HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 10 2003 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
June 10, 2003
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 10, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Members attending were Rodney Thomas; Bill Edgerton; William Rieley, Chairman; and
William Finley. Absent were Jared Loewenstein, Pete Craddock and Tracey Hopper, Vice -
Chairman.
Other officials present were David Benish; Chief of Community Development; Elaine Echols;
Principal Planner; Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Michael Barnes, Senior
Planner.
Call to Order And Establish Quorum
Mr. Rieley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
Mr. Rieley invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There
being none, the meeting proceeded.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — June 4, 2003
Mr. Benish summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on June 4, 2003.
Consent Agenda
SDP-03-008 Earlysville Fire Company Site Plan Buffer Disturbance Waiver — Request,
pursuant to Section 26.10.3 to disturb the required 30' buffer between Industrial and Residential
Districts. (Tax Map 31, Parcel 21 F) (Shea Farrar)
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes — May 6, 2003 and May 13, 2003
Mr. Thomas moved to approve the consent agenda as presented.
Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously (4:0). (Loewenstein, Craddock, Hopper - absent)
Work Sessions:
ZMA-01-07 Albemarle Place - Request to rezone 63.7 acres from HC (Highway Commercial)
and LI (Light Industry) to NMD (Neighborhood Model District) to allow a 1.8 million square feet
mixed -use development. The properties, described as Tax Map 61W3, Parcels 19A, 19B, 23,
and 24, is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District at the corner of Rt. 743 (Hydraulic Road)
and Route 29 North. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional Service in
Neighborhood 1. (Michael Barnes)
Mr. Barnes summarized the staff report. He pointed out that this was a continuation from the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment review that took place last year for the Albemarle Place project.
Hopefully, the Commission is relatively familiar with many of the issues. Staff's main goal for
tonight's work session is to try to deal with the internal design and layout concerns. The review
has been broken into three major components:
1) Questions relating to the internal design and layout;
2) External transportation impacts mitigation; and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 315
3) The specifics related to regulating the future build -out of the project (i.e., the Code of
Development and proffers that will regulate the future build out of this project).
Tonight the Commission would deal with the internal layout and design issues. Staff hopes that
the Commission can sign off on a few major principles that staff has posed as questions and any
other questions that staff has not raised in this report. Those questions can either be resolved
tonight or further direction can be provided to the applicant and staff so that those issues can be
resolved early in the process, and then move on to the transportation issues that need to be
resolved. The proposal is similar to what the Commission has seen before that includes a mixed -
use, multi -floor development proposing 1.9 million square feet of retail, office and residential. The
layout reflects the same sort of theme of having the retail on the lower floors and office or
residential uses above. On the northern one-third of the site, the plan has the larger stores and
service parking lots as seen previously. The major difference in that area is that the applicant has
reduced the footprint of those stores. The applicant has tried to meet some of the language that
was put forth in the Comprehensive Plan on the exterior of the project. The applicant previously
had some parking decks along Hydraulic Road that have been shifted more internal to the site.
The applicant has added office uses and town homes along Hydraulic Road.
One of staff's first questions to the Commission is has the applicant addressed the uses and
potential problems with building massing along Hydraulic Road and is it compatible with the
facade that is across the road in the City. Staff feels that it is. The next question relates again to
Hydraulic Road and Route 29. There were five points given by the Architectural Review Board
during their review on June 2"d. There were more points in their recommendations, but these five
points relate to the important design aspects of the concerns raised by the ARB. The five points
were:
1. Block G should have an additional small building adjacent to Building G5 (Attachment C)
so as to screen the surface parking lots from the Entrance Corridor.
2. Blocks F and G should have more tree islands running the full length of the parking row.
3. The overall design of the project should have variation, but the variation should create a
harmonious development overall.
4. The Application Plan (Attachment C), the landscaping shown along the Entrance Corridor
and within the parking lots may need to be augmented in order to meet the ARB's
standards for the mitigation of visual impacts.
5. Finally, the ARB recommends that the Commission and Board do not limit the ARB's
ability to modify the character and/ appearance of various components at the site plan
stage.
Primarily the applicant's concern was that in the northern one-third of the project that the ARB
recommended adding another smaller building adjacent to Building G5. Staff referred the
Commission to Attachment C of the staff report on page 16. Part of the concern that staff is
hearing from the applicant with that recommendation is that they need some visibility to be able to
sell the property to the potential tenants. The applicant feels that this little window was enough to
meet the market concerns that they need to address. The impacts will not be very significant.
The ARB is also asking for more planting islands within the northern third of the development.
The third point is that the ARB appreciates some variation within the project, but they don't want
too much. The ARB is concerned that the landscaping along the Entrance Corridor may need to
be increased, which was something that they could work out with the actual details of the design.
The ARB asks for some discretion at the site plan stage when they are issuing the Certificate of
Appropriateness to ensure that the Entrance Corridor is protected. What is the Commission's
opinion on the ARB's concerns, particularly with regards to the first point in how that gets weighed
with the applicant's concerns?
The next question regards the 70,000 square foot restrictions on the single user on the first floor,
which was a concern raised during the CPA. The applicant has responded by keeping all stores
in the northern one-third of the project to less than the 70,000 square foot threshold. In the
southern one-third of the project shown as Building C, the applicant has proposed a two-story
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 316
department store with 70,441 square feet on the footprint, which was in excess of that 70,000
square feet. The applicant proposes to restrict all building footprints within the development to no
V40W more than 77,000 square feet. Staff believes that a 77,000 square foot limit is in general keeping
with the CPA, especially when applied to a two-story store. Therefore, staff has no objection to
the applicant's request. He noted that would extend to buildings potentially in the northern third of
the site, too.
Finally, they would get into the northern one-third of the site, which was one of the principle
reasons for bringing this before the Commission tonight. Staff requests some clarification, which
went back and forth during the CPA, on whether or not that section would even be an acceptable
portion of the project. The applicant has indicated that they need this area to draw in and make
the remainder of the project work since the economics and the market forces drive that decision.
He asked where the Commission stands on that issue. Staff would like to see the applicant
provide better street connections through the project.
Staff has accepted the applicant's argument on the stores and parking lots, but would like to see
the northern third of the site reorganized to accommodate the regional transportation network and
to visually mitigate the impacts of the parking lots. First, staff would like to see Fourth Street
continued along the length of the project's boundary with Comdial and connect to Commonwealth
Drive. Secondly, staff would like Cedar Hill Drive to continue in a straight line to allow for a
possible future connection to be made through the Comdial Plant to Greenbrier Drive. Third, staff
would like to see buildings G1 and G2 split to allow for a future extension of Swanson Drive
through to Fourth Street (See staffs suggested road alignments on Attachment M). Finally, staff
believes that the applicant should mitigate the visual impacts of the large parking lots with an
appropriate combination of streetwalls and landscaping for the surface parking lots adjacent to
Cedar Hill and Fourth Street.
The applicant is worried that staff's proposals will create cut -through traffic and will separate the
�1*ft,, retail stores from the parking lots with a busy road. Staff believes that cut -through traffic will be a
minimal amount of the total traffic and that the connections to Commonwealth Drive and
Greenbrier Drive far outweigh the risks. Secondly, staff has suggested switching the major
retailer in building F1 with the parking in FP1. This would allow buildings F1 and F2 to have
surface parking immediately adjacent and Cedar Hill Drive to extend straight through to
Greenbrier Drive. Furthermore, staff would support traffic calming measures to reduce speed
within this area. Staff has the following three questions for the Commission's consideration:
• Staff accepts the applicant's argument that the large retailers and surface parking lots are
necessary to support the economic viability of the project. Does the Commission agree?
Staff has suggested three road alignments. The applicant does not support these
realignments. What is the Commission's opinion?
Staff recommends a combination of streetwalls and landscaping where the parking lots are
adjacent to Cedar Hill Road Drive and Fourth Street. Does the Commission agree?
The next question regards amenities and public space. The applicant meets the minimum set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan for 15% green space and 10% amenity space. In their draft
proffers, the applicant proposes $250 per residential unit, which would equate to $150,000 to
$200,000 to be used for off -site improvements. During the CPA review, discussion was held
about potential improvements to White Wood Park, the Meadow Creek Drainage, and/or sidewalk
improvements to help people in this area get to off -site amenities. Again, other off -site green
space/amenities that are a little farther away include Albemarle High School and the Ivy Creek
Natural Areas. The question to the Commission is if this is enough green space. He pointed out
that the site provides green space in a park amenity. The applicant is retaining the concept of a
roof top amenity area, such as basketball court, for the residents of the development. The
applicant has a cafe aspect in the middle of the parking lot. It seems that the plaza area, shown
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 317
in attachment A, has somewhat been diminished. Staff pointed out that one of the concepts that
he liked in the earlier plans was the restaurant in the area around the plaza. Staff believes that
the applicant should expand the plaza area in Block C to provide more civic space. Staff would
be agreeable to the provision of an increased landscaped area, restaurants with outdoor seating,
public art displays, or some combination thereof. Staff believes that a similar provision of
amenities is necessary within Blocks A and/or B.
Staff believes that with small improvements that the project can satisfactorily provide a sufficient
amount of green and amenity spaces. What is the Commission's opinion? Is the possibility of
providing off -site amenities enough to provide the type of development that they were looking for?
During the CPA review, there was considerable discussion about the proposed impacts to the two
severely degraded streams on the site. The project still proposes eliminating the two severely
degraded streams. Staff recognizes that urban projects like Albemarle Place are in keeping with
the County's Growth Management and Infill policies. In this case, the potential for this project to
meet many of the Neighborhood Model Principles and other County goals coupled with the fact
that these streams are already heavily impacted and degraded has lead staff, including the
County's Water Resources Manager, to conclude that covering these streams is an acceptable
tradeoff.
The Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) are
currently assessing the potential impacts to these streams and devising a mitigation strategy.
While the mitigation plan's recommended implementations remains uncertain, staff is working
with the Corps and DEQ to arrive at a mitigation strategy that will off -set the impacts within the
Meadow Creek watershed.
• Staff has concluded that the benefits resulting from form and character of the proposed
development outweigh the impacts resulting from the elimination of the two streams on the
site. What is the Commission's opinion?
Mr. Barnes stated that he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Mr. Barnes.
Mr. Finley stated that Swanson Drive was not mentioned. He asked why the applicant did not
want that.
Mr. Barnes stated that the idea was to continue Swanson Drive through the site with the idea of
future infill and trying to create a grid system. Obviously, there is a grocery store and another
building sitting in the middle. Separating the two uses and putting the road in is not the
applicant's desire. The applicant is proposing sort of a plaza area in this portion. Both of these
concepts are predicated on taking down the Sperry Building, which may be something that does
not happen anyhow. The applicant has proposed a plaza area where you come in on Swanson
Drive and go to the west and then back to the north. He stated that it would be better to have a
straight shot.
Mr. Finley asked if Fourth Street and Cedar Hill Drive would stay in.
Mr. Barnes stated that staff's opinion was that the site might be reorganized to accommodate a
road going from Fourth Street with Cedar Hill. He asked if the Commission feels that is an
important thing for the applicant to do to organize their site to accommodate that.
Mr. Thomas asked if that was a continuation of Swanson Drive from the City.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 318
Mr. Barnes stated that the applicant has carried the street names from the City into the project.
Mr. Thomas asked if the grocery store was not there and the road went straight through the
property, what would be left in front of the Comdial property?
Mr. Barnes stated that of the three roads, which he had suggested, Swanson Drive might be the
least important. If staff prioritized, Cedar Hill Drive straight through to Greenbrier Drive is an
important connection, as is the Fourth Street connection.
Mr. Thomas stated that if Cedar Hill Drive had a connector all the way through, it would give you
a straight shot into Angus Road.
Mr. Barnes stated that had potential impacts to the City and staff was intentionally trying not to
get into that. He stated that a meeting has been set up next week with the City staff to discuss
that very issue and how to address ways to mitigate the traffic impacts. He noted that there has to
be something that can be done.
Mr. Finley asked what he meant by variation in item 3 of the ARB's comments.
Mr. Barnes stated that item 3 of the ARB's comments meant trying to find a careful balance
between every building looking like a carbon copy of the one next door without having so much
variation in architectural differences between the buildings that there is no commonality between
them.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that he had no problem with the maximum square footage of buildings
being 77,000 square foot.
Mr. Barnes stated that the applicant came with a power point presentation tonight if the
Commission allows them a chance to make a short presentation.
Mr. Edgerton asked what the ARB's concern was in item # 5.
Mr. Barnes pointed out that both Marcia Joseph and Katie Hobbs, who were members of the
ARB, were present if the Commission has any questions.
Mr. Barnes stated that the concept was that usually proffers state that the development would be
in general accord with the plan as shown here. He asked how much the proffers locked the
applicants in regarding moving the buildings or parking since the ARB wants some discretion to
be able to move things around without putting the applicant in jeopardy.
Mr. Rieley asked if the Commissioners would entertain a short power point presentation from the
applicant.
It was the consensus of the Commission to allow the short presentation from the applicant.
Frank Cox, on behalf of Albemarle Place's managing partners, asked to embellish the remarks
that Mr. Barnes has made regarding a series of changes and studies that they have undertaken
since this project kicked off in April, 2001. After the Commission got them through the CPA back
in the early fall; they carried it on to the Board of Supervisors. At that point, they began working
with staff to try to finalize a series of modifications that arose out of many discussions and
information provided by the Commission as part of the CPA review. There are a number of
comments in the CPA that made the applicants reevaluate some of the issues. He presented a
few of the slides that reflect those changes to add to Mr. Barnes comments. The Neighborhood
Model was what precipitated all of this. As they went back to the challenge, they recognized that
there was a new paradigm, but they also had to mix in some issues of the reality of the market
`VOW place. The matter of how to best treat that north sector was certainly included amongst those as
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 319
they moved ahead. One of the things that the CPA affirmed basically was that the location of the
property was the center of gravity of a regional population and its transportation activity, which
'"40W was adequate for public services. The applicants did a market analysis to support some of the
inquiries that they would be taking business away from others and that it might cause other
businesses to go out of business. He noted that the strengths of both their market analysis and
of the County's have offset that concern. Being the last prime infill site in this particular part of the
Route 29 Corridor regional shopping area, they felt that this plan was a part of the CPA. Once
the plan was refined with the ZMA, hopefully it would take the pressure off of some of the other
regional sites that were under pressure to develop prematurely.
The key issues that the Commission and site brought to us to challenge at the CPA, and going
forth with the ZMA, related to Hydraulic Road and the land use compatibility. In regards to the
limitations to building footprints and scale, they show the 77,000 square foot footprint. They have
a department store that has expressed an interest and, in fact, have agreed to being in the new
Main Street Town Center, but they have a footprint of about 75,000 square feet. They request
that when the Commission considers the ZMA that they allow a ten -percent increase in the
70,000 square feet applicable to two-story structures. The issue of public space amenity and
parks was emphasized as well as making sure that this did not turn into a Lowe's retaining wall
exercise.
The ARB reviewed the request and was really interested in the compatibility of design and that
the applicants would have a Code of Development that integrated good architectural principles.
What they tried to do in presenting the package was to include a set of proffers and phasing
representations that they hoped would participate with the regional corridor solution with a range
of solutions appropriately and without over committing the Albemarle Place owners to preserve
certain amounts of land that they could find to be appropriate to accommodate a feasible solution
for Hydraulic Road/Route 29 intersection.
Lastly, they have provided a set of proffers that are included in the Commission's package. The
new ZMA master plan has a number of adjustments and enhancements. One of the City's
concerns was the realignment of Angus Road or the realignment of the new Main Street so that if
there was any opportunity in the future to ever connect through to Angus Road that it could be
done. The second reason was to make sure that if ultimately a design for Route 29 that either
elevated 29 higher than it is now with a bridge or a Hydraulic Road underpass, which was
ultimately what the MPO came up with, that they would have the necessary land available. They
wanted to make sure that the necessary grading accommodations could be done within the Route
29 right-of-way without injuring their opportunity to have a new Main Street entrance onto Route
29. By moving it slightly to the north and using VDOT criteria for proper grading, they can
accommodate this entrance for right in and right out regardless of whether the Rt. 29/Hydraulic
solution is a bridge under or a bridge over for Route 29. The grading studies were done and they
presented detailed drawings to the City, MPO and staff for consideration. They have met with the
City and VDOT many times to discuss the impacts. They were at the point now after working with
VDOT and the County where VDOT feels comfortable that a solution can be achieved. VDOT is
studying Harrison's MPO recommendations, and they will continue to look to an impact analysis
to determine what engineering and physical consequences it would render to our property. They
feel that the new Main Street alignment will accommodate the future corridor concepts. Another
thing that has been done is relocating the parking deck interior to the property. One of the
comments from the Commission was that they did not like the parking decks being visible from
Route 29. The applicant has responded to those concerns. The applicants have introduced the
residential uses as Mr. Barnes indicated. Other nonresidential uses that provide more of a street
front orientation have been provided. They have tried to address the City's concern that they not
introduce traffic into the neighborhoods to the south, and also that the uses be mutually
compatible with the existing uses on the south side of the Hydraulic Road right-of-way. Due to
the change in grade on Hydraulic Road and the grade on the parking lot, the property would not
be very visible. They have worked on reorganizing the parking by adding to the parking and
lkww landscape islands. Several street front buildings will alleviate some of the concern for views into
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 320
the buildings in the rear. They have looked at some of Mr. Barnes' comments regarding the
Commonwealth/Comdial access, and of course the ARB was very concerned with the view into
�ft" the site and the potential of any adverse aesthetics resulting from that. The revised master plan
re-establishes the new Main Street. They maintain a mixed use in the entertainment area. The
theatre site will be moved to the southwestern sector of the site. They were not abandoning the
idea of cafes and civic spaces along Main Street. At the front of the site they maintain the hotel
location with flanking restaurants. This is the area where VDOT and the MPO have the most
concern for reservation of land for future right-of-way improvements all along Hydraulic Road.
The applicants are in a study process and were committed with VDOT and the County's
engineers to do whatever work is necessary to refine the designs that have been brought forward.
This will certainly be a subject of a future work session. This will be retained as a primary
residential neighborhood, but the applicants will have retail along the street. He proposed
neighborhood traffic solutions instead of regional traffic solutions. Therefore, they may resolve
this intersection with a roundabout of sorts and could maintain this as the four -lane intraproject
by-pass improvement. The applicant has no problem with Mr. Barnes' suggestion to provide for a
connection to tie into Greenbrier Drive, but would like to have a two-lane facility. There is an
opportunity from Hydraulic Road to extend into the Sperry site if at some future time when Sperry
develops or goes through a revitalization process. Similarly, there is an opportunity within Sperry
to make a connection all the way through to Comdial. He pointed out that they do not have the
opportunity to develop the land with those two pieces. The last part of the interconnectivity piece,
as it relates to a second connection up to Commonwealth Drive, would be extending a street that
they already have in place. Their proffers maintain a willingness to reserve all land necessary at
this location as well as the possible extension at this location. They have done preliminary
studies of both locations to make sure that proper geometrics could be reached to make those
connections feasible.
The last piece was the one that would create an intersection that was highly desired. They have
made a substantial effort to secure the required land from the Sperry landowners when they
*AW,,, purchased the property. They have made some effort on establishing access to the property on
the north/south basis. They have been rebuffed at all of their attempts with the Sperry folks. The
phasing plan is something that they refer to in the proffers. The applicant's desire is to do the
new town center in the first phase, and they are not proposing to do big boxes or grocery stores
in the first phase. They have proffered that the infrastructures and as many buildings that are
economically feasible as a part of the new main street development will be included in the first
phase of the development. However, given that there will be continuing concerns and questions
about transportation, they want to make sure that there is adequate transportation circulation from
Route 29 North. As a first phase proffer they are proposing to build their interior connector road
that would link Route 29 to the Post Office to Hydraulic Road at this location. The applicants
have had a number of discussions with the City. He stated that their transportation scheme is not
relying on cut -through traffic nor do they want to contribute to that if in fact the City wants to shut
that down. He spoke with Angela Tucker of VDOT and she made some comments about traffic
calming and phasing that could take place. The applicants plan on reserving the same amount of
land this year that VDOT asked for last year. Last year they had a deal they thought was cut with
VDOT on at -grade transportation improvements. They had a commitment to fund and build those
improvements. During June, July and August of 2002, there has been the reemergence of the
concept of regionalism between the City and County and doing Route 29 transportation
improvements. They will continue working with the County on what is the appropriate amount of
land to preserve. They don't want to put a building in that would have to be condemned at a later
date. They have submitted to the staff an 80 to 90 page Code of Development that addresses the
basic tenants regarding the architectural and landscape criteria. Blocks F and G have some
changes in them. The landscape buffers are addressed in the Code of Development and have
been changed from the original plan. At the front of the property they have been working on a
system of enhanced stormwater management of the BMP's that would probably correct some of
the ills in this watershed. The property really does not have any upstream stormwater
management of BMP's that are functioning properly.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 321
Another concern was not having adequate visibility of these buildings from Route 29. Obviously,
the Commission wants little or no view from Route 29, but there has to be a compromise. The
department store and parking deck have been relocated so that they will not be located adjacent
to Hydraulic Road. He pointed out that City Place was very similar to this proposed development.
They feel that there is a substantial opportunity for success in this development. The set of
zoning proffers supports the regional approach. They were committed to proffers that clearly state
a desire for interconnectivity with Commonwealth Drive, Comdial and Sperry. They have a
phasing plan. The signalization proffers have been made. Cash proffers for off -site
transportation improvements have been included in the proffer statement. They are providing for
on -site green, open and civic space that exceeds the guidelines and the platform that was
established as a part of the CPA. They have also made a cash contribution proffer that can be
used at the discretion of the County for enhancements of nearby parks and open space. They
have been asked to do a range of transportation improvements. He pointed out that one project
could not finance the ultimate solution for the entire Route 29 Corridor. Our group is familiar with
TIF and CDA financing mechanisms and has indicated a real willingness to be a part of such a
solution should the County, City and State decide to move ahead with that.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were questions for Mr. Cox.
