HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 02 1994 PC Minutes8-2-94
AUGUST 2, 1994
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 2, 1994,
Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms.
Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Mr. Bruce Dotson, and
Mr. Tom Jenkins. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Yolanda
Hipski, Planner, Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney; and Mr. Tom
Leback, UVA Representative.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of July
19, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended.
SDP ( 94-030) Kidsworld of Branchlands Prelimanary Site PIan - Proposal to locate a 10,000
square foot building on a portion of 2.697 acres and supported by 83 parking spaces. Zoned,
PUD, Planned Unit Development. Property, described as a portion of Tax Map 61Z, Section 3,
Parcel I IA, is located on the west side of Hillsdale Drive south ofBranchlands Food Lion and
north of the Branchlands detention pond in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This property
is located in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 2) and is recommended for
Community Service.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. She distributed additional information to the Commission,
including letters from neighboring residents and a memo from the Zoning Administrator which
described the use and her interpretation of the use. (Mr. Blue expressed concern about receiving
additional information on such short notice. He urged staff to encourage applicants and the public
to submit their comments to staff earlier in the process.) Staff was recommending approval
subject to conditions.
Ms. Huckle asked if there were critical slopes on the property. Ms. Hipski responded
affirmatively but explained that the Board had already granted the modification of critical
slopes at the time the detention basins were reviewed (1992).
In response to Ms. Imhoffs request, Ms. Hipski described the intended use and the history of the
PUD. Ms. Hipski described the use as "an indoor recreational facility for pre -teen children"
which will also included a small snack bar. The facility is not a day care center --parents will
accompany the children.
Ms. Huckle asked if on -site and off -site detention measures would have to be put in place prior to
the commencement of any construction. Ms. Hipski referred to condition 1(i) which will require
"construction and/or bonding" before the final site plan is signed.
0
8-2-94 2
The issue of drainage generated the most discussion. Mr. Don Franco, representing the County
Engineering Department, addressed the Commission and offered to answer questions.
Commission questions were as follows:
--(Hackle) Will the increased impervious surface resulting from this development make the
existing flooding problems in this area worse? ANSWER: Most of the flooding concerns come
from the Brookmill area. Those problems are coming from Meadow Creek, as opposed to the
Branchlands Channel or this wetlands/detention area. It is difficult to tie the drainage from this
project to that flooding because the larger watershed is Meadow Creek. Flooding is occurring
with smaller storms because our Ordinance is based on a 10-year storm event. "With an increase
in impervious area and higher peaks in the 2 and 5 year storm, then you would expect to see more
flooding at the lower frequency storms, but when you get to the larger storms --the 10-year storm-
-you would see that reduced back down to the pre -development condition."
--(Huckle) "If this is approved, will you have completed all of your detention areas before
any construction is carried out?" ANSWER: "The improvements will be built or bonded." (Ms.
Huckle noted that "bonding will not help you if you're flooding.) Mr. Franco believed the County
has the ability to "tie the CO to the bonding/construction of the final improvements to the wetland
and to the detention areas. He felt that the County "has an ability to make sure that the final
product is covered." Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the "time frame," i.e. all the activity
that would take place on the site, and the potential damage from runoff which could result, prior
to the issuance of a CO. Mr. Franco stated that he did not feel there would be a significant
increase in runoff due to the impervious area, compared to the overall drainage basin. Mr.
Franco explained that on -site erosion control measures would be required, "but the ultimate
stormwater detention for this project will either be by over -compensation of the upstream
areas ... or in the downstream wetlands area." He stated that drainage will not flow into the
Branchlands channel, rather will flow down grade into the wetlands area. The plan is to improve
that wetlands area. It will be deepened and the water level will be lowered. The riser will be re-
designed and this should help eliminate existing problems caused which are due to the fact that
the existing design is very "high maintenance" and there have been problems with accumulating
trash in the riser.
--(Blue) "Are most of the questions about flooding that have come from the residents
in the area properly addressed so that you feel that the project, as it stands now, is technically
correct? It is reasonable to assume that the residents might have flooding fears, but you don't
feel that they are justified?" ANSWER: Mr. Franco did not say that the residents' fears were
unjustified, but he did not feel the flooding was coming from this project. He added that the
final design would insure that any flooding which neighborhing residents might experience
would not be a result of this project. He added: "There could be potential flooding problems
from upstream conditions, but it is my understanding that we can't hold the applicant responsible
for compensating for the whole watershed, only for what they are adding to it."
