Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 17 1994 PC Minutes5-17-94 1 May 17, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 17, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; and David Benish, Chief of Community Development. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. Mr. Dotson suggested several modifications to the minutes of May 3rd. The Commission expressed no objection to most of the suggested modifications. However, Mr. Nitchmann was not in favor of the addition of the following sentence on page 1: "Mr. Martin several weeks ago explained to the Board of Superviors that the apparent decline in government employment in the county is simply a geo-coding change in where WA reports many of its employees as being located." Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Dotson if Mr. Martin had made this statement before the Commission. Mr. Dotson replied that the statement had not been made before the Commission, but had been made before the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Nitchmann could see no reason to insert the statement into Commission minutes since the minutes are supposed to reflect what actually took place at the Commission meeting. Mr. Nitchmann explained: "If we start inserting things as any of us see fit, then the minutes really are no longer minutes, (but rather) become subjective reasoning of any member of this Commission." Mr. Blue agreed with Mr. Nitchmann though he expressed appreciation for Mr. Dotson's explanation. The May 3rd minutes were unanimously approved as amended. ----------------------------------------- Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the May 11, 1994 Board of Supervisors meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Addition to Pasture Fence Mountain Agricultural / Forestal District - The proposed district consists of one parcel containing 453.5 acres located west of Mount Fair off Route 756. Tax Map 13, parcel 5. and Review of Blue Run Agricultural / Forestal District - This district will expire on June 17, 1994. It was established in 5-17-94 F 1986 for a time period of eight (8) years. The district consists of 30 parcels totalling 4,116.951 acres, locate on Rts. 20N, Rt. 231, Rt. 640, Rt. 641, Rt. 645 and Rt. 777. Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Ms. Vaughan, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- WORK SESSION - Comprehensive Plan - Presentation by University Real Estate Foundation Mr. Tim Rose, Chief Operating Officer for the University Real Estate Foundation, addressed the Commission and provided information on the activities of the Foundation, including its history, organizational structure and realtionship with the University, its mission, lands and businesses under its control and its development goals for the future. He was assisted by Mr. Leonard Sandridge and Ms. Alice Handy. Mr. Rose explained the differences in the North Fork Research Park and the Fontaine Avenue Research Park: i.e. North Fork will be "a more typical business research park," and it is hoped the tenants will have a relationship with the University, but that might not be necessarily the case. Fontaine Park tenants will have a direct, or close, relationship to the University and be in support of the Health Sciences Center or the research activities of the University. UREF feels that new business growth "will promote employment opportunities both for university people and their spouses and for people in the Community." Answers to specific Commission questions were as follows: --UREF feels that "in order to make a long-term, sensible, low density research, park," the entire North Fork parcel must be considered. Ms. Huckle wondered if previous plans had been "scraped." Mr. Rose explained that the master plan for the northern section of the North Fork area "is something that we need to review with you all." He added: "On the southern portion, I don't see that changing significantly." --Ms. Imhoff asked if UREF's plan is part of the University's overall Master Plan, or is it a separate process. Mr. Rose explained that it is a separate process "except.that (he) sits on the Master Planning Council for the University and the University arachitect's office is involved in the work at the research park, so there is a constant exchange of information." --Each of the five divisions (shown in Mr. Rose's report) has it's own "head." Mr. Rose is responsible for the Real Estate Foundation, the Historic Renovation Corporation, and the Research Park. --When first started, it was the Foundation's role to oversee "the buildings outside of the University's grouping of holdings, paparticularly in looking at the long-term and short- term needs of the university." /�D 5-17-94 3 --Mr. Dotson asked if there was an "apparatus where at some point in the future these five operations might actually contribute to the University's educational resources and finances." Mr. Sandridge responded affirmatively. --Mr. Nitchmann asked if there are persons from the Foundation who "interface" with the County and City on a regular basis or just on an "as needed" basis. Mr. Rose explained how the Board of each division works. In terms of interfacing with the County and city, he explained that the Foundation has a constant contact through PAC and 3 UVA Vice Presidents are on the Foundation Board. --In response to Mr. Dotson's request for further information on the differences between North Fork and Fontaine, Mr. Rose explained that Fontaine is a "fancier looking park," with an "upscale, urban feel." It is planned that the North Fork park will be "more bucolic, have more of a rolling plain feel to it, much less density, a lot more open space, leaving the ravines and the slopes as they are as much as possible." It is hoped that Fontaine will have a direct link to the University, possibly with a shuttle bus service. It is anticipated that the uses at North Fork will have a "less strong tie." (He gave as an example a surgical instrument company which is considering locating here. This company has a relationship to the University in that the hospital uses their bone saws in its operating rooms. UREF feels there is a tremendous benefit in having these people in the operating rooms working with the surgeons. The company will also benefit by being able to work with surgeons and finding out what they need. It is this kind of relationship which UREF would like to see.) He also explained that Fontaine will not be a manufacturing site, rather it is "an office site, a research site." --Mr. Dotson asked about the marketing strategy between the two properties. In terms of the Fontaine site, Mr. Rose explained that if the Health Services Foundation gets in this year, infrastructure gets completed, and 2 or 3 more buildings get built, "we feel we have enough on our plate right there that we don't have to be out aggressively marketing to other firms." On North Fork he explained: "That's saleable park to the University, to Albemarle County and to Micro -Aire and their fellow tenants. (It) will be one that has firms that can come in with nice architecture and the clean industry." He could not give a definition of clean industry at this point, but he stated: "We don't want to bring in the kinds of people that the County doesn't want us to be bringing in." Mr. Dotson asked if a significant portion of Mr. Rose's activities (or some of his employees' activities), would be in marketing North Fork. Mr. Rose explained that getting through the County's review process would take time, as will developing the infrastructure. Therefore, marketing is "sometime out in the future." He did not know if marketing will be done internally or if a consulting group will be hired to assist with the marketing. % 7% 5-17-94 4 --Mr. Dotson asked what are the special attractions and advantages of Fontaine and North Fork which will make it competitive with other similar research parks (e.g. Research Triangle in North Carolina, Park at Princeton). Mr. Rose explained that some of UREF's staff were involved with the parks mentioned by Mr. Dotson. He pointed out that the Research Triangle had taken a long time to develop and he explained the process which had been followed. In terms of uniqueness, he mentioned: "beauty (of the area), the work ethic, the lack of crime, the lack of regulatory constraints." --Ms. Huckle asked if her understanding of Mr. Rose's comments was accurate, i.e. that UREF will be "screening any perspective tenants very carefully before they are brought before the County government." Mr. Rose replied: "On several issues: (1) Are they a financially solvent business and are they going to leave half -way through their construction process and leave a building that's half built; (2) We would screen them in terms of their planning for the architecture of the facility; (3) Is it the kind of business that we think is compatible with the commuity?" Ms. Huckle noted that Mr. Rose and not mentioned environmental impact. She presumed that this would be important to UREF, that "you didn't have an industry which used dangerous components... had hazardous wastes or (caused) air pollution." Mr. Rose responded: "I don't know what a dangerous component is. We would need to work with whatever agencies are necessary to ensure that it is something that is compatible. ... Clearly, we would want to minimize waste and pollution as much as possible." He pointed out that this is a long term project and therefore "it may allow us to be a lot more picky about who comes in and who doesn't." --Mr. Nitchmann asked if Mr. Rose could foresee expansion of the retirement corporation over the next 10 to 20 years. Ms. Handy responded: "At the present time, we have absolutely no plans." Though originally a type of "intermediate" housing was considered, the idea has not been discussed further. --Ms. Imhoff asked if there had been any discussions about UREF's role in providing affordable housing and "easing the burden a little bit that UVA has on the housing market." Mr. Rose responded that that has not been a part of the goal statement, but the issue has come up. He explained that if UVA wants to get involved in the afforeable housing issue, it would look to UREF to provide the manpower and the background. The Foundation itself has not, at this time, been given any direction along those lines. Ms. Imhoff stated it was her "knee-jerk reaction" that if UREF is going to be bringing a lot more jobs into the