HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 31 1998 PC MinutesM
3-31-98
MARCH 31, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on Tuesday, March
31, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William
Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Dennis
Rooker; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of
Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Susan Thomas,
Planner; Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant
County Attorney.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m., in Room
214 of the County Office Building.
WORK SESSION -.Development Departments' Roundtable - Information meeting
[NOTE: There is no tape recording for the 5:00 to 6:30 portion of the meeting.]
Presentations were made by three County development offices as follows-
(1) Mr. Ben Blankenship, Development Review Manager, reviewed revisions to
the administrative process for review of final site plans.
(2) Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, reported on the status of the
development of a Design Standards Manual. He presented the recommendations of
the Focus Group for the "Purpose and Intent" and "Table of Contents" portions of the
manual.
(3) Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, presented draft amendments to the site
plan regulations (Section 32.0 of the Zoning Ordinance) which would codify the
administrative approval process and bring the Ordinance into compliance with the
Code of Virginia. The draft also included changes of an editorial to delete outdated
references, update agency names and delete/change items to be shown on plans.
Questions were invited during each presentation.
Commission and public comments on each presentation included the following:
Final Site Plan Process
--Mr. Nitchmann asked if the preliminary site plan is being done properly. He
cited a letter related to the preliminary process dated 10 years ago. (The letter was
included in the Commissioners' packets.)
--Mr. Finley asked who makes up the checklist which is a part of the preliminary
approval letter, and is it specific enough?
--Mr. Steve Runkle, a local developer, said the main problem is not with the
routine approval process, but rather with the difficulty in getting direction on specific
items, such as a traffic study. It is difficult to find out exactly what kind of information
,:�aI
3-31-98 2
is expected from a traffic study. He said he thinks these changes will make it easier
to identify who is delaying the approval process.
--Mr. Don Franco, an engineer employed by a local developer, said he agrees
the most significant problems are in the later stages of the approval process, but he
also believes there are problems with the pre -submittal meeting. There is no process
which puts some of the other agencies involved in the process (such as VDOT) on
any kind of time line. He felt the preliminary "asks for too much up front." Also, the
preliminary process does not work well with the ARB review.
--Mr. Tice asked if VDOT will be able to meet the 2-week turn -around time. Mr.
Kelsey said VDOT has a good turn- around for most items, with the exception of
detailed traffic studies.
--Mr. Rooker asked at what point a determination will be made that a traffic
study is required. Mr. Kelsey said traffic studies are required on complicated
proposals, such as a rezoning. The need for a traffic study is identified at the
preliminary plan stage. Mr. Rooker said it sounds as though the problem may be that
the need for a traffic study may not be identified until late in the process. Mr. Kelsey
said the problem is more in what is required in a study.
--Mr. Rooker asked if there anything that can be done to speed up the VDOT
process in terms of traffic study requirements. Mr. Keeler said staff can encourage
VDOT to get the parameters defined at the beginning because in sorne of the
comments it is never really clear whether they have approved a study. Staff is still
working on this issue.
Design Standards Manual
--Mr. Finley asked if drawings and cross sections will be included in the manual.
Mr. Kelsey said drawings will be included for those items which are county standards
and are not referenced elsewhere. Graphics will be used as much as possible.
--Mr. Tice asked how the manual will be adopted. Mr. Kelsey said it will be
adopted by the Board of Supervisors as a Design Standards Manual to supplement all
other ordinances. Mr. Tice asked if changes will require approval of the Board. Mr.
Kelsey said a section will address needed revisions. Mr. Tice asked if there will be a
discussion at the beginning of each section regarding "integration with each other."
Mr. Kelsey responded affirmatively. Mr. Tice said it will help if there is a discussion of
how some of these things can work together to achieve certain objectives.
--Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about Mr. Tice's suggested "interweaving"
of documents. He recalled how the idea of a Design Manual had first arisen. He said
it was not intended that this manual would impose any more restrictions on the
development community or individuals. Given the fact that the amount of growth area
is shrinking, it was hoped that it would lead to changes in items (such as mountainous
road standards) which would make it easier to develop some of the difficult properties
in the growth area. He hoped the document would cover some of these things. He
stressed that it was not intended to impose another layer of zoning requirements. Mr.
Kelsey said it is intended that the Design Manual will be a "how to" book. Mr. Tice
responded, stating that Mr. Nitchmann had misinterpreted his comments regarding
"integration," that th eintended purpose of integration was for finding efficiency and
cost -savings, not extra layers of regulation.
,;� A!57
3
3-31-98
guidelines. Mr. Don Wagner, a local developer, agreed that this is an important
distinction to make. He noted that guidelines have flexibility while standards do not.
Mr. Rooker said it is important the manual must be clear as to what are standards and
what are guidelines.
--Mr. Finley asked if there will be any overlapping with other documents. E.g.
Will the guidelines for pump stations be cross referenced with other guidelines? Mr.
Kelsey responded affirmatively.
--Mr. Rooker asked if there is a plan to include a section on forms. He
suggested a section on forms be included at the end of the Manual, with a list of
forms in the Table of Contents.
--There was a question raised as to how difficult it will be to make changes to
the manual. Mr. Kelsey said it will be up to the Planning Commission and the Board
to decide how frequently changes should be made, but it is not anticipated changes
will involve a lengthy process. Mr. Tice said this document should not slow down the
review process. Mr. Kamptner said it is important that changes must go before the
Board of Supervisors so they can stay aware of what is going on. He said this does
not have to be a long process. Some things can be done on an as -needed basis
without extended delay. Mr. Loewenstein said there must be some accountability
involved with the manual.
Amendments to Section 32.0 jadte Plan of the Zonin Ordinance
Mr. Keeler listed the 12 recommendations made when the Site Plan Ordinance was
adopted in 1987 and described how these items have been implemented over the last
14 years. He explained that the proposed amendments will codify the current
administrative approval process.
There were few comments after Mr. Keeler's presentation.
The meeting recessed from 6:30 to 7:00 p.m. It reconvened in the regular Board
meeting room at 7,00.
The Chairman called the meeting back to order at 7:00 p.m.
The minutes of the March 17, 1998 Commission meeting were unanimously approved
as amended.
WORK SESSION
CPA 97-02 N&S LLC - Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhood
" 5 to change the designation of land located in the southwest quadrant of the 5th
a��
3-31-98
4
Street/1-64 Interchange from Transitional to Regional Service. The area includes
approximately 41 acres. This site is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
AND
CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc. - Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for
Neighborhoods 4 and 5 to change the designation of land located on the east side of
5th Street, north of and adjacent to 1-64, from Industrial Service to Regional Service.
The area consists of approximately 54 acres. This area is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Citing a Conflict of Interests with CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc., and because of the close
proximity and the similarity between the two items, Mr. Tice disqualified himself from
the discussion of both items.
Ms. Thomas explained this is an informal Work Session to give the Commission the
opportunity to get information from the staff and the applicant on these proposals.
She briefly described three CPA requests which were submitted, almost
simultaneously. Two of the requests, from Sperry and Brass, if approved, would
remove 95 acres from the County's inventory of Industrial property, and would add 95
acres to the inventory of Commercial property. The third, Southpoint (N & S LLC),
would convert a mixed use in a Residential area to a purely commercial use. If all
three were to be approved, the County would have approximately 137 additional
acres of Regional Service, for a total of approximately 1.2 million square feet of new
commercial space. Ms. Thomas presented a brief staff report which described all
three projects and staffs concerns about each. Only two of the projects--Southpoint
and Brass-- were topics for discussion at this work session. Ms. Thomas explained
that the request from Sperry is not a part of the work session because "it is tracking
slower because of the traffic study." (Staffs reports are filed with these minutes.)
Mr. Benish explained the purpose of tonight's work session is to give the applicants for
two of the proposals the opportunity to present information to the Commission.
Representatives are also present from the City Council and the City Planning
Commission to offer their comments.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any connection in ownership between the properties and
is there an effort to coordinate the development of the properties in the 5th Street
area. Staff was not aware of any ownership connection. Mr. Benish said staff
perceives them as "somewhat complimentary and less competitive, based on what
they have presented as their intended use for the sites."
Mr. Cliff Hamner, representing N & S LLC, addressed the Commission. His comments
included the following:
--The proposal is to amend the Comp Plan designation of this property to
Regional Service to allow for the eventual rezoning of the property to HC on the
3-31-98 5
portion closest to the Interstate, and to rezone to PDSC the larger portion on the
western half of the property.
--The property is dissected by a large soil erosion control pond, which divides
the property into two separate and distinct units.
--28 acres are currently zoned R110. This plan proposes heavier commercial at
the interstate intersection and then lighter commercial at the center of the property.
The plan works to achieve a transitional type development--i.e. "transition from the
highway to the residential uses, without adversely effecting any of them."
--The southeastern portion of the property, adjacent to residential development,
will be adequately buffered.
--This plan meets the intent of the Comp Plan, and also offers community
services to the residents of the area. The residents have indicated to the applicant
that they favor this type of development which will provide grocery shopping, laundry
facilities, restaurants, etc. They have indicated they prefer this type of development to
residential development, which is a greater traffic generator. Providing community
services in this growing area will capture some of the traffic which is currently going to
other areas of the county such as Rt. 29N and Pantops. Motels and hotels provided
here will remove the necessity of tourists having to stay in the 29N area. Mr. Rooker
asked if the applicant has performed any studies to confirm the statements that this
development will reduce traffic on Rt. 29. Mr. Hamner said no study has been
performed but he believes "it is a reasonable assumption." Mr. Rooker said there
currently are services available which are closer to this area than Rt. 29. Mr. Hamner
responded that the applicant feels the present level of services is inadequate for the
current and future needs of this growing community.
--Residential expansion has recently been approved for this area. What is
needed now is convenient access to daily shopping activities. Mr. Rieley asked if the
applicant has performed any studies of the population of the area and the amount of
commercial development needed to serve that population. Mr. Hamner replied: "We
don't have any studies. We do have the owner's 50 years of development
experience." Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant has done a study of the "potential
population draw that this commercial center would serve." Mr. Hamner responded:
"We have looked through the comprehensive planning and the zoning to see what
growth is anticipated in this area and from that we have determined we can support
this type of activity here, I think Neighborhood V has the second highest potential for
residential units of any neighborhood in Albemarle County, and no community service.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for a mix of uses in these areas and you don't have
that in Neighborhood V."
--A commercial development will not create the need for additional schools.
--The site will be planned so as to include a great deal of "non -motorized
access. Pedestrian and bicycle accesses can be easily incorporated into the sites.
In response to Mr. Rieley's question as to how the pedestrian accesses will be
provided, Mr. Hamner responded: "Mostly at the entrances. There are ways you can
design it to provide the bicycle and pedestrian access so pedestrians can enter by
having crosswalks and by having cuts in the medians to allow for bicycles to easily
access the property and by providing access in and around the property (on the
applicant's property)." The site will comply with the plans of the CAT Study for bicycle
3-31-98 6
`low access in this area. Mr. Finley asked if some of the trails will parallel 164. Mr.
Hamner responded affirmatively. He said the existing buffer is to remain in place. He
said the paths will be both internal to the site and on the circumference of the
property.
--Utilities are available to the site. No significant improvements will be required.
--The current zoning is R10 for 28 acres; the remainder is R2.
--Mr. Nitchmann asked how this development will be different than what is
being proposed across 164 and how will it complement what already exists in the City
shopping center on 5th street. Mr. Hamner said he understands the plans for across
164 are for "more of a regional draw," whereas this applicant is looking to draw the
daily shopping activities. He thought the two areas would compliment each other and
would not be in competition. He said the community service center will include a
grocery store, a pharmacy, a bakery, a dry cleaner, ice cream store, and other
activities associated with community service. He did not think there would be a
conflict with the existing services in the City because it is the applicant's belief that the
existing services cannot meet the needs of the community. Mr. Nitchmann asked
what types of motels and restaurants are envisioned. Mr. Hamner said the applicant
has been contacted by some nationally known "sit-down" type restaurants and some
reputable hotels, but he was unable to provide specific names because no
negotiations have actually taken place.
--It is envisioned total buildout will be approximately 10 years.
--Mr. Nitchmann asked if this commercial area will be similar to Albemarle
Square. Mr. Hamner said it will be similar in size; but the services will be different.
Albemarle Square does not have a grocery store, which this center will have, and
Albemarle Square has a regional -draw store (Circuit City), which this center will not
have. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the design will be "a lot of pavement and some brick
buildings." Mr. Hamner said design has not yet been addressed, but it will be a
quality development which will fit in with the area. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the
applicant envisions installing traffic signals. Mr. Hamner responded: "We think that at
the main entrance we will be putting in stop lights and all the proper traffic controls
there." --Given the fact that the services planned are neighborhood types of
commercial enterprises, Mr. Rieley asked if the applicant has considered including a
mixture of housing. Mr. Hamner said: "No we have not because in our dealings with
the neighbors there they have said they would not support additional residential
development. Historically, the Board of Supervisors has listened to the residents'
concerns. The applicant feels this plan meets the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan, can be supported by the residents of the area, and will benefit
the County. He added: "We have come up with what we think is a really good plan,
plus we have additional land, 1 to 2 miles away, where we can offer to build
residential units there, in an area that is designated for high density, in -fill
development." Noting that the plan on display before the Commission is a bubble
diagram, Mr. Rieley asked where the "really good plan" is. Mr. Hamner called
attention to a plan which the Commission received which he described as "very simple
and very good." Mr. Rieley responded: "It's not very specific."
a 2,9
3-31-98 7
Referring to Mr. Nitchmann's comments, Mr. Rieley said he shares some of those
concerns that "this not be another Albemarle Square." This is an enormously
significant site, and the specific design will be the hinge on whether this is acceptable
or not. He said: "As we move through the process it needs to get much more specific
and much more concrete so we are not speaking in terms of generalities, but in terms
of very specific footprints and mixes of uses and assurances (that it will be community
kinds of uses and not regional uses). We need some positive assurances, as we
move through this, that those things, in fact, will happen."
Mr. Hamner said he did not think architectural designs were required at the CPA stage
of the process. Mr. Rieley responded: "I'm not suggesting that, but you are the one
making the request for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment." Mr. Hamner said he
understood specific items would be addressed during the rezoning process. Mr.
Loewenstein asked that the applicant also be prepared to address some of the
differences between the applicant's analysis of certain issues (e.g. traffic) and staffs
and VDOT's analyses.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that Albemarle Square had originally had a grocery store in the
spot where Circuit City now is. Mr. Rieley added: "Right to the point."
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that there will soon be a Food Lion on Avon Street
Extended. This applicant will be looking for an anchor store on this site and Brass will
probably be looking for a grocery store on their site. There is already a Food Lion at
5th Street. There are already too many bakeries in town. He said he agrees there is
a need for some commercial development in this area of the county, but he is not
certain what it should be. He said he would not support a lot of residential
development in this area without services because that would result in more traffic
though the City. He said we must be very careful in what we approve here because
there are a lot of citizens who have a lot invested in their residences in this area. He
agreed with Mr. Rieley that there needs to be more specifics as to what this is going
to look like. He concluded: "If you come in here with something that looks like
Albemarle Square, with a lot of pavement and square buildings, I am not going to be
in favor of it. I have to have some idea of what this is going to look like. It has to be
something that will be nice, and I would also like to see (the plan for the mixture of
uses and how much square footage will be devoted to each." Mr. Nitchmann
envisioned that the entire Rt. 20 South corridor will eventually be in the growth area.
Mr. Nitchmann asked how many public meetings the applicant has held with the
neighbors. Mr. Hamner said there have been no meetings, but the applicant has had
on -going contact with some of the active members of the communities. The applicant
will make sure the neighbors know the date of the public hearing and input will be
sought from "all these people." Mr. Nitchmann said it is important that the applicant
hold some formal meetings with the neighbors before the public hearing. He said he
has heard from some residents in this area and he is aware of the opposition for high
density housing.
I
3-31-98 8
Mr. Finley asked staff if there had been public comment at the time the Board
designated this property for transitional development. Mr. Benish said the transitional
designation took place during the Board's review of the Land Use Plan. He doubted
there had been many residents present at that time. However, at the applicant's
previous request to rezone the property to R-15, there were quite a few residents who
had expressed opposition to the proposal. Objections were based on the "impact of
additional residential development --the density and the activity it generates in terms of
traffic and demands for other needs." Mr. Benish could not recall the comments
precisely, but thought traffic had been a main concern. Mr. Hamner recalled an issue
had been the "peak period impact." He said that the commercial development will
have an overall greater traffic count, but it will be spread out during the day.
Mr. Herb Green, a residence of Stagecoach Road (across the street from the
proposed development), addressed the Commission. He said he had obtained
petitions against the previous rezoning request. The plan which the applicant is now
proposing was shown to many of the people who signed the previous petition and they
indicated they would support the plan as presented-- with pedestrian trails, a grocery
store and restaurant, a one-story motel, a traffic signal, and with the maintenance of
the existing tree line around the property. With the previous proposal, there were
concerns about traffic and about the impact to schools. He said he had spoken with
the majority of those who had signed the petition.
Mr. Finley asked what type of buffer is planned to screen the visual impact of the
development from the Entrance Corridor. Mr. Stan Tatum, landscape architect
working with the developer on the property, said protection of the corridor will also
help protect the immediate neighbors. There is some vegetative growth that can be
retained along the edges, and additional landscape will have to be added. The ARB
will dictate some things that will be required. On the Interstate side, there is a
substantial amount of existing vegetation within the Interstate right-of-way and that
cannot be disturbed by this developer. Other areas will have vegetation retained
where it is of quality material and will be supplemented where needed. Any
developer in today's market knows that only a quality development will have a
reasonable chance of being successful. He said he does not think it is the applicant's
intent to withhold specifics about the plan, but at this time the main issue is to
determine whether or not zoning can be established that would permit them do this
type of development. He pointed out that the applicant has indicated a willingness to
proffer away most of the undesirable uses in the HC section of the property. This
would make the property much less attractive for a regional type of use.
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant had a copy of the plan which was shown to Mr.
Green. Mr. Tatum responded negatively. Mr. Rooker asked if the developer will be
able to proffer that the hotel or motel will be only a one-story facility. Mr. Tatum
responded: "I couldn't answer that. Most motel facilities are two story. Economics
seem to dictate that, but a two-story structure sitting back in that site would not
necessarily be visible if there is a buffer along the edge which is the direction that that
is headed at this point." He said the topography of the area of motel site is a mixture
3-1
3-31-98 9
of highs and lows and would "certainly have to be modified to accommodate any
development in that area." There is a variety of vegetation in that part of the property,
some poor quality, some good quality.
Mr. Rieley made the following statement: "I think, even at the Comprehensive Plan
level, it is going to be critical to deal with issues like the visual impact from 164, the
configuration and scale of buildings you envision for this property, and not just a
number of generalities which is mostly what we have heard tonight. Traffic impact --
real numbers; traffic impact on the City --real numbers; enforceable assurances of what
the ultimate disposition of this property is going to be. It just needs to get a lot more
specific because bubble diagrams and vague generalities are not sufficient justification
for changing the Comprehensive Plan, in my view. Assurances that the greenery in
the Interstate right-of-way will not be disturbed, is not particularly reassuring. I think
you have to give us something we can see so we can feel this is moving in a positive
direction because this is one of the most important pieces of property that we are
going to deal with in the time we are sitting on this Commission. If it's not done well,
then we all have a number of people to answer to." Mr. Hamner said the applicant will
work to answer all the Commission's concerns.
Mr. Benish explained the current land use designation for this property is Transitional,
which provides for commercial opportunities at a neighborhood scale --a maximum of
40,000 square feet. The type of uses are: convenience shopping, day care, general
market, banking, restaurants, drug stores, offices, medical/professional buildings, and
other general retail. The types of community service uses which the applicant is
proposing are not entirely dissimilar from what the Transitional designation calls for. It
was intended to provide a neighborhood level type service. It is the scale of the
activity proposed by the applicant which is in question here. Also, the motel and
restaurant uses are not consistent with the transitional designation.
Mr. Nitchmann said he feels one of the most important considerations is the desire of
the residents in this area--i.e. "What does the community out there want?" He said if
the by -right development of this property is not acceptable to the community then "we
really have to consider the desires of the community that has to live with this." He
asked the applicant to invite him to any neighborhood meetings which take place
between the applicant and the neighbors.
Mr. Finley asked what type of residential development could occur on the property by -
right. Mr. Benish explained that Transitional is a land use designation and not an
actual zoning. Transitional envisions urban density--i.e. apartments or relatively dense
townhouse units. Residential is mixed with commercial. Staff confirmed that
approximately 28 acres of the 41 acres of the property is currently zoned R-10. R-10
zoning allows only a small amount of supporting commercial development. Staff
confirmed that what this applicant is proposing requires a rezoning. Mr. Rieley asked
if there is anything in the applicant's proposal, other than the 60,000 square foot
grocery store, which would "not fit within the general rubric of the transitional
3-31-98 10
designation." In addition to the hotel, Mr. Benish said an office supply and furniture
store was mentioned which would not fit the community service designation.
CPA 97-05 for Brass, Inc. was then discussed.
Mr. Benish said the current Comp Plan designates this property for Industrial Service.
Based on the Land Use Plan designation, the Comp Plan does not have a gross floor
area limit for Industrial Service, but the Zoning Ordinance has specific floor area
ratios for industrial zoning. "It's intended for general industry and employment centers
with limited production activities. Marketing products and manufacturing warehouse
distribution, publishing, and laboratories are typical primary uses. Other office -type,
basic employment generating type uses are also perceived as acceptable in Industrial
Service area. As secondary uses --supporting commercial and motel, hotel and
conference centers may be included in Industrial Service, particularly in a Planned
Development. It does not identify secondary residential uses." The property is
currently zoned Light Industrial with proffers on it limiting it to certain types of uses in
the LI district. It basically identifies what are by -right and what are by special permit,
and it requires buffering of Moore's Creek and 164.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff feels that the proffers which are currently in place have
been an impediment to finding LI uses for the property. Mr. Benish said it is
conceivable, but he could not say that has been a major issue. The applicant is
going to argue "the competitive position they are in relative to other major sites in the
county."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Blain. He displayed drawings which
showed some of the surrounding uses. His comments included the following-
--The property is approximately 54 acres.
--The applicant is promoting a unified plan for this project -"development
planning for a large tract that would be contrary to what the development pattern has
been thus far along this corridor."
--At this stage, the Commission must compare the Industrial Use designation
vs. the Regional Service designation. The concerns which have already been
identified --traffic, environmental, urban design --will be the same whether this property
is developed with industrial uses or commercial uses, as this applicant proposes.
Those concerns will be addressed in the rezoning application.
--The applicant proposes a "shared vision" for this project and feels there is an
opportunity for "some real regional planning." He said consideration must be given to
the impacts on the City and it has been recommended to the applicant that all those
who will be impacted should be included in the process.
--The proposal was submitted to the City at the same time it was submitted to
the County. The applicant has met with the Willoughby Homeowners' Association, the
neighborhood which is most immediately impacted by development of this property,
and with the Ridge Street community. A commitment has been made to both those
groups that they will be involved throughout the process.
C�?3.3
3-31-98 11
--Wetlands studies are underway. A biological habitat evaluation and a forestry
analysis have been conducted.
--If the applicant feels, at the conclusion of this work session, that the County is
willing to participate in this shared vision for the project, then it will be appropriate to
move on to the site specific concerns which the Commission identified in the previous
presentation.
