The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12 20 1994 PC Minutes12-20-94 DECEMBER 20, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing can Tuesday, December 20, 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; Mr. Larry Davis, County ,Attorney; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. After some brief comments by Ms. Imhoff and Ms. Huckle related to Attachment A of the December 6 minutes, the minutes of December 6, 1994 were unanimously approved as submitted. [NOTE: Attachment A was an outline of the guiding principles to be used by staff in developing the Land Use Plan and in considering expansion of the growth areas. It was Ms. Imhoffs understanding that this document would be re -written, based on the comments made by the Commission at the December 6 meeting and would then be discussed again by the Commission. Staff confirmed that the document was meant to be a starting point and that another work session would be scheduled before finalization of the principles] Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized the December 14th meeting of the Board of Slnpervisors. ZMA-94-16 Charles M.-Hurt - Petition to mend the existing PIRD, Planned Residential Development, agreements of ZMA 88-04 to allow reconfiguration of access. Access is currently permitted through the Franklin Development; the proposed access is through Ashcroft. -Property, described as Tax Map 18, parcel 57 (part) consists of approxiimately 89 acres and is located west of and adjacent to the Ashcroft development in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is ;not located within an existing designated growth area (Rural Area 2). Deferred from the December 13, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Frig distributed copies of a letter wceived frm the AsahiaQft.Nei~oad Association The Comnaisaion took a few minutes to read the letter. This item was deferred so that questions about the possible provision for an acceleratice lane from the frontage road onto Rt. 250 cold be amwer d. Staff contacted the Virginia Department of Transportation on this issue. It was VDOT's determbtation that are acceleration lane was not recommended, partly 'because Vl T "generally sloes not favor acceleration lanes," and also because of the configuration of the frontage road in relation to the 164 interchange. VDOT also commented that a right -turn lane would "serve no substantial purpose." VDOT also did not support an access through Franklin.. X6-1 12-20-94 2 Ms. Imhoff ealled -a'ttention to item No. 2 in the Ashcroft Neighborhood letter --"If approved the 28 homes will become members of the Ashcroft Neighborhood Association." Mr. Fritz confirmed this requirement is a part of the agreements between between the applicant and the County. Mr. Nitchmann, who had originally brought up the issue of the Rt. 250 acceleration lane, said he was satisfied with VDOT's comments. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA 94-16 Charles W. Hurt be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the agreements in staffs report dated December 13, 1994. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. The motion passed unaniously. Mr. Cilimberg once again clarified that Agreement No. 8 (which was included in the December 13, 1994 report) had been deleted previously (1988) and therefore should not have been included in the December 13 report. Both Mr. Nitchmann and Ms. Imhoff confirmed this had been their understanding and their motion did not include agreement No. 8. WORK SESSION Economic Developmo - Discussion of draft of the Economic Development Policy for the Comprehensive Plan. NOTE: The following items are made a part of these minutes as attachments: Attachment A - Staffs Outline of Proposed Economic Development Policy Commission comments were as follows: GOAL MiOFF - She did not like either of the two possible goals listed. She favored language similar to the following: "Develop an economic development program which maintains a stable and vigorous local economy to insure that County citizens have reasonable opportunities for meaningful employment; is consistent with the character and quality of the County and Other Comprehensive Phan goals; Farad 3 %A& rith =tc and regional economic development efforts:" NITCHMANN - Because of changes which have occurred in the last 6 months, the Coal needs to take into account the regional approach. He felt this idea needs to "be brought to the forefront" rather than thrown in at the end. (Mr. Dotson agreed with moving regional cooperation to the forefront) "As long we hold the basic intent of the goal and add the idea of regionalism in, I think we'd be fine." "One thing which has been important to me all along has been trying to look at the diversification of the tax base." (Mr. Dotson also felt that our ,-:,2 (/ O 12.20-94 tax base was an important issue.) He questioned whether or not this should be a part of the main goal, but he suggested that staff consider this and "see how much of an impact that would have in trying to get us a little more away from property taxes as our only source of taxes and how much, as businesses grow, can that ratio be brought more in line with what it is in the rest of the state." DOTSON - He agreed with Ms. Imhoff that "the current goal is not the way to go, but some alternative." He agreed with both Ms. Imhoff and Mr. Nitchmann that some statement about "where we are, who we are" should be included. He felt the alternative goal presented by staff was preferable to the original and could be "lived with" as presented. He preferred staffs alternative version to Ms. Imhoffs suggested version. JENKINS - "This preamble is probