No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 19 1994 PC Minutes7-19-94 JULY 19, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 19, 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; Ms. Yolanda Mpski, Planner; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner, Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Marsha Joseph, ARB Planner; Mr. Tom Leback, UVA Representative; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of July 5, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the July 13, 1994 Board of Supervisors Meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Forest Lakes Medical Offices Preliminary Site Plan - Request for modification of Section 21.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit grading within the 20 foot buffer adjacent to residential property and modification of Section 4.12.6.5(c) to permit parallel parking. Ms. Imhoff asked for further explanation from staff as to why the buffer needed to be modified. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the adjacent areas are zoned residentially though those immediately adjacent do not presently have residential development on them. He explained: "The provisions of the Ordinance would require that there be those undisturbed buffers adjacent to residential areas. Because of the cut and fill activity (shown in green on the plan), that will require disturbance within the setback. Because of that, there is a modification request for that particular activity ... in lieu of doing retaining walls and not disturbing that area." He explained that the applicant will come back with landscaping within areas in the green. He also pointed that a request is being made for service vehicle parking spaces internally, in lieu of loading spaces, which are not necessary for this type of development. Ms.Imhoff asked if more parking spaces are proposed than required by the Ordinance. After checking the note on the plan, Mr. Cilimberg responded that 220 spaces are required and the applicant is providing 243 spaces, plus 7 delivery spaces.) Ms. Imhoffwondered why "they couldn't pull away from those lot lines and not require the buffer modification and just develop the sight slightly less intensively." Mr. Cilimberg did not know if the applicant would consider, or be able to do, what Ms. Imhoff was suggesting. Mr. Cilimberg did not know if such a change would make a difference in the area being disturbed. -60 7-19-94 2 Ms. Imhoff felt there might be a need, at some future time, to "revisit" the Site Plan Ordinance. She expressed the feeling that since the County did away with the requirements for a certain percentage of open space, every developer seems to develop to the maximum, right up to the property lines. She felt there are no longer any "clean site plans" proposed, rather there are a variety of modification requests. She was concerned that a lot of developers are "maxing out on their properties." She was also concerned about developers putting in more parking than required which she felt "flies in the face of our desire to cut down on impervious surface and all the good things that go with that." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out a dL erence in this instance, from when the Ordinance was established, i.e. "they (requirements) were established to make sure there was enough parking and there were no maximum parking (limitations) though there was a maximum distance from any building in which parking was supposed to be located without modification by the Planning Commission." He pointed out that in this case "they are staying within the distances, but they are providing additional spaces." He added that it is not unusual to see more parking than is required, particularly with "open" sites. Mr. Blue felt "that flies in the face of good economic judgment." He could not imagine why a developer would want to put in more parking than necessary given the added cost involved. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that companies often have set formulas for parking and developers must meet those requirements in order to get the company to sign a contract. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that, in this case, parking was not proposed in the buffer zone, only grading activity. Ms. Imhoff noted that if additional parking was not necessary, then there could be more green space and on -site landscaping, and modifications would not be necessary so often. Ms. Huckle asked if the entire area was going to be graded at this time (with Phase i of the development). Mr. Cilimberg replied that with site plan approval "they can grade in the whole area and they may actually need to get a cut and fill balance." He felt that parking would be developed just for Phase I at this time. Ms. Huckle asked what would happen with the rest of the graded area (not used for parking at this time). Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Erosion Control Ordinance would require that the site be stabilized. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that the Consent Agenda be approved. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SDP-94-006 Carrsbrook Retail Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate approximately 111,464 square feet of retail supported by approximately 660 spaces on 15.87 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor. Properties, described as Tax Map 45, parcels 110, 110A, 111, 111A, 111B, are located on the east side of Route 29 across from the Keglers .3r 7-19-94 Bowling Center in the Charlottesvine Magisterial District. This property is located in a designated growth area and is recommended for Community Service (Urban Neighborhood 2). Deferred from June 14, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting. Ms. Opski presented the staff report. She reminded the Commission the item had been deferred to allow time for the applicant to resolve outstanding issues with the ARB. The applicant had met with the ARB on July 18, 1994. Ms. Hipski reported that the plan is the same as that reviewed by the Commission on July 5th. There have been no changes. Ms. Imhoff asked Ms. Hipski: "The reason why it is before us tonight is not simply because it was heard by the ARB, but because the clock has run out and the applicant has asked that the decision be made this evening. Is that correct?... The schedule on this got pushed up because the applicant has asked that it be voted on this evening, because of the clock." Ms. Hipski confirmed this was an accurate statement. She also stated that adjacent property owners had been notified. The Chair invited comment from Marsha Joseph, ARB PIanner. Ms. Joseph described the discussions which had taken place at the ARB meeting. Items discussed were: --Location of entrances - These are fixed because of recommendations by the Highway Department and the Planning Department. The center entrance --opposite the crossover --is in the location of most of the critical slopes. (Because of the safety issue of the entrance, the ARB felt it was not their decision as to where it should be located.) As a result of the road construction and the site construction, the stream will have to be improved (i.e. re-channelized or rip -rapped). Therefore, it was felt "there was no sense in saving the stream at this point." --Site grading - The applicant presented "sections" showing different areas through the site which showed what the grading would look like. A concept presented by the applicant was a dual retaining wall, i.e. "a 5-foot high retaining wall which would back up to another 5-foot high retaining wall." The ARB felt that might be something which could be used in "transitioning from the grades on either