--(Blue) "In your opinion, is what the applicant is planning to do going to make the
flooding situation any worse?" ANSWER: "No; it won't make it worse. They will be putting
back, with the additional across -the -street detention area and the improvements to the wetlands
area itself, exactly what is out there now, plus the compensation for their site."
--(Imhoff) Would changing condition 1(i), to delete the option for bonding, cause a
problem? Are there any benefits to insuring that the construction has taken place? ANSWER
8-2-94
(by Mr. Davis): "I think it is problematic in requiring someone to do something prior to final site
plan approval. After final site plan approval, but prior to occuancy, might be a reasonable
approach." Mr. Cilimberg added: "This condition is related to what the developer must due
before submitting a final site plan. We don't think you could (require the construction of the
improvements prior to the submittal of a final site plan), but you could certainly require it after the
final site plan is submitted."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton. He described some history of the wetland
area. He agreed that most of the problems are probably occuring because of the inadequacy of
the riser (standpipe) in the detention pond. Trash accumulates in the pipe and causes it to
spillover and flood across the road. He stated: "All this will be taken care of in the new plans."
(He later explained the plans for cleaning out the wetland area.) He also explained that detention
measures "will be in place prior to any building construction on the Kidsworld site." In response
to Ms. Imhoffs request for a description of the facility, Mr. Melton explained: "It will be tunnels,
kiddie cars, concession stand, birthday rooms. It will be monitored by staff but it is expected that
parents will be there also." He called attention to the applicant's detailed written description,
copies of which the Commission had received at the beginning of the meeting. In response to Mr.
Dotson's question about ownership, he explained that Kidsworld will own and operate the site --it
will not be leased. He explained the detention plans in some detail. From Mr. Melton's
description, Mr. Dotson understood that there would be "an area of ponding" on site. Mr. Melton
explained that it would be more like a "temporary pond" in that water might accumulate but it
would flow out through a 27" pipe under the road.
Mr. Franco answered further questions about the Meadow Creek drainage basin and the
Branchlands channel.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Several persons addressed the Commission and expressed concerns, primarily about flooding and
the maintenance of the "lake" (wetlands area) after it is constructed.
Mr. Ron Langman - Does the County clearly understand that it will own the lake?
Who will respond to complaints when there are problems, which there surely will be? He
expressed the hope there would be effective landscaping on the site. He asked that there be
additional shrubs and some type of tree cover on the unprotected slope. He expressed concerns
about lighting. He believed that it would be better to "deepen" the wetland area and make it into
a lake, i.e. it would be "cheaper for the developer, less maintenance for the County, and more
attractive." Finally, he expressed concerns about having received notice only 2 days prior to the
public hearing. He also stated that there is a "lack of understanding as to the meaning of the
appeal date as presently described in the notification letter." He asked that consideration be given
to changing the wording of the notices so that their meaning is clearer. (Mr. Blue asked that Mr.
Franco comment on Mr. Langman's concern about County maintenance and the issue of a
wetlands vs. a pond.) Mr. Franco expressed the belief that a wetland does perform a water
quality function more so than a pond. He explained that the existing wetland is silting up, but that
M
8-2-94
silting is a water quality function and, in that sense, it is operating. A wetland also reduces
nutrient loading into the system, which is not necessarily the case with a pond. Regarding
maintenance, he stated that there are other facilities (stormwater basins) which the County
operates and "I assume if it is being recorded and given to us, and we are accepting it, then we are
accepting that responsibility." He again explained that one of the first objectives, with the
improvement to the riser design, is to reduce the amount of maintenance required. Mr. Blue
pointed out that these other facilities are detention basins and not wetland areas. Mr. Franco
explained that they are detention basins which, over time, will develop a "wetland growth." Mr.
Blue understood from Mr. Franco's comments: "The change in the riser pipe is going to address
the quantity of flooding, and you're satisfied that the improvement in quality is being addressed by
the wetlands as it is and (after improvements) they will provide even better quality." Mr. Franco
responded affirmatively. Mr. Blue stated he sensed that the residents are not as worried about the
quality of the water for persons downstream as they are about the quantity of the water getting in
their basements and yards." Mr. Franco concluded: "I think the water quality issue will remain
addressed, or even be enhanced in this situation and the riser pipe change will reduce the amount
of maintenance and ensure that during storms that the structure will continue to function. It may
not improve flooding problems on adjacent properties, but it won't exacerbate them...." Ms.