--This project will differ from the previous one in that a regional shopping center
has a "regional draw" which will offer shopping opportunities that are not available in
neighborhood shopping centers. There are no current plans for "category killers" such
as Toys-R-Us or Circuit City. This center will capture some of the traffic which is
currently going to the regional shopping areas on Rt. 29 and will therefore relieve
traffic congestion on Rt . 29.
--The property was zoned in 84 or 85 to Industrial use and has been marketed
primarily as a professional office park. The market has not accepted that. Users
which have looked at the site include the Health Services Foundation, PRA, and the
National Ground Intelligence Department. All those facilities located on other sites in
the County. There has been a significant change in terms of the inventory count since
this property was zoned to Industrial use, i.e. "the competition of the 3,000,000
square feet of quality office research capability at the North Fork Research Park, and
241 acres of high quality office PDIP at Peter Jefferson Place. The market history of
this site suggests office users do not put a high enough value on locating at the
interchange to overcome some of the other obstacles. He said: "Frankly, we see a
lot of obstacles in developing the site from a topography standpoint."
--A logical use at an interchange would be a distribution facility. Federal
Express has looked at this site, but the owner did not feel that was an appropriate use
for the site. The Von Holsbrink Company looked at the site and later found a county
willing to donate property so they located elsewhere.
--An integrated plan is preferable to piecemeal by -right development.
Mr. Loewenstein asked the applicant to comment on the second half of the middle
paragraph of page 7 of the staff report: " ... The Brass, Inc. property represents the
largest available piece of undeveloped acreage designated for industrial use in
Neighborhoods Three, Four and Five combined, and its redesignation should be
considered only after looking at impacts to the southern Urban Area as a whole.... If
industrial service is eliminated on this parcel, virtually all of the undeveloped industrial
use acreage would lie within the northern portion of the Urban Area." Mr. Blain
responded: "It would depend on how you would view Peter Jefferson Place. I think
you would view that as a southern county potential employer, a significant one, and
one located at the Interstate. I think the staff report also says there is 10 years of
inventory of industrial use and 5 years of inventory of commercial use. I don't think
the staff report mentions this but it is in our report, that there is currently zero
commercial zoned land in this neighborhood. If one of the aims of the Comprehensive
Plan is a balance of land uses, then going from zero to 24 acres-- as we propose --of
developable land would be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan goal."
3-31-98 12
Once again Mr. Rieley said he feels there are specific items which the applicant needs
to address. "The visual impact from 164 is just as pertinent as it was for the other site,
as is the traffic impact and the impact on the City. In addition --though shared vision
and regional planning sounds very good --like the previous proposal I think we have to
be much more specific and figure out exactly what we are talking about and what the
impacts of this Comprehensive Plan amendment are likely to be. It seems to me one
of the big things you are going to have to address is what seems on the face of it to
be a totally incompatible site and program of a big -box regional shopping center on a
steep hill with an extremely important stream at the base of it, with a lot of wetlands. I
think as you build your case, from my perspective, like the previous proposal, it must
get a lot more specific, and, secondly, it has to address why it is appropriate. It is
hard for me to believe that the land form is not conducive to offices because it is too
steep and yet it can accommodate a regional shopping center. You are going to have
to address that in a very direct way."
Mr. Blain replied: "We will. It is useful to examine the competition. It is not likely
there would be an office user that would require developing the entire site. It is more
likely it would be the development of an office park if anything at all. Our point is that,
through the current process, that it would be piecemeal. There may be site plan
considerations and protections, but what you have here is an opportunity to do an
integrated (plan) .... It is not to say that at some point the land values will be such
that an office user may pay what it costs to develop the site. But what is likely to
happen before that happens, is that development pressures and the cost of carrying
the land may lead to a use that is less desirable, like a 10-acre under roof distribution
center, which would be permitted right now, by -right. "
Mr. Rieley concluded: "Correct me if,l am paraphrasing you incorrectly, but what you
are saying is it is going to take a big project that is going to use all the site at one time
to justify making this rolling landscape flat. Is that correct?" Mr. Blain replied: "No.
What I am suggesting is that the economics, the financial arrangements have to make
sense."
On the question of losing the industrial property, Mr. Nitchmann questioned the value
of preserving it. He said the VEPCO building has been vacant for some time and if
there were large office users looking for space it would have been snatched up a long
time ago. He said an industrial building he owns had 12,000 square feet empty for
some time and it just recently acquired a use. He said he is "baffled" as to whether or
not this area of the County is conducive to either industrial growth or large office scale
growth. He said: "I think this really supports where the applicant is coming from to try
to change this to something on a more regional basis...."
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant has had any feedback from either the City or the
Willoughby residents. Mr. Blain said the contact with the Willoughby residents has
been encouraging. They have expressed concerns about impacts such as lighting,
noise, and traffic, but they were interested in discussing ways to address these
concerns. They were not saying they did not want the property to develop at all. The
3-31-98 13
4`'' applicant has met with the City Planning Commission and with Mr. Cox (City
Councilman) and they have, understandably, expressed concerns about impact to
downtown businesses. It may be "constructive" to see what has taken place in other
communities, such as Loudon County.
Mr. Rooker asked if there have been any discussions of the physical characteristics of
a shopping center on this site. Mr. Blain answered: "It would not be strip mall.
Likely, it would be one or two anchors or a big box. It would have to be located in a
way to really maximize the existing natural buffering. There is a 100,000 square foot
warehouse facility (there now), and I don't think most people realize it is there, so it is
possible to do that. It is going to take some imagination and some shared vision.
There are some other site -type benefits that we can bring to the community. We have
talked about the Rivanna Greenway. We have talked about Moore's Creek. We have
talked about the possibility of dedicating soccer fields. We've got some real
opportunity in infrastructure that the City has already invested in making this a
pedestrian friendly project, unlike Rt. 29N. There is a system of sidewalks connecting
to Ridge Street neighborhoods and Willoughby along 5th Street. We have the
advantage of that and to extend it to our project is something that is very viable to do."
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Blain to comment on staffs recommendation that an
alignment within the property be reserved for the possible future development of the
Alternative D connector, given that was mentioned in the Southern City Neighborhood
Study. Mr. Blain responded: "Does the Planning Commission or the County have any
idea where the Southern Parkway is going to be? ... It wouldn't be fair, if it is not a
viable solution or something the County wants to seriously pursue, to suggest that it
be preserved. But if it doesn't impact the project, perhaps it can (re reserved). If it
does impact the project, that wouldn't be fair." Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to
comment. Mr. Benish said staff identified this issue because, "based on the Southern
City Neighborhood Study, it is recommended as an alternative that is to be
considered. The language of the Study emphasizes the southern connector, from 5th
Street to Avon, and then Avon to Rt. 20, which is now built. The implication was that
the D alternative would be able to enhance that or be a replacement in case the
southern connector is not constructed.... The County's position, when we were
updating the Land Use Plan, was that we didn't see D as the best alternative,
particularly because once it leaves this site it would have to traverse an old landfill
site. ... We wanted to bring that up as an issue here to make sure we had identified
everything that would be impacted by this request." In response to Mr. Nitchmann's
request to point out the potential location of alternative D, Mr. Benish talked about
possibilities, but concluded: "Quite frankly, we don't have a concept for where that
road would go. The main complication would probably not be this site, but rather,
where it would go off this site as it traverses that landfill property."
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Nancy Damon, Chair of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission,
addressed the Commission. She said the applicant made a similar presentation to
a��
n '4
J`J 1 -JO �
the City and many of the questions asked were the same as have been discussed
tonight. She offered to make the a copy of the questions which were raised available
to the Commission. She summarized the City's concerns as follows:
--More information is needed on traffic impact and about the scope of the traffic
study and whether or not it will include the impact these two projects might have on
the entire region as well as on the City. If Brass considers itself a "regional draw", will
it be drawing people from the north, through the City streets.
--Brass, Inc's current access is "through a single City street."
--Concerns were expressed about the "whole look of the Entrance Corridor and
how it will be changed and how the guidelines for Entrance Corridors will be adhered
to for these two projects."
--If they move forward, the City wants to make sure they are pedestrian and
bicycle friendly. More information is needed about how the existing residential
neighborhoods will be linked to the projects.
--A lot of concerns were raised about stormwater runoff and the impact of the
tremendous amount of pavement in both projects. The parking needs will be quite
large for both projects.
--What will be the economic impact on the City as this area develops? The
City is currently considering redeveloping the Fifeville area with neighborhood
commercial and residential uses.
Mr. Maurice Cox, a member of the Charlottesville City Council, but speaking as a
citizen of the City, addressed the Commission. In answer to Mr. Rooker's question as
to whether or not the City plans to do an economic impact study, Mr. Cox said the
City is very concerned about the economic impact of this type of regional
development. Adverse impacts have been documented in other communities. It is the
responsibility of the development team to prepare an economic development analysis,
"so the community at large has no misconceptions about what the big box
development is on historic centers." He said: "If they would be willing to take that on,
I think the discussion and dialogue of this as a viable way of providing those kinds of
services for our larger community --Albemarle and Charlottesville --some answers would
be had." Mr. Cox said the City is already concerned about the initial findings that the
traffic studies performed by Brass, Inc. show. Those studies project almost 17,000
vtpd would be added by the year 2008. 45% of those trips would be coming into the
City, right at the bottleneck of 5th Street and Cherry/Elliott. There is concern that it
will have a negative impact on all the neighborhoods in that area. He said he hopes
the County will consider "what is an acceptable volume of traffic as we look at all
these developments and possible future developments." This community must also
make a decision as to whether or not we want another Wal-Mart type business. We
already have a Wal-Mart and we have seen the impacts from that type of commercial
development. "Do we want to '29' 5th Street Extended?" Mr. Cox said the City is
interested in pursuing, within City boundaries, a mixed commercial -residential
development that is meant "to get people out of their cars" so they won't have to make
the trips to the shopping malls. "I wonder what vision this is saying about how the
County would like to see the in -fill in the urban ring. I hope you will consider that."
The requests seem "piecemeal" in some respects because it is not clear where the
o�2 3 7
3-31-98 15
market is coming from and what residential community is going to support 1.2 million
square feet of commercial space. The County should look seriously at the charge
given the In -Fill Committee, "in looking at what kind of development is appropriate in
the areas of in -fill around the City." He said he is anxious to see if the
recommendations of the In -Fill Committee will be consistent with what is being
proposed with these requests. "We are at a disadvantage because we know they are
coming up with some recommendations that may change development in the urban
core, yet these particular projects are missing that opportunity." He concluded his
comments by expressing concern, with the Brass, Inc. site, "that we have a single
point access to a 300,000 square foot development which is going through a City."
He said he hopes the developer will be considering more than one access.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Cox to comment on the by -right development of the property vs.
what is being proposed on these two sites. Mr. Cox: "I trust their judgment that there
has been no interest in office development because it has been vacant for many
years, and it probably would remain vacant. I don't know the appropriateness of the
site for a mixed use development, meaning residential as well as community service
and commercial. But I am somewhat concerned about the single, monolithic uses that
are being proposed now, and hoping that the recommendations from the In -Fill
Committee --whether things should be segregated in that fashion or whether they
should be integrated. I don't think the industrial designation is very effective right
now." Mr. Rooker asked for his comments on the existing R-10 zoning on the
Southpoint property vs. this proposal. Mr. Cox responded: "I feel it is still pretty
dense. I can imagine, with some of the new ideas about creating neighborhoods, it
could be successful, but that is a major design issue. I feel, to some degree, that 164
provides an access to that site and hopefully the traffic impact would be lessened by
that barrier. But I appreciate the fact that they are entertaining a mixed use. I am
somewhat concerned that they have segregated it into different sites instead of
integrating it into one." Mr. Rooker asked if there is a feeling in the Ridge Street
neighborhood that the development proposed on the Southpoint property is preferable
to having the property remain R-10. Mr. Cox replied: "I think the concerns in the
Ridge Street neighborhood have to do with the quality of life associated with having
that dense development on the southern end because we suspect that Charlottesville
may still be a point of destination and it will generate traffic through the City."
There was no further public comment.
Mr. Benish offered the following miscellaneous information-
--The County is presently talking to the Commerce School at the University
about the possibility of a long range retail needs study.
--The population of Neighborhood V (existing growth area) is presently 2,500,
with a projected ultimate population in the range of 7,000 (based on 3 du/acre) to
14,000 (based on very intense high density development).
*4w- The Commission and staff discussed the next step for these proposals and the time
table envisioned. It was the consensus of the Commission that another work session
IM!,
3-31-98 16
was needed before the requests are scheduled for public hearing. The Commission
asked for the following additional information:
--Mr. Rooker was interested in feedback from the City regarding the comparison
of by -right development vs. the proposed projects.
--Mr. Loewenstein said it would be helpful to have information about the City's
plans for other projects which may be planned for nearby properties.
--Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to have a broader map showing the
various uses which exist and those which are planned in the near future. Mr. Finley
suggested a vicinity map would be helpful, one showing both projects.
--Mr. Nitchmann wanted more information on how "we can interconnect all this
and make it more user friendly. "
--Mr. Nitchmann said he feels the potential growth for the entire southern
portion of the County should be considered when discussing these projects.
--Mr. Rieley said the sooner an Economic Impact Study, in some form, can be
commenced, the better. "There are enormous ramifications for the City and the
County and there are issues as to what might come out of the DIS Study as it relates
to what form future commercial development takes and we may, in fact, find ourselves
preempting some very good future alternatives if we are not taking these things into
account." He suggested staff explore the options for an Economic Impact Study, both
from the possibility of having the developers fund it, or possibly a joint funding
between the City, the County and the developers.
MISCELLANEOUS
1997 Annual Report - An error was pointed out on the last page. The reference to a
Work Session on "Hallowed Ground" was inaccurate. This was actually a presentation
of a book entitled Hallowed Ground to Commissioners by PEC.
Mountain Protection Ordinance - There was a discussion as to when to schedule a
work session on the draft of this ordinance, which was recently completed. It was
decided a 5:00 work session would be scheduled for the April 7th meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
V. Wayn4 Cilimber , -6bretary
DB
M