Mr. Edgerton stated that in the phasing plan you mentioned reserving a certain amount of land for
dealing with the intersection of Hydraulic and Route 29. He asked if any land in that box was
controlled by the owner, since it appears to only include the little Seven Eleven site.
Mr. Cox stated that the land that they proffered would not include Seven Eleven, and it would only
include the land that VDOT asked them to include as a part of last summer's discussions.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the setbacks they saw for the buildings in that area would restrict what
VDOT may be doing.
Mr. Cox pointed out the reservation lines. He stated that they tested that with the split grade plan
as well as the plan that was brought forth by the Southern Environmental Law last year. Short of
that, they have not tested any further options.
Mr. Edgerton asked when they would anticipate building the northern section that they argued
that had been so important for the economical viability of the project.
Mr. Cox stated that he would anticipate that would go in the day after the new Main Street goes
in. He stated that more of the larger format retailers were interested in the north sector of this
project. Mr. McCloud would be able to express this a little better because he has been
negotiating with over 100 different retailers that have expressed an interest.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the proffer to do the Main Street development as Phase One would only
include the actual road commitment.
Mr. Cox stated that it would include both, but the market would determine the number of the
buildings.
Mr. Barnes stated that staff purposely did not comment on that. Staff is trying to tackle this
request in three parts. He pointed out that the timing of the project would be the third part. What
is the phasing? What are the elements of the Code of Development that are important? The
second part will be the traffic. He acknowledged that it was really hard to integrate them out.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was struggling as one who was opposed to the big box component of
this project. He stated that he was really excited about the rest of the project, and frankly, he was
very pleased with what adjustments had been made especially along Hydraulic Road. He felt that
some real sensitivity had been shown in the design of that. But what he was hearing and reading
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 322
in the staff report was the need for that piece which they left out of the CPA. The applicant's did
not include the maximum square footage of the footprint as part of the CPA, and the project does
1VftW not work without it. The applicants have already enlarged the footprint once from 65,000 square
feet to 70,000 square feet, and now they want to bump it up to 77,000 square feet. One of his
concerns was that certainly there was a market for big boxes, but that the whole effort on behalf
of the County was to try to change that model. If the big box is going to get built and then
because the market does not support the rest of it, then the rest of the project does not get built
was something that he was struggling with. He asked for some help on that from staff. He stated
that they were talking about a rezoning and a specific layout and design, which made it hard not
to visualize this from the hard lines. He noted that it would be unfair to the developer, the County
and the community at large for the Commission to look at this and say it is all right and then come
back and say no we did not mean that.
Mr. Barnes stated that they would be left holding the bag because then you would get the
northern one-third and then you don't get the rest of it. Staff is aware of this and will work through
to make sure that it does not happen.
Mr. Cox pointed out that Mr. McCloud would like to briefly respond to the question.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. McCloud to address the Commission.
Bruce McCloud stated that he heard a few concerns about sequencing and what is going to get
built, and he would like to clarify it. He pointed out that the point that Mr. Cox was making about
sequencing was that they were agreeing to start with the Main Street development and not start
with any other part of this project. That would be the first phase. He stated that they would not
start the north without the south, but they could start the south without the north physically. He
noted that it would not work from the merchandising point of view. This project on Main Street
only has one large anchor. The northern retailers are in part the total merchandising offering. At
the present time, the one large building on the north is actually three tenants and not two. The
one large building that was 130,000 square feet is now actually three tenants with 110,000
square feet. He noted that the square footage was originally 65,000 and they took it to 70,000
because we thought the tenant had a 70,000 square foot footprint, but it was actually 74,000
square feet plus. He pointed out that they could live with just an exception for that one building
on the Main Street and not have the north side piggyback on that exception. He noted that it was
a specific exception for a specific tenant.
Mr. Edgerton asked if he was talking about the department store.
Mr. McCloud stated that was correct because the department store meets the 74,000 square feet
because that is their prototype and it is hard to get them to change that. He suggested that they
leave the 70,000 square foot limitation on the north part. He stated that their frontage on Route
29 was a long narrow strip that would appear as a long narrow parking lot, but it was as workable
as they could make it.
Mr. Edgerton stated that they were talking about the major department store developing the
infrastructure as far as roads, plazas and pedestrian access for the southern end, but at the same
time the northern end would go in as well.
Mr. McCloud stated that was correct. He pointed out that in reality these projects only work where
they have to build most or the entire Main Street in one shot. This was not somewhere that you
could sequence the buildings one at a time because you don't have any critical mass. In reality
that entire Main Street back to the movie theatre is going to get built in one shot. That is a project
and the northern part is a project, but they really need to go together.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that he would find it less objectional if the applicants provided some
shielding of the huge parking lot from Route 29 North. He stated that if the view shed were not
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 323
going to be affected by an additional structure along Route 29 as requested by the ARB, then he
would not have any problem with that.
Mr. McCloud stated that he did not think they would be able to lease these stores if there was a
building in here blocking all the view from Route 29. Those tenants want to have a little visibility
from Route 29.
Mr. Rieley stated that there was a question, page 3, # 5 at the top of the page about the request
of the ARB. He asked Ms. Joseph if she would weigh in on this issue.
Mr. Barnes pointed out that there was an attachment in the Commission's packet that had the
ARB's total drafted comments.
Marcia Joseph stated that the ARB reviews the pieces of this puzzle as the project comes
together as they look at some of these specific drawings. She pointed out that the ARB receives
and reviews sketches and perspectives as a part of their approval process. As some of these
things become part of the approval for the rezoning, it means that those are the kinds of buildings
that will be built there. She felt that the ARB did a preliminary review of this and were not at the
stage now where anyone feels comfortable. The thing that the ARB would like to see was some
continuity throughout it. The difficulty is that some of these buildings will not be visible from the
Entrance Corridor, and that is the only thing that the ARB looks at. The existing Design
Guidelines say that the buildings should align up with the roads. One of the concepts of the
Design Guidelines is to have an edge to the road. Because this is such a large and important
project, she asked if the Commission would consider if they have another work session, to have
the work session with the ARB. She noted that she felt a little uncomfortable representing
everyone on the ARB. She felt that it was a very important project and would probably change
the way that they do a lot of the development in this County. She felt it would be good for all of
them to set down together before it gets approved.
Mr. Barnes referred to pages 20 and 21 in the packet, where there were two perspectives
showing views into this site from the intersection into the northern one-third of the site.
Attachment H shows the closest corner to Sperry where the stormwater pond is located.
Attachment I shows another view in to the property.
Ms. Joseph stated that the difficulty was how was the detention pond going to manifest itself.
She asked if you would see the dirt and the sides of the slope or is it going to be built with block.
She pointed out that they don't know what will be visible. She felt that if the two groups could get
together, then they could make their desires clearer.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was a good suggestion. He stated that this obviously was not a public
hearing, but they have given the applicant and the ARB a chance to speak. He asked if the
Commissioners would object if they allowed other interested parties to weigh in on what they
have heard so far. There being no objections, he asked if there was anyone else present to
speak on this topic. There being none, he brought the conversation back to the Commission. He
stated that the Commission would go through each question that staff has posed to them and
give feedback on all of them. He asked that they begin with the design issues and the issue of
the frontage along Hydraulic Road. The staff report says that staff is satisfied with the uses and
potential building mass passing along Hydraulic Road and believes the facade to be compatible
with the opposing development in the City. What is the Commission's opinion?
Mr. Thomas agreed with staff noting that it was entirely better than it was originally.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he had previously stated that he liked it. He stated that he wanted to be
convinced that those surface parking lots would be appropriately screened from Hydraulic. He
pointed out that he could not tell from the information that has been provided since there was no
iftw topographic figures to be able to tell if it was below the street level.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 324
Mr. Rieley agreed with the comments that had been expressed. He felt that it was a substantial
'*ftw improvement and he was appreciative of the change. Relative to the row of buildings, he felt the
Commission should see an overlay of Thomas Jefferson Planning District's Study as a
transparency to go directly over this site. Then they could see what the implications of the grade
separated interchange and the round-abouts that are associated with it in the degree that will
change, if any, in the configuration that is shown here.
Mr. Barnes stated that there is the need for not only reserving the amount of right-of-way for the
road itself, but potentially for the construction of the road itself. But, what you may end up with is
something that extends into the site and that the buildings ultimately built may actually sit back.
He pointed out that in Harrison Rue's design, the traffic circle was sort of depressed in the corner.
Staff is working on this and as long as they try to stay faithful to the tenants that are being
proposed here and the Commission is comfortable with them, then they can use that as a spring
board to try to work on the design issues.
Mr. Rieley agreed and felt that it was time to put those two things together.
Mr. Barnes pointed out that staff would bring that information back to the Commission.
Mr. Rieley recognized that there was no finalized design for that or commitment for funding, but
they have to begin somewhere. He stated that seems to be something that they should at least
be looking at.
Mr. Finley asked when this would be brought forth.
Mr. Rieley stated that the work that has been done to date is remarkably detailed for the level of
study that exists. The County Board of Supervisors has endorsed that study and it seems that
while it is still in the study stages that so is this review.
Mr. Barnes stated that he felt the pressure to get that information to the Commission as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Rieley stated regarding Entrance Corridor issues, the ARB said that they felt that Block G
should have an additional small building adjacent to building G-5 for screening purposes. The
applicants have asked not to be required to do that. The ARB felt that:
• Blocks F and G should have more tree islands running north/south and east/west, the overall
design of the project should have variation and the variation should be harmonious overall,
• the landscaping plan along the Entrance Corridor and within the parking lots may need to be
augmented in order to meet the ARB standards for mitigation for visual impacts,
• The ARB recommends that the Commission and Board not limit the ARB's ability to modify
the character and appearance of the buildings.
It is Ms. Joseph's suggestion that they have a joint meeting to talk about ways in which that might
work harmoniously to everybody's benefit to achieve that goal. Staff has asked the Commission's
opinion regarding this list of concerns. He stated that the first four items are fairly specific issues
relative to the design issues and that the larger issue of not limiting the ARB's capacity to modify
the plan is a separate one that they could meet on. He suggested that they provide feedback on
the first four issues.
Mr. Thomas agreed with all four of the concerns including the joint meeting of the ARB.
Mr. Barnes noted that the first concern was the most important for the applicant.
Mr. Thomas asked to go back on question # 1 since he actually agreed with the applicant about
leaving the building open.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 325
Mr. Finley pointed out that they were trying to screen the parking.
``*sow Mr. Rieley stated that the whole north end of the project is a pragmatic transitional piece, which
from the beginning has been argued for as a mechanism that will help the rest of it succeed. The
entire configuration is less like the south side of it that they would like to see. Since this was in a
transitional area, he felt that it was in the County's interest that it succeed in allowing 175 feet of
view across the parking lot of buildings a long distance away at the other end, particularly if they
agree with numbers 2 and 4 that it will have a substantial amount of parking. It seems that is a
reasonable surmise and he agreed with Mr. Thomas and Mr. Finley.
