Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 13 1994 PC Minutes9-13-94 SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 13, 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; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; W. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; and Mr. Tom Leback, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioner Jenkins. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m, and a quorum was established. The minutes of August 30, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the September 13th Board of Supervisors Meeting. In reference to the Commission's recent discussions about the possiblity of not holding a public hearing on the CIP at the Commission level, Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Board prefers that the Commission hold a CIP public hearing, as it has in the past. WORK SESSION CPA-94-1 Hollymead Commimity Ex ansisioiLR.equest�_UREF - Continue work session on request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to include within the Hollymead Community 297 acres located west of Rt. 29, north of the existing Hollymead Community boundary, south of the North Fork of the Rivanna River and east of Rt. 606. The area to be included is intended for Industrial Service designation. Mr. Baker introduced the topic and offered to answer Commission questions about the staff report. Commission questions on the staff report and miscellaneous comments included the following: --Referring to the possibility of using Chris Greene Lake as a reservoir, (top of page 6), Mr. Blue reminded the staff that this would mean that Chris Greene Lake would have to be abandoned as a recreational facility. Ms. Huckle stated it was her understanding that it would be possible to protect Chris Greene Lake from further development, but to allow its use for recreation until such time as it is needed as a water supply reservoir, --Referring to the conditions on pages 9 and 10, Mr. Dotson asked how conditions such as those listed relate to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Baker explained that /a 8 9-13-94 2 some of the recommendations may ultimately be made a part of the Camp Plan while others will provide a framework for a rezoning. --Referring to the recommendation to "consider the development of a greenway along the North Fork of the Rivanna for passive recreation," Ms. Imhoff was in favor of the language being revised so that it is more "active" than passive. --Referring to the statement that "response times for fire, rescue and police are deficient in this area," Ms. Huckle asked which stations respond to this area. Mr. Baker explained that currently Earlysville is the first response station, followed by Seminole Trail. He pointed out that this problem already exists and it is not this proposal which causes the problem. --Referring to the recommendation to "preserve and maintain the potential historic sites located within the development," Mr. Blue questioned the use of the word "potential." He felt this should be more, specific, (Staff offered to q� lify this term in the future,) --Ms. lmhoff explained that she is still struggling with the issue of how many issues must be addressed at the comp plan amendment stage. She was particularly Concerned with the unanswered questions about water, sewer and transportation. Ms. Huckle agreed that it is difficult to separate the rezoning and comp plan amendment issues in this particular case because it is understood that the rezoning request will follow so soon after the amendment. Mr. Dotson wondered if the applicant might consider submitting the rezoning request along with the amendment request, so the Commission would have the benefit of knowing the terms of the rezoning as it is considering the amendment request. Mr. Blue pointed out that the applicant may not want to rezone the entire property right away because of tax ramifications. Mr. Cilimberg later explained that it is usually best to complete the comp plan amendment because "it sets the rules for the rezoning." He explained that to consider a rezoning prior to the completion of the amendment request is problematic for both the applicant and staff, i.e. the applicant does not know exactly what will be required and staff is not able to tell the applicant what to expect. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the report provided by the applicant provides a considerable amount of information as to the applicant's proposal. Ms. Imhoff expressed concern about the approval of an amendment which could have a major impact on transportation in this area. Mr. Cilimberg explained that a detailed traffic study will be required of the applicant. There was a brief discussion and comparison of previously approved large scale proposals (Glenmore and Peter Jefferson Place). Ms. Huckle pointed out that a great deal of work had been done by the developers and the Commission "knew what was involved." She assumed that UREF will do an equally good job when the time comes. It was clarified that the Commission is now being asked whether or not it wishes to schedule a public hearing for the amendment request. UREF was represented by Mr. Tim Rose. (He