Buckle asked if both the present detention pond and the new one are meant to be wetlands. Mr.
Franco replied that the new detention area on Church Road is not intended to be a wetland (it will
be a dry basin), but the existing wetland basin will continue to function. _ .. "
Public comment continued.
--Mr. Chester Titus - He did not express opposition to the proposal be expressed
particular concern about possible light pollution. He also asked that the trees between Rt. 29
and the site be preserved. (It was pointed out by the applicant that the trees referred to are
not on this applicant's property.)
--Mr. Andy Flood - He did not express opposition, but related his experiences with
flooding on his property since the development of the Food Lion site.
[Ms. Huckle asked for those in attendance who were concerned about the request to indicate
their concern by a show of hands. Approximately 8 persons responded to this request.]
--Mr. Tom McGraff (a resident of Brookmill) - He described the history of flooding
problems in Brookmill which have existed since 1989. (He did not express opposition to the
proposal.)
--Ms. Emily Fulton - She invited Commissioners to visit Brookmill during the next
heavy rain.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
TO
8-2-94
Ms. Imhoff asked Ms. Hipski to briefly explain the minimum landscaping requirements. Ms.
Hipski referred to one of the proffers in the original PUD approval (A5) which provides for 20-
foot landscaping buffers, at the time of development, between Hillsdale Drive and the residencial
areas within the PUD. [NOTE: Ms. Hipski later referred to a 15-foot buffer.] She explained:
"This is on the opposite side from Hillsdale Drive --the residential areas." Ms. Imhoff asked: "So
they're going to be doing plantings off site?" Ms. Hipski replied: "No." (She pointed out areas
on the plan to which the proffer would apply.) Ms. Imhoff asked why the proffer did not apply to
this property. Ms. Hipski replied: "Because it's on the other side of Hillsdale Drive." Ms. Hipski
pointed out a "5-foot strip" She explained fisher: "There is no commercial property on this side
of Hillsdale Drive that is 15-foot wide so we could not require it." Ms. Imhoff asked: "The PUD
clearly says that it has to be, in this case, on the east side of Hillsdale Drive." (Ms. Imhoff felt it
would be helpful, in this type of review, to have the conditions of the PUD made available to the
Commission as an attachment to the staff report.) Ms. Imhoff understood from staffs condition
1(k)--Staff approval of final landscape plan --that "this was a very standard condition of approval
and that is all that staff is saying applies (and) the PUD landscape buffers do not apply to this
property-" Ms. Hipski read more of proffer AS --"The members of the PUD shall establish a 20-
foot landscaping buffer between the PUD property and other adjacent properties." She
concluded: "Based on that, I do think we could require additional landscaping along this edge
(she pointed to the plan)." She also stated that the applicant has shown shrubs along the front of
the property. Ms. Imhoff asked if there would be an opportunity to require something which
would provide a tree canopy (and not just short shrubs). She asked if a "small berm" might be
possible. Mr. Cilimberg noted that because there isn't much width available, a berm might not
work. He felt that trees and shrubs would be possible and that trees can also be required in the
parking area. Referring again to proffer (A5) Ms. Imhoff felt it could be read so that the 15-foot
buffer could be required on this property. She felt that proffer A5 does not say that only
properties on the east side of Hillsdale Drive must be buffered --"that it could go the other way."
Mr. Blue was of the opinion that if buffer were required as described by Ms. Imhoff, "you'd have
to move back into the hill further and it would create some problems there." Ms. Imhoff agreed
with Mr. Blue's comments but pointed out that if the PUD required that there be a 15-foot buffer,
it is an equity issue. Mr. Cilimberg interjected that, on the other side of Hillsdale Drive (on the
east), there is a landscaping area which has been planted in trees, thus the buffer area referred to
in the PUD proffer has already been planted. Ms. Imhoff felt the issue was one of interpretation
of the term "between," i.e. "we're saying the between is there, but I could interpret that that is
zoned Residential all the way up Hillsdale Drive. The between could be on the other side of the
drive...." Mr. Cilimberg explained: "No. It's between Hillsdale Drive and the residential area --
not residential zone --and the area is designated on the plan."
