HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 30 1998 PC Minutes6-30-98
JUNE 30, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a Work Session on Tuesday, June 307
1990, Ire the County •Offic-e Building, Charlottesvil'R- 1 -i .a Those members plese'r!l
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr, David Tice; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr.
William Finley; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Ms. Susan Thomas,
Planner; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz; Senior Planner, and Mr.
Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Rooker and
Washington.
Members of the City Planning Commission present were: Mr. Ken Schwartz, Mr. Marshall
Slayton, Ms.Harris; and Mr. Wood. City Planner Ron Higgins was also present.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Action on the
Pviay 19th minutes was deferred to the July 7 th meeting.
[NOTE: This meeting was recorded on Dictaphone equipment. it must be played back on
either Dictaphone equipment, or an ordinary cassette player. The tapes cannot be played
back on Lanier equipment.]
This was a joint Work Session with the City Planning Commission, the purpose of which
was to hear additional information on two projects proposed along Fifth Street Extended.
Those two projects are identified as CPA 97-02 & S LLC (South Pointe) and CPA 97-05
Brass, inc.
Citing a conflict of interests on one of the projects, and given the close proximity of the
two properties, Mr. Tice said he would not participate in either discussion.
CPA 97-02 N & S LLC (South Pointe) - Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for
property consisting of approximately 41.036 acres located in Urban Neighborhood 5,
described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 46A, 54, 54A, 55B and 55D, lying west of Fifth Street
Extended (State Route 631) and south of interstate 64, within the Scottsville Magisterial
District. The proposal seeks to change the designation of the area from Transitional
(approximately 37 acres) and Urban Density Residential (approximately 28 acres) and R-2
(approximately 13 acres), Residential; to HC, Highway Commercial and PDSC, Planned
Development Shopping Center.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. She summarized the information which was
shown in bold type in the report, which she explained reflected new information.
Mr. Rieley asked City Commissioners to comment on the following statement, found on
page 11 of the staff report:
Y9
6-30-98 2
Absent the Southern Parkways the proposed shopping center cannot benefit
residential ;and use south cf the City (beyond the 5Lh Street corridor} without creating
negative traffic impacts to established City neighborhoods.
Mr. Slayton said the impact to the roads that will be used to access both proposed
developments is one of the City's greatest concerns. The existina roads are presently not
built to provide the kind of service that is proposed.
Ms. Harris said the City does not want the 5th Street corridor to look like Rt. 29 North.
She expressed concern about potential impact to the Willoughby neighborhood; but she
acknowledged a need for retail service in this area.
Noting staffs determination that the existirry , � ai lsitloiial uGaigi i-to NrvNcl Lr
"seems to fit; with a few exceptions," Mr. Rieley asked if there are any mechanisms; short
of a Cw)pTei)ensive -Pian Amendment, wh ci) might serve this site. Mr. Benish replied: "I
don't think. so, based or the mirrent zoning (R-2 and R-' 0 f although in the R-t 0 there are
nrn}ficinno fn.r limi} rl ,-nmmcr i� of a � ortir� nature...but I don't think it would
approach the scale that is being proposed here." Mr. Rieley asked: "is there latitude
within the Comprehensive Plan designation for rezoning, short of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment?,, m-r. $eigisih j-epiied: "Cvceivabiy, {but) we are kind of treading on new
ground with this Transitional designation. It is a new designation in the Land Use Plan
anri we Qnlv _SeLac -ad it for cert_�_n J�'3tto? S_ The Jdea of the designation was to provide
options for land uses that could be reviewed for appropriateness in 111(e area. Ti tc
Transitional designation allows for a mix_ of uses but doesn't mandate it. That's why we
are saying it is 'generally similar' because the Neighborhood irre wmmerC4 is
pefff,i led "ifi t e e, but t4eighboT ood Service is limited, by the guidelines of the Plan, to
about 40,000 square feet of use. Perhaps a rezoning without a Comprehensive Plan
AM-e D»t for Chef e!ti n that t-heC�mmission feels comfortable in flexing those general
guidelines, but that is a pretty extensive flex.... Certain of the uses, as p-roposed right now,
are of a scale that wouldn't be consistent.... The hotel component and the Food Court use
would not be consistent."
Mr. Nitchmann wondered why the Board had decided to -remove the southern quadrants of
the 1-6415th Street interchange from the Interstate Interchange designation. (NOTE: The
staff sseport explained, on page 5, that troth staff and the Commission originally
recommended Regional Service for this area; but the Board had changed that to a
T,--ansi ionai !!fir Nitchrnann thought the Board may have been
concerned about a previous proposal for a Truck Stop in this area. -MT. Nitchnmann asked
who would be responsible for performing a "regional analysis." Ms. Thomas said a
consultant could be hired to guide the study, working with Existing Gounty sta€€. She said
t ;e Plammg District has -expressed an interest in such a study and may already have a lot
of the needed information.
Assuming a regional study would involve other counties, Mr. Finley asked what happens if
Albemarle decides "we don't need this development here?" What is to prevent an
adjoir,;rig u'uiiiiiy bom aiiomng ti)e development. ids. Thomas said many developments
seek to locate in the more populated, shopping center areas, and t he
Vg
6-30-98 3
Albemarle/Charlottesville area appears to be the "hub" for this regional area. She said a
regional analysis to analyze how much demand exists, may help to determine "what we
are. going to see over a Period of time and make some decisions about where we think it
should go and how much we feel we can accept." Mr. Benish added: "The private sector
bears the risk of the investment but if the investment fails, the community bears the risk of
failure in terms of vacant buildings or the competition that may draw development out of
areas that spent a lot money and effort to revitalize and maintain areas. (A regional
analysis) would give us an idea of what we are --and the market for regional service has
been indicated to us to go into the Valley and into Madison County. What are the
implications of that growth and that sort of regional market to what is needed here?"
Mr. Finley said the developer must have already done a market analysis if they are willing
to invest in this project. Mr. Nitchmann agreed. He said: "I just wonder where v e d,VV
the line between the private sector and the local government in trying to determine where
commercial enterprises are needed in order to serve the citizens of that area. if you
decide not to do this on that corner, then the property is still zoned R-10 and the citizens
in that neighborhood definitely do not want R-10 on this property and City residents
indicate they do not want hi r. a .s a `inn Hine w l
d � high density housing on this property. �� is a �u �c u� is we wain
here as to which is hest and which is desirable by the citizens that have to live around it."
Mr. Loewenstein said it is very important to consider "the degree to which we should be
,, taking into account the impact on existing businesses caused by the introduction, of new
commercial development. The City, in the past, has been very concerned about that and
the County has similar concerns. I am not saying this has to be part of the analysis, but I
am wondering whether or not it might be a good idea."
Regarding the four acres staff is recommending be reserved for residential use, Mr. Finley
asked staff what is envisioned. Ms. Thomas said the applicant has not presented a
specific plan for that area, nor does staff have a specific plan at this time. She said that
residential on that part of the property might compliment existing neighborhoods because
"there is a logical barrier in the road --it is separated from the site anyway."
There was a brief discussion of the Fiscal Impact Analysis which was included in the staff
report. Mr. Fritz, who had run the Fiscal Impact Model on the proposal, confirmed the
need for residentiaJ units which is shown in the table is generated by potential employment
created by commercial development. Mr. Fritz explained how the table was generated.
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the status of the Southern Parkway. Mr. Benish said the
project is in the County's priority list upon which V®QT's Six -Year Plan is based, but itis
not high enough on the priority Jist to be inchided in the Six -Year Secondary Road Plan.
He pointed out that there is presently a request from a property owner in the Fifth Street
area, on behalf of other residents of the area, to delete that roadway from the
Comprehensive Plan_
Mr. Slayton said he was struck by the fact that this discussion has already been had by
the County when the Land Use part of the Comprehensive Plan was approved and the
/00
6-30-98 4
Board decided to keep the Transitional Service designation. He said: "A lot of concerns
people have are based on balancing business interests with the residential interests and
the community interests. It strikes me that that balance was the sole purpose for creating
the transitional zone in the County, which leads me to the conclusion 'why change W." He
said he doesn't think the developers would be unwise enough to have invested a lot of
money into the project if they had not done a market analysis and believe it will be
successful. But the question is whether or not, twenty years down the road, this is what
we want to have at this site. This is very close to the center of downtown Charlottesville
and I think you need to take that into consideration --with the size of buildings you are
going to have and the density, and with the proximity to walking. It strikes me again that
this leads to the conclusion that you don't want a bunch of big boxes, which is what
Regional development is, ... but you want to have a larger number of small stores that are
more within the scale of the human being, intermixed residential uses, which is what the
transitional zone is for. From those two analyses, I think it points to the fact that
transitional zoning is the correct zoning for this site and there shouldn't be any reason to
change it. And because a large number of the uses proposed by this applicant fall within
that designation, it strikes me again that transitional is workable in, this area and would be
the best for the City, the County and the surrounding neighborhoods ... and would be less
dependent upon the construction of a road which might never be built."
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the South Pointe proposal provides more of the
neighborhood type shopping than does the Brass, Inc. proposal. He said one reason
these proposals are being considered is because the residents of these neighborhoods
have made known the fact that they do not want R-15 residential development on this
property. JNote: R-15 was a previous request made by the applicant but the Board of
Supervisors did not approve that request. The Board did approve R-10. The change was
based on public opposition and City concerns.]
Mr. Slayton said he understands why there was opposition to R-15 development, but he
said he thinks R-10 "is the right compromise."
Mr. Wood said he believes the City's primary concern is additional traffic on 5th Street
Extended. Those traffic concerns are not diminished by this proposal for a combination of
commercial and residential uses.
Ms. Harris said one of the primary concerns about traffic is the impact to rush hour traffic.
She was concerned that traffic would be cutting across residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Finley noted that the Fiscal impact Analysis had not included an analysis of
Transitional zoning. Ms. Thomas explained that Transitional cannot be translated into one
particular zoning so the Fiscal Impact Model cannot be applied.
Mr. Finley said if 400 new residences were built on this property the traffic impact to City
streets would be worse than this proposed development. With the proposed zoning, the
traffic impact could be lessened because there will not be additional people on the roads
'- - RG,GIl'1!!�, to t ►e impact Analysis comparing the
,going to anti from work a� ! us! ! ! ou! .
/D�
6-30-98 5
two zoning designations, Mr. Finley said: "It looks like, top vs. bottom, it is almost no
choice It looks like everything is more positive on the.hottom !i_e_ the eronnsed zoning) "
Mr. Nitchmann said this area is going to grow in the next few years, no matter what we
do " hecai mp of thR location of the new hinh schnol HP said he hRliRvps thR high srhnnl
will drive the acceleration of the construction of the Southern Parkway more than any
other factor. There will then be an even greater need for these types of services in that
AMA
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that even if the decision is made not to have additional
residential development in this location. the demand for residential capacity will still exist
as will the costs associated with residential growth. If it doesn't go here it will have to go
in some other Incation in the roi mtv
Mr. Benish said the Neighborhood 4 and 5 areas, together, have a population of 5,500.
Prnipr`tpd ranarity of thnsP two areas is a tntal of- is non to ?*1 non C'a mathpmatira.l
calculation of the holding capacity"). He said" "It would probably be toward the low end of
that given the typical densities that can be achieved."
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the City's plans for Ridge Street, particularly if parking on
hnth sideq of the street is going to continrie to he nllnw.ed . Mr Hiaoins .said the. City ha.9.
specifically decided that Ridge Street (from Cherry Avenue to Main Street) will not be
widened for at least 20 years. He confirmed that this neighborhood has received Historic
ripsinnntinn
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the County had not envisioned, 25 years ago, that there
wnt flri ha in nnn. mnrp hnmpc in NainhhnrhnnHiz 4 anri 5
Mr. Slayton said: "That's true, but what makes this area so interesting is that there is a
vibrant city downtown. I don't want it be a Lvnchbura. where the downtown area is pretty
much desolate."
The applicant made a presentation which described the proposal in detaii, including why
the applicant feels this is the best use for the property. Soeakina for the applicant were
Cliff Hamner, Stan Tatum and John Matthews. Mr. Matthews and Mr. Tatum used several
nttrnrtive cnnrentiial drswinns to desrnhe the nrr:hitectiire of the proposed development
and the site layout. The applicant has held several community meetings and the project
has the support of the neighbors.
The applicant's answers to specific Commissioner questions were as follows:
--Mr. Rielev asked if the applicant is willing to proffer the illustrations as presented.
Mr. Hamner responded: "This is the character we are committed to achieving, (but
her-A(mPi a lot of this is market drivpn, snmp of the details can rhnnop Rift wp.arp
committed to this character of design and development.
--Mr. Nitchmann asked how important the redesignation to Highway Commercial is
to the prnnnmir. viahility of the tntal nrniprt Mr Hamner rpsnondpd• "It is very imnnrtnnt
/0'`
6-30-98 6
Owe ... We think it allows us to bring higher levels of visual design to the project. It is a key
element of this entire project.,'
--Mr. Rieley asked the applicants to point to some of the buildings shown on the
drawings and describe what is envisioned. Possibilities listed by the applicant were:
restaurant, motel/hotel, grocery store and associated stores. Mr. Rip -ley asked how many
square feet are shown for a grocery store. Mr. Hamner responded: "This could be
upwards of 65,000 square feet. Mr. Matthews added that the plan shows about 240,000
square feet of space of commercial.
--Mr. Nitchmann asked what will happen if a tenant wants to change a facade. Mr.
Matthews anticipated that design guidelines will be established which will determine
building facades and street fronts, but "there needs to be some flexibility."
--Mr. Loewenstein asked how the plan will be integrated "from a neighborhood
perspective," i.e. how will it look from the adjacent neighbors, given the different
elevations. Mr. Matthews said he could not say how it will look from a distant or from a
certain angle, but the applicant is committed to doing the best possible design." The
drawings are a reflection of the types of developments that neighbors, during the
community meetings, said they would like to see.
--Mr. Slayton asked how much control the developer will have over the design of
hotels and restaurants given the fact that many have specific design requirements. Mr.
Matthews responded: "If the design of the development is strong enough, and they want
to be a part of the development, they will bend tremendously, or the development can
bend. Usually, it is a combination of the two." Mr. Matthews said the developer will have
"a certain degree of control ... and the guidelines will help enforce that as well." Mr. Slayton
concluded: "So the bottom line is you are banking on this being an incredibly successful
project so that you can maintain the design integrity you have shown here. However, if
the project is not as successful as you propose it to be, the integrity of the design
structure will have to be sacrificed so that you don't lose your shirt." Mr. Matthews
responded: "Not necessarily. The owner of this property has owned this property for 30
years. I think there is a certain amount of carrying capacity and he is not going to just
jump at the first person that comes through the door. If it doesn't benefit the project, he
may very well say, 'you're not the right tenant.'...." Mr. Slayton said his concern is that
once a project this size is approved and the zoning designation is changed, the amount of
control the locality has over the ultimate product is very small." Mr. Matthews said the
applicant is open to "reasonable suggestions" as to how this could be controlled, ways
"that are not going to limit the viability or feasibility of the project_ Mr. Slayton said he
would be more comfortable with the proposal if he had seen a market analysis which
would give him confidence that the design structure could be maintained.
--Ms. Harris asked what is proposed for the property opposite Covenant School.
The applicant said 50,000 square feet of "flex" space is proposed for that part of the
property (e.g. professional offices). Mr. Matthews said it could be a mixed use of office
and residential. Ms. Harris asked if eminent domain could be used to take some houses
in that area. The applicant responded: "I don't have any knowledge of that."
--Mr. Finley asked questions about the existing regional detention pond. Mr.
Matthews said the pond will be engineered to accept this runoff but another detention
pond may be needed. The County's stormwater detention requirements will be strictly
adhered to. Ms. Harris asked if the pond will become more attractive. Mr. Matthews
responded: "We were going to try to improve that."
/d 0
6-30-98 '
` --Mr. Rieley commended the applicant for having responded so thoroughly to the
comments he had made at the previous working session, i.e. to present a "real plan." He
said, however, he has concerns about the "mechanism and the best way in which to move
in this direction." He said he continues to be concerned about the absence of housing,
even on the separate parcet. He said: "Villages have residences as well as streets and
that is missing, still, in this scheme.
--Referring again to the statement on page 11 of the staff report about the absence
of the Southern Parkway and negative impacts to City neighborhoods (see page 1 of
these minutes), Mr. Rieley asked the applicant to comment. Mr. Hamner responded: "I
don't know how to justify that. This is intended to serve this area in Neighborhood 5 and
we also do (expect) some traffic from 29 South and western Albemarle and eastern
Albemarle, and we think, based on the people we have contacted, that there is room for
this here with the surrounding population, especially with the anticipated growth."
--Mr. Higgins asked if any deck parking is proposed. The applicant said no deck
parking is envisioned. Mr. Matthews explained the plans for parking in some detail,
including joint use as parking, e.g. parking for a theater could be available for other uses
during the day.
--Mr. Loewenstein asked how many people had attended the community meetings
held by the applicant. Mr. Matthews said "double meetings" had been held and often the
same people attended. He estimated an average of 25 people at each of 5 community
meetings. The applicant also met with the City staff 3 or 4 times. He said minutes of
those meetings, including the names of attendees, are available.
Additional Commission comments included the following:
--Mr. Rieley said it would be helpful, at the next level of the process, if the
topography could be layered on the plans.
--Mr. Schwartz expressed appreciation to the county staff for the extensive, easy to
understand staff reports. He said he feels there is "tremendous wisdom in the transitional
designation for this property, in trying to find that balance, including housing and including
smaller scale development retail opportunities. He questioned how the community input
had translated into some of the large uses which are envisioned by the applicant.* Given
the fact that many large chains (such as Courtyard by Marriott and Cracker Barrel) have a
standardized way of building their facilities, he said he believes there is the making of
some serious conflicts within the proposal between the architectural ambitions and the
national chains, and between the neighborhoods, who may think they are getting
something that is neighborhood friendly when, in fact, what is being proposed here is quite
consistent with regional designation.... I think in order to make an architecturally sensitive
development on this property, if the community is faced with a decision of either large
scale, regional service designation or evil housing, it seems to me the issues are being
framed in far too extreme terms." Mr. Hamner said the communities have seen the
drawings and like the proposal. No objections were expressed. It was again noted that
the comments received from the neighbors had been taken into consideration when the
drawings were developed. Mr. Matthews said the residential component of the plan "will
be there if it can work financially." [*Note: Mr. Hamner clarified that the uses read by Mr. Schwartz
had been potential uses which were a part of the applicant's original proposal, but those were changed after
the meetings which were held with the communities.]
--Mr. Wood suggested the County should look at the growth potential of the
residential areas which this commercial area will serve. He said: "Right now I don't quite
/O
6-30-98 8
buy the pedestrian aspect of this because the thing that dominates this entire design is
Wachovia--the building across the street --rather than anything residential." The county
needs to determine if this is really a "village center."
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
The Commission discussed the next step in the process. Mr. Nitchmann favored
proceeding to public hearing. Mr. Rieley said he would like to see staff explore the
limitations of the existing transitional designation and "the degree to which this approach...
could work within the existing transitional designation and Comprehensive Plan to deal
with issues like housing and scale and the degree to which we want to turn the area south
of 164, that corner, into a hotel/motel complex. I would just like to see how much of that
we could do with what is already in place." Mr. Cilimberg said he understood the
Commission would like more information from the applicant in terms of a "more defined
residential component." Mr. Rieley responded affirmatively. The Commission believed
this information could be provided at the time of the public hearing, so another work
session is not needed. Mr. Loewenstein supported Mr. Rieley's request for more
information about what is possible under the existing designation. He said this would
provide a basis for comparison. Staff anticipated a public hearing date sometime in
August.
The meeting recessed from 9:00 to 9,10.
CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc. - 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 213, lying east of 5th 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.
Using maps on display, Mr. Higgins described the zoning designations in the City and Mr.
Benish pointed out the locations of properties with commercial designation in the County
and the existing uses, or potential uses, on each.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. She said staffs concerns about this request for a
rezoning are: (1) Making a decision to rezone property without the benefit of a "big
picture analysis;" (2) Specific concerns about the development of the site in terms of
extensive grading; and (3) Aesthetic impact of the "big box" type of development to
surrounding neighborhoods.
Mr. Finley asked if there have been "no takers" on the property under the Industrial
zoning. Ms. Thomas replied: "That is what has been indicated to us, that it has been
marketed unsuccessfully. That is an issue, from a planning point of view, that we usually
don't get into."
/05
6-30-98
Mr. Slayton asked if there have been any analyses or any comparisons of the impacts of
different zoning designations, i.e. a comparison of the impact of industrial vs. residential
vs. neighborhood service, regional service or transitional service. He said there might be
options, under the Land Use Plan, which would meet everybody's needs. Ms. Thomas
said staff has not made such an analysis. She explained the results of the Fiscal Impact
Model which were included in Attachment A of the staff report. Mr. Slayton said this
analysis is of little use because apparently no one wants to develop the property with an
industrial use.
Mr. Rieley asked staff and Mr. Brooks (representing the County Engineering Department)
to comment on the "breathtaking discrepancy" between VDOT's and the applicant's traffic
analysis for 5th Street. Mr. Brooks explained that one model uses a "free flow analysis" of
the roads and points of entry, and the other looks at the signal timing and the delays at
the signals. There is still argument as to which is the correct approach.
Mr. Finley asked if anyone knows why "53 acres of reasonable land could not attract an
industry." Mr. Benish said Mr. Maury (Director of the Regional Economic Partnership),
said there are some competitive disadvantages to this location relative to some of the
other major office and research parks that have recently been developed. " The applicant
has indicated there are also some site development constraints.
Mr. Schwartz asked if both the traffic analyses assume the Meadowcreek Parkway is in
place. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the City, in a meeting with the applicant, requested
that the Parkway be factored into the analysis. The applicant's representative responded:
"We took a look at how the Meadowcreek Parkway would effect the 5th Street corridor to
the south and most of the traffic that would be on Meadowcreek was already on Rt. 29
North, and Meadowcreek was actually going to provide them with quicker access to the
downtown. I think that was the whole purpose of Meadowcreek. So from the standpoint
of effecting us to the south, all it did in the north was to provide another corridor to get
traffic into the downtown area quicker, but that didn't mean there was going to be more or
less traffic to the south of Charlottesville. We discussed that with (VDOT representatives)
at the district office and with County staff, but you (county staff) was relying mostly on
VDOT's opinion and they finally concurred with that." Mr. Cilimberg added that the
modeling which has been done for the regional traffic model projects, by the year 2015,
that the Meadowcreek Parkway will make very little difference in the traffic on Ridge
Street. That model showed this area as industrial rather than commercial. Mr. Cilimberg
said: "I think the effect on traffic, in terms of people who would be comparing 29 North
and this location, isn't going to be significantly different with the Meadowcreek Parkway.
... The impact from the Meadowcreek Parkway is from the central City, north. "
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Blaine. Using a drawing, he pointed out the
location of existing uses and the location of the applicant's property. He said this project
will serve the needs of both the surrounding community and the region. He asked Mr.
Ramey Kemp, who had performed the applicant's traffic analysis, to address the question
raised by Mr. Rieley about the discrepancy between the two analyses. Mr. Kemp
described his background and experience in preparing these types of studies. He said the
applicant's extensive traffic study had been submitted to VDOT for review. When VDOT
/O�v
6-30-98 10
traffic study had been submitted to VDOT for review. When VDOT had not completed
their review after an eight -week period, the applicant initiated a meeting, against their will,
if rushed them into an analysis and some comments in order to get them moving." He
said a traffic study looks at intersections to determine where there might be problems and
attempts to arrive at solutions. "Usually differences with VDOT comes with what those
solutions are and who is to pay for those. In this particular study, for some reason, VDOT
decided, in their response; that the traffic study addressed the basic lanes on 5th Street
and they decided instead of four lanes out there we needed six." He said he asked VDOT
to produce calculations which would substantiate their recommendation. The applicant
also disagreed with VDOT's use of the applicant's study to make such a finding. " VDOT
has a way of going thruugh the techill uai process of Bete-i-m-ining the number of lanes on a
roadway. I can tell you that 5th Street is very lightly travelled for a four -lane roadway. It
has a lot of capacity. That is the point we tried to make in our letter back to them, and we
are going back to them to show them the error in what they've done. In all the 110 traffic
studies that we did in '96 and '97, this never came up as an issue. I've never heard it
raised before in this kind of response to a traffic study. So it was strange to me and it
took us aback. ... We are trying to resolve this in a positive way with VDOT." Mr. Blaine
asked Mr. Kemp if he believes there is adequate capacity on 5th Street to accommodate
the traffic from this development and from the South Pointe development. Mr. Kemp
responded affirmatively. He said problems at the 64 Interchange show that traffic signals
are warranted now, with no additional traffic. Also, there is a sight distance problem at the
eastbound ramp -which VDOT has been aware of for a long time. He conciuded: "We just
need to get with VDOT to work out a solution."
Addressing Mr. Finley's question as to why the property has not been successfully
marketed for an industrial use, Mr. Biaine said the Best argument -was stated by staff, i.e.
"competing upscale office projects in other parts of the county." Referring to the Fiscal
Impact Analysis, he stressed that the property, as currently zoned, would cause a deficit of
$500,000/year to the county, whereas commercial zoning would add to the county revenue
almost $1,000,000/year.
The applicant's answers to specific Commission questions were as follows:
--Mr. Nitchmann said he is still concerned about what this is going to look like. "is it
just going to be another big -box project." Mr. Blaine said the first issues to be addressed
are the zoning of the property and road concerns. He said: We agree with Mr. Matthews
South Pointe's architect) that a big box is not necessarily incompatible with good design --
that there are ways of designing a project that will make it acceptable to the community."
Without answering Mr. Nitchmann's question directly, Mr. Blaine described utl e a-sNeCIts
of the project, including a soccer field and pedestrian and bike trails along Moore's Creek,
buffers, parking and potential site layout. He said the applicant has met with the Ridge
Street and Willoughby Neighborhood Associations and additional meetings are anticipated
as the project proceeds.
--Mr. Slayton asked about plans for the bridge on Bent Creek Road. A
representative of the applicant said the structural worthiness of the bridge has not yet
been determined, but that must be looked at and the loading will also have to be factored
in. Mr. Murray, the owner of the property, said there is a report in the County file which
107
6-30-98 11
was prepared during the industrial rezoning process and "the bridge is over -designed." It
was designed to carry concrete trucks-
--Mr. Slayton asked why the applicant has not considered more neighborhood type
service for the property. Mr. Blaine said a neighborhood shopping center already exists at
the Food Lion location. He said a regional shopping use will allow a large discount -type
store that will attract shoppers from the region as well as the immediate area. He said
also that competition will make goods and services better for everyone. The Demand
Analysis shows that this type of shopping center is needed in this area.
--Noting all the times concerns have been expressed about a big box type
development, Mr. Finley asked: Can you develop a regional facility and break it up a bit
so that it doesn't look like that --that huge parking lot, that huge building --and the runoff will
be enormous from both the roof and the pavement. Is there any way to have anything
other than a big box and still be feasible to the developer?" Mr. Blaine responded:
"Those are design challenges and this project will have to go through the same design
review as the South Pointe project and those are appropriate questions to raise during the
design process."
--Mr. Wood asked what will happen if the big box "doesn't make it?" This means
the smaller shops will fail also. He thought this possibility should be given careful
consideration. Mr. Blaine said the applicant has performed a thorough retail market
analysis which shows that this county will support another 2 to 2.5 million square feet
of retail.
--Mr. Nitchmann asked about the size of the building shown on the drawing. Mr.