was accompanied by Mr. Leonard Sandridge, Mr. Dean Cinkaha, Mr. Bob McKee, and Ms. Ellen Miller.) He again described the applicant's proposal, i.e. "to add 297 acres into the growth area" so that they can be rezoned to PDIP, and to add an additional 500,000 square feet of building space. He described similarities with 9-13-94 research parks in North Carolina and Princeton, NJ. Additional comments included the following: --The current plans would leave over 50% of the land in open space. --It is impossible to know all the types of uses at this time, but it is anticipated they will be of a similar type as Microaire. (He gave as examples: intelligence research, legal research, bio-tech firms, software development.) Mr. Rose commented briefly on each of the recommendations listed in the staff report. Significant comments were: --The applicant looks forward to the completion of the Fiscal Impact Model. --The applicant concurs with the buffers as stated in the report. --The applicant will work with the County on the open space issue and is agreeable to creating "linkages or uses of those spaces." --The Albemarle Housing Committee has stated that this is not an appropriate area for affordable housing. UREF is attempting to find a way to work together with the Committee. UREF has been in touch with the Virginia Housing Development Authority, which has committed to sending people to Charlottesville to assist UREF in addressing this issue. [Ms. Miller addressed a question posed by Ms. Vaughan related to Microaire's plans for assisting it's employees with finding housing. Ms. Miller could not answer the question definitively, but felt that Microaire probably does not, at it's current size, have a means of assisting with employee housing. ] --The Master Plan sensitively speaks to the issue of transition zones- --In terms of the Meadow Creek Parkway alignment, UREF will maintain its flexibility as it relates to Rt. 649 so that it could be aligned with the Meadow Creek Parkway. --UREF is committed to working with the WO and County on traffic issues and UREF "supports (its) fair share of participation." --Regarding stormwater management and raw water intake issues, UREF is committed to continuing to work with Jack Kelsey (County Engineering Department). All agree (including Mr. Kelsey) that this concern can be addressed to everyone's satisfaction. [Later in the meeting, Ms. Huckle expressed the hope that the area which drains into the North Fork would not be built upon. Mr. Cinkala responded to Ms. Huckle's questions about the protection of the North Fork drainage area. He explained that the area which drains into the North Fork, less buffers and other non -developable land, is approximately 24 acres (down from what was originally believed to be 76 acres). He stated that Best Management Practices will be followed. Mr. McKee added that specific solutions will not be known until specific plans are completed_] Ms.Imhoff suggested that this recommendation could be enhanced by adding language such as: "Avoid, to the greatest extent possible, development of land that drains into the North Fork of the Rivanna River." Ms. Huckle pointed out that this is her biggest concern about this request. She felt it was vital that the Commission review the recently completed Raw Water Study (completed by the RWSA) before making a decision on this request. --The project will be limited to 3,000,000 square feet. --UREF is agreeable to responding to the issue of the preservation of historical sites on the property. 9-13-94 4 Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Rose why a prospective tenant (referred to by Mr. Rose at a previous work session) had not been able to find a suitable site in the southern portion of the property. Mr. Rose explained that the company had needed a larger parcel than is available in the southern portion of the property. (The parcels in the northern portion are larger.) Ms. Miller interjected that the business in question had also wanted a site which offers more privacy and security, and the northern parcels better meet those needs_ At the request of Ms. Imhoff, Mr. Dotson explained farther his earlier statement about the relation of this request to the upcoming Economic Development Policy discussions. Mr. Dotson explained that having an Economic Development Policy in place would help to address the question of whether or not this proposal serves the goals of that policy. He felt it could possibly strengthen the case for the proposal "if there is a policy in place where you could say 'this has a role to play.tip Mr. Sandridge spoke briefly on the University's role in training the area's youth. He explained briefly some of the existing programs. He also explained why UREF was formed -- to keep the University property still on tax roles, and why he believed that UREF was vital to the University of Virginia's national reputation. He stressed that UREF was- not just a for - profit organization. Public comment was invited. Mr. Cliff Fox, an area realtor, addressed the Commission. He questioned the applicant's proposed reduction in square footage. Also, though he expressed support for the project, he raised the issue of