Mr. Barnes pointed out that if they increase the tree plantings, then the square footage would be
decreased.
Mr. Rieley stated that he was confident if they could work out the big block of this to everybody's
satisfaction that they could work out the tree locations. He asked Mr. Edgerton about number
one.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he agreed with the ARB's recommendations. He stated that if they were
talking about that much sensitivity in the beautiful rendering of Blocks F and G, then he could be
persuaded to go along with the applicant.
Mr. Benish stated that the way that area was set up, particularly with the willingness to establish
the road system they want, that it allows it in the long term to be retrofitted with buildings later as
the roads become public streets. The concern of visibility solely from Route 29 may be
emphasized.
Mr. Rieley stated that was an important point that Mr. Benish raises because it rationalizes
supporting this kind of pattern in the northern piece. With the street network as it was proposed,
it does leave open all kinds of alternatives for redevelopment that could eventually make the
northern part look more like the southern part does. He stated that they have an agreement for
flexibility in not filling that missing tooth in along the street with a caveat that it is connected to
number 2, the issue of the trees and the overall visibility. He stated that the Commission agreed
with number 2 and the general principal of number 3. He stated that the illustrations that
accompany this, in fact, show that kind of level of variation and harmony. Those are subjective
terms and people could interpret them differently. He stated that if what got executed is what is
illustrated here, in his opinion that would meet those objectives.
Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Rieley stated that in number 4 that the landscaping shown along the Entrance Corridor may
need to be augmented. He stated that the Commission all agreed that was in the ARB's venure.
Regarding number 5, the Commission has no intention of limiting the ARB's capacity to do their
job. He felt that Ms. Joseph's suggestion for a joint meeting in the future was a good one. He
asked if anyone disagreed with that.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he would welcome the opportunity for a joint meeting and suggested that
they discuss the issue about the extra building for visibility.
Ms. Joseph stated that if the renderings are approved as part of the rezoning process, then that
will get built. She pointed out that was part of what they were talking about because if this is part
of the Neighborhood Model, then renderings are suppose to become part of the approval
process.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that their language always says in substantial accord with the spirit. He
noted that there was the matter of interpretation at some stage of the game, but he did not think
lwaw anything that they have approved based on sketches has ever looked exactly like the sketches.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 326
Mr. Barnes stated that they could be cognizant to make sure they don't tie into aspects of the
architecture if that is what it is.
Ms. Joseph suggested that Mr. Kamptner provide language to allow for the possibility of the
relocation of the buildings. She stated that she was just worried about that confusion.
Mr. Rieley agreed and suggested that they clarify that. He stated that it was not in the authority of
the ARB to insist that a building be placed where there is not one on the plan. He felt that was
the Planning Commission's role. The next issue is the 70,000 square foot footprint restriction.
The applicant requests a 77,000 square foot footprint limitation on a single user. Staff has no
objection to the applicant's request. What is the Commission's opinion?
Mr. Thomas stated that he heard the applicant state that this would be the only building of 77,000
square feet. Therefore, he supported the applicant's request.
Mr. Finley agreed with Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Rieley agreed with the concept since that specific limitation on that particular building could
be justified. He asked that it be for that specific location.
Mr. Edgerton asked if they could reduce it to 74,000 square feet as the applicant had stated.
Mr. Rieley suggested using 75,000 square feet.
Mr. Edgerton agreed with Mr. Rieley.
Mr. Thomas stated that since the applicant has agreed to not ask for it anywhere else that he felt
that the applicant should receive 77,000 square feet.
Mr. Rieley stated that regarding the northern third of the property; the staff accepts the applicant's
argument that the large retailers and surface parking lots are necessary to support the economic
viability of the project. Does the Commission agree? He stated that he had already addressed
his feelings. He felt if this project was mostly that kind of proposal, then he would not take that
view of it.
Mr. Edgerton agreed with Mr. Rieley that they were making a huge concession.
Mr. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Rieley stated that staff has suggested three road alignments that he felt warranted some
discussion. The applicant's do not support these realignments. What is the Commission's
opinion?
Mr. Barnes pointed out that it sounded like there was a change in some of those tonight.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he found himself to be more persuaded by staff's argument more
conventionally than the applicants until he saw the long-term solution that the applicant proposed
tonight. He noted considering the uncertainty of the Sperry and the Comdial buildings; it was
hard to know where these connections should be. As Mr. Cox pointed out, it was hard to draw
lines through a property that you don't have any control over. With the plan as it exists, the
abbreviated grid going through the Sperry property and perhaps going through the Comdial
building at a later time, he felt left open a lot of interconnectivity that was part of what they were
trying to do. He felt that it was absolutely critical that there be the connection up through Fourth
Street. He noted that he heard that the applicant was comfortable with that. The applicant
`'40- suggested another possible connection with Commonwealth Drive.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 327
En
Mr. Barnes stated that the applicants had mentioned Third and First Street. He pointed out staff's
concern about the replication of the Kmart cut -through.
Mr. Rieley stated that in the CPA there were three north/south corridors and only two in the
current proposal. He asked if that was troubling to staff?
Mr. Barnes stated that as long as there was one, then it would be fine.
Mr. Thomas questioned what it would do to this piece of property if the one that goes into the
Comdial property provided connectivity into it.
Mr. Benish stated that access would go into the back of the existing Comdial building. Therefore,
you have to come off of that and around the building. He noted that staff would provide a bigger
grid that shows how all of the roads would interconnect when they discussed the transportation
issues.
Mr. Cox stated that Comdial has a sketch that shows how this might be accommodated to the
right-of-way that Mr. Thomas is speaking of.
Mr. Barnes stated that staff would take that into consideration before returning to the Commission
with their final traffic report. He noted that staff would provide a better map and plan.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was a clear example of how these things interrelate, the internal
circulation and the bigger picture. He asked that the minutes reflect the fact that the potential
connections that Mr. Cox talked about tonight were more consistent with what staff had
addressed as issues then he thought from just reading the previous document.
Mr. Edgerton stated that there was a fairly significant difference between what he heard from the
applicant this evening and from what staff was recommending regarding Cedar Hill Drive. He felt
that they should talk about that for a minute. The applicant was concerned with Cedar Hill Drive
being a major cut -through here for fear that would separate their retail from supporting parking.
Despite of the fact that he was not wild about this form of retail, he thought that there was a
legitimate argument there. In looking down the road when this becomes the less desirable form
of development, he thought that an experience like this would give the opportunity for infill
development later that would allow that parking to still serve that but at the same time create the
main circulation for the site following that pattern. He personally was convinced from what he
was hearing that they don't need to continue this through as a major four -lane highway. He noted
that he heard some concerns expressed from the applicant this evening that was really the major
conflict. They do want circulation through here, but not the major circulation if he was not
mistaken.
Mr. Rieley stated that he did not hear any suggestions to the contrary. He noted that Mr. Cox had
made it clear in his presentation that this would be two lanes.
Mr. Edgerton stated on page 3, it says that certainly staff would like Cedar Hill Drive to continue in
a straight line to allow for a possible future connection to be made through the Comdial Plant to
Greenbrier Drive. He asked if that connection was all right if it was just two lanes.
Mr. Barnes stated that staff's concern was not really two -lanes or four -lanes. Part of the reason
that you would have a four -lane street would be to allow the stacking of vehicles at lights or stop
signs and that kind of thing. The Harrison Rue Study recommended only having the two-lane
segment here and placing traffic controls at the intersections with roundabouts as a design
concept. Staff has no problem with two lanes there. He noted concern with the friction points
from the traffic islands.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 328
Mr. Rieley stated that staff recommends a combination of streetwalls and landscaping where the
parking lots are adjacent to Cedar Hill Drive and Fourth Street. Does the Commission agree?
Mr. Thomas stated that he had no problem with that.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was comfortable with that.
Mr. Rieley stated that next was public space and amenities. Staff believes that with the small
improvements that the project can satisfactorily provide a sufficient amount of green and amenity
spaces. What is the Commission's opinion? He stated that personally they had a percentage in
the CPA that staff believes can be met with this general configuration. One area that he would
like to see pushed on as hard as possible is utilizing the tops of some of these parking structures
to get on -site recreational facilities such as basketball courts, tennis courts, etc. This would
include anything that lends itself to the kind of paved surfaces that are going to be up there. While
he felt that the contribution to off -site recreation was great, there was no substitute for having on -
site recreational facilities. That was an opportunity that should not be missed.
Mr. Barnes stated that the Parks Department has been discussing an open gym type of facility.
Mr. Rieley stated that would be an asset.
Mr. Edgerton stated that it would be wonderful if the applicant could find ways to include
recreation on site. He questioned whether having recreation on top of the building would cause
conflicts with the residential units on the second floor.
Mr. Rieley stated that the last category was stream impacts. Staff has concluded that the benefits
resulting from form and character of the proposed development outweigh the impacts resulting
from the elimination of the two streams on the site. What is the Commission's opinion?
.r Mr. Finley stated that the County's Resource Manager has concluded that the piping of the
streams was an acceptable trade-off because they are already seriously degraded. He stated
that he agreed.
Mr. Thomas agreed with Mr. Finley. He stated that the water would be cleaner going into
Meadow Creek if the stream was covered and piped rather than getting all of the runoff.
Mr. Rieley stated as a matter of principle he hated the idea of putting a stream in a pipe with the
acknowledgement that these are in fact right at the headwaters. He felt that there was more
drainage ditches than streams since they were badly degraded and were eroded. He suggested
that they receive some input from Engineering on this. When they do something as drastic as
putting an open stream into a pipe, that they should look at mitigation that is way over and above
what their normal ordinance requirements are. He felt that was a big step to do that and they
should be compensating in ways that go beyond normal stormwater detention because the trade-
offs are larger than that. There are wild life habitat and the effect on the ecology of that particular
area. He suggested that they also look at the water quality issues such as the cleanliness of the
water and the oxygen levels and see if they could end up with an improved condition.
Mr. Finley supported keeping the stream open if they could improve the water quality.
Mr. Edgerton concurred with Mr. Rieley. He stated that a lot of vegetation would be cut down and
replaced it with asphalt, particularly in the northern section. He suggested that there be some
mitigation in the parking lot to try to recharge some of the groundwater in that area. He urged staff
and the Engineering Department to keep an open mind if there were ways that they could
minimize the amount of additional impact from this sort of development.
`mow Mr. Rieley stated that they needed to limit the environmental impacts of the development.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 329
09
Mr. Thomas stated that a drainage ditch does hold dirty water.
Mr. Edgerton stated that in the long-range plan it would be nice not to contribute to it.
Mr. Rieley noted that all they could do tonight was to raise that as an issue.
Mr. Barnes stated that what he had heard tonight was that the design issues that they have left to
tackle are relatively minor. There were a couple issues that may be impact and design, but in the
major share of the project there seems to be agreement and the issue seems to be somewhat
settled. He asked if that was a fair characterization.
Mr. Rieley stated that was correct with one big caveat in his case. That is how this is going to
work with the solution of traffic at the intersection of Hydraulic and Route 29. He pointed out that
could change a lot of things and it has to work together.