side of this site, a little more gently, visually, than a 10-foot high retaining wall." —Vegetation - The ARB felt this plan could be something they could support if there was additional vegetation on the site, i.e. "within the parking areas and along the retaining walls, to soften the effect." --Buildings - They were not discussed in detail, but will have to come back to the ARB when plans for building type are finalized. --Lighting - The ARB routinely requires a photometric plan for the lighting. Ms. Joseph concluded: "In essence, they felt they could support the modification as long as there was additional vegetation on the site, and the applicant made an attempt, with the regrading, so that there was more of a transition between the sites on either side of this existing site." Ms. Huckle asked if there had been any discussion of moving the buildings more to the middle of the site. Ms. Joseph responded that it had been decided that "instead of doing that, they would Sa? 7-19-94 4 require some isles of green throughout the parking to place plantings and trees within those areas." Mr. Ntchmann asked: "So the ARB and the applicant have come to a mutually agreeable set of parameters which they feel they can both live with --does that sum it up?" Ms. Joseph responded affirmatively. Mr. Blue questioned this statement since the letter (which Ms. Joseph had just finished explaining) was written to Mr. Muncaster (the applicant's engineer) and was dated "today." He asked if the ARB already had received a response to the letter. Ms. Joseph explained that ARB meetings are "give and take" between the applicant and the ARB. She confirmed that the applicant had been involved in the discussions she had just described. (Mr. Blue had not understood that the "they" referred to by Ms. Joseph meant both the ARB and the applicant.) Ms. Imhoff asked what type of additional information would be expected of the applicant before a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued. Ms. Joseph replied: "We are expecting a landscape plan, a grading plan, a photometric plan, elevations of the buildings, samples of buildings materials. Those are the kinds of things we will be looking for." Ms. Joseph confirmed that the dual retaining walls had been suggested by the applicant. The horizontal distance between the walls has not yet been determined. Ms. Joseph felt it was possible that the walls might be able to be fitted in "before the 20 foot buffer." Regarding the entrances, Ms. Joseph explained that the middle entrance and the northernmost entrance were concerns of the ARB. The ARB recognized that the middle entrance was a safety issue and had been recommended by both staff and VDOT. It was felt there was no place else on the site the entrance could be located. Ms. Imhoff wanted some assurance that there was no other location for the middle entrance. She asked Mr. Don Franco, County Engineering Office, if the crossover was to remain for the long term, in VDOT plans. She also asked about the status of the northern entrance. (She recalled that there had been some problem with the northern entrance and the Carrsbrook Homeowner's Association.) Mr. Franco explained that VDOT does plan to maintain this crossover. As part of this plan, the applicant will be installing a dual turn lane and signalization at that location. It is the principal entrance into the site and the one of choice by VDOT. There have been no further discussions (since the last Commission meeting) about the northern entrance. It was his understanding that the dispute about that entrance was a private issue between the homeowners and the property owner. If that northern entrance could not be constructed, he felt it could effect the site design in terms of the location of the buildings and the protected travelway. Ms. Huckle asked if VDOT had not originally recommended only one entrance. Mr. Franco responded affirmatively and added that VDOT's preferred design would be one entrance. However, the staff has worked with the applicant and VDOT to come up with alternatives that 3S 7-19-94 5 "would satisfy everybody's concerns." The sketch plan which shifts the southern entrance 125 feet northward "is the compromise solution that we have come up with." After stating that he had read the staff reports, the minutes of the previous meeting, and visited the site, Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Davis if it was appropriate for him to take part in the review given the fact that he had been absent from the previous hearing. Mr. Davis stated that it was appropriate if Mr. Dotson feels he is "adequately informed to vote." Mr. Dotson asked if there would be a safety problem, in terms of emergency vehicle access, if there was only one entrance. Mr. Franco explained that there are at least 2 lanes in and 2 lanes out at the main entrance. He felt it would be more appropriate for other staff (those dealing with fire and rescue) to address Mr. Dotson's question. He noted, however, that it is not unusual for sites to have only one entrance. He concluded: "In this case, with the compromises, I think the primary staff concern was the potential for 3 different entrances if this site were developed in separate parcels. There was potential for 4 entrances with the northern site having it's own entrance and the compromise was do reduce the number of potential entrances." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there had been no opportunity to gain access through adjacent properties, as is sometimes the case with adjacent commercial properties. Public comment was invited. Mr. James Craig, a Carrsbrook resident, addressed the Commission. He expressed the hope that the residential character of the neighborhoods could be preserved. He expressed concern about possible erosion problems as the result of the grading and additional runoff through adjoining subdivisions. He also expressed concern about additional light, noise and air pollution and about the "intrusion of people and rubbish onto our properties." He asked that consideration be given to the requirement for a "solid wall" between the property and the residential areas. He felt this would offer more protection from the sound and the light. Ms. Edy Turner (Carrsbrook resident) later addressed the Commission and expressed the feeling that approval should not be given the project until the issue of the fencing has been resolved. There was no further public comment. The applicant, Mr. Wendall Wood, offered to answer Commission questions. Mr. Blue asked Mr. Wood to confirm that he had reached an agreement with the ARB. Mr. Wood responded: "I think what we have done is try to compromise continuously. It has been constantly compromising." He explained that additional information which he had provided had finally convinced the ARB that it is "probably not desirable to leave the stream uncovered." He added: "Grading on the site was a major issue to go forward. We believe the rest of the issues ... (sentence incomplete)." Mr. Blue asked: "You are confident that you can get a Certificate 7-19-94 6 of Appropriateness within the guidelines of the letter that we received a copy of tonight?" Mr. Wood responded: "I believe so." Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Wood to comment on the fencing which had been requested by Mr. Craig. Mr. Wood responded that he has agreed, from the beginning, to provide fencing, if that is what the adjacent properties prefer. He noted, however, that some people have indicated they would prefer some other type of screening.