Ms. Huckle questioned the current existence of plantings as referred to by Mr. Cilimberg (on
the east side of Hillsdale). Looking at the aerial photographs, she could not locate the plantings.
Ms. Imhoff added that she had visited the site "this afternoon," and any trees must be very small
ones because they are not noticable. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the applicant had had to plant
the trees about 1 1/2 years ago. He could not say what condition they are in today. (Mr. Melton
explained that 4 to 5 feet tall Bradford Pear trees were planted 2 years ago (40-foot on center)
7l
9-2-94 6
and they are all still in existence.) Ms. Imhoff pointed out that 40 feet is an "enormous distance"
and she also suggested that "sombody do some checking" since the trees are not evident.
Mr. Dotson asked if any of the conditions of apppoval would address the concern about lighting.
Ms. Hipski explained that the Zoning Ordinance will address that issue. The Zoning Department
will review the lighting plan. Ms. Imhoff asked if a condition could be added requiring approval
of a lighting plan. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Ordinance automatically addresses the issue
of lighting, but the Commission could add it as a condition if it so desired.
Ms. Imhoff asked how the steep slopes will be addressed. She asked if there would be a retaining
wall or if the slope will be "graded back." Ms. Hipski said the slope would be graded. Ms.
Imhoff asked if there have been discussions with the applicant about putting trees on the slope.
Ms. Hipski explained that landscaping is not addressed in detail at the preliminary approval stage.
She referred to proffer A2 which requires that there be a 20-foot landscaping buffer between the
PUD property and the adjacent properties that are not part of the PUD.
Ms. Huckle asked if there was a "time limit" on the completion of on -site improvements.
(She referred to page 2 of Jack Kelsey's letter which was Attachment D to the staff report.)
Ms. IEpski responded: "As outlined originally, we were recommending that prior to signature
that we have construction, and/or bonding. The County Attorney may want to address possibly
adding a condition 3 (b)--Completion of on -site and off -site improvements to mitigate water
quality and quantity in accordance with memo from Jack Kelsey to Yolanda lEpski dated July 20,
1994. If that would be acceptable, we could have that as a condition prior to a CO." Mr. Davis
commented: "That would happen anyway. Whether it's a condition or not that would be a
requirement of the Ordinance prior to the Occupancy permit --that any public improvements
would have to bonded if they are not completed."
Mr. Blue commented: "I think we would be making a mistake to try to attach all those
conditions. It is going to happen automatically. We don't need to repeat every ordiance
requirement with every site plan we approve."
Ms. Buckle again expressed concern about the time limit on the on -site and off site
improvements. She felt that waiting for a CO may be waiting too long in the event there are
heavy rains during the construction process. She felt many of the measures should be in place
prior to the commencement of construction. Mr. Davis felt this would be addressed through the
Erosion Control Ordinance. Mr. Franco agreed that "sediment leaving the site" would be
addressed through Erosion Control, but flooding would not. He responded further to Ms.
Huckle's comments: "With the fill material coming from from the Church Road detention basin,
they will, in essence, be creating that in order to place the fill to create and grade their proposed
site. In addition, if they place the pipe to do the grading to create the building site, they will
create the forebay area which is the detention area between Kidsworld and Food Lion, so, in
essence, it is all occurring at the same time. The only items which are subject to not occuring at
the same time would be the improvements in the wetlands area. As far as detention aspects of the
on -site and off -site improvements, that will occur as part of this construction sequence and it will
Id_
8-2-94
7
occur at the same time." Ms. Huckle asked when the silt will be removed from the detention
basin? Mr. Franco responded: "In the wetlands area, the silt would potentially be moved at any
time. I don't know what the construction sequence for that would be but as far as detention
capacity for improvements, the cut from Church Road creating that detention area will be used to
build up and reach final grades for the Kidsworld site." He agreed this would be covered by the
Erosion Control Plan, but the flooding issues are not erosion control concerns.
Mr. Dotson wondered if condition 1(i) should have the following words added for clarification:
"...to mitigate water quality and quantity both during the construction sequence and at
completion...." Mr. Franco responded that Erosion Control would address the concern of
sediment leaving the site and the water quantity aspects will be addressed through the
construction sequence and creation of the site. He added that it is the improvement to the
wetland area that could occur afterwards and he questioned whether that should be tied to a
specific time frame because this would result in the requirement for plantings to occur during
non -planting seasons.