Mr. Edgerton agreed with Mr. Rieley noting that he continues to be concerned about not only this
project, but also some of the other projects. He stated that the County has a responsibility to
address this transportation component that is going to be critical for the future viability of our
community, and also with the economics for any of these projects.
Mr. Thomas stated that it was critical for both sides.
Mr. Rieley thanked the staff and the applicants for addressing their prior comments and
suggestions.
In summary:
The Planning Commission held a work session to conclude the major outstanding issues related
to the first portion of the review — internal design and layout issues. Staff believes that once the
major design issues are settled that it will be easier to resolve the remaining issue areas. The
Commission was asked to provide the applicant and staff with a definitive list of comments and
concerns related to design and layout. The Commission held a discussion and provided
comments and suggestions, but took no formal action.
The Planning Commission took a break at 8:13 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:31 p.m.
Mr. Rieley asked staff to start the work session with a staff report.
ZMA-00-09 North Pointe - Request to rezone 269.4 acres from RA Rural Areas to PD-MC with
special use to allow a mixture of commercial and residential uses with a maximum of 893
residential units, approximately 664,000 square feet of commercial and office space, a 250-room
hotel, and approximately 177,000 square feet of public/semi-public uses. The proposed
residential density allowed by this rezoning would be approximately 3.31 dwelling units per acre
(gross). The property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 20, 20a, 20a1, 20a2, 20a3, 22h, 22k,
23, 23a, 23b, 23c, 23d, 23e, 23f, 23g, 23h, 23j and 291 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial
District north of Proffit Road, east of Route 29 North, west of Pritchett Lane and south of the
Rivanna River. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional Service, Office
Service, Urban Density (6 - 34 dwelling units per acre) and Neighborhood Density (3 - 6 dwelling
units per acre) in the Hollymead Community. (Elaine Echols)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 330
Ms. Echols stated that the Northe Pointe Community Plan is located on the wall behind the
Commission. She stated that reduced copies of the plan were provided in their packets. She
stated that she would go over the things that have changed since the Commission last reviewed
this plan. Then, hopefully, the Commission can address the four big topics that have been
outlined in the staff report. There are other topics that need to be discussed, but these topics
seem to be the most important and can possibly frame some of the other items to be discussed.
The following items to be discussed include:
• Uses/Design
• Mix of Uses
• Environmental Resources
• Grading
The last time that the Commission saw this plan:
• the northern part of the plan looks as it does now,
• the central part has provided a few more interconnective streets,
• the eastern part has reduced the size of a lake, and
• the southern central area has a school site and senior living center shown.
The school site, as is with other items, has been put on here as possibilities. These are things
that they will want to discuss tonight. The plan calls for the statistics that are shown on the plan.
The roads are generally to be provided as shown. Other than that, they need to work on what is
fixed and what is flexible. Before getting to that, she asked to take the Commission through the
four topics.
The first topic is Uses/Design, which was the most important topic about this particular
development. It is certainly different from the last work session discussion. This development
shows on the southern most end a very large shopping center area. Going north, there are a lot
of residential uses. It is fairly segregated, but does have a mixture of uses. Staff would like to
ask the Commission three questions about the uses and design:
1. Do the uses appropriately relate to the Comprehensive Plan?
2. Is the overall design in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan?
3. Are the locations of residential and non-residential uses appropriate?
Mr. Rieley stated that they would begin with the first question.
Ms. Echols pointed out that the applicant was available if the Commission has any questions.
Mr. Rieley asked staff to elaborate on her statement, "Because the design does not reflect an
integration of uses and because several of the principles of the Neighborhood Model are not
reflected in the development, staff believes that the overall design is not in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan."
Ms. Echols stated that actually speaks to the second question. Staff believes that we are looking
at a fairly conventional development that has a fairly large segregation of uses. The plan shows
residential uses that are pretty separate from the commercial uses. Although there are sidewalks
shown on most of the roads, she felt that the likelihood of the residents living in the farthest north
residential areas to actually walk to a regional shopping center is kind of minimal. Many of the
principles of the Neighborhood Model are not met in the design. She noted that the applicant has
provided, which is at the back of the staff report, how they believe the plan is in conformity with
the Neighborhood Model. The mix of uses is appropriate. The relegated parking is one of staff's
favorite topics. While there might be questions about how to relegate the parking on Route 29,
the parking is not relegated through the central part or the spine road. Staff does not know much
about the buildings and spaces of human scale because the applicants decided to wait on that
*r, until they deal with the Architectural Review Board. Those are some of the key instances that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 331
staff feels are not in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. Staff stated that there were limited
opportunities in the northern part for interconnectivity because of the terrain. The interconnections
are best made in the middle in terms of how you interconnect the different types of uses. The
terrain in the northern part of the property is very rough and there are slopes that go down to the
Rivanna River. There is floodplain and wetlands in some of these areas. There is much more
difficulty in the northern part. By and large, staff does not have much difficulty with the northern
part because it is just a difficult piece of property or area to design sensitively. Staff thinks that
there needs to be a more sensitive design for the apartments down towards Route 29.
Mr. Thomas asked if that area was sitting on a hill, and Ms. Echols stated that it was and that a
road would have to be cut into it.
Mr. Rieley stated that the answer to the question relative to the uses appropriately relating to the
Comprehensive Plan is a fairly straight forward one in that they in a diagrammatically sense do
correlate with the general categories that are shown in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that
an important caveat to that is that the Comp Plan is a twenty-year vision and that an important
part of what they do is determining what portions of that long term vision are appropriate to be
executed at a given time, in particular in light of the existing infrastructure. He felt the
Commission needs to look at how it relates to this project and also within the context of other
proposals in the area. He stated that he was extremely concerned about the intensity of the
development in the regional service area and their capacity to absorb anything approximating that
scale soon.
Mr. Edgerton concurred that diagrammatically if they were comparing the general layout of what
they see here with the land use plan from the Comp Plan, if that is all they are looking at, yes it is
consistent with that. He stated that he had a little trouble with that question because the first and
second questions overlap a little bit. Whereas this diagrammatically shows very distinct zones of
proposed land use, the desire to integrate some of these land uses through the Neighborhood
Model needs to be reviewed at the same time. He stated that he was in total agreement with
staff's opinion that there is little integration here and frankly looking at the project, the fact that
one development is bringing in all of these different activities suggests an overture to the
Neighborhood Model, but when you look at it you can draw very distinct lines of the regional
service, office and the residential which had all been done very traditionally. There does not
appear to be an effort to try to change the patterns. He pointed out that he saw a traditional
regional service development, a traditional residential development and a mixture in the middle of
institutional and office, but he did not see any effort to integrate except through a spine road,
which was what was intended in the Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Thomas agreed that there was not enough integration and it did not reflect the Neighborhood
Model.
Mr. Edgerton asked for clarification on page 2, "At the southernmost part, moving the road east
might provide better opportunities to create a pedestrian environment by allowing buildings to
relate more to the street..." He asked if she was referring to the spine road?
Ms. Echols stated that was correct and it was something that they explored as they were looking
at relegated parking. How can you best relegate parking where you have a fairly high intensity
set of commercial uses? Staff thought if the quantity and location of the commercial space were
appropriate, then there were some legitimate reasons why it might be appropriate to have the
highest intensity use at that end of the development. Then how could you have your buildings
create a better face to the road, have your parking relate better to the buildings and create a more
pedestrian friendly environment. She pointed out that they played around with some road
alignments which pushed that spine road in the commercial area back a little bit bringing those
commercial structures up closer to the road and then putting some parking back behind. Staff
looked at those and talked to the applicant about it a little bit. That is one of those areas that
there needs to be more discussions about. Staff and the applicant are working from two different
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 332
places in terms of what they feel needs to be done there.
"%NW Mr. Rieley stated that it seemed that the suggestions that you've made are actually fairly modest
ones. He suggested that one might go farther in trying to get this mix of uses and the
configuration of this in general in to a better pattern.
Ms. Echols pointed out that one of staff's first thoughts about this was that the regional shopping
center should be more centrally located on the site. Staff talked to David Hirschman about the
location of Flat Branch in front with its streams and tributaries. Mr. Hirschman felt that the front
location would probably have the worst effect on the stream if you were going to have a lot of
runoff that takes place from a highly intensely developed area. If the surface parking is what is
used, then it makes sense to try to detain that and do some of the filtering before it gets out of
that lake and then has more opportunity to filter as it goes on down to the river. That told us that
there might be some other legitimate reasons not to put the regional service right in the middle
and build around it for the sake of the stream. The stream is proposed in that particular
development to be piped like something you have already spoken about tonight. She asked the
Commission to discuss how things could be moved around and what their priorities are in terms
of where you think the uses ought to be since definitely a greater mix of use is important within
buildings if they were taking the first step. To get the pedestrian orientation, it would require
bringing the buildings closer to the spine road.
Mr. Thomas asked where the stream was to be piped. He asked if was down between the office
buildings?
Ms. Echols stated that it would be underneath the parking lot. The stream itself is not a very well
defined stream. It is mostly the run-off from some of the run-off from other developments that
don't have stormwater management and also some of the run-off from Route 29 that sort of blasts
through that southern part that starts creating crevices that really becomes more of a stream. She
1%W thought it was right around where the lake was located. She pointed out that it was fairly hilly in
the section where the shopping center was proposed. That stream starts to become more well
defined right near the lake. Then the stream is well defined from the lake all the way down to the
river. She referred the Commission to Figure F, Phase One Commercial in the back of the
booklet that the applicant provided that show the streams that are starting on this property. Staff
could provide David Hirschman's stream assessment information if they felt that would be
important.
Mr. Rieley stated that would be very useful information.
Ms. Echols stated that staff would bring that back to the Commission next time. She pointed out
that the wetlands have also been identified on the plan.
Mr. Rieley asked to get back to the list of questions to make sure they give staff some responses.
He stated that regarding question # 1, he felt that they have given a qualified answer from a
diagrammatic respective of yes. Question # 2, is the overall design in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan? He pointed out that a couple voices agree with staff's position that it is not
in accordance with the Comp Plan. He asked if anybody wanted to add anything to that?
Mr. Finley stated that he would have to agree, but asked what they could say specifically here.
Mr. Rieley stated from his perspective, this project does not need to go back to the drawing
board.
Mr. Rotgin asked if they would give them an opportunity for some dialogue.
Mr. Rieley stated that not right now, but in a few minutes. The next question is the location of the
11VA+ residential and non-residential uses appropriate.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 333
Mr. Thomas stated that question almost goes back to the integration question.
Mr. Rieley stated that it did because somewhere there is a disconnect in his view between the
literal diagrammatic reading of the Comp Plan and the objectives that are set out in the twelve
principles of the Neighborhood Model that the County has adopted. In light of the latter fact, he
would say no.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that not every principle of the Neighborhood Model could be met on
every project.
