Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 31 1995 PC Minutes1-31-95 JANUARY 31, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 31, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Dabs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Tom Leback, UVA representative. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of January 17, 1995 were unanimously approved as submitted. SP-93-35 Ouam n-DirectMonument Company - Proposal to establish a home occupation Class B for monument sales on 7.75 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(31)]. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 41, is located on the south side of Route 649, approximately 1,200 feet west of Route 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Office Service in the Community of Hollymead. The applicant was requesting that the petition be withdrawn. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the applicant's request for withdrawal be accepted. The motion passed unanimously. Economic Development Policy Staff presented a draft of the proposed policy which included changes which were submitted by individual Commissioners. It was agreed that the proposed changes would be discussed and an attempt made to reach a consensus on each individual item. The first issue discussed was whether or not to include an Introduction (Preamble) with the Policy. Mr. Nitchmann questioned the "trend" which might be started by including a preamble to this document. Mr. Cilimberg explained that when this Policy is finally incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan it will be made to fit the format of the rest of the Plan. Ms. Imhoff stated that it was her understanding that the Commission's action would include the four -paragraph Introduction (which was discussed at previous work sessions). The Commission then discussed the two possible Goals. GOAL 1 and GOAL 2 1-31-95 Imhoff - "It's noted that I supported Goal 1. What I really had written was I felt more community support had been voiced at our public hearing for Goal 1, but that since I was the original drafter of Goal 2, I obviously still stand by it, with the exception that I did offer some alternate language that I think was suggested by the League of Women Voters." Nitchmann - "I think Goal 2 has some important parts that Goal 1 doesn't have. One is that I think it recognizes our responsibility to be in the center of commerce as well as the center of retail within the region. Goal I really doesn't do that. From my perspective, I think we have an obligation to accept that responsibility as being the center of commerce and finance. We are sort of the heart and the rest of the areas feed into us through the arteries. I would really like to see us take a position, from a Planning Commission standpoint, that we send the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that we become a participating member of the Thomas Jefferson Regional Economic Development Partnership." Imhoff - Referring to Mr. Nitchmann's statements: "I know that Mr. Nitchmann wants to talk about the regional partnership. If that's what is implied by the language in Goal 2, then I would have to say I think that is going too far. I think what we have been talking about is regional cooperation, regional information sharing. That may mean membership in the regional partnership, but I never got enough information about the regional partnership to think that was what our decision was on." She asked if Mr. Nitchmann would be willing to accept her recommended change in Goal 2. Nitchmann - Answering Ms. Imhoff question: "No I don't because I think sometimes you have to put a stake in the ground and you have to take a position and I think what is happening with the Regional Economic Development Partnership is good for the region; I think it would be good for Albemarle County; I think it would be good for the citizens of the county and it is a very low cost way for us to accomplish many of the other objectives and goals and strategies in this plan that we have before us tonight. I can understand (those who say) 'Let us leave that up to the Board of Supervisors', and they'll read in our minutes the way we feel about it. But I just think that sometimes we have to, as a Commission, send something forward." Huckle - "Maybe to solve this, maybe Goal 1 would be less divisive. I think it is obvious to everyone that Albemarle County is the center of commerce as suggested. I would hope that we adopt Goal 1, which is something we can, perhaps, all agree on better." Dotson - He felt the ideas in Goal 2 were dealt with in Goal 1, though Goal 2 deals with them in a "wordier" way. "I think that regional cooperation --which I certainly support-- is in here; it just doesn't have to be in the goal." Vaughan - She supported Goal 2 as prescntcd, with the cxccption that she supported Ms. Imhoff wording for part (3) which included the names of the participating localities. "Even though it is wordy, it actually talks about the support of the County's growth management policy. It is not implied --it is stated. I do not agree with Mr. Nitchmann in terms of actually PAU 1-31-95 spelling out the partnership, but 1 do like the fact that it would be implied, that we are willing to coordinate with regional_ and state economic development efforts without limiting ourselves. I think to put in there the Thomas Jefferson Regional Economic Development Partnership as stated, sends the message