anticipated tax revenue from this development and wondered whether or not one of the possible uses was a taxable entity (General Services Administration). He felt the long term fiscal modeling for the project was very important. {Though Ms. Huckle asked the applicant to address Mr_ Fox's question about GSA's taxable status, Mr. Nitchmann did not feel this- question was appropriate at this time. Mr. Dotson addressed the question and stated that GSA is made up of several agencies and occupants and in some eases, where they own the parcel, they probably do not pay taxes, but in cases where they rent the property, they probably do pay taxes.1 Ms. Miller addressed the square footage issue and explained the applicant's rationale. Mr. Dotson understood Ms. Miller to say that because of the rolling terrain, it would be unwise to develop the property too much and also it is a question of marketing choice, i.e. "the character you want to be able to offer is one that is greener, more pastoral, more campus -like." Mr. Rose added that "it is a product that is more palatable to this community and we want to put something out there that we both think is a good thing for Albemarle." Ms. Huckle explained that one of the most attractive aspects of the proposal is the applicant's plan to, consider the terrain and the river. Ms. Imhoff commented: "In a strange way, though, this brings up the thing I'm always talking about --residential. If you put the water and the sewer and the roads in and you look /a-3 9-13-94 for certain maximum densities to help you in your growth areas achieve certain square footages and populations, we do keep questioning why, not only arc we going low density on residential, we are also going, in a sense, low density, on our industrial and commercial development." Ms. Huckle noted that there appears to be, based on various realtor comments, a market for low density. The Commission then discussed the next step in the review of this request. It was Ms_ Imhoff s suggestion that a public hearing being held on the item, with the Commission's action to be taken at a later public hearing. She felt this gives the Commission time to give careful consideration to the public's comments. Ms. Huckle expressed support for this suggestion. No opposition was expressed by other Commissioners. Mr. Nitchmann was in favor of adding Ms. lmhoffs statement regarding the protection of the North Fork (as stated previously). Ms, Imhoff was in favor of a statement being added to the Camp Plan to the effect that "we acknowledge that we are reaching capacity" in certain categories in the Hollymead area (e.g. fire, rescue, transportation, water, sewer, Chris Greene). Mr. Cilimberg explained that the profile will be amended and the recommendation section will probably be even more extensive. It was the consensus of the Commission to schedule CPA-94-1 for public hearing. Mr. Dotson expressed the desire to begin discussions on the economic development policy and growth area expansions in upcoming work sessions so as to have a "better sense of the framework in which this public hearing is held." He hoped there could be at least one discussion of the economic development policy before the public hearing (even if it is not possible for a staff report to be prepared). Ms. Huckle reminded staff to try to secure a copy of the Raw Water Study. MISCELLANEOUS In preparation for upcoming discussions on the County's Economic Development Policy, Ms. Imhoff asked that staff provide the Commission with any information which is available, or may become available, on the Economic Development Regional Partnership. Mr. Nitchmann felt the Regional Partnership was an important part of the economic development issue. Mr. Dotson asked about the upcoming schedule for work sessions dealing with economic development. Mr. Cilimberg reported that it is anticipated that the Commission will be able to forward an economic development recommendation to the Board in December. 9-13-94 6 Ms. Imhoff called the Commission's attention to a new process which she understood is "being invented for public participation in transportation planning," (i.e. a new process for the way VDOT makes decisions about primary and secondary roads). She asked staff to look into this and report back to the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann commented on the Board's recent request for a Youth Services Report on the agencies and processes which assist in the educational needs of the County. He pointed out that the Commission had requested such a report as a part of the Commission's Economic Development proposal sent to the Board over a year ago. He expressed a lack of understanding and as to why the Board had not acted upon this suggestion earlier. He hoped the Board would give the Commission's proposals more serious consideration in the future. Ms. Imhoff suggested that the Commission hold a work session on the Economic Development Policy referred to by Mr. Nitchmann, (for the benefit of those commissioners who were not a part of the Commission at the time the Economic Development Policy was developed. There being no further business„ the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. lag