Mr. Rieley stated that they were not equally applicable on every project.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he had read the applicant's justification for having met the principles and
for a number of them there has been a re -interpretation on the principles as far as what they
mean. He stated he was of the opinion that they will probably have to start over again, especially
looking at the phasing plan because it looks like there would be a shopping center built, which will
have severe environment impacts on the site, and then the rest of it may or may not develop is
what he saw happening. The property was developing in a very traditional way. The cul-de-sacs,
which the developer argues that are neighborhood friendly streets, and under that it says cul-de-
sac which says no through traffic, which should be no through traffic encourages an internal
Neighborhood focus insuring safe, secure and convenient living environment. He stated that his
interpretation of neighborhood friendly streets is not that at all since this is the old path. The
County has taken a fairly strong position that they don't want this because it is forcing all of the
traffic back out onto Route 29, which is a huge part of the problem.
Mr. Thomas questioned if the topography had something to do with the way it was designed.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he hoped so, but that it was hard to tell.
Mr. Rieley stated that he would like to give the applicant a chance to weigh in on these issues.
He asked if anyone objected to doing that now. Since there were no objections, he asked if the
applicant wanted to address the Commission.
Ronald Keeney, of Keeney and Company, Architects, stated that he was responsible for the plan,
which was in front of the Commission. He stated that they were asking a lot of questions that he
may be able to answer. There are three elements that have driven the plan in front of them that
allow them to get as close as they could to the Neighborhood Model, but there are elements on
the site that keep them from getting all the way there. The first one is the spine road is being
pressured through this site, in their opinion, by VDOT as an alternate to a Route 29 road use. It
is intended to go across to Forest Lakes in an area there. They feel that they are going to have a
substantial large amount of traffic through this that is not generated within the site. That cleavage
tends to divide us a little bit and tends to break the pedestrian elements up a little bit and give an
outside traffic flow through here that they are having to deal with. Obviously, that was not a part
of the Neighborhood Model, but it was an element that they need to deal with. The second thing
is that the topography, particularly in the northern two-thirds is quite extreme. The upper cul-de-
sac is naturally graded at about 530. The creek bed here is at less than 430. They have 100
feet of vertical rise across the school site and the spine road in that particular spot. The
segregation that has occurred is due a lot to the topography. If they preserve the streambed from
this point down, then all of this structure would have to work its way up the hill. That cul-de-sac is
at 510 and is about 50 feet above this roadway across here.
Mr. Rieley stated that the 100-foot grade change he was referring to was over 1,500 to 2,000 feet
which means that overall grade change in that area is in the range of 5 to 7 percent, which was
not that much. He asked if he was suggesting that there was something about that 5 to 7 percent
`MW
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 334
09
grade change over that distance that precludes doing a design that is sympathetic to the
Neighborhood Model?
Mr. Keeney stated yes, noting that an excellent example here is the school site in the middle.
The original site that you looked at in December was a school site of about 2 acres. In working
with Al Reasor they found that they need a site that is nearly level and that 5 percent was not
acceptable to them. They have come back with a ten -acre site and were trying to make that
whole site come within 15 or 20 feet vertically of itself because of what the school system wants.
If they do that, because of creating the large flat spot in the land, they would end up with extreme
grades above it and fairly steep grades below it because they have benched that 5 percent slope
from the creek bed. Up to that point, they have had to bench it to get a flat site on which to put
the school. They have had that problem all the way through this. There is no 2 acres on this site
that are level enough to support a school. Therefore, they are going to have to make one.
Mr. Rieley stated that he was suggesting that this was not a very good site for a lot of great big
buildings and great big parking lots.
Mr. Keeney stated that he believed that this site was large enough that it could occur here, but he
was suggesting there were distinct areas of this site that are very poor for big buildings and
parking lots. That is one of the reasons that they have segregated things in the large flat portion
in front of the commercial buildings.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that you are the one that put the school on that site.
Mr. Keeney stated that they have moved the school to that site at this point. Because the creek
bed in the existing terrain underneath of the parking lot essentially is the poorest area of naturally
development that they have on the site at this moment, they feel that is the most appropriate
place to develop something flat with asphalt. As you move further north, they are trying to
separate pavement and not pave it to the lake.
Mr. Edgerton asked why this was the poorest area for the development.
Mr. Keeney stated that the stormwater run-off that has occurred from four or five different areas
through here has left a large section of that eroded very badly. They are completely uncontrolled
at this point because of the stormwater run-off. They have been working with Mr. Hirschman to
develop the end of the lake. They were essentially trying to collect the four or five points of run-
off together and stop the run-off by using the lake as the buffering point to let all of that settle and
calm. Then the run-off could be restored and come back to an original streambed at that point
and then be carried to the rest of the site. The real answer to your question is that the upper
section of this is so steep in grade (a 7 percent roadway to get to that point) that no one is trying
to do anything with the northern third of this. They are able to put a roadway down the spine, but
they have to keep the houses close to the top of the hill.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Mr. Keeney.
Mr. Keeney stated that Mr. Rotgin has asked me to point out that Pritchett Lane is actually the
high point of the site across the top so that they slope from the streambed all the way up towards
Pritchett Lane. They were not accessing that. That one driveway isolates the upper northeast
section. The topography is limiting what they can do up there.
Ms. Echols pointed out that the Engineer, Kim Cameron, who has been working on this project is
here. She may be able to give the Commission additional information on the water resource
aspects of this and the grading since she has done extensive review of the grading. She asked
that the Commission rely on her if they need her.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 335
Mr. Thomas asked to hear some comments on the stream and the sediment that was going down
that stream now.
Kim Cameron, with the County's Engineering Department, stated that David Hirschman has done
some work with the stream assessment in this area. Mr. Keeney is right that some of the streams
are already degraded at the southern end. She stated that she would be happy to answer any
particular questions.
Mr. Thomas asked if it would be a better situation if the streams were covered.
Ms. Cameron stated that it would be piped as compared to a stream that was already eroded
right now. She pointed out that Mr. Hirschman felt that it would be better to have the lake more
towards the point of impact than where it was. She stated that would be at the southern end of
the site to catch it, slow it down and to get some of the sediment out of it before it gets to the pipe.
Mr. Edgerton stated that even with the piping, there was going to be a lot more run-off from this
large expanse of parking and from the building roofs. He asked if anyone had looked at the
sizing of this lake. He stated that he was hearing from Mr. Keeney that this was basically being
treated as a collection basin. He asked if that was an appropriate size.
Ms. Cameron stated that she had not looked at it in that much detail. She pointed out that they
have requested a master plan due to the size of the site and they would like to see the drainage
areas and the BMP worksheets to see if this lake would be adequate. It was downsized mainly
due to some concerns they had of putting a roadway over top of the dam, which they did not feel
was appropriate. That is something that has not been evaluated because they don't have the
information.
Mr. Edgerton asked if she was in general agreement with Mr. Keeney's statement about the
'*No„ grade forcing the lack of interconnectivity. He stated that was a very critical issue as far as the
way the plan works.
Ms. Cameron stated that they have worked with Mr. Keeney in a couple of previous meetings and
managed to get a couple more interconnections, but yes as far as the further north end those
streams are in pretty good shape and she did not think environmentally that they would support
interconnection for the sake of sacrificing the environmental details.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he meant in the middle where they have these cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Rieley stated that clearly there was some topographic change here, but if one starts from the
perspective that you want to achieve a configuration that is more sympathetic to the
Neighborhood Model and has fewer cul-de-sacs, it seems that there are opportunities to do that.
Ms. Cameron stated that was possible. In some discussions, he was concerned with saving some
trees and so forth in that area. It is pretty much going to be mass graded if you look at clustering,
but she did not think you were going to save that many trees.
Ms. Echols stated that the applicant did offer to provide some other information on the storm
water in between the Board's meeting and this meeting, and she had asked them to please wait.
She noted that this was something that staff was working on with the applicant, but they did not
want to add information to the mix before the Commission talked about the design.
Mr. Rieley stated that was right because they were not at the stage where they need something in
great detail because there were larger issues that need to be resolved first.
Mr. Thomas stated that they were trying to get to the point to determine whether the
Neighborhood Model could be applied more thoroughly than it was.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 336
Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions for Ms. Cameron.
Mr. Keeney stated that he needed to correct one point. The topography shown is at 530 and the
cul-de-sac was at about 475. There is a 55-foot grade change going up that pedestrian path.
The number immediately below the bottom of the circle was even that after they do the final
grading. That cul-de-sac is actually lower than that. He stated that he did not want to leave them
with the impression that it was nearly level.
Mr. Rieley stated that 50 feet over 400 feet is about 12 percent and with a little grading was not
an impossible connection. He asked that the Commission move on to the mix of uses. The
proposal calls for under 600,000 retail/commercial space, 80,800 square feet of office space and
a potential for a little less than 200,000 square feet for a library, senior living center, daycare,
school and church. The question is the combination of commercial to office uses appropriate to
the site. He stated that the office space was a little less than 14 percent of the commercial space.
He felt that there should be more office space and less retail space, which resulted from looking
at the plan and the potential impact.
Mr. Finley asked what was the ratio.
Ms. Echols stated that she had calculated the square footage but not the ratio.
Mr. Rieley stated that the Commission should not be in the position of dictating a certain
percentage, but this combination seems to be lopsided.
Mr. Thomas noted that it depends on what people want to rent and what the market demands.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that the applicant make more of a commitment in trying to figure out a
way to have more of a mixture of uses and to integrate them together.
Mr. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Benish stated that it was really how the uses relate to one another that they were trying to
deal with.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that staff has pointed out that the uses are only potential and that no
commitment has been made by the applicant.
Mr. Rieley stated that the next question is the quantity of commercial space appropriate if
rezonings closer to Charlottesville are approved. He pointed out that no would be his answer. It
seems that if they were getting a larger amount of commercial space, like the Albemarle Place for
example and particularly with the Hollymead rezoning, is adding a large amount of commercial
space at this time, then that is a responsible thing for them to do.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the Commission was not in the real estate business and that was really
outside of their domain. He felt that they have a responsibility in all three of the large projects of
making sure that the infrastructure of the community can support what is being proposed. He felt
that it was in the developer's domain to determine whether the community or the region can
support this, but the Commission does have the responsibility to make sure that in that support
that they are not burning our systems, specifically roadway systems, in this situation which was
his greatest concern. He stated that they would be bringing more traffic onto an already
congested roadway. He suggested that they look at it on that level. He stated that they don't
want any more commercial development if it is going to impound our community's infrastructure.
He stated that issue cannot be addressed at this point, but it has to be at some time. He pointed
out that the preliminary information that they have received is that the Route 29 Corridor cannot
support either one of them. Then the question is how do we deal with that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 337
,11*W Mr. Rieley stated that he was not suggesting that they try to predict in minute detail what
commercial and real estate pressures are and react directly to those. He felt that they have to be
cognizant of that fact. He agreed with Mr. Edgerton that the key issue is the capacity of the
infrastructure to support it and that is the main point at which the relationship between the
commercial forces and public responsibility come together.
Mr. Thomas stated that sometimes if something is put in, then the road will be constructed and
somebody would come up with a way to make the roads carry more traffic. He stated that he was
not saying that this should go in with the way the roads are currently. What he was saying was
that if nothing is ever done, then no road is ever going to be built.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was quite true that development usually precedes the transportation
improvements. There are two issues here. One is simply being realistic about our capacity to do
that. He felt that the improvements that were recommended by VDOT relative to only the
Hollymead proposal would have used up more than half of the total transportation funds that are
coming to this area in the next 25 years. He stated that you could argue that VDOT's criteria was
not good, but you could also argue that even if you could build enough lanes on Route 29 to bring
everybody up to this destination point would that be a smart land planning decision.