- He concluded: "We have our preference --we'd like to do a fence, but some people objected to a fence. They would prefer plantings. That's not an issue with us. Whatever they ("staff, residents, parties other than us") can decide, we are agreeable to providing screening to their liking." [Mr. Blue had understood that Mr. Craig had suggested a "wall." Ms. Huckle felt Mr. Craig's concern had been about security as well as aesthetics.] Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Wood to explain the justification for the southern entrance. Mr. Wood explained that he felt it would help the internal traffic flow. He stated that fimneling traffic into one entrance has been proven to be undesirable all over the country. He stated that multiple entrances make traffic flow much better, which has been "proven time after time." (Ms. Imhoff expressed an interest in receiving some factual information to support Mr. Wood's statements regarding multiple entrances. Mr. Wood gave as an example Rt. I in Florida. Ms. Imhoff offered an alternate example of Virginia Beach where "they ended up going to service roads and cutting down completely multiple entrances and making people come to major intersections.) Mr. Dotson asked if the business which would be located on that portion of the property had requested that southern entrance, or was it the desire of the developer. Mr. Wood responded: "Both. We would request it as a developer (and) it is a requirement of Golden Corral to the extent that if the project was not successful in this phase, which it very well may not be without the entrances, Golden Corral has the option to submit a site plan on just their parcel with an entrance and exit." Mr. Dotson asked for a clarification of the process from this point, if approval is granted at this time. He asked specifically at what point issues such as the fencing, dumpster locations, etc. would be addressed. Mr. Cilimberg explained that it is not untypical for those types of items to be worked out after preliminary site plan approval. He added that it is also not unusual to have ARB preliminary approval before the final granting of a Certificate of Appropriateness. He concluded: "So it is really worked out between the applicant and the individual departments to provide those conditions to reach the final site plan. He stated the fencing issue will require ARB review, but it will definitely be discussed with the applicant between the planning staff and the ARB staff. [Mr. Dotson pointed out that some of the fencing will be at the back of the site and the ARB may not have concerns about visibility from Rt. 29 on that portion.] Noting that the discussion about fencing is now a matter of record, Mr. Cilimberg did not feel a separate condition addressing fencing was required. Ms. Huckle asked if the final site plan would be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg replied: "Only if you condition it that way." .36 7-19-94 Ms. Vaughan asked if adjacent residents would be privy to the discussions about fencing. Mr. Cilimberg responded they could be present at the ARB meetings, but "unless it comes back to the Commission, there is no notification." Ms. Imhoff pointed out that because of the time table involved, the Commission must take action at this meeting or it will be automatically deemed approved. She stated that because of the site, she was very reluctant to grant the requested modifications for grading and the entrances. In the event the proposal is granted approval, she asked that the final site plan come back to the Commission for review. There was no objection to Ms. Imhoffs request for Commission review of the final site plan. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SDP-94-006 for Carrsbrook Retail Center Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions and that the modifications to Section 4.2.3.2, 32.7.2.2 and 4.12.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance be granted as requested: 1. Planning Department shalt not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions are obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Staff approval of phasing plan. b. Inspections Department approval of fire hydrant location for the sewage pump station. c. Staff approval of landscape plan other than landscaping (as may be required by the Architectural Review Board) to include adequate screening from adjacent residential areas. d. Staff approval of plat showing off -site easement for access to the northern parcel. e. Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board. f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance location(s) and right-of- way improvements. g. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations. h. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations. i. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans and calculations. j. Proof of recordation of a County standard Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement. k. Final site development plan must be submitted at the required scale at V = 20". 1. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans and calculations. m. Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority approval of final water and sewer plans and calculations. n. Confirmation by the Fire Official of adequate fire flow. o. Department of Engineering approval of Erosion Control Plan. p. Department of Health/Department of Engineering approval of plans for well abandonment and septic field removal. -94 7-19-94 8 2. The applicant shad instav the trathc signal and all Final Site Plan Route 29 improvements upon the demand of Virginia Department of Transportation. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until: a. Fire Official final approval. b. Installation and/or bonding for traffic signal and Route 29 North right-of-way improvements. 4. Planning Commission approval of final site plan. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Dotson asked if it was necessary to state specifically that the Commission would like for the applicant and ARB to follow up on each of the points listed in the ARB's letter dated July 19, 1994. Mr. Nitchmann responded: "I don't believe so because I think it is the ARB's charter to do that." Ms. Imhoff again expressed "grave concerns" about the three modifications requested. She understood that the property would be developed, but she was not certain whether this "is the layout that is most advantageous to this property and the fact that we need so many critical modifications really concerns me --that the development has not been fitted to the site very well." Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the ARB would be looking at the plan closely and the applicant and ARB are approaching a mutual agreement as to what is required. He felt that the applicant had "gone the extra step." He pointed out that VDOT has approved the entrances and the Commission will be reviewing the final site plan. (Mr. Blue interjected: "And that's the best you're going to get.) Mr. Nitchmann felt that there could be alternative development plans for the property, by right, which would be much more objectionable than this plan. Ms. Imhoff agreed that it is difficult not to support the modifications, given the ARB's comments. However, she felt the ARB's letter had seemed to indicate that the ARB had felt it had little to say regarding the entrance location, so the modification was necessary. She felt it was a "chicken and egg" issue and questioned "how we got on this cycle." She concluded: "I wish that there had been a more sensitive treatment of this property." Ms. Huckle expressed support for one entrance (noting that had been VDOT's original recommendation). She referenced the high number of accidents which take place in this corridor. She concluded that because of the safety issue, she could not support the waivers. Mr. Nitchmann felt VDOT would have had different comments if they felt that safety was a serious concern. He felt the proposed plan would offer greater safety than would one entrance. 