: Drug
Emporium at Seminole Square; a Farm Fresh at Barracks Road; Food Plus on River Road; and a Roses
at Pantops about to go out of business. She encouraged Commissioners to deny the proposal.
Mr. Nathan VanHeuser of High Street, Charlottesville, asked audience members opposed to the project
to stand. A large number of audience members stood.
Mr. David Wilson, representing the Soccer Organization of Charlottesville/Albemarle, addressed the
Commission. "I'm not here to comment on the overall good or bad of this project, but to comment on
the one aspect on it that we think is very good, and that's the proffer of a soccer field in that area. It's
something that's badly needed by the community, the sensitivity of the developer to that is appreciated,
and in your evaluation of whatever does go in here, I hope that you'll see that as one aspect that's
positive."
Mr. Stratton Salidis of Fontaine Avenue addressed the Commission, and encouraged the Commission to
not change the Comprehensive Plan. He described the "two visions of development at work": one
oriented toward making of money in the short-term for a few people; the other being more of a
community -oriented approach. Mr. Salidis said he has been very dismayed at the "uglification and
homogenization that's taken place" everywhere he's been in the U. S. He emphasized that
Charlottesville seems to be "a little better off in that sense that a lot of other places and I hope it stays
that way." He further encouraged creation of a diverse, pedestrian -oriented, mixed -use, compact
development with accessible green space instead of a homogenous one which tends to concentrate
wealth and leaves citizens of the future deprived of green space and a livable community. Mr. Salidis
said "we have an ever-expanding outer -ring of people trying to escape the consequences of
convenience."
Ms. Christina Wolf of Charlottesville addressed the Commission. She explained that she was born and
raised in Fairfax County, where she witnessed "nature being torn down" to build more highways, more
strip -malls, more convenient places for people fleeing Washington, D.C. Ms. Wolf said that coming
down route 29 into Charlottesville, she feared that the city would be the same, and was pleasantly
surprised to find that "there actually is a community here....the town has a center and it has a heart."
She warned Commissioners that Fairfax used to have a center and a heart, but doesn't any longer
because the entirety of the land around it is built up and the economics is based on a transitory
population. Ms. Wolf encouraged Commissioners to "say no" to this kind of development, adding,
"Charlottesville is really a jewel, and we don't need to sell ourselves short by encouraging this kind of
mega -retail store coming into our area."
Ms. Joanna Shipp, a resident of the Azalea Gardens in the City, said she spoke for a number of her
neighbors and her daughter of Buckingham County. "I heartily approve and support the idea of having a
Wal-Mart in the area. For those of us who are retired, it's very important to have places that you can
save money. I shop at Wal-Mart and Sam's, and I have to go all the way across town to do it. And it's
much easier to have one close by." Ms. Shipp said if people were to come to a Wal-Mart on 5t' Street,
they might come to the downtown area to shop. She added that she hopes the Commission will approve
it "with limitations on what can be done in the area."
Mr. Kevin Cox of Charlottesville, addressed the Commission, expressing concern that City Council
decided to denounce the proposal without giving city residents to comment publicly at hearing. Mr. Cox
said after the press conference on the Bent Creek Road Bridge, he put together a petition that he has
circulated and now contains over 700 signatures. Mr. Cox's petition said that the undersigned want a
discount store on 5th Street for "the shopping and employment opportunities it would create." He added
140
that when he was circulating the petition, he found out from residents that people want something on the
south and east side of town so they don't have to travel so far to shop. Mr. Cox encouraged
Commissioners to reject the Community Service designation "if you really want to protect small niche -
type business such as [those] on the downtown mall from competition, then don't approve something
that's going to be very similar... " He said he is getting a lot of support from working-class people, and
many expressed an interest in working at a store if it opens. Mr. Cox said a lot of people wanted to
come to the hearing, but were working a second job, had child care issues, etc.
Mr. Herb Stahl said he felt both proposals for development would be damaging. He said he is a member
of the Rivanna Trails Foundation. Mr. Stahl said that near his house across a stream is the Emmanuel
Lutheran Church, which has a parking lot with a drain and containment area. He reported that the drain
has been covered with debris, causing the runoff to go directly down the bank and into the stream. "I
think these plans for making the environment `relatively safe' last for several years... but this type of
development and the small church parking lot in my backyard lasts for thousands of years. Is it taken
care of for thousands of years? Obviously not." Mr. Stahl concluded that development of this scale will
cause a tremendous amount of damage to the ecosystem, and encouraged Commissioners to remember
that what they are doing lasts for thousands of years.
Ms. Jean Kolb, from south of Charlottesville, said she does not see any need for a superstore south of
town, adding that she is very concerned about the locally -owned stores in-between that would be
affected by this. Ms. Kolb said that planning staff has done a wonderful job, and urged Commissioners
to take their recommendation and redesignate the site for Community Service. She added that she
would like to see more of the site dedicated for residential, because as the growth areas fill in there will
be more pressure to extend them.