Ms. Imhoff expressed an understanding of Ms. Huckle's concerns, but felt that the Ordinance
would address those concerns. Ms. Imhoff added: "I think what really saves this property is
that you get these two dry ponds --which is better than we usually get --...before you get grading
on the site and it is fortunate that that will be the sequence."
Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Franco to explain how the County will maintain these areas. Mr. Franco
explained that since there is no Public Works Department, maintenance will be the responsibility
of the Engineering Department, with assistance from the Department of Parks and Recreation.
Major repairs would be CIP projects.
Mr. Blue noted that the concerns of the public ahave been heard and questions have been
answered by the Engineering Department. He felt the Commission should not be trying to
"micro -manage" the stormwater management.
Referring to Mr. Langman's continents about the notification process and the ineffectiveness
of the signs which are posted, Ms. Imhoff hoped that this would encourage the County to
"find the money to get larger notices." [Mr. Cilimberg later explained that staff is presently
changing the wording of the notification letter.]
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the Kidsworld of Branchlands Preliminary Site Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall 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. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance location and right-of-way
improvements.
73
8-2-94 8
b. 'Virginia Department of Transportation approval of Drainage Plans and Calculations.
c. Department of Engineering approval of Grading and Drainage Plans and Calculations.
d. Department, of Engineering approval of Stormwater Detention Plans and Calculations.
e. Department of Engineering approval of the Erosion Control Plan.
f. Proof of compliance with applicable State and Federal permit requirements.
g. Staff approval and recordation of plat dedicating to public use, a drainage easement
on the upstream portion of the temporary wetland easement.
h. Staff approval and recordation of an approved final subdivision plat conveying the
wetland portion of the parcel (approximately 1.1 acre) to Albemarle County.
L Construction and/or bonding of the on -site and off -site improvement to mitigate
water quality and quantity in accordance with memo from Jack Kelsey to Yolanda Hipski
dated July 20, 1994 (Attachment D of the staff report).
j. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans.
k. Staff approval of final landscape plan.
1. Staff approval of lighting plan.
2. Administrative approval of the Final Site Plan.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the following condition has been met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion which passed (4:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the
dissenting vote.
Ms. Huckle explained that her vote had been based on concerns about flooding, timing of the
improvements, and the County's ability to maintain these structures.
Ms. Imhoff expressed the feeling that the staff report had been deficient in it's background
information and this had led to some misconceptions about the project on the part of the public.
J fferson Au4 Board f r the Aging - 456 Review - The Jefferson Area Board for Aging is
petitioning the Planning Commission to review the construction of a 10,000 square foot Adult
Day Health Care Center for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 15.1-
456 of the Code of Virginia. The site is located on Hillsdale Drive on Lot 2, Tax Map 61Z, parcel
03-7.
Mr. Baker presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff finds that the location for this
use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives, the Comprehensive
Plan's land use designation and with existing development in the ara. Therefore, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission find this site and use in compliance with the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan."
7#
8-2-94 9
The applicant was represented by Mr. Gordon Walker. He explained that this center will
replace the existing one on Market Street and will enable JABA to double the number of people it
serves. This facility will allow for over -night care and will also allow the level of care to be
upgraded. The Commission had no questions for Mr. Walker.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that the Jefferson Area Board for Aging project be found to be in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Imhoff and passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
UREF/Kessler Group ComR Plan Amendmen - (2nd Work Session)
Staff provided the Commission with an inventory of existing industrially zoned property in
the County. There are currently 740 developable acres on 8 sites. Mr. Baker briefly described
each site.
Mr. Dotson felt it would be helpful to have one map showing all the industrial sites.
Mr. Dotson asked if some square footage comparisons could be made with present industrial uses,
e.g. "if you combined Comdial, Sperry and GE, do you start to get close to the 3,000, 000 square
feet?" Mr. Cilimberg read some figures from a 1985 study which gave a combined square footage
(of all manufacturing, transportation, wholesale trade uses) as 1,961,000 square feet. He said this
number did not necessary include office space and does not include the University and State Farm.
A member of the public (Mr. Wendall Wood) stated that GE is 380,000 square feet. Mr. Blue
pointed out that UREF will have more than just industrial uses and also has a very long range
plan.