area, it should be looking at the the issue of it's fair share of housing associated with those jobs. --Mr. Nitchmann asked if Mr. Rose felt the North Fork Park should "be viewed as a University issue or more an entrepreneurialship issue.... In other words, are you a developer, or are you trying to do something just for the school? I see you somewhere in between." Mr. Rose responded: "You're /1TA 5-17-94 5 right. It is in between. I think that is why, historically, there has been confusion about what we do. It's not black and white. We are in an entrepreneurial role and we are out there to make the best financial use of the funds that have been given to us." He explained that the University is naturally interested because it needs to ensure that its funds are invested wisely. --Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. Rose if he felt the current Comprehensive Plan "has trouble addressing things which you feel should be addressed." Mr. Rose pointed out that the North Fork property is zoned Rural, yet is "surrounded by land that can be developed." He assumed it was part of the Comprehensive Planning process to decide if "that was the best use of the property." He felt it was important that comments be solicited from other members of the development community. Mr. Rose explained that UREF intended to present a "full proposal" toward the beginning of June. Mr. Blue asked if the proposal would go into detail in terms of what can be done with the utilities that will be available or are there any plans for UREF to do some of the utility work. Mr. Rose explained that UREF's engineers are currently looking at that issue. Ms. Imhoff asked that UREF comment on more than just the North Fork property when looking at the Comp Plan. She felt that UREF has "a real role here, that you're marketing this community, you're in for the long haul, you can take time and attract the best businesses." She could foresee it as being "almost a marketing document for this county." --Referring to some houses that the University has recently torn down in its construction of parking lots, Ms. Huckle asked if there was any policy to replace these houses, Mr. Sandridge addressed this question. Ultimately, it was explained that the houses which were torn down were in poor shape and had been used by the University for faculty/staff housing for a short period of time. (The houses were described as being located "across JPA, in front of Cabell Hall.") Mr. Sandridge also explained: "Our first preference is that we depend on the private sector, to the extent possible, to meet that need. The private sector likes for us to let them handle as much of the residential housing as we can." --Referring to comments made earlier about Micro -Aire and the fact that they would be assembling components which are not actually made in the area, Mr. Dotson noted that would result in a "reduced multiplier effect in terms of local economic stimulation." Mr. Rose was unsure as to the type of components used by Micro -Aire. He noted, however, that much of their work would be office oriented. Micro --Aire has also hired a local architect and is trying to hire a local construction firm. In answer to Mr. Benish's question about the Faulconer and Birdwood properties, Mr. Rose confirmed that UREF was involved in both those properties. 113 5-17-94 A Ms. Imhoff expressed an understanding of Mr. Sandridge's comment regarding the private sector supplying housing. She added: "But the point is, we're not seeing the pivate sector supply the affordable housing for a lot of the people who do work at UVA, so I do think that for the long term that would be something for UVA to focus on." Public comment was invited. Referring to a statement made in an October 1993 staff report that "there is enough water to serve this development provided that sometimes the North Fork treatment plant would use some of the water from Chris Greene Lake," Ms. Treva Cromwell asked Mr. Rose to comment on the infrastructure needed for the North Fork development. She asked how many square feet of development were planned. Mr. Rose explained that the original plan for 7,000,000 square feet has been reduced to "less than 1/2 of that over twice the area." He could not say how much water would be needed. Ms. Cromwell also asked if there shouldn't be plans for related residential development because of the "spinoff" effect which would result from new jobs. Mr. Rose explained that he has been contacted by housing developers who are interested in UREF's plans"because they see there is some commerce out there they can get involved in." MISCELLANEOUS Staff reported that a Work Session on the Economy section of the Background Report was scheduled for May 31st. Mr. Dotson asked that the meeting be held in room 5-6. Staff was to check on the availability of the room. Ms. Huckle reported that she would not be present at the June 21st or June 28th meetings. She hoped that Mr. Williams' (RWSA) presentation would not be scheduled for one of the sessions she would miss. There was some concern about scheduling the RWSA and ACSA presentations on the same meeting with the Carrsbrook proposal (June 14th). The work session ended at 8:15. W: f J V. Wayn1 Cilir7 Secretary 17