Mr. Thomas stated no because the remedy would be to have more parallel roads rather than
widening the lanes on Route 29 all the way up. He feared that they would get totally away from
pedestrian friendly roads. He pointed out that you couldn't cross Route 29 on Emmett Street now
because of the eight lanes.
Mr. Rieley stated that they also have to evaluate this in the context of the existing Comprehensive
Plan that has identified this as regional service, but it still leave the issue of timing to us.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that the phasing would be most important.
Mr. Finley stated that if you ask him how he feels that he would have to say that it was too much.
He noted that they have three major developments and they have to approach all of them from
the same beginning point. In other words, if Albemarle Place and Hollymead are going, then you
can't go. He asked how they could say that this much commercial space is not appropriate since
they are looking at the same ordinances for all three projects and they have to treat them all three
equally. He asked at what point, not taking the highway into consideration, could this be done.
Mr. Rieley stated that he did not how many hundreds of acres are in the County designated as
regional service. What if everybody came in on the same day with an application to rezone all of
them for regional shopping center? Would it be the responsible thing to say yes to all of them?
Mr. Kamptner stated that the Commission has the ability in considering a rezoning application to
consider studies that evaluate the current and future needs of a particular land use. If the
Commission determines that the study shows that there is too much industrially zoned land or
commercially zoned land you could rely on that and decide whether or not to "approve a
particular rezoning application." The key is that there should be studies that show that, and
identify Albemarle's current and future needs.
Mr. Edgerton stated that it was really not for them to determine what the market may or may not
bear, but your point is well taken because they were being asked for a rezoning here. He noted
that there was a huge difference from what they were seeing here from what could be done by
right.
Ms. Echols pointed out that staff had provided some physical impact analysis with the original
staff report not dealing with whether it was a positive or negative income generator or tax revenue
generator on the site, but what the possibility for absorption is and how much time it would take to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 338
absorb X amount of additional retail space. If the Planning Commission wants, staff can
reprovide that for you.
Mr. Rieley stated that would be helpful in light of the conversation they were having. The next
question was should there be any restrictions on building size in relation to commercial space?
Staff pointed out that they have two CPA's that used the limitation of 1 to 65,000 square feet and
the last one of 1 to 70,000 square feet.
Mr. Edgerton stated that staff is unsure of the direction of the Commission in this regard. He
stated that his understanding of the reason that they did not put a size limitation on the Hollymead
Town Center is that we did not have a chance because it had already been determined by the
original masterplan by the Board of Supervisors. He stated that he felt strongly that there should
be the same limitation put on this that would void the opportunity to do at least two of the
structures shown here.
Mr. Thomas asked where the big retail merchants would go if they don't go on pieces of property
that are zoned regional service like this that are designated for the larger stores.
Mr. Rieley stated that there were no places that would prohibit limiting the total square footage at
all, but only when it is the total footprint.
Mr. Edgerton stated that every one of these companies have a different model than the one that
they have been offered. He felt that they have a responsibility as a community to say if you want
to come into our community then you have to be respectful of our community and give us your
two-story structure. The argument that he hears is that they just won't come. If it was important
enough for them to come, then he thought that they might be respectful to the community. If they
don't want to be respectful of the community, then they don't want them.
Mr. Thomas felt that they were doing a disservice to the public if they don't allow the stores to
come here that the public really wants. He stated that he could go along with the smaller
footprint, but he felt that the public wants the larger footprint.
Mr. Rieley stated that nobody knows the answer to the question yet because they have never
drawn a line for the most part. He stated that most of the standard retailers have a version of their
plan that was multi -story, but it was not their preferred one.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the question that staff is asking us is should a similar restriction in
building size be applied to this project. We just had this conversation in the last work session.
He felt that he had given enormously because of the benefits in saying yes we will allow them to
have the big box on that site, but the benefits on the rest of the site are so significant that it
becomes a trade-off. Personally, he pointed out that he did not see the trade-off here because he
did not see the Neighborhood Model that they were trying to get and he did not see a mix of
integration of use.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was the same limitation that was already on that property.
Mr. Edgerton stated that to go with this square footage because that happens to be before us is
wrong because he did not see the principles of the Neighborhood Model or a mixture of uses.
They were proposing a large commercial shopping center with two building footprints of 118,000
square feet and 78,750.
Mr. Finley stated that they said that for the department store that there would be 77,000 square
feet.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was for a 77,000 square foot footprint and no limitation on total square
footage.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 339
Mr. Finley stated that they were saying that there should be a limitation on the size of the
footprint.
Mr. Rieley suggested that the footprint size be less than 70,000 square feet, other than the one
store that was very specific and would be exempted for a slightly higher number because of its
very specific location and condition. He felt that if they had a similar very specific proposal here
that he thought they would make the same exception.
Mr. Edgerton stated that if they had a good reason for an exception that they should be open to
hear it.
Mr. Finley asked what was the amount approved for Hollymead.
Mr. Finley stated that it was approved for 140,000 square feet.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that amount was approved as part of the master plan.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was the Board's position that they wanted to get the town center and
were willing to give up some square footage on that building in order to achieve that.
Mr. Benish stated that for the record on the Hollymead Town Center, the Planning Commission
had recommended limiting that to 65,000 square feet, and the Board actually amended that when
they adopted the CIP. That CIP was not brought back to you. That amendment essentially says it
is desirable for the building sizes within the town center not to exceed 65,000 square feet, but it
was recognized that in the regional service area that there would be buildings larger than that.
There actually is a reference to a restriction to building sizes in part of the town center, but not in
the regional service.
Mr. Rieley stated that the Planning Commission would be perfectly consistent in applying a
65,000 or 70,000 footprint because they have done it consistently.
Mr. Finley stated that from the beginning he has not agreed with limiting that size. He stated that
suppose they do go back and get some trade-offs that they were willing to reconsider as they did
on Albemarle Place. He asked if there would be consideration.
Mr. Rieley stated that it would be just as it was there.
Mr. Benish stated that he sensed that the Commission was split on this issue, but that they were
missing three of the Commissioners tonight. He suggested that the way to remedy that was to
look at the exception in the context of the other modifications that might pertain to the plan. He
asked if that was enough of a conclusion tonight.
Mr. Rieley stated that was the best that they were going to do tonight.
Mr. Edgerton asked Mr. Finley he was willing to look at some modifications before they enlarge
the footprint, and Mr. Finley stated that he was.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was an ongoing conversation and they would wait for the other
Commissioners.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he would be willing to keeping his mind open to some flexibility there if
he saw a good reason for it in the plan.
Mr. Rieley asked if the fluidity in terms of the mix and match of uses appropriate given the
anticipated buildout period. He asked Ms. Echols for clarification.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 340
Ms. Echols stated that there really are no commitments to when different commercial uses will be
built because it was kind of a mix and match. The list contains all of the uses that are possible,
but they don't know what and they don't know when. She asked if this mix and match possibility
appropriate especially since there is not a commitment to these sort of institutional, public, semi-
public uses. She felt that the applicant has stated previously that they want to go in and do the
commercial first and then gradually build north with the residential over a twenty-year period.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Rotgin to come up to the microphone.
Chuck Rotgin, with Great Eastern Management Company, stated that there would be a dual start
with a portion of the commercial area that will start along with the residential area that would
come off of the spine road. They plan to do the center part of the residential area first.
Mr. Finley asked what the anticipated build out period was.
Mr. Rotgin stated that there were probably some other people present who would have a better
idea, but his guess was that there was a tremendous demand for the single-family portions
immediately. At this time next year Hollymead and Forest Lakes will be completely built out and
there may not be ten lots in the northern part of the County that are available. That is the reason
that the single-family is designed to be first. He stated that the residential, not the multi -family
portion because that would take longer which made up 50 percent of the residential, would take
four to five years outside to do all of the single-family and townhouses. The commercial would
probably be a 5, 8 to 10 year total build out because they have two tenants who are ready to go
in. The portion of residential in the center section would start first and a portion of the commercial
would start at the same time. The proffers are difficult to read through and they agree that they
need some work. The proffers speaks to the road phasing that reflects this type of development
pattern that he mentioned. To address Mr. Edgerton's previous comment about infrastructures,
he felt that if they look at the proffers throughout the Route 29 North improvements you will find
that they correspond with what VDOT had recommended. He stated that this was the beginning
of a journey, which was going to take some time, but he hoped that they would understand that
this was a very difficult site that had some very significant topography. He pointed out that they
have some bio-filter devices in the parking lot to help replenish the groundwater. When you
consider that is a four -lane spine road going through the middle of that property that VDOT is
almost mandating, and you consider that they have the desire to protect the streams, and they
have steep bluffs that Ms. Echols has done a nice job of working with them on and they have
respected all of those, plus they have the limitation of no access on to Pritchett and therefore they
have some very difficult challenges. He stated that he was happy to take any suggestions.
There has been a tremendous amount of work done since that drawing was put together. They
agreed with staff that they would not provide any additional information until after this meeting.
He stated that they understood the Commission's concerns, but pointed out that they have some
concerns from the marketing standpoint. He stated that they would submit some additional
information that would address some of the issues that have been discussed. He pointed out that
they have traveled the East Coast to find examples of this type of development. He pointed out
that there was a lot of office space available right across Route 29 and the office market in the
Charlottesville area is the weakest of all of the real estate area. Ms. Echols made a point, that if
five years from now they start on this and the office market turns around, then they will be right
back in front of you asking can we replace the motel with office space. He stated that this was a
working process and they hoped that the Commission would consider this as their first step.
Ms. Echols asked if the Commission agreed there needs to be some commitments to certain
things that they talked about and what you are doing where. Also, if there needs to be some
commitments to timing. She felt that they agree that the applicant has made that clearer than she
had ever picked up on because she never caught that. She pointed out that she could get that
one squared away.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 341
Mr. Rieley stated that the next question was if the quantity of residential to non-residential uses
was appropriate. Once again, in the non-residential use category the quantity and character of
the commercial retail and its complete segregation from the residential troubled him.
Mr. Edgerton agreed because he saw a traditional pattern of commercial one place and
residential another which was a lack of integration.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that Mr. Rotgin had spoke about some mixed use on the buildings.
Mr. Rieley stated that the next question is the mixture of housing types appropriate.
Mr. Thomas stated that they were back in the marketing again.
Mr. Rieley stated that there was more than just housing types. There is the relationships and how
you put them in. He stated that the whole stretch from the shopping to Route 29 you could
probably find it in the Neighborhood Model under what not to do.
Mr. Edgerton stated that it was particularly in the relationship of the parking to the townhouse
units.
Mr. Rieley suggested that area should be designed to create neighborhoods instead of tracts of
townhouses in his view. He stated this is the reason that they have the Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Finley asked if some of the commercial should be moved down to segregate the uses more.
Mr. Rieley stated that some of the housing types don't have to be completely segregated into
huge tracts.