Mr. Tim Rose, representing UREF, addressed questions related to stormwater managnent
and the raw water intake issue, community benefits, infrastructure impact, and housing impact
which were raised by the Commission at the previous work session. His comments on these
issues and answers to other Commission questions included the following:
--Only four sites are presently planned for industrial use --approximately 24 acres.
(This was in response to Mr. Dotson's questions about size.)
--Approximately 105 acres, of which 28 are developable, will drain into the North
Fork above the raw water intake. (This was more than the 76 acres which had been estimated
at the previous work session.) The applicant has met with Jack Kelsey (County Engineering
Department) and both agree that there are ways to respond to this issue and the applicant will
continue to work with Mr. Kelsey to address this concern.
7r
5-2-94 10
--Regarding infrastructure and community benefits, the applicant wants to work with
the County to identify any community benefits the County feels might be available. A large
part of the land will not be developed and the applicant would like to talk to the County about
that in relation to infrastructure. The applicant is "clearly open to discuss with the County their
thoughts" on infrastructure.
--Regarding affordable housing, the applicant does not feel it has expertise in that area
nor is it felt that is a part of the applicant's mission as it relates to this park. Mr. Rose felt
there are others in the community who can better address this issue.
—Mr. Rose briefly pointed out some of the existing historic structures on the property.
He stated that the cemetary will be preserved and efforts will be made to preserve some of
the other structures such as the ice pit and the foundation.
--Support Commercial is envisioned as a bank, a laudromat, lunchtime food establishment,
etc.
--Regarding phasing of the project he explained: "The intial road would be an extension
of Quail Run into the park. Microaire will be in site F2. Assuming it is rezoned, the other part of
phase I would come in off of Rt. 29 and extend here (he indicated on the plan) and provide access
to these parcels. Phase II would tie the two roads together and Phase M and IV takes it beyond
that in a north and south direction."
--The applicant understands that at some future time an intersection may be needed at
Rt. 29. (Mr. Benish called attention to VDOT's most recent comments, which basically referred
to their previous comments. VDOT has indicated a need for interchanges at some point in time
on Rt. 29 at "Road A" and possibly at Airport Road.) Roads have been envisioned as private but
the applicant is aware that the Commission may favor pubic roads.
--Mr. Dotson asked what type of hotel is envisioned (as referred to in some of the
applicant's documentation as a possible type of "Support Commercial" use)? Mr. Rose explained
that a Federal government corporate training center is envisioned in location E which would
provide overnight accommodations for participants.
Commission requests for additional information from the applicant:
--How does the applicant's plan for 13% light industrial, 77% office, and 10% commercial
(percentages refer to total square footage), diversify what already exists in the community? A
representative from Stoneridge Associates (whose name was unclear) explained that institutional,
general office and flex industrial is included in the office percentage and each of those three types
of uses are about 25% of the total development. Mr. Dotson felt it would be helpful to compare
this plan with other industrial parks in terms of comparable land uses and types of uses and the
jobs they provide.
--What kind of businesses does UREF hope to attract? Will they use the skills which
already exist in our job market? Will they be building on existing local industries?
--What types of occupations will be employed in these businesses?
Commission questions of staff:
--What is the time schedule for the completion of the Fiscal Impact Model and should
the Commission have some feedback from the Model before proceeding to public hearing
with this CPA request? ANSWER: Staff would like to have the Model, for analysis purposes,
'74
8-2-94 11
before the Commission entertains these requests, but the Commission must decide whether it
needs the Model before "you make a change." The "first run" of the Model may be available by
October. (Mr. Dotson felt this was an optimistic prediction.)
--How will the phasing of this project be figured into the fiscal impact analysis?
ANSWER: The model works off time frame and things are entered as they come on line.
(It was noted that athe Model will not address water and sewer impact because it is a developer's
responsibility to provide those utilities.)
--Will there be more information available as to the infrastructure needs of not only
this property but the whole 29 North Corridor and the entire Hollymead Community? (Staff
later replied affirmatively to this request.)
--How can we be certain that some of the things the applicant has indicated will be done
(such as preservation of mature trees, etc.) will actually take place? ANSWER: Staff explained
that the development plan review would take place at the time of the rezoning and proffers can be
accepted. Mr. Benish explained further that the Commission and Board will set the stage (in the
land use and community profile sections of the Comprehensive Plan) for what will happen in this
area. (Ms. Imhoff commented that phasing was an important issue. Mr. Jenkins added that given
the projects projected time span, (25 years), there would be several more Comp Plan review
processes which could address community impact.)