Blaine said the very largest possible box is shown--210,000 square feet --but this could be
more than one facility, e.g. a discount store, a grocery store, and a theater --or it could be
one user. Mr. Murray, the owner of the property, interjected: "Behind this application is
two major big -box businesses which have approached us. They have done the market
research and they know where their customers are —in Nelson County, Buckingham
County and Fluvanna County. There is a huge demand south of Charlottesville for people
who do not want to drive up through 5th Street and Park Street to get through the City of
Charlottesville to get to 29 north to (do their shopping). They have done the market
research and they are willing to spend 7,8,10 million dollars to build something here, so
we know the demand is here and we don't need another year of study to prove it. I've got
all the research we need."
Additional Commissioner comments included the following:
--Referring to the potential impacts on surrounding areas caused by the
development of this site as proposed as opposed to the impacts if the site is developed
under the existing land use designation, Mr. Loewenstein said it would be helpful to look at
those comparisons more closely. He said he feels this is a key element of this proposal.
--Because of the proximity to Moore's Creek, Mr. Slayton suggested an
Environmental Impact Study should be required in relation to the amount of runoff that will
be generated by the parking lot. Mr. Blaine said the County's Water Resources Ordinance
will require an environmental analysis, regardless of type of development that takes place
on the property. Mr. Brooks interjected that the main issue will be the buffer along
Moore's Creek, and stormwater management will be required. Mr. Slayton asked if the
stormwater management will include measures to prevent the destruction of the banks of
Moore's Creek. Mr. Brooks responded affirmatively. Mr. Benish noted that there is a
/09
6-30-98 12
Greenway proposal, in both the City and County Comp Plans, along Moore's Creek. We
would work towards the establishment of that on this site." The County's Greenway
concept envisions a 100 foot area either reserved or dedioated, and this cnrrPsnond-, tn
the County's Resource Protection Area buffers.
--Mr. Schwartz asked how the discrepancy between the two traffic analyses will be
handled before the public hearing. He felt a clear position should be established in
advance of the public hearing. Mr. Loewenstein agreed. Mr. Benish said the staff is
working with VDOT and the applicant to arrive at a consensus. At the last meeting with
VDOT the main issues identified were the ramps, the signals, and the bridge. Mr.
Loewenstein asked Mr. Blaine if any progress has been made as a result of that meeting.
Mr. Blaine replied: "We have our list."
--In response to Mr. Murray's statement that there is no need for a retail market
analysis, Mr. Rieley commented: "I do think there is a need for a study. There is a very
big difference between a study that determines whether or not something is profitable for a
company and something that determines whether it is good for a community. It's a
different question. (Mr. Murray agreed.) That's the reason we need a study." Mr. Rieley
continued: "This is a difficult site. It has access problems one way in, off 5th Street. It
has streams that are enormously significant. A lot of money is being spent on Moore's
Creek and Azalea Park to fix the damage that has accrued from runoff as a result of
pavement and realignment of that stream, upstream. There are steep slopes. There is
valuable vegetation. There are important view concerns, both from the City and the
County and from the Interstate. There are runoff concerns and concerns about the
proximity to residential neighborhoods. It is a tough and important site which seems, on
its face, to be better suited to its existing designation than to the proposed one. We have,
tonight, almost no basis on which to determine that the Comprehensive Plan, as it is
currently designated, is in error. In the months that have gone by since we begged both
of the applicants to give us detailed information, one of them came forward with detailed
information and one didn't. We have a traffic analysis that is in question and we have a
market study which with all deference to my friend Mr. Cox --these kind of studies are, by
definition, open to a lot of interpretation. We don't have a plan, at least not much of one,
to advance the argument that this is good for the community. What is shown ... really
confirms one's worst fears. So I am a long way from being sympathetic to this proposed
change to the Comprehensive Plan."
--Ms. Harris expressed concerns that Bent Creek Road has become a "truck stop"
and a "teenage drop off." She said: "Obviously something has to happen there. There
is a neighborhood adjacent to that area and what we are seeing it become is a section of
town that is not desirable. The County already decided that a truck stop was not
acceptable for this property, and the southern part of the county does not need a truck
stop. But we need to be thinking about what other things can go there. Apparently
commercial uses would be better than some other things."
--Mr. Loewenstein said he has visited the area and has been "surprised and
dismayed" at what he has seen. He said: "I think we must be very careful that whatever
goes there will sustain and improve the neighborhood rather than be a detriment in any
way, which I think, is the situation that currently exists."
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
lt2 f
6-30-98 13
The Commission discussed the next step in the process. Mr. Loewenstein said it doesn't
seem this proposal is as far along in the process as the South Pointe proposal.
Mr. Benish said one of the most significant issues to be resolved is the traffic issue. Mr.
Blaine interjected: "The traffic issues you heard tonight are the same as with the South
Pointe project. The VDOT analysis that deals with the laning between the two entrances
of the projects is the same, so I wouldn't want the Commission to be misguided on that
point."
Mr. Rieley said he agrees with Mr. Loewenstein. He said: "I want to emphasize my
disagreement with Mr. Blaine's statement that design is something that comes later. If you
can't show how this project is going to fit onto this land in a way that will work, then we
shouldn't begin the process that will lead us, inexorably, toward a big box."
Mr. Loewenstein said, as he has in the past, that this area, and this parcel in particular,
are some of the most important remaining undeveloped parcels in the entire urban ring.
"Visually, it has a tremendous amount of importance --it is located on an entrance corridor.
It is contiguous to an important and evolving area of the City. There are transportation
issues. There are environmental issues, on this site especially. To my way of thinking,
there are too many question marks before us to be able to feel comfortable about going
on with what we've seen so far. I think there is still ground which needs to be covered."
. Mr. Finley said, given the positive market analysis, maybe the applicant should have a
chance to present a plan with more design specifics.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed that more design issues need to be addressed, but other
questions that have been raised need also to be addressed, questions related to land use
and the appropriateness of the recommended change as apposed to the existing
designation. He thought there should be further investigation of the unsuccessful history
of the marketing of the site as industrial.
Mr. Nitchmann said a lot of the items listed by Mr. Loewenstein are subjective --"a
governmental study could come at it with their own axe to grind and their own set of
agendas and make it slant their way." Also, "this is not an apples -to -apples comparison"
of these two projects. One is much smaller in scale and more a neighborhood project.
He said: "I don't know how much more the applicant can do in trying to show us a bigger
picture. ... It is unfortunate these are being presented together because you have this
village concept with nice drawings and small footprint buildings, etc., but these serve two
different purposes. One serves a residential area and this serves a regional area to the
south which will help keep traffic from 29 North. I think you need to give the applicant and
the staff very detailed instructions of what you want done if you don't want this to go to
public hearing with the South Pointe request. I don't see what we are accomplishing by
not taking it to public hearing at the same time.... I don't know what more you are going to
see unless you are willing to stick your necks out and say 'we don't like this and we want
you to do this."'
Ild
6-30-98 14
Mr. Loewenstein said no one had said that the two items could not go to public hearing at
the same time and that fact that there is a greater level of detail in the South Pointe
application does not mean that it will be considered any more or less favorably than the
other one. What we're talking about is bringing up to the same level of discussion this
project as we have had on the other. I think there are still a number of unanswered
questions, some of which can be provided by staff but some of which may require some
additional effort by the applicant as well. That doesn't mean that they can't come in
together and it doesn't mean that I am going to be any more or less favorably inclined to
one or the other because of it. It is just a question of having sufficient information in front
of us."
Mr. Nitchmann said he does not see how staff is going to be able to provide information
as to why this property has not been successfully marketed as industrial property. Mr.
Loewenstein said he does not think a lot of time has to be spent on that particular
question, but "it would be interesting to know if there are any ways which have not been
considered in marketing it under existing land use. It may be that there aren't any but we
don't know that.... What I am asking is if all the ways to market it have been successfully
explored."
Mr. Cilimberg summarized staffs understanding of the Commission's discussion: "I don't
see that there is a great amount of work that the staff can do to position this any further in
terms of your review unless we were to, in fact, go out and do the kind of regional analysis
we talked about, which would be something that would take some length of time. It is not
clear to me whether you expect that, but it is something that would involve a lot staff and
other assistance. There is the time that we are going to need to devote to working out the
traffic questions and though it is true that some of the issues are the same as with South
Pointe, there also is the more immediate issue of the access of this property from 5th
Street and issues on 5th Street --which are City issues --that are not as prevalent in South
Pointe. Those need to be worked through and that will take some staff time. But beyond
that, what I am hearing you ask for are things you want the applicant to produce. And
with that information you feel you can make a better judgment on whether or not this is
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan you want to go through with." He asked if the
Commission wants to review this additional information before going to public hearing or
whether it can be presented at the time of public hearing. Mr. Loewenstein responded.. "I
think if staff and the applicant feel that is something they can do within that time frame, I
think that's all right." Mr. Blaine said; "We think we can do that."
Mr. Cilimberg concluded: "What I'm hearing is you feel like you can go to public hearing
based on the things you've asked for. But I think you need to decide whether or not there
needs to be some analysis, beyond what's been provided, of regional commercial needs
and available and future available areas and the impacts of something here within that
context of the region, because that's not a simple effort. If we're going to get into that
we're into a whole new ball game. I can also tell you we are not going to be able to
evaluate whether or not this property has ever been marketed effectively because we just
don't have that kind of staff capability. We don't have an Economic Development Office in
the County."
6-30-98 15
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Blaine: "Do you thoroughly understand what you are to supply,
because I don't yetT "Ar. Blaine responded: "No." Mr. Nitchmann said: "I think Mr.
Rieley and Mr. Loewenstein need to tell us exactly what the applicant needs to provide."
Mr. Finley said: "Bill, I thought, in part, you described it yourself. It's not up to staff or the
Commission to say make it four buildings, put trees here, etc. Having heard what he has
heard and facing the facts of life --I may be speculating but I think I have reason to believe
i am reasonably correct --but I don't think (what has been presented here) would ever get
all the way through to .final approval. Let the applicant come through with a site plan and
something there that we can see and understand and have feeling about and can vote on.
Who else can do it but the applicant? How detailed do we have to be so that he
understands what we are trying to get out of him?"
Mr. Rieley said: "The applicant is asking for a change in the Comprehensive Plan. We're
not. We don't have to fix his plan for him. The applicant is coming to us with information
to convince us that his proposal for a change in the Comprehensive Plan is a good idea.
listed a lot of things that I think have been done inadequately. He can address those or
he can ignore those. It is completely up to him, but I can tell you that I am not going to
look favorably on this unless they are addressed in a serious way, and they're not, so far."
Mr. Blaine responded: "I think that message is clear. But I would be remiss if I did not
point out that we submitted this application i, August 1997 based upon the criteria that are
contained in the Comprehensive Plan for Comprehensive Plan reviews, and I would defy
anyone to find in that criteria the items that you have listed. I understand the message
you are sending, but I just want you to consider the fairness and equity of that."
Mr. Rieley said: "I said exactly the same thing to the other applicants as I did to you four
months ago and they responded to it and you didn't."
Mr. Slayton described the City's experience with a recent request and the problem of
trying to separate the applicant's proposal for "what he wanted" from "the zoning
question." He said those are two completely separate issues. He said: "You saying you
want to see a picture of what is going to go there, but, from my standpoint, I agree with
Mr. Blaine that that is way down the road, and for South Pointe too. You have to decide
what should go there, not what it's going to look like, but what is best for the County and
what is best for the City." Mr. Rieley said: "The County has made that determination."