7-19-94 Mr. Dotson expressed his principle concern was that staff and the applicant work to make the development as compatible as possible with the residential neighborhoods and the perimeter of the property be looked at very closely. He felt that both fencing and landscaping were needed. He expressed concern about the placement of the dumpsters and noise issues. The motion for approval passed (4:3) with Commissioners Huckle, Vaughan, and Imhoff casting the dissenting votes. The meeting recessed briefly from 8:00 to 8:10. ----------------------------------- WORK SESSION - Comprehensive Plan Water and Sewer Planning Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority and Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority led a discussion on utilities planning in relation to the Comprehensive Plan Review. Mr. Paul Shoop, also with ACSA, was also present. Information given by Mr. Brent and Mr. Williams, by areas, included the following: CROZET --The Crozet Interceptor (from Moore's Creek Sewage Treatment Plant to Crozet) has the capacity to serve the presently designated growth area. "There will be modifications along a branch of the Maury Creek Interceptor once it gets to Charlottesville that will be necessary to accommodate the entire growth in Crozet when that takes place." --Crozet has an independent water system served by the Beaver Creek Reservoir. --The water treatment plant presently has a treatment capacity of 1,000,000/gpd and can be doubled to 2,000,000/gpd. Average treatment per day is presently 500,000/gpd. --Water supply does match the treatment plant capacity, i.e. "the yield of the reservoir equals 2,000,000 gallons/day." --Good transmission facilities are in place and there is excellent storage for water. --The one weak area in Crozet is in the western edge of the designated growth area. Presently the area in the vicinity of Western Albemarle High School and areas along Jarman's Gap Road have insufficient water flow pressure. --The area that is designated for growth and is currently undeveloped, does not have adequate provision for water. The CIP program presently has a project (expected to go to bid within 40 days)-- a water transmission line which will extend "from Jarman's Gap Road, across country, to the vicinity of Western Albemarle FEgh School, to provide additional fire flow and to bring the availability of public water into the designated growth area." 3.9 7-19-94 to --One-half the consumption of water and sewer in Crozet is used by one industrial plant and the water demands have differed with each ownership of that plant. Should that ownership change again in the future, "the whole complexion of the utility situation of that community might change also." That is a variable outside the County's or ACSA's control. --The Interceptor was designed for an economic life of 50 years and it was not anticipated that Crozet would be built out during that period. "So at the time that the capacity is met, it is going to need an infrastructure request anyway, regardless of how the boundaries (of the growth area) change, assuming growth doesn't change drastically." --Presently, the County prohibits connections to the interceptor "between Farmington and the boundary of Crozet." Should the County's policy change, it is physically possible to make connections. (Mr. Williams pointed out that over half the interceptor is force main, so it is not physically possible to connect to certain portions.) Questions asked by the Commission: --Can the Crozet Interceptor handle any growth beyond the presently designated growth area? ANSWER: It was sized to handle the build out population projected at the time it was built (which is basically the same as the present growth area). It is restricted by the point where it ties into the present intercepting system (limited to a flow figure of 2,500/gpm). At such time as the figure is exceeded, "we'll have to relieve it down at that point." Mr. Blue concluded: "If we increase that growth area, we are automatically making an assumption that interceptor is going to have to be enlarged." Mr. Cilimberg stated that would have to be verified before making any recommendations. --Is there a cost difference in providing water to Crozet, versus other areas? ANSWER: RWSA charges separate rates to the ACSA, but the ACSA, "throws everything in the pot and charges a uniform rate throughout the County, regardless of what the wholesale rate might be." --Is there a match between the 2,000,000 gallon water possibility and the capacity of the interceptor? ANSWER: It is difficult to say. They were designed under entirely different scenarios. --What is the current percentage of utilization of the interceptor line? ANSWER: "It is substantially underutilized right now." (Ms. Imhoff asked for a more specific answer to this question at some future time.) URBAN AREA (North,from GE to the Greene County line; South, to Piedmont Virginia Community College; East, to Glenmore; West to Farmington.) —What ACSA considers the urban area is somewhat different than the way the Comp Plan considers it. --Service areas are the result of political decisions. --A number of different pressure zones exist. Compromises are necessary to serve both high areas and low areas. --Charlottesville proper and the urban area surrounding it are provided water by two treatment plants --one at Observatory Mountain and the other at the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. (Providing service as far west as Ivy and as far north as Airport Road.) 317 7-19-94 11 --A third water treatment plant, on the North Fork of the Rivanna River, operates on a separate pressure band in providing water to the area north of Airport Road. --There are a number of storage facilities within the system. --Major improvements have been made within the last decade. The Observatory Plant has been upgraded to present day standards and new storage has been provided there. A new water line has been extended around the southern and western parts of the city terminating presently at Avon Street Extended. A new storage tank (2,000,000 gallons) has been constructed there and there is expansion capability for another 2,000,000 gallon tank at the same site. --A water transmission main was extended (early 80's) from 29 North, along Rio Road, up to Pantops, and a 5,000,000 gallon water storage tank was constructed in Ashcroft Subdivision. --With the exception of one gap in the Rt. 20464 area, we have a complete transmission loop around the city. This gap is not essential to us. A contract for provisions to complete that loop at a future date upon request by the City exists. But it provides no great benefit to the County, which can operate quite satisfactorily without that last leg of the southern loop. --Within the last 5 years there has been a major pipeline extension east of Charlottesville from Pantops to the Glenmore development. (This was constructed by a private developer and dedicated to the Authority.) --The largest project remaining is a transmission main between the South Fork Rivanna. Treatment Plant and the Observatory Plant. That project has just been awarded and construction will probably start in the next 60-90 days and will last for approximately one year. This will allow water to be moved from one facility to the other, in the event of an emergency. (Mr. Brent confirmed, in answer to Mr. Nitchmann's question, that this would provide more water to the southern part of the County.) --Everything south of Airport Road is fed by systems other than