to the Board where they don't have a chance for flexibility," Jenkins - He expressed agreement with Mr. Dotson's comments, i.e. that 1 and 2 are not all that different. He felt the remainder of the Policy makes the Goal very clear and he questioned whether "it needs more reinforcing as number 2 does." Blue - "I think the regional aspect is the meat of it. As I recall, the Board of Supervisors declined to take a position on joining the Thomas Jefferson Regional Economic Development Partnership until they have heard from the Planning Commission. Maybe it is implied in Goal 1, but it is certainly stated in Goal 2, and I would support that." Imhoff - "The only thing that gives me cold feet about this is while I think we were asked to develop and speed up an economic development policy for the County, I really don't feel like I was asked to say anything on the regional partnership, so if Goal 2 is suggesting that we automatically, no holds barred, join the regional partnership, that would not be the reason for that vote. I do believe in regional planning, though." Blue - Addressing Ms. Imhoffs comments: "You're absolutely right, they didn't ask us to say whether we should join it. But it seems to me they held up their decision until we considered this." Huckle - "I am so afraid we are going to inadvertently buy into something that we don't realize we are buying into by spelling out so much here. Whereas Goal 1 covers it, but it covers it in a much more succinct way. Because there has been so little definition of these various partnerships and groups, this is what frightens me so much. 1 really don't know what it is that I am voting on if I vote for something like that." Dotson - He pointed out that some members of the public had expressed concern about the inclusion of the State in the economic development efforts because "we have not really discussed that before and we don't really have a good definition of what that involves." He wondered if the word "state" should be excluded. There was no opposition to exclusion of the word "state." A straw vote taken by the Commission showed a majority of the Commission favored Goal 2 as follows: Maintain a strong and sustainable economy: 1) benefiting County citizens and existing businesses and providing diversified economic opportunities; 2) supportive of the County's Growth Management Policy and consistent with the 5S- 1-31-95 other Comprehensive Plan goals; and 3) taking into consideration regional (including the City of Charlottesville and Greene, Louisa, Fluvanna, and Nelson Counties) economic development efforts. Mr. Nitehmann commented: "I support it if its with the understanding that the reason that we're not going to send a clear message to the Board of Supervisors about becoming a participating partner with the economic development partnership that's forming is because there are members on the Commission that don't understand the detail of what the partnership is." Mr. Blue added: "Or don't agree." Objective I - Acceptable as presented. Strategies 1, 2, 3, 4, b, 8, 10 and 11 - Acceptable as presented. Strategy 5 - The Commission supported Mr. Dotson's suggested wording as follows: Recognizing that the University of Virginia can provide important resources for business and industry and work with the university and its associated entities to take advantage of opportunities to benefit, from this resource in innovative ways. Strategy 7 - The Commission supported Ms. Huckle's suggested wording as follows: Designate the Department of Planning and Community Development as the contact.point for information about the County. Strategy 9 - The Commission supported Mr. Jenkins' suggested wording as follows: Encourage employment of the local labor force, rather than heavy reliance on relocated workers. Strategy 10 - Mr. Jenkins had suggested that the word "new" be added between the words "discourage" and "business." There was no support for this change so the original language remained. Strategy 12 - Mr. Dotson had proposed this new strategy under Objective IV, which was discussed later in the meeting. It was agreed it should be included as Strategy 12 under Objective I, as follows: Monitor and report to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors about the volume of economic development activity and how that activity is fitting with the Goals, Objectives and Strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. 1-31-95 Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about added staff time which would result from this strategy. Objective II - Acceptable as presented. Strategy 1 - Though Mr. Jenkins expressed some reluctance to add to staffs workload, there was a consensus to accept Ms. Imhoffs suggested wording as follows: Assess the quality of areas designated for business and industry through analysis of the site size variety, topography, location, and availability of infrastructure in such areas, and compile an inventory of actual, useable land. Strategy 2 - The Commission supported Mr. Dotson's suggested wording as follows: Designate areas for office, commercial and industrial development that meet the development standards of the Comprehensive Plan and will provide sufficient land to meet community needs through the next Comprehensive Plan revision. Provide enough land to allow flexibility and choice without inviting sprawl or detracting from infill opportunities in areas previously designated in the Plan. Strategy 3 - Ms. Huckle expressed a preference for the original language which included the wording "to ensure local determination over decisions." Because of the lack of definition of "local determination," there was a consensus to support Mr. Dotson's suggested wording as follows: Utilize the rezoning process and associated proffer allowances to address needs brought about by new development and to provide the community with assurances about future development activities. Strategy 4 - Acceptable as presented. Strategy 5 - The Commission accepted Ms. Huckle's suggested wording as follows: Review current infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, community facilities) programs to determine their impact on business and industrial development of designated areas. Identify infrastructure improvements that will make Growth Areas work. Objective III - Original wording: "Recognize and support the County's place in the regional economy." Both Ms. Imhoff and Ms. Huckle recommended the deletion of the word "support" because of the concern that it could be interpreted to mean "financial support." i-3 1-95 6 Nitchmann - He felt the term "recognize" really did not say anything. "No one wants to step up to the bar and say 'Hey folks, we've got a stake in this community so let's put our best foot forward and go forward with this.' I'm pleased that this document has gotten this far so I am not going to do anything to jeopardize it at this late stage, but I think it is foolish that we should have to send everything up to the Board and let them make their decision. But I can live with "Recognize the County's place in the regional economy." Blue: "The only way we are going to get this thing through is as a milk toast document." Imhof€ - She disagreed that this was a "milk toast" document. "The strengths are going to be what you do under the strategies." [Mr. Cilimberg interjected: "You've discussed this partnership idea a lot. I think whether or not you are going to identify that in your document --the strategies are the place to do it because it is a specific action. It is not really a goal or an objective; it is an action.] It was a consensus of the Commission that Objective III read as follows: Recognize the County's place in the regional economy. Strategy 1 - There was a lengthy discussion about this strategy. After hearing Mr. Cilimberg's comment about where the partnership idea should be addressed, Mr. Nitchmann proposed that the following be added as the first "bullet" under Objective III, Strategy l: "The County will become a participating member of the Thomas Jefferson Regional Economic Development Partnership. " The following comments were made about Mr. Nitchmann's proposal: Huckle - "I want to know what it is first." Nitchmann - He addressed Ms. Huckle's comment. He recalled that Nancy O'Brien had ' described the partnership at previous meetings and that it has been in the press for quite a long time. (Ms. Huckle referred to an article which she had clipped from the newspaper a couple of days previously. The article described the organization as "local business leaders raising money." She asked "Is this the one you are talking about." ) Mr. Nitchmann responded: "Yes. It's the only one. It's the one where the counties of Fluvanna, Nelson, Greene and Louisa have gotten together and decided that they need to look at economic development on a regional basis, as the rest of the state is doing, such as the Lynchburg area and the Roanoke area, etc. —looking at economic development in the future that they need to be able to bring better jobs to their communities. They are looking at it on a regional basis. ,, " They are going to develop a lot of things that we are talking about here, in a more 1-31-95 7 economical manner without putting a lot of burden on the local government of any one particular locality." (Ms. Huckle asked if it included PVCC and the University, and the private sector.) Mr. Nitchmann explained: "There will be a Board of Directors from a lot of those you named -- the private business communities, the educational organizations that we have, and members from the different local governments. It's going to be a joint partnership, and the ticket for us to join is $12,000, which is what it is for all the communities." (Ms. Huckle noted that the newspaper article had quoted a figure of $100,000 each. It was determined that the newspaper article was incorrect. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the amounts were $100,000 public funds, plus $100,000 private funds.) Dotson - "I think there are two things about it which are particularly distinctive. One is that it leverages a lot of private money more, according to recent information, than any of us thought. The second distinctive thing is that it will be an organization that among its functions will promote, advertise and market the area. Those are its most distinctive functions, though I think it has other functions." Nitchmann - Addressing Mr. Dotson's comments: "And it will only do that if we, as a member, wish it to be done for our area.... We are not going to be pulled along by a nose ring here to follow whichever way they want to go. We have a stake in it and we have a say in it. If we are not a part of it, we don't have a say." Blare - "It is highly unlikely that the other regions would get together and accept something that the County of Albemarle wouldn't accept, is what you are saying." Imhoff - "One of the questions I've had