--Ms. Huckle expressed an interest in getting the results of a study being conducted by
Mr. Kelsey on the land which drains into the North Fork. She also expressed an interest in the
raw water studies being conducted by the RWSA. (Mr. Jenkins questioned whether this was a
concern because he did not anticipate there being any uses which would use a large quantity of
water. Mr. Blue pointed out that Mr. Brent had already addressed this question.)
Commission comments:
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that this property is on an important transportation corridor and could be
used in a number of different ways. She stated she was trying to "figure out why it should be
(UREF's) vision and not a more integrated community...." She felt the applicant's plan was very
focused and nicely presented, but she stated she still had not "figured out if it's really what's best
for Albemarle County." She felt it was the Commission's responsibility to figure out what could
"best be co -located on the site." Ms. Imhoff strongly felt that when consideration is being given
to this level of development there is a responsibility to address the question of "providing some
percentage of affordable housing."
Mr. Blue agreed with Ms. Imhoffs comments about housing, but he pointed out that UREF
can already do what they plan on the property that is already properly designated. This present
request to rezone more land will allow them to spread the same amount of development out over
a larger area. He felt, "from the County's standpoint, it will be better this way." (Ms. Imhoff
pointed out that a lot of the area the applicant is reserving as open space could probably not be
developed because of steep slope and floodplain considerations. She agreed that the plan would
be more attractive, but the applicant will also get one-half million additional square feet.)
77
8-2-94 12
Ms. Imhoff stated she would feel more comfortable with going to public hearing after the initial
Fiscal Impact information is available, even if is not available prior to public hearing but is
presented at the same time.
Mr. Jenkins expressed the feeling that most people (in all communities) feel the type of jobs
needed are those that employ the people who already live in the community. He said this
would be a "selling point" for him when he was considering industrial development. He hoped the
applicant would be sympathetic to this issue. Mr. Rose responded: "Clearly, we are."
Staff offered to provide the following additional information:
—How the UREF proposal fits into the Hollymead Community as a whole.
--Analysis of the reasonableness of this property for other land uses.
--Comments from the Housing Coordinator on the possible effects on housing.
--Updates on the anticipated completion dates of several studies, including the Fiscal
Impact Model.
--Staffs recommendations for this area, "to date."
Mr. Rose's closing statement: "I think the time issue for us now is as it relates to planning. We
would develop the two and one-half million in the southern half if we didn't have the northern
half available. We think for 5 or 5 reasons, some of which are self-serving and some of which are
more being a good member of the community, that it makes sense to add the additional 20% to
what we currently are anticipating building and spreading out and venilating the project. It looks
better, it feels better, and it markets better...."
Mr. Rose later added that much of the information requested by the applicant is that which the
applicant had understood would be expected at the time of rezoning review. He also stated that
UREF currently has a prospective tenant who would like to locate in the northern section because
of the size of the parcel. It was the applicant's hope that the amendment request would be
scheduled for public hearing by the first of September, with rezoning discussions to begin
immediately thereafter.
In response to Ms. Imhoffs question as to the next step, Mr. Benish explained that staff had
originally anticipated that a third and final work session would be scheduled, with a possible
public hearing date set in about a month. However, based on the Commission's comments, he
understood that the Commission did not want to go to public hearing until having had the
benefit of the fiscal impact analyses. Mr. Blue stated that was not his position. Ms. Imhoff
stated she was "more concerned that we are assured that the Board and the public will have
this information before any final recommendation." She understood that the Commission was
"in a spot" because the information does not appear to be coming along quickly enough.
The Chair invited public comment.
Mr. Wendall Wood, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He did not feel
this property should be considerated in an "isolated" fashion. He expressed support for the
r�
8-2-94
13
proposal and felt this was an opportunity to do some long range planning. He also pointed
out that this is an applicant with "unquestionable motives."
MISCELLANEOUS
Referring to the on -going issue of affordable housing, Mr. Jenkins stated that at some point
"thus Committee" is going to have to address the issue of "where the money is going to come
from."
The Commission asked for a letter from the Department of Engineering explaining the County's
responsibility for the maintenance of detention facilities.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
K:
V. Wayne imberg, Secret
%q