the North Fork system, i.e. South Rivanna, Sugar Hollow and Ragged Mountain. Commission questions: --At what capacity will the Glenmore line be operating when Glenmore is built out? ANSWER: The line to Glenmore was designed to accommodate the fire flows and domestic flows that would be required for the Rivanna Village and Stone Robinson School. In an emergency situation (e.g. a fire) it would be operating near maximum capacity. Through enhancements of that system (e.g. adding storage), it is possible to serve other areas other than those presently planned to be served. --What is the capacity in the northern part of town? Are the lines presently sized to accommodate a lot of development, or will additional storage tanks be needed? ANSWER: Pipeline capacity is not a problem in the North Fork system, nor is storage capacity or treatment capacity a problem. The source of the supply is the problem. The water treatment plant has the capacity to treat 2,000,000/gpd but we presently get only 800,000 gallons/day and in order to get more water treated in plants, you have to consider Chris Green Lake as a drinking water supply. [NOTE: Mr. Brent felt this was one of the "major questions" which must be addressed by this Commission, the Board, and the Authorities in this review of the Comprehensive Plan, or if not with this review, definitely in the next review. He did not think it was too early to start looking at the question. An alternative to using Chris Green Lake for providing water north of Airport Road J/a 7-19-94 12 is to do away with the existing North Rivanna Plant and pump water entirely from South Rivanna. Mr. Brent cautioned that the County should "look long and hard" before giving up Chris Green as a water source because "we could likely never get it back." He asked which would it be more easy to replace --a water source, or a recreational facility? Another possibility for providing additional water to the Piney Mt. area is to continue to use the facilities that are there (and supplement them with water from South Rivanna.)] --Will Buck Mountain change the North Fork area capacity? ANSWER: No. What will Buck Mountain be supplying? ANSWER: Buck Mountain will release water to supplement (not replace) the South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant to serve the urban area. --Would abandonment of the North Rivanna system and the pumping of water from the South Rivanna to the north, mean that the growth of that northern section of the county would be restricted? ANSWER: You would be giving up whatever volume is in Chris Green Lake plus the 800,000 gallons/day which is the presently available. Mr. Brent agreed with Ms. Hackle's conclusion that "it would be a short term answer but would ultimately be to the disadvantage of the area." --What is the feasibility of using water conservation measures? ANSWER: Serious conservation efforts in this community have been limited to periods of drought because of the ample supply of water. Consequently, conservation programs have not received a significant amount of attention. There will likely be increased emphasis on conservation over the next decade. --What is the yield of Chris Green Lake? ANSWER: Unknown at this time. --Are records kept showing number of new taps each year --residential, commercial, industrial? ANSWER: Yes. (Ms. Imhoff expressed the feeling that this information, including estimated per day usage, would be helpful to the Commission.) Mr. Brent described the ACSA's ability to provide water service to various neighborhoods. NEIGHBORHOOD I - Fairly well developed. Not much is needed. NEIGHBORHOOD II - Most areas served by water. The ACSA's CIP has plans to update some pipe materials and provide better fire flow. The Carrsbrook/Rio Road area is primarily served. NEIGHBORHOOD III (ASHCROFT and 250 EAST) - There is a new 5,000,000 gallon storage tank at Ashcroft and a transmission line which extends from there to the city and one east to Glenmore. The basic infrastructure is available to serve expansion between the growth area and I64. NEIGHBORHOODS IV and V - Completed southern loop transmission line and Avon Street storage tanks provide tremendous capability for extending further into that future development area. There is good potential for additional service. NEIGHBORHOOD VI - Same as V, except limited by terrain and presently developed areas that do not require additional service. h�/ 7-19-94 13 NEIGHBORHOOD VII - Vir u My developed. Replacement of deteriorating pipe and general upkeep of system. HOLLYMEAD and PINEY MT (Ms. Imhoff specifically asked about these two areas) - "Waterwise--up to Airport Road --we can do most anything you request of us. We can do most anything within reason in the Piney Mountain Village once we decide where the water is coming from. Presently, including GE and Badger, the treatment plant is only operating 2-3 days/week with average production of 200,000 gallons/day, which can go to 800,000." There are good facilities in place to serve everything around the perimeter of the City. Additional Commission questions: --Are there any pending state or federal regulations which will have a significant detrimental impact on the Authority's operation? ANSWER: "Yes, lots. " The Safe Drinking Water Act could have tremendous impact on costs. [ Mr. Blue noted that this Act will apply all over the Country and because of the County's modern, up-to-date system, we will not be in any worse shape than any similar community. Mr. Brent felt we would probably be in better shape than most communities. Mr Blue did not think Congress would do anything to bankrupt the entire country.] --Is it anticipated that the ACSA will be asked to take over some of the private systems when it is found that they cannot afford to meet the new regulations? ANSWER: That is a very worrisome problem for us and for everybody in the country. In some cases, the choice will be having water which conforms to the Safe Drinking Water standards, or no water at all. --Have any other potential reservoir sites been considered? ANSWER: Studies done in 1977 considered 10 potential sites, which had boiled down to two --Buck Mountain and James River. The Buck Mountain site was found to be one of the best in Virginia for a future water supply. The water quality was good and it was totally contained within the County, offering better control over quality. Also, its location, just upstream from Rivanna, made it work well from a hydraulic standpoint. The James River possibility would be very expensive and would probably involve a single large treatment plant near Scottsville, with the water being pumped to Charlottesville which is very expensive from both an operating and construction standpoint. There was also no control over the water quality. --Is there data which shows the County's total available water capacity in terms of current and near future demands? ANSWER: Projected demand over the next 30-50 years --yes. That is being re-evaluated in a study which is currently underway. --Is there a big gap between what we would like to do with our planned growth and our water to support it? ANSWER: It's safe to say we have sufficient water to meet demands as we currently know it. There are a lot of unknowns in the future. The projections done in the last 25 years have been amazingly accurate. --Is there a minimum scale of development which makes it feasible for a public authority to provide water? How should we be thinking about that in terms of an area like North Garden, or others? ANSWER: There's not a real clearcut answer to the question. Small community systems are going to find the water business to be very undesirable. #a 7-19-94 14 General statements made by