Ms. Babbette Thorpe read a statement on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council (Attachment
«F„
Mr. Tom Olivier of Schuyler, speaking for himself and his wife, said they strongly oppose the proposed
development because the big -box store is "much too large for local markets and may well damage, if
built, the economies of some of our adjoining localities." Mr. Olivier added that if the land use at the
site is to be changed, that it be amended to reflect the DISC Committee findings — a mixed -use with
small stores sufficient for the local markets and residential use.
Ms. Kay Slaughter of Charlottesville addressed the Commission complimented the Commissioners and
the county planning staff. Ms. Slaughter asked Commissioners to think "outside the box" on this
project, urging them to deny the Comprehensive Plan language for Regional Service and approve the
staff s recommendation. Or, she suggested developing further studies that consider the long-range
traffic impacts and economic & social desirability of big -box development, to be jointly funded by the
city and the county. Ms. Slaughter said giving developers and property owners the planning and zoning
that they want will lead to the type of sprawling commercial development along Route 29. "The Brass,
Inc. project will only exacerbate the strip -development that is beginning on 5t' Street extended." Ms.
Slaughter addressed three "myths" about the project, stating that (1) the proposed development will not
relieve traffic on 29 North as there are stores that will continue to draw traffic up 29 regardless; she said
the Brass, Inc. project could dislocate at least one mega -store (Wal-Mart), leaving an abandon big -box
shopping center, mentioning such situations in Tidewater, etc., (2) people would want to live in housing
near smaller shopping, citing examples behind Fashion Square such as Branchlands, and (3) proffers
will not provide the environmental and aesthetic benefits for the community: "you can dress it up, you
can mitigate some damages, but you can eliminate them all — the traffic, the possibility of long-term
economic dislocation, and the massive nature of more big -box development.
141
Ms. Bryna Dunn of Redfields spoke out in opposition of any zoning change that would allow Regional
Service to be built along 5"' Street, explaining that she is not opposed to development in general along
5`h Street. She said, "I would like to see the county grow a unique character that attracts visitors and
residents alike. I would like to see the county grow a strong and stable workforce. And I would like to
see the county grow tight -knit communities where neighbors walk around and chat and look out for
eachother." Ms. Dunn expressed concern that big -box development will only hasten the trend of
asphalt, strip malls, and air pollution that "suck the life" out of a beautiful and vibrant downtown — a
downtown that is integral to the economy and appeal of Albemarle County. She said that any big -box
built along 5t' Street will steal business from local businesses and export "hard-earned dollars" to a
company that "couldn't care less about our community." Ms. Dunn said big -box development will only
provide low -wage jobs for county residents, increase automobile dependency, and cause more
destruction of the county's natural habitat. She continued that she would like to see a pedestrian -
oriented mixed -use community with sidewalks, cornerstores and greenspaces. Ms. Dunn concluded that
she wants to know that a strip -development isn't going to degrade the investment she and her husband
made in the county, and asked Commissioners to consider the future of their children and grandchildren.
Mr. Wyatt Johnson of Charlottesville addressed the Commission, and told them that he is in favor of
development of the site, because he lives close to the site and cannot drive, and could walk to the stores
to shop. Mr. Johnson said his present situation requires that he ride the bus out to 29, and many
residents of his area are in favor of stores to be built in the area — whether they are big or small.
Mr. Michael Erwin of Keswick addressed the Commission, stating he is opposed to the proposal because
he moved from the Baltimore area where he witnessed tremendous development cause quality of life to
diminish significantly. He said he was attracted to Charlottesville's beauty, and would like to keep it
that way. Mr. Erwin said as a professional ecologist, he is very concerned about riparian corridors,
wetlands, and rivers, and questions the applicant's claim of sustainability and mitigation because "they
don't work" for the long-term. He referenced a paper entitled, "Environmental Decision -making and the
Tierny of Small Decisions," emphasizing to Commissioners that although the decisions are made one at
a time, the overall effect is a dramatic one.
Ms. Susan McGinnis of Forest Hills addressed the Commission, stating that the area has been
"underserved" in terms of access to grocery stores, etc. She said that she shops at big -box stores
because "it makes a lot of sense" to buy there for her three children. Ms. McGinnis asked
Commissioners to be careful to not be condescending to south side Charlottesville and Fluvanna, etc. to
make them "pay for the sins of 29 North." She added that the stretch of land has a Hardee's, a pancake
house, etc., and is "hideous." Ms. McGinnis added, "It just really couldn't get any worse. It's a shame
that it couldn't have been developed in a beautiful way... downtown, you really can't shop there
anymore — it's a tourist haven... but since Woolworth's is gone, you really can't shop there." She
mentioned that people coming to the big -box to shop would go downtown for lunch, ice-skating, etc.
"We have plenty of small, neighborhood shopping centers on Cherry Avenue that are vacant... " Ms.
McGinnis concluded that "we don't need industrial development on that site."