Mr. Finley stated that as far as the cul-de-sacs and steep grades, is there anything else practical.
Mr. Rieley stated that there were limitations clearly that are imposed by the grades, but he felt
that they have to work hard to overcome those and accept a cul-de-sac here and there as an
alternative. What he worries about is having the topography as being an excuse for a cul-de-sac
community rather than working with the topography and ending up with a few cul-de-sacs as a
last resort.
Ms. Echols pointed out when they get into the environmental section; they could talk about where
those things work out and get some more input from them on that item.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was struggling with the lack of any attempt to relegate the parking at
all or to try to create any sense of a pedestrian community in any of the townhouses. He agreed
with Mr. Rieley that he would rather see a more sympathetic reaction to the topography rather
than just trying to force an established pattern onto the topography.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that a good example was Rivanna Village that holds together with a
cohesive design and he felt that was what was lacking in this project so far.
Mr. Thomas stated that the roads have to be designed for the topography and Rivanna Village
does not have a lot of critical slopes on it until you get on the back side.
Mr. Rieley stated that they would move to environmental resources. Staff outlines a number of
things like banks of the Rivanna, the floodplain along Flat Branch, and the steep slopes as
environmental resources that should protected including wetlands. Staff asks what environmental
resources should remain undisturbed and which ones may be modified.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 342
Ms. Echols stated that it would helpful for the Commission to Attachment A, page 6 because that
is the best graphic depiction of the slopes, the floodplain and the river. The open space plan talks
about the most northern part of the property where the Rivanna River and North Fork are located.
The slopes that are adjacent to it in the northern most part are what staff is mostly concerned
with. The applicant has shown staff some plans that show that they are planning to keep off of
those slopes. She pointed out that the applicant understands the importance of this and is willing
to go ahead and modify the design in order to respect those slopes in the northern part. They
also have some ideas about the central part and those slopes that come down in that area where
the cul-de-sacs are located. They would like to respect those slopes a little bit more because of
the location of the wetlands in that general area. The applicants understand on the northern part
the importance of the slopes.
Mr. Rieley stated that one area that he would give some ground in order to achieve better
connectivity, a better street system, and fewer cul-de-sacs is crossing some critical slopes. From
his perspective that would be unlike protecting the big blocks above the river and the floodplains
associated with it. He thought they all acknowledged that they were not going to achieve
connectivity without some grading in places and they have to cross a 25 percent slope in order to
do that from time to time. He pointed out that was an area in which he had some flexibility.
Mr. Thomas concurred with that.
Ms. Echols stated that in the terms of that, staff was looking at the ones in the northern most part
because they were identified in the open space plan and also because they were in the stream
assessment survey. The northern one ranked so high that staff was encouraging them to protect
them. The ones that were further east staff felt like had the ability to be modified to try to make
those connections.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was confused by looking at the plan because it appears that the
14W developer has tried to respect some of these slopes in the layout, but there seems to be a lot of
inconsistency in the center section. He asked if this was an older map because where the
townhouses were it appeared to be a lot different road layout and parking. The units don't appear
to show up.
Ms. Echols stated that they would be replacing this section. She noted that page 6 does not
show the multi -units on there, but only shows the parking lots. Therefore, you cannot see where
those units are in relation to the grades. In the center section is where staff felt were not
interfering with any of the water resources. To modify those made sense to staff to get the
connections.
Mr. Rieley stated under the general category was how is the undisturbed area to be protected.
He stated that it was not a very good picture, but one of the things that he was struck by is that it
seems that most of the open space is either associated with the river or very steep slopes or
streams and in other words was left over space that has some trails and pedestrian trails
associated with it. Positive open seems to be lacking. That is good land that is devoted to open
space and to semi-public use so that the kinds of things that the Neighborhood Model is full of
squares and greens and courts and parks is not in evidence in this plan. He stated that this was
an area that needs some work. He stated that the open space should not just be the area that
you cannot develop.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was concerned with the amount of development that was being
attempted on the entire site. It appears that the programmatic approach was to see how much
you could get on this site. He stated that he had trouble seeing what was going on this site
without seeing a massive clearly of a heavily wooded topographically challenged site. He hoped
that it would not happen when they go back and read the CPA language and it talks about trying
to be respectful of the site and the existing vegetation and some of the mature trees on the site
11%W that you have to be respectful of before you even get around to developing it. The intent here
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 343
was to clear-cut it and he was afraid if this project was developed with the intensity as proposed
err there will be no choice but to clear-cut a great portion of the site. He stated that he would
welcome a plan that would truly be more respectful of the existing topography and vegetation. He
stated that he did not know if there was any desire on behalf of the applicant to do that, but he
would certainly be more inclined to work with the applicant under those circumstances.
Mr. Thomas stated that he was not in favor of cutting all of the trees down, but if the density is not
up there then how affordable are the houses going to be.
Mr. Rieley stated that the next questions were is the location of the lake appropriate, is the
treatment of the stream acceptable, and what characteristics should the lake have to be an
amenity. He stated that he was persuaded by Ms. Cameron's comment that Engineering would
prefer to see this farther to the south. He felt that the advantage to that is that it really could be
an amenity for a scaled back commercial component. He asked if others have thoughts.
Mr. Thomas stated that VDOT wants them to put the highway in. He asked what that would do to
that part of it. He stated that they could possibly build around it.
Mr. Finley asked if they did a study to reduce the size of the lake.
Mr. Rieley stated that the second question was is the treatment of the stream acceptable. He
pointed out that Mr. Edgerton said earlier that it would be better not to bury the stream and if they
have to it should be in order to get something that was very good.
Mr. Edgerton stated yes. He noted that the other thing was the applicant told us earlier that there
was a lot of highly eroded area, but they don't have the information in front of them concerning
the existing condition there. If moving the lake further south as Engineering has suggested to us
would be beneficial to the collection, he would like to see some experimentation in trying to use
the lake or an extension of the lake for the water. He stated that he did not know the formula that
was used to cover every part of the commercial strip, but there might be an opportunity to soften
some of that with a water feature that could be put in. By moving the lake south it might help with
the stormwater.
Mr. Thomas stated that it seemed that the lake being where it is would be a better retention pond
there than it would be further south because it would be catching more water.
Mr. Rieley stated that would depend on all kinds of things.
Ms. Echols stated that this might be something that staff can give them more information on
before you actually come down on something as far as the decision goes. They could discuss this
when they talk about the water quality because she thought that the idea of putting the lake more
in the area where the parking lot was right now was something that they needed to talk with
Engineering about. Staff will get back with the Commission to give more stream and lake
information.
Mr. Rieley stated that they talked a little bit about piping the stream to accommodate the large
surface area parking. From his perspective based on what they see here, he did not believe that
it was justified.
Mr. Edgerton agreed with Mr. Rieley.
Mr. Thomas asked where is the Flat Bridge.
Mr. Edgerton stated that it was under a parking lot.
Mr. Thomas asked if it was a stream and if they were piping the drainage off of Proffit Road.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 344
Mr. Rieley stated that they would have to rely on Engineering to get you some more information.
Ms. Echols pointed out that they have some photographs that might help.
Mr. Rieley stated that there were three questions that relate to grading. Is grading shown for the
site appropriate? How should grading relate to the overall design of the development? Should
reconstruction of 2:1 slopes and the use of retaining walls be minimized? He stated that he did
not feel comfortable trying to answer question number 1 because the site relates to the overall
configuration and he did not feel that they have arrived at a configuration that can get to the point
of being tested against the grading.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that question number 2 went with number 1.
Mr. Rieley stated that clearly the grading is integral to the overall site design. He stated that they
have presumed that if we can get a good dense development on parts of the site that preserve
large portions of the site elsewhere that he thought that they have to acknowledge that those
areas are going to be graded heavily in order to achieve that.
Mr. Keeney asked for some clarification. He asked if they should grade gradually even if it takes
up the natural grade at the top of the hill that they were talking about with the cul-de-sac. The
other extreme was should they grade certain levels flat and come up abruptly and use the natural
terrain. The real issue to them and the question that Ms. Echols and he have been battling over
is trying to balance the natural terrain and how much to leave versus how much you grade out in
order to get the slope that you want.
Mr. Rieley stated that he did not think they could give a pact answer that would answer all
conditions. He stated that he felt that it was often a mistake to grade too steeply simply trying to
`fir° catch up quickly and that often it was better to disturb a larger area that are more sympathetic
land form and acknowledge the fact that in doing that you are going to lose more trees and grade
a larger area. He stated that was often the case.
Mr. Thomas agreed with that.
Mr. Rieley stated that you have to take it on a case by case basis.
Mr. Edgerton stated that it was how you look at a design problem. If you are going to make a
specific function occur on a site and you have to make the site work with that structure and if you
start with the structure, then you end up doing the flattening, the retaining wall and then the
flattening. As Mr. Keeney pointed out, the County school wants a flat site. So if that is the
starting point and that is the design program then you don't have any choice but to use retaining
walls, then you would have to hurry up and catch up as you work your way up the hill. Personally
he would prefer starting with the site and he thought that the Neighborhood Model addresses in
its effort to be respectful of the site. He would rather start with the site and then decide what
should go in a certain location and try to accommodate them.
Mr. Rieley stated that they have been through the list and hoped that they had given some good
comments and suggestions.
Mr. Rotgin stated that he did not want the Commissioners to leave without the consultant's layout
of this property in mind. He pointed out that it was really difficult to hear the Commissioners
unless they held their microphones in their hands. He stated that he viewed a work session
sitting around a table where they have an opportunity to give their viewpoint as they discuss
these issues. Sometimes you go on a tangent when they could say something that might bring
you back and help the situation a little bit. He asked if they could have the next work session in
the other room so that they could sit around the table and that there can be dialogue.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 345
M
Mr. Rieley thanked Mr. Rotgin. He stated that one of the next steps that he would like to follow up
on was Mr. Kamptner's suggestion that they assemble whatever studies that they have available
so that they can put the amount of commercial that is being proposed for this site into a broader
context because it seems that lots of the problems with this relate with the intensity of the regional
service component of this.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the inventory of developed land in the various zoning districts is in this
report this evening.
Mr. Rieley stated that was a starting point.
Mr. Benish stated that staff could redo the land use inventory that would be easier as part of the
database with the new GIS system. They will provide some of the studies that would include a
table of a very detailed assessment of the parcels with the true acreage that they have
designated.
Mr. Rieley stated that he was appreciative of Mr. Rotgins acknowledgement that they were at the
beginning of a process here because he felt that this project has a long way to go. He stated that
he was confident that they could move this in a positive direction.
In summary:
The Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-00-09 North Pointe to conclude a review,
refinement, potential modification, and recommendations as per the request by the Board of
Supervisors. The Commission concerning the design of the development, the proposed uses, the
environmental resources, and the proposed grading held discussion. The Commission took
comments from the applicants. The Commission held a discussion and provided comments and
suggestions, but took no formal action. Another work session will be scheduled in the future.
Old Business:
Mr. Rieley asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
New Business:
Mr. Rieley asked if there was any new business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
Adjournment
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to June 17, 2003.
V. Waynefilimberg, S
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JUNE 10, 2003 346