Mr. Brent: --Water resources in this community are shared with the City and the University. Presently the County uses approximately 1/3 of the water (up from 1/4 in the last few years). It is logical that most future growth will occur within the service area of the service authority. At some point--20 or 30 years in the future --it is anticipated that the County will be the principal user of water, but we must not forget that there are two other users of this resource which will effect the needs and demands of the system. Mr. Bent described sewer service: --The area north of Airport Road, including the Piney Mt. growth area and Hollymead, is presently served by the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant, located just south of Rt. 29, behind Badger Powhatan. Waste water is treated there and discharged into the north Rivanna River. The plant has been expanded 3 times, from 40,000 gpd to its present capacity of 365,000 gpd. It was felt the 365,000 capacity would serve this area for a long time at a time when further growth in this area was not anticipated. Present usage is 100,000 gpd. Noting the existing plans for growth in this area (Towers, UREF, the mobile home park), Mr. Brent felt the Commission needs to take a good long look at this area because "the next facility that goes in will not be just another little expansion to the plant, it will have to be a real fix this time." The fix "can either be a continuation of the Rivanna interceptor all the way up to the river, which is an ultimate solution, or, one that is probably not affordable in its entirety at this point --some combination of an interceptor down the river and a pumping station to pump it out to Forest Lakes." An important question which has to be answered is "What will a realistic growth area look like 40 or 50 years down the road?" The Authority has "made a commitment to the University Real Estate Foundation and Woodbriar Associates that we will provide capacity for the properties that they built that plant for in the early 80's. We have made that capacity available to other properties so that there wouldn't be a strangle hold on other development that is already approved between now and 2000 or whenever they had reserved the capacity in the plant they built. We bought them out of that capacity, opened it up to the public and had made commitments to them that when that plant reaches its capacity, we would put some other permanent facility in place." [Mr. Blue noted that both the Rivanna interceptor and the Powell Creek line are sized so that they could handle the load if an expansion of the growth area is approved in that area, the question is just one of "getting to them." Mr. Brent confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Blue's statement.] --Rt. 20 South, Rt. 742, Biscuit Run, Old Lynchburg Road - The infrastructure is there and the capacity is there. There are enlargements that would have to be made to the Moore's Creek Line over time, but they are scheduled in the Capital Improvement Program. An interceptor has recently been completed up Biscuit Run as far as Mill Creek and the back side of Oak Hill subdivision and it was designed for the ultimate buildout of that entire drainage basin. Commission questions: --If growth does take place over to the north fork of the river, would it be reasonable to assume that an interceptor down the north fork in the long run would be cheaper than a series 113 7-19-94 15 of pump stations and lines working their way over? ANSWER: It will have to be studied. Mr. Brent felt the ideal way would be "ultimately, to follow the river." In the short term, "how long is it going to take to generate a customer base up there that will allow you to afford and live with that luxury until such time as it's needed." Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Brent and stated there was no question that a gravity interceptor, along the river, would be the preferred way to go. The question, as always, will be whether it can be justified economically. From Mr. Williams' statements, Mr. Blue drew the following conclusion: "So you feel then that the North Fork interceptor --whether we do it now --should be based entirely on how soon you are going to develop your customer base to pay for it? Then that has an influence on whether we declare that a growth area or not. That's what we are going to have to debate." --Is there any reason the growth area could not be extended further along Rt. 20 North, from a utilities standpoint? ANSWER: The interceptor is there, on the opposite side of the river. A transmission line crosses Rt 20 in the vicinity of the Elks Lodge. The biggest obstacle would be the terrain on the east side of Rt. 20 and a pump station would be needed because of some of the elevations. Mr. Brent concluded: "Rt. 20 North is, from a utility perspective, a reasonable place to look to provide service." --Are there any areas which the Service Authority would prefer that growth "stay away from?" ANSWER: In response to this question, Mr. Brent read the following recommendations: "We believe that you should concentrate on developing the growth areas along our existing facilities and that you not expect the Authorities to be able to develop viable utilities in remote areas, such as North Garden or Stoney Point, or keying in on Schuyler and various other remote places in the County. Don't expect us to be everywhere at once. It is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to operate these little, small systems. Please do not permit the creation of further central groundwater, community water systems in Albemarle County. We have enough already and they are going to be a problem that this community, and every community in the Country, are going to have to deal with in the not too distant future. They cannot afford to continue to upgrade. We make the same recommendation for small, neighborhood type sewage treatment facilities [Mr. Blue asked if that meant "no more Glenmores." ]S4r. Brent responded that Glenmore was a state of the art facility and not just a neighborhood type facility. However, he recommended that any future proposals for facilities similar to Glenmore's be looked at "long and hard." He concluded: "It if was going to be Glenmore's size and caliber, we could probably do it." Mr. Blue asked: "If the lot buyer is going to pay for it, you don't have as much problem with it if it is large enough? Mr. Brent responded: "My concern would be if it had to be run at public expense." ] Continue to look along the existing sewer interceptor facilities that carry wastes to the Moore's Creek Regional Treatment Plant. Give us a realistic growth area to aim for in planning for utilities, particularly in the Piney Mt., Camelot, Hollymead areas --what you can reasonably expect to take place in the next 30 to 50 years. to Mr. Brent ended his presentation at this point. #A1 7-19-94 16 Ms. Imhoff asked if staff could, sometime in the next few weeks, respond to questions raised by the Piedmont Environment Council in a letter to the Service Authority some weeks previous. (The Commission had received copies of the letter.) Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff would be able to respond to some of the questions. Mr. Brent stated he would be happy to answer those questions which pertain to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Nitchmann asked if there have been any discussions with Fluvanna County as to whether they are planning for growth to the west (towards Albemarle County). He felt it would be helpful to have that information. WORK SESSION - UREF Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request Mr. Tim Rose, Chief Operating Officer for UREF, described in detail UREF's plans for a Research Business Park on property located in the northern part of the County, adjacent to the Airport, the Hollymead Growth Area, and Rt. 29 North. He was assisted by Mr. Leonard Sandridge (UVA) and Ms. Ellen Miller (Stoneridge Associates). Information provided, much of which had been presented previously, included the following: --UREF hopes to consolidate the two parcels into one PDIP region to achieve the best development of the property, both environmentally and financially. The southern portion is presently zoned PDIP, the northern portion zoned Rural Areas. --The request is to "add an incremental 500,000 square feet of development to the already allotted 2,500,000 square feet which is slated for the southern portion and then to take that 3,000,000 square feet and spread it out over the entire parcel." --The plan is to create a mixed -use park --small sites, large sites, office sites, industrial sites --that will establish a research business park identity that will attract people to this location. --The plan is to develop only 13% of the gross acreage of the park. --The University is in this project for the long term and does not plan to develop quickly. Time will be needed to attract the type of firms which are supportive of the University. In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Rose explained what the colors on the plan represented and also pointed out the portion of the property which drains into the intake of North Fork Rivanna River (part of Parcel B-1, part of Parcel A and the northern part of B2). Mr. Rose noted that the bulk of this area is "already being set aside as not being developed by us." Commission questions: --Do you have a profile on the type of tenants you would like to attract? ANSWER: The property is being marketed by the University and tenants, thus far, have come through the University. Presently discussions are taking place with 2 pharmaceutical research firms, an information research technology firm, a software development firm, a surgical instruments company (MicroAire), and a legal research firm. The UREF Board will make decisions on design and type of firm. (Ms.Imhoff explained that the Commission is trying to determine the "fit of these companies with our labor force." She preferred to see the type of firms who could employ #6� 7-19-94 17 persons already living in the community. Mr. Rose noted that several of the firms he had mentioned are already located locally.) --Will these parcels be leased or sold? ANSWER: Our preference would be to lease the land. The University will always be here and would like to maintain control of the property. "However, I think we will work with the prospective tenant. In the first situation, we did sell land to MicroAire. In the most likely to happen case, we will own the land and we will own the building and lease space in that building." --In cases where the land is sold, will there be some arrangement where it would revert back to UREF? ANSWER: "In the case that we have transacted, we have the right of first refusal to procure the land back." --How does the size of this park compare with similar ones in other parts of the country? ANSWER: This is a 525-acre project--3,000,000 square feet. The Princeton park is 1,700 acres; the Research Triangle in North Carolina is 13,000 acres. --Explain the synergy between the uses, i.e. will the office uses have some relation to the industrial uses? ANSWERS: Locations B5, B1 and E are large, open spaces that lend themselves to Class A office space that probably demand a high rent. Spaces F3, F4, F2 are more industrial and back up to an industrial area. An attempt has been made to cluster these groups and keep offices together and industrial users together. As the land uses were being designed consideration was given to the adjacent uses and the physical attributes of the site relative to the type of space. "We are trying to create a community that can serve both (office and industrial uses) within the same couple of mile radius." --Are there plans for "high rises?" ANSWER: "No; maybe 3 stories. There are limitations on the parcel related to the Airport." --Has UREF given any thought to its responsibility for affordable housing or housing of any sort in relation to this development? (Ms. Imhoff felt this was an ideal property for a "mixed -community" type of development with jobs and housing on the same site. She asked: "How are we going to do the assessment with regard to the Comp Plan, of what this area might call for, more than just what the applicant is asking for?" She also raised the issue of traffic on Rt. 29, i.e. the problem of getting people to these jobs in a way other than individual automobiles.) ANSWER: "The relationship of building housing to what the University does is not as strong as seeking out a research firm. Affordable housing is something that is of interest to the types of firms that we have talked to, so it is of interest to us from that standpoint. I think our stance has been not to get into the competitive marketplace. That's an area that the private sector is set up to respond to whereas we think that a Research Business Park of this kind is not being promoted right now and we can do that for the University." --Can you explain more about those areas designated for "institutional" usage? Would any of these be tax-exempt properties? ANSWER: "The difference between general office and institutional is slight. We used this to get us into the thinking that there would be university or governmental users --think tanks --that might be interested in this location." In answer to the second question, Mr. Sandridge indicated they would not be tax-exempt properties. Mr. Sandridge added that "institutional" should not be confused with "University of Virginia owned and operated in the sense that we would think of an academic facility." He gave The Federal Executive Institute as the type of institutional use which is envisioned. 7-19-94 18 --What percentage of the property will remain open space? ANSWER: 499/0 will be green/open space. Floor area ratio will be 13%. Design criteria limits any given lot to 70% coverage, including parking areas. —Will there be an architectural review committee which will review proposals? ANSWER: There will be very strict guidelines related to building materials, signage, lighting, parking design, etc. which were developed by a Design Review Committee. --Will this conceptual plan become the Comp Plan Amendment? How much are we bound by this plan? ANSWER: Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Board would ultimately make that decision. He added: "We don't have necessarily in our Comprehensive Plan now this kind of definition of particular bubbles of sites. I think well have to look at it from the standpoint of what landuse designation makes sense and what description of that area makes sense for the Comprehensive Plan." He confirmed that once the Comp Plan Amendment is in place, the applicant can then seek a rezoning to PDIP, as the rest of the property is currently zoned. --What are the plans to protect the intake of the North Fork. ANSWER: It seems that most of that 76 acres has already been set aside to address the County Engineering Department's concerns. There will be further discussions with Mr. Kelsey to talk further about his concerns and to try to protect that 76 acres. An estimated 10 - 20 acres would be lost for development, which will have a financial impact on the project. --What is UREF's time frame for having this amendment acted on by the Board? ANSWER: "From our standpoint, we'd like to move as quickly as we can, but we don't want to get involved in a project that is forcing your