is how average citizens would participate or be notified or included in the partnership decisions. I have never understood how will citizens be involved in the process." (Mr. Blue pointed out that other T.IPDC activities do have public hearings.) Nitchmann - Addressing Ms. Imhoff s comment, he felt the partnership would serve as a clearinghouse for citizens and he felt there would be participants on the Board which would be from the private sector. Imhoff - "That's been my biggest qualm. I really support the idea of regional planning, but I have been concerned about this particular vehicle." Dotson - He called attention to his proposed wording for Strategy 1. He said: "I really think we need to support our PDC in the things that it does best. I, personally, am not prepared to say 'yes' to support the partnership, but I am prepared to say that the organization that we already have does certain things well and that's the reason that I propose this. I think the thing that it does well is bring public policy officials together to discuss the policy behind economic development activity. If there's a partnership, it may implement that policy, but the partnership shouldn't define the policy. I also feel that the PDC has that data base in hand �l 1-31-95 and it would be foolish to go out and recreate it and not have them do that. If they've bot the data, then it seems to me that, one would logically gcs to them to obtain that data. So. what I was trying to do in this particular itehi was say 'let's recognize whaf the PDC does well and say that you want to cooperate through and for those purposes." Huckle - "I have several problems with this. One is that I think Albemarle County would have one vote out of 20. I don't see how we can possibly justify doing anything that involves marketing and recruiting when we have at present an unemployment rate of 2.7%, when full employment is considered by many experts to be 3.5%. Another thing is, what if we go into marketing and recruiting, and all -those. other 19 entities find some industry that they, thank is absolutely perfect for us, but the County itself doesn't (agree) because it might force a lot more growth on us and a lot. more taxes to build schools. It would be very hard for us to. reject something like that if we had been -a part of a partnership which recruited them in the first place. So I think this would be a. very, very bad mistake for us. to become involved in. I do suggest that if there is some sort of a cooperative group, as addressed in Objective III, Strategy I --the six jurisdictions, the University and PVCC, to do these various functions --to be a point of contact. But I rejected the participation for interested citizens and I would like to include 'not to include membership in any public -private partnership, marketing or recruiting.' I could support a regional group, provided that was all it was --the development of a, coordinated economic database, and a point of contact." ,ftw Nitchmann - "It is strange there are five other counties here who are convinced that this is a good thing, including the -City of Charlottesville, and there arc two other counties that want to join --Madison and Orange. I don't believe that we are that much smarter than them to think that this a wrong thing for us to be doing. I think that it is important for this county to be part of this. I think not to be part of it will be detrimental to the long-term good of this community. I would rather be part of something in its planning, and have input into it, so I at least can feel that I have some control over the way things are going than to stand outside and be looking in." Mr. Blue felt the two viewpoints had been expressed well by Commissioners Huckle and Nitchmann. Ms. Imhoff offered a "middle ground." Imhoff - "I think the struggle is that I want the partnership defined as to what it does. Perhaps we could use IL. Dutsvtt'S hutgungc wid use wUtus "ill o+uel to" (a! the end of the opening statement)" Mr. Blue wanted to see the question of whether or not to support the county's participation in the Thomas Jefferson Regional Economic Development Partnership settled once and for all. He was ready for a straw vote to be taken. Ms. Imhoff did not think the issue was a black and white one. (Mr. Blue and Mr. Nitchmann disagreed.) 1-31-95 Vaughan - "I don't think it's black and white. If what you are about to do is to call a vote asking which commissioners are for the partnership and which are not, that is something I would not be able to vote on because I am looking at the data here not (in terms of) how it effects the partnership, but how it is going to be ...