Mr. Al Weed of Nelson County addressed the Commission. He stated that he has served on the Thomas
Jefferson Sustainability Council, and has been working near Esmont recently. "I'm both amazed and
disturbed by the almost continuous flow of traffic from 64 to Scottsville. There is no doubt that growth
is happening to the south." He said that large shopping areas will require better roads to service them,
and better roads will encourage people to commute greater distances. Mr. Weed said that as a Nelson
resident, he is perfectly happy with the shopping available in the area, and finds it hard "to balance yet
another opportunity to buy cheap products made by sweat labor in China with the threat of my county
being transformed in the way Greene and Fluvanna have been." He added, "If you have the courage
tonight to say `no' to a mega -store, you'll be faced very soon with another threatening proposal, and
lad
then one after that." Mr. Weed encouraged Commissioners to turn this proposal down, concluding that
"when the history of our region is written, the members of this Commission who served at the critical
decision points that led to 29 North and Pantops will have to share the blame. You all have a chance to
be remembered favorably. What happens in the Route 20 and 29 South corridors happens on your
watch, Your constituency is not this group of persuasive developers, but the people of this threatened
county and those of us who count on you to guard the urban/rural balance that makes our life the joy that
it is."
Mr. Bill Smith, an Albemarle County resident, addressed the Commission, stating that if there were a
"standard -size" K-Mart type store, "it would greatly reduce traffic on 29 North and it would greatly
reduce traffic cutting across the city from the south side." Mr. Smith said that I-64 will provide
outstanding service to the site, instead of cutting through to go up 29 North. He added that a discount
store would not compete with the stores downtown, but with those on 29 North. Mr. Smith expressed
displeasure at speakers who have only lived in the area for a few years yet "wax nostalgic," and stated
that a development would be a good idea for business and tax revenue.
Mr. Lee Danielson of Albemarle County, owner of several businesses in the downtown area, addressed
the Commission, stating that "things can work and will work over a period of time given good planning
and good thought process." Mr. Danielson said there is no threat to the downtown area from the
development of a discount store because the downtown area is a "boutique" and entertainment area, and
"this particular project does not threaten that at all." He added that staffs Community Service
recommendation would be a threat to businesses downtown because it would entail capital coming in at
a smaller level and would compete with smaller existing businesses. Mr. Danielson said by -right
development of the site would allow for unlimited parking and unlimited resources depending on the
final use of its industrial nature. "I believe tremendously in choice, and the choices of having this ability
for the residents of the southern region of Albemarle County seems to me to make an awful lot of
sense." He concluded that while nobody likes big -boxes, we are living in a "24-hour" a day society.
Ms. Mary Rice of Crozet addressed the Commission, said she has commuted to the downtown mall for
the last 11 years, and asked the Commission to consider how the county will be left to our children and
grandchildren. "We live in a beautiful area, and I don't want it to look like everywhere else." She
added that with "creative planning" there could be something worked out to provide those residents who
need it with adequate shopping.
Mr. Maurice Cox of Charlottesville City Council addressed the Commission. He thanked
Commissioners for their thoroughness in exploring the request. Mr. Cox said that the development of 29
North must have had similar roots to the decision being made on the Brass, Inc. project, where one
decision can lead to big changes. "The planning that created 29 North was a failure, and in fact has cost
this community millions and millions of dollars — taxpayer money to widen 29 because of congestion,
the proposal of a bypass to get around the congestion, the proposal of the Meadowcreek Parkway.
Everything because 20 years ago a Planning Commission decided to unleash a big box in Albemarle
County on 29 North." He added, "I find it quite disturbing that we are here twenty years later offering
up the same solutions that created the problem. It cannot solve the problem if it is the generator and the
creation of the problem." Mr. Cox asked Commissioners to deny the request, and emphasized that their
decisions "weigh very heavily" on the City Council, because with the building of Meadowcreek the line
down the center of the community will connect the county growth area to the north to a regional
destination point to the south. "Your decision will effect our decision." He added that the notion of
creating community services for the southern side is appropriate and necessary, but the scale of this
development "is not what our residents are asking for." Mr. Cox indicated that he is speaking on behalf
of the Council.
141
Commissioners agreed that they wanted to digest the public input given, and hear more public input
prior to discussing the item in depth.
Commissioners complimented staff on their extensive work on the proposal, and noted that the input
from the public has been very useful.
Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded continuing the public hearing on CPA 97-05 to April
27th at 6:00 p.m. in the auditorium. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Benish noted that the information regarding residential development comes from the Land Use Plan
(p.32 — Land Use Table), and indicated that he subtracted the 45 acres from the Southpoint Development
that was Urban Density Residential.
Mr. Nitchmann indicated that he would like to hear the applicant's response to public concerns, and
asked staff to project how many households could be built in the area/district where the CPA is proposed
— specifically the properties on the east side of Route 20 South and the property off of Old Lynchburg
Road. Mr. Benish indicated he could obtain some previously presented staff reports on Land Use Plan
review. Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern over an issue raised in the public hearing: the possibility that
the Wal-Mart on 29 North might close if a new superstore is built, and asked if there would be "sunset
laws" applicable if that occurred.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimber
Secretary
144