hand on something you don't feel comfortable with. In relation to fiscal impact, this is a new market ... and it may take some tweaking of the fiscal impact model to make it fit." --Will the University play an active role in trying to retrain some of the current work force to fit into some of the institutions or industries which may move into this park? ANSWER: "It depends a lot on the kind of individual we are talking about. We want to work very closely with the Virginia Community College system." Their programs, in terms of semi -skilled and technical workers, are most likely to meet retraining needs. The University is presently involved in retraining some of its employees to fill other positions. "It is going to be a joint effort...." Ms. Huckle asked if plans would come before the Commission for review. Mr. Cilimberg explained that UREF acts as a private entity and it is not the University itself which owns the property. Any site plans and special permits will go through the usual process. Ms. Imhoff felt the key to whether or not this would be dealt with now, or along with the regular review of the Comp Plan would be determined by the answer to the Chris Green Lake question. She wondered how soon the discussions should begin related to a water source for the northern area. She indicated a preference to look at the proposal in the context of the entire 29 North Corridor. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "The Commission has to make a decision as to how it wants to amend the plan, if at all, and what it feels it needs to decide in recommending to the Board. If it means dealing with the Chris Green issue, we can certainly deal with that; if it means you want to look at more than just what's requested here in terms of an amendment, we #9 7-19-94 19 can deal with that too. You've got to decide at what scale and with what overall considerations you want to make your recommendation to the Board." Mr. Blue felt Mr. Brent and Mr. Williams had answered this question earlier, i.e. that they feel that Chris Green Lake should not be given up as a water source, but also that there is a way to get water to the northern area without using Chris Green. He questioned whether this is still a concern. Ms. Huckle asked if UREF would consider funding a study which would determine the yield of Chris Green Lake. Ms. Imhoff felt the applicant could only be asked to provide information on their specific water needs. (Ms. Miller made a liberal "guess" that the water usage for the additional 500,000 square feet would be, "at the high end," 100,000 gallons/day.) Ms. Imhoff noted that the Commission would be interested in the usage for the entire property, not just the additional 500,000 square feet. (Mr. Rose pointed out that 2,500,000 square feet has already been approved.) Ms. Imhoff acknowledged this fact, but expressed the feeling that apparently, because the developer has not yet developed that layout, it must be felt that the "market isn't there for that product, and you want this product." Mr. Rose disagreed, stating: "I'm not sure that's correct. I think we'd prefer, from a planning perspective, from a financial and environmental perspective, to spread out over the whole parcel, be it 2 1/2 million, or 3 million." Mr. Sandridge added: "If we have suggested that it is all or nothing --that really is not our (intent). Our belief is that it makes more sense to try to think of this as a total project of 3 million square feet. If that does not occur, our plans would be to work within the amount that is zoned properly. Actually, we could do more than 2 1/2 million square feet and practically thinking, we think that is what we would do. We would like to be able to look at the whole thing as a whole, but I did not mean to suggest that if we couldn't we wouldn't go forward." Mr. Blue felt Mr. Brent had quite clearly stated, earlier in the meeting, "that the water resources are there." Regarding the "safe yield of Chris Green Lake," Mr. Williams stated he was not aware of any documentation which would provide that information, though it is possible to obtain that information. Ms. Imhoff asked: "Is the water supply there to supply UREF without pumping water from somewhere else?" Mr. Brent expressed a lack of knowledge of UREF's water needs. However, he stated: "We have facilities in place to serve that property. If the existing facilities and existing source is not adequate, then we have the capability of putting additional water into this system from South Rivanna. It is going to be the utilities' obligation to determine which is the most feasible and cost effective means of providing long term water service to this entire area, not just this particular project, the whole area." Mr. Brent confirmed that "we can get the water there one way or the other", whether the question about Chris Green as a future water source is answered at this time or not. He stressed that he felt the question about Chris Green needs to be answered, but he did not think this q2 7-19-94 20 developer, or any other property owner, should be "held hostage" to study the Chris Green question "when it may or may not be an option." Ms. Imhoff stated: "I'd like to know when we should put Chris Green on the discussion list. Is it part of this Comp Plan update? Can we wait another 5 years and push it off on another Planning Commission down the roar!?" Mr. Brent responded: "We could probably push it off another 5 years. The existing plant has been there 25 years and is only up to 25% of it's capacity. So, you probably can stall for another 5 years, but at some point in time somebody is going to have to make a decision and it if is not going to be recreational facility options to replace that recreational facility need to be considered before the options become more limited than they now are." Mr. Cilimberg did not think the decision about Chris Green could "realistically be put off." For the growth area consideration he felt it was time to deal with this question. Mr. Blue agreed that the future use of Chris Green Lake needs to be decided, but he again stated that he did not think this project should be held up pending the resolution of that issue. Ms. Huckle expressed a desire for more information (at the next work session) about the 76 acres "around the North Fork intake." Mr. Leback pointed out that an advantage of approving this request (for the additional acreage) will be a plan which works with the environment and provides substantial natural green space. Addressing Mr. Leback, Ms. Imhoff stated she night feel more comfortable about taking this amendment request out of sequence if it could be shown that it can be tied into existing neighborhoods. She expressed concerns about creating a closed industrial park. She hoped there could be discussions, at some point, of bikeways, pedestrian paths, crossovers, etc., so this would not be an independent community. There was a brief discussion about a Commission site visit to the UREF property. August 2 (early morning) was suggested as a possible time. There was a brief discussion of the Commission's upcoming visit with the Farquier Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg reported that the joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors was set for August 3rd. Several Commissioners (4) expressed conflicts. 7-19-94 21 Ms. Huckle reported that she had had several calls about a project on 250 West (Blue Ridge Highway Commercial project). She asked that this matter be brought before the Commission. Commissioners Imhoff and Blue had also received calls. There being no fiuther business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. IO �J_ W.", , , V. Wa Cilimlaer ecretary S0