(she did not finish this sentence)." (Mr. Blue advised Ms. Vaughan she could abstain from the vote if she did not feel it was a black and white issue. He pointed out it will only be a straw vote, but he felt it was important.) Mr. Blue asked who was in favor of joining the partnership. Commissioners Blue, Nitchmann and Jenkins responded affirmatively. Mr. Blue then asked: "Who is not ready to vote on this issue right now and would rather discuss it, and is in favor of a partnership, but not in favor of specifically joining the Thomas Jefferson Regional Economic Development Partnership?" (Ms. Imhoff interjected; "In favor of regionalism.") Mr. Blue rephrased his question: "In favor of regionalism but doesn't want to make that decision right now? I understand there are 3 of us." Mr. Dotson responded: "I think there are 7 of us who are in favor of regionalism." Mr. Blue again rephrased his question: "In favor of regionalism, but are not in favor of making regionalism specific to this particular proposal?" Dotson - "I am not prepared to incorporate, meaning I will not support with my own vote, language that incorporates the partnership." Blue - "Then I am assuming the others --and I think Ms.Huckle has expressed her views pretty well-- I think we have it on record as to how we feel. Now let's go ahead and talk about the rest of this (Economic Development Policy)." Nitchmann - "You all explain to me later how you can't be either for it or against it, because I don't understand what just happened here." Huckle - Addressing Mr. Nitchmann's earlier comment about the other counties who have determined this to be a good idea: "I don't think any of these other counties have a 2.7% unemployment rate." Nitchmann - Responding to Ms. Huckle: "That has nothing to do with it. We have an underemployment problem here, whether we can identify it or not, it is a fact of life. It's the real world and we have a tax base problem which we have to consider too." (Huckle: "Importing a lot of new workers with a lot of children to educate is not going to help our tax situation.) The Chairman invited comment from those commissioners who had not yet made their positions clear. Jenkins - "Ms. Huckle is exactly right in terms of unemployment and there is a strong case for that. But I think in this day and age, no longer than it takes to go from Charlottesville to 1-31-95 10 the farthest area that we are talking about in an automobile, it is one area. I think it is in our best interests. Some industry that might be looking at Albemarle --we may be able to talk them into going to Nelson, or Orange or somewhere else. The fact of the strengths of Albemarle being what they are and the negatives being the unemployment what it is, but the other things that the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle have to offer could make Nelson or Orange or any of the rest more attractive than they are now. So, that is part of what we are trying to do with this document. So, to the extent that that is a practical approach to it and to the extent that I think that is part of what we are trying to accomplish with this document, I can support it. Vaughan - "I'm not saying that I am against the partnership. That is not my intent. I am for a regional participation. What I don't know is if the partnership is that regional participation." Dotson - He expressed agreement with Ms. Vaughan. He noted that comments made previously explain his position. Mr. Blue invited comment from Mr. Leback. Mr. Leback offered no comment. Returning to the issue of Objective III, Strategy 1, Ms. Imhoff offered to withdraw her recommendation in favor of Mr. Dotson's. It was ultimately agreed that Mr. Dotson's suggested language would be accepted for Strategy 1 as follows: Cooperate through the TJPDC with other jurisdictions in the region, the University of Virginia, and Piedmont Virginia Community College for: -Development of a coordinated economic data base; -Continuing discussion among the TJPDC jurisdictions about working and shopping patterns, wage levels, job stability, work force development needs, housing affordability, public services, tax burdens, and other topics which relate to the purposes of local and regional economic development policy; -Distribution of information about development opportunities in the TJPDC to those who request it; -Regional work force development; -Addressing linkages between housing and wages; -Evaluating local, regional, statewide, national, and worldwide economic trends to determine the current and future economic stability of, and growth opportunities for, different types of business and industry. Strategies 2 , 3 and 4 - Acceptable as presented. (Ms. Huckle had suggested the deletion of the words "and seek to cooperate with" on Strategy 3. Ms. Imhoff expressed opposition to this change because she felt this needed to be a strong statement. It was a consensus that the original wording was acceptable.) m 1-3 11-95 11 Objective IV - Mr. Jenkins questioned whether "standard of living impact" was something which could be measured but he was not opposed to the proposed wording. Objective IV was determined to be acceptable as originally stated. (Commissioners, Imhoff and Nitchmann withdrew their suggested changes.) Strategy 1 - There were no objections to a suggestion made by Mr. Nitchmann to change the wording as follows: Evaluate the fiscal impact of new businesses/industrial development. Strategy 2 - Ms. Imhoff suggested wording was supported as follows: Recognize that County residents place importance on job opportunities and economic growth, but not at the expense of the protection and preservation of water quality and quantity. Strategy 3 - Acceptable as presented. Objective V - There was a consensus to adopt Commissioner Imhoff and Nitchmann's suggested wording as follows: Provide local business development opportunities. (Ms. Huckle favored the deletion of Objective V altogether, including its three strategies.) Strategy 1 - Acceptable as presented. (Ms. Huckle again expressed concern about the use of the word "support." Mr. Dotson felt that use of the word "through" defined the meaning of support, i.e. "through an open door policy of communication, and exchange of information and concerns.") Strategy 2 - Ms. Imhoff noted that there is already a "micro -enterprise program" in existence. She felt the strategy should either be deleted or amended. Mr. Nitchmann did not think it was the county's role to develop strategies for assisting new businesses. The following wording was agreed upon for Strategy 2: Coordinate with existing entities that assist new small, locally -owned, and minority businesses in their start-up and early operation efforts. Strategy 3 - It was agreed this strategy would be deleted. 