Mr. Slayton responded: "And the question here is 'should it be changed' and whether Mr.
Blaine comes with a pretty picture next time or not doesn't mean it should be changed."
Mr. Rieley said: "if you think the issue is the pretty pictures, you are sorely mistaken.
These are serious land use concerns."
Mr. Schwartz said there will be considerable public interest about the fiscal impact to
existing businesses for both these projects, impacts to businesses in both the City and the
County which are both close to these properties and distant. He understood this would be
a difficult analysis to make but thought it was an important issue. Mr. Loewenstein said
that issue was identified in both staff reports and it would be helpful information_ He
questioned whether this was an issue staff would be able to address in detail. Mr.
6-30-98 16
Cilimberg stressed that this would not be a simple analysis and someone other than staff
would have to be involved and it would take a very long time (possibly a year). He said
the Commission needs to decide "do you really want it done, (and if you do) we have to
look at who is going to do it, how much it is going to cost, and how much time it is going
to take." Mr. Loewenstein said that though it is an important question and will certainly be
of concern to the public, "it isn't the only thing that drives the train and because of the time
involved and the complexity, it may not be possible to do any kind of study. But when we
get to public hearing; I think it is important for us to have some kin �d of fir. footin �g to
stand on in connection with this because it is going to come up, ... and I think both
Commissions will need a perspective to be able to articulate comfortably about this. We
don't really have that now." Mr. Cilimberg added: "it is a responsibility at a cost that does
not begin to be covered by the application fee paid by the applicant, nor by anything the
staffs Work Program can handle. It's not something we would be able to give a
perspective about at a public hearing." He said this is not something the Fiscal Impact
Model can address. Mr. Schwartz said that is part of his concern, i.e. that the Fiscal
Impact Analysis in the staff report portrays a very positive picture about this particular
zoning change as it's implications hold for the County without any consideration
whatsoever about what that might mean to the City." Mr. Cilimberg said the Fiscal Impact
Analysis does not speak to the impact to the private sector in the County either. It
addresses only what the County's positive or negative cash flow is going to be if that
project is developed. Mr. Nitchmann recommended that the Chamber of Commerce be
contacted for assistance in dealing with these questions.
Mr. Nitchmann said he thinks this is a "pretty subjective" question. Using Barnes & Noble
as an example of a big -box type use, Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that though they were
blamed for the closing of Williams Corner Bookstore on the Downtown Mall, there are still
three bookstores on the Downtown Mall and one new one has move in.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that Barnes & Noble had not required a change in land use
designation.
Mr. Finley pointed out that presently the County has a land use designation on this
property that is not being used. He asked: "Are we going to go another 101 years with,
that land sitting there when there is, apparently, a feasible use for it, and even a need for
it if the market analysis the applicant has made is correct, which we assume they would
not be willing to invest the money if it were not correct?" He again questioned what more
information the applicant is expected to provide. He said: "I am not at all convinced that
the rezoning is not the thing to do, but I have already expressed my concern about what
see and thinking many people will be looking at it based purely on what it looks like when
they finally make their decision. Is it going to fit in with what we would like to think is an
area that we have already been told is becoming a truck stop? Is this going to be
something different that kind of ups the ante a little bit?"
Mr. Loewenstein responded: "From my point of view I don't have enough in front of me to
know that."
�l�
6-30-98 17
Mr. Benish said he believes the staff has an idea of what the Commission expects. He
said staff could provide the Commission with a status report on the progress of those
items which have been identified.
Mr. Loewenstein said it is important for the applicant and staff to divide the list of
Unfavorable Factors listed in the staff report into items which can be effectively addressed
prior to public hearing, and those which cannot be effectively addressed. He concluded:
"I don't see why, if there is work done on some of these issues that can be addressed,
why these both can't get to public hearing at the same time."
Mr. Benish asked if the Commission wants to see the item again before the public hearing.
Mr. Loewenstein said: "That will depend on how much ground we cover." Mr. Cilimberg
said staff can outline, for both applicants, the items which need to be addressed, and then
they must decide how they are going to address those and bring that back to us and to
YOU."
Referring to a regional analysis, Ms. Thomas pointed out three items listed in the staff
report which staff might be able to undertake, at no cost --items which might lead to a
better understanding of the possible extent of a study. Mr. Loewenstein thought these
items would be helpful. Mr. Cilimberg stressed that the tasks listed .by Ms. Thomas "are
just going to tell you where information is --it is not going to provide any answers about
impacts." He said: "If you are in fact interested in that type of activity taking place, at the
time of public hearing or beyond, in terms of having an analysis done, it really is more
than a literature search and an identification of where the data is. To actually take the
information and do something with it will result in cost, and there will be a time factor. If
you see this information (listed by Ms. Thomas) at public hearing, when the applicant is
expecting you to make a decision, and then you decide you want a regional analysis done,
then we're back on 'cruise' trying to get to another public hearing."
Mr. Finley said: "I don't think we should attempt that between now and August." Mr.
Rieley agreed.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff will try to provide some information on what happens in cases
where a market like this is introduced, and what are the impacts.
Mr. Slayton thanked the Commission for inviting the City to participate in the Work
Session.
Ms. Harris thanked the applicants for holding neighborhood meetings and for considering
the City in the decision making process.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Tice requested that a work session be held on the Spring Ridge project before it goes
to public hearing. A work session was set for July 21.
6-30-98
18
The agenda for the July 7th meeting was discussed briefly. Agenda items include: (1) A
presentation by Ken Schwartz on the Design Center; (2) A presentation by the Rivanna
Round Table; and (3) A review of Family Divisions in mountain areas. No public hearing
items are scheduled.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
M
V. Wayne ,ilimberg, Se etary
113—