1-31-95 12 [NOTE: It was decided Mr. Dotson's first suggested new strategy under Objective V should be included as Strategy 12 under Objective I (as previously stated). Mr. Dotson withdrew his second suggested new strategy under Objective V.] Objective VI - Acceptable as presented. Strategy 1 - Acceptable as presented. Strategy 2 - The Commission supported Mr. Nitchmann's suggested wording as follows: Encourage and support continuing educational and training programs to prepare the local work force for the skill demands of current and future employers, including appropriate work habits and life skills. Strategy 3 - The Commission supported Mr. Nitchmann's suggested wording as follows: Encourage and support apprenticeship programs. Encourage the school system to teach basic life skills as a means of preparing our future work force. Mr. Nitchmann expressed the strong belief that the high schools need to recognize the need for offering life skills classes as part of their curriculum. Strategy 4 - Acceptable as presented. This completed the Commission's discussion of the proposed Economic Development Policy. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the Economic Development Policy be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for adoption with those changes discussed, and including the 4- paragraph introduction. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Blue noted that the straw vote taken earlier in the meeting on the question of whether or not to join the Thomas Jefferson Regional Economic Development Partnership had resulted in 3 commissioners definitively supporting the County's membership in that organization. He clarified that those Commissioners who had not supported the County's membership in the TJREDP was not opposition to a regional partnership, it was opposition to that specific partnership --opposition to recommending to the Board of Supervisors that they immediately join the Thomas Jefferson Regional Economic Development Partnership." Ms. Imhoff commented: "I guess that's fair. I guess both Monica and I were sharing the thought that we had that we simply didn't understand enough (about the partnership at this 61-/ 1-31-95 13 point)." Mr. Blue understood that to be Mr. Dotson's concern also; i.e. "that nobody is against the regional agreement, it is just what regional agreement." The motion to recommend adoption of the Economic Development Policy, with the changes recommended by the Commission, passed unanimously. Mr. Nitchmann asked that staff make certain that the Board has a clear understanding of the make-up and function of the Thomas Jefferson Regional Economic Development Partnership . Mr. Cilimberg explained the TJPDC had provided the Board with the same information it had provided the Commission. ----------------------------------------- WORK SESSION Milton Airport Area B tud - (To provide the Commission with information on this study.) The staff report explained that events at the State level regarding the possible surplussing of this state-owned property prompted staff to bring this item before the Commission apart from the overall land use plan discussion as originally planned. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the total acreage of this property is 172 acres, 134 of which are in the floodplain, making its use limited. He reported the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) has made the following recommendations for the property: (a) Continue to maintain current uses on the site; (b) Retain the existing vegetative buffer along Milton Road between the site and residential property; (c) Review site for potential passive recreational uses; (d) Review the site for other potential recreational uses. He also reported that the Milton area has great historical significance and is currently being studied by the Department of Historic Resources. Ms. Imhoff asked what land use designation would be shown for this area in the Comp Plan. Mr. Cilimberg explained that these studies have been referred to in the Comp Plan by reference. He said: "You would not literally do a land use map, or don't have to do a land use map and a growth area designation for Milton. You would simply, within the Comprehensive Plan, make reference to this study as a guiding document for activity at that particular site." Ms. Imhoff commented: "If we were asked to be specific, it would either be Rural Area or, if you're tending to some sort of recreational use, it would be Public Institutional use. Those seem to be the two options. As a growth area it doesn't make any sense when most of it is floodplain." Mr. Dotson felt Public Institutional might be appropriate as long as the property is in public ownership, but otherwise, it might be Rural Area. �_, s 1-31-95 14 Mr. Leback explained that the University had cooperated with the County and the neighborhood during the study to come up with a recommendation that everyone could agree with. However, "before the ink had dried on the study," the State directed the University to "get rid" of the property. The University had not been able to come up with any long-term uses for the property, other than possibly environmental or biological research. The University presently uses the hangars on the property for storage of seldom used materials. A firing range on the property is used by the University, City and County police departments. A model airplane club uses the property and it has been leased at times to tree nurseries. The University explored other possible uses for the property and the possibility of a park came up --not a university -run park, but if the County wanted to consider such a use, the University was ready to enter into discussions as to how a park could be accommodated. After the public hearing at Stone Robinson, the recommendations were changed slightly, bringing the issue to its current status. Ms. Melanie Bassio (University Real Estate and Space Manager) explained the history and process of surplussing (Code of Virginia Section 2.1-5). A State study performed in 1977 determined that the Milton property was "surplus to the needs of the institution." Another study done in 1994 confirmed that determination. A criteria for determining whether a property is surplus is that "it is not utilized for any program -related purpose." She acknowledged that the University's uses of the property are "secondary uses." The University presently has a resolution in place requesting permission to have the property declared surplus. She explained that this does not mean that there would be any immediate change in the ownership or that a determination would have to be made "forthwith." She said the University will be able to sell the property, after receipt of written approval of the Engineering and Buildings Department, at fair market value (the average of two appraisals, one by the University's agency and one by a potential buyer). The property will first be offered to other state agencies, then to local municipalities, and then to public sale. Mr. Nitchmann wondered what the County's role is in the process. Ms. Bassio responded: "I think we are asking permission from the Board to enter the process of declaring surplus We are here to say we are interested in working with the County. We can make certain requests of the Engineering and Buildings Department as to what our interests are. I think there is some attention paid to that which is deemed to be in the public interest and some of what you are talking about in terms of historical significance." She anticipated the process would take 6 months to a year to complete. Mr. Leback also responded to Mr. Nitchmann's question: "It's hard to say, but if the County were to say 'we value this for open space; we value it for historic reasons; we value it for future park land,' that might be something you need to get out in the political arena." Mr. Cilimberg added: "Right now the study has no standing. The PACC has agreed to it but until the County has adopted it it really is not guiding anything. Either the County might decide to make a decision and end the surplussing process or (the study may serve ) as a 1-31-95 15 guide to the University as they begin to surplus the property and talk to interested users, and this will serve as a mechanism as to what may happen to the property." Ms. Imhoff said she has pictures of the property which shows the early period with commercial buildings on the river with wharfs and the remnants of the canal system. She felt there were some outstanding remnants of the old town of Milton and as late as the 1950's the outline of the buildings and streets were still visible from the air. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the County were interested in obtaining the property would it have to be purchased or would it be a gift. Mr. Leback responded that the County would have to purchase the property. (Ms. Bassio explained that a long term lease was also a possibility.) Mr. Leback felt it would be good for the State to know the County's position on the property. Ms. Huckle asked at what point the County should indicate an interest in the property. Ms. Bassio felt it would take at least 2 or 3 months to get a survey done, a Board resolution, find funding and get an appraisal. She explained that even though the State can come in and declare the property surplus if it so chooses, the University wants to be proactive and is "reticent about being told what to do with the property." Mr. CiIimberg added that it would help the University's case if the County has taken an action to adopt this Study, which shows that the University, County and City have agreed on these recommendations for the property. He felt that could play a part in how the property is surplussed. Mr. Leback concluded the discussion by saying: "I think if you wait a year or two, it may be too late." Ms. Imhoff again pointed out important features of the property: (1) The historic significance of Milton; (2) It is on a state -designated scenic river; (3) It is in the viewshed of Monticello; and (4) It would, hopefully, connect to the Greenbelt system which is planned to go at least as far as Shadwell. (Ms. Huckle agreed with Ms. Imhoff.) Ms. Imhoff was in favor of endorsing the study and sending it on to the Board. Though not a public hearing, the Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Pat Sternheimer, the archeological principal investigator at Milton, addressed the Commission. She stressed the historical significance of the property. She explained the property was purchased by Thomas Jefferson in 1800 when he was President and the airport property is part of the original 5,000 acres that was the Monticello plantation. An 1830 packet boat has been found within the last three months and an effort is being made to preserve that boat, intact, in the ground, without excavating it. No other public comment was offered. The Commission agreed that this item should not be delayed to be discussed with the overall Comp Plan land use issues. Staff was directed to schedule the item for public hearing. 1-31-95 WORK SESSION Growth Area Expansion 104 Mr. Benish explained that the staff report was a response to questions raised by the Commission during the previous work sessions. Because of the late hour, it was agreed that the Commission would delay discussion of this item until February 7. However, because several local developers were in attendance at the work session it was agreed they should be allowed to make their comments. Mr. Steve Runkle, representing the Kessler Group, addressed the Commission. His comments focused on ways that he felt growth could be clustered in areas where public utilities and services are provided. His comments included the following: --"To the extent that the supply of land is restricted... housing will be more expensive and there will be more pressure to develop in rural areas." --"The rate of growth and the mix of product types that we have been accommodating in the past several years could be, in the future, accommodated with 400-425 acres/year." --He presented some figures on building activity from which he drew the following conclusions: --"The problem with rural area development is single family homes." --"There has been a shift of approximately 25% of development of single family homes in growth areas in the mid-80's to about 60% or 65% today. That has been caused by large, amenity -based projects. Forest Lakes probably caused a shift of between 15% and 18%." --"From the beginning of 1993 through mid-1994, 17% of all detached permits issued in Albemarle Co. were for the Hollymead Growth area, which is essentially 100% Forest Lakes." --"Since the beginning of 1993, 14% of single-family detached permits have been issued in Glenmore." --People move to those neighborhoods because they are well - planned, have desirable amenities, and are price competitive with properties in rural areas. The only way to provide that in the future is to make available parcels large enough to support the infrastructure that is required in those communities and spread it over a sufficient number of units to make it affordable." --"Design requirements cause the cost of housing to go up. One of the problems with density is, frequently, the cost goes up disproportionately to the gain in density." --Critical slope regulations need to be reviewed. --At least 400 or 500 acres of land is needed to accommodate a development which can spread the cost of "some of the things that make it an attractive alternative" (to non - growth areas). --Things that get in the way of density are regulations, including road design requirements. 68 1-31-95 17 Mr. Don Wagner, representing Great Eastern Management, addressed the Commission. His comments included. --"Don't get the idea that just because you have more area in the growth area, that necessarily means more people move here. When you have more area in the growth area, and a greater selection, the significant factor in the value of the property is getting it into the growth area. The reason it is significant is because it is so hard to get it into the growth area. It is a long difficult process. If it were easier to get things into the growth area, maybe it wouldn't jump the price up so much and maybe things could be more affordable." Ms. Imhoff expressed an interest in knowing developers thoughts (at a future work session) on "how to add a lot of land and. yet get coherent, compact development." Mr. Hunter Craig addressed the Commission. He referred to some of staff s figures and pointed out that he did not think the 600 acres listed in the Breeden tract was for sale, "at any price." He also did not think it would be possible to "buy 150 acres that has access in Crozet, much less at a price that is economically feasible." Mr. Dotson asked if there was a great demand for housing in the $100,000 range . Mr. Craig felt there was a "tremendous demand" in that range (perhaps 50% of those persons who are now renters), but that it is "impossible" to build a house in that range today. Mr. BobWatson, representing Blue Ridge Homebuilders, addressed the Commission. He suggested a strategy or a goal should be to support a study to determine all regulations and design requirements which impede increasing density. (Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Housing Committee was addressing this issue.) It was decided the Commission would hold another work session on Growth Area Expansion on February 7, 1995. ----------------------------------------- MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Cilimberg reported that there would be no regular Planning Commission meeting on February 14, but the Commission was invited to attend the City Planning Commission on that date to hear a presentation on the Southern Urban Area. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15. W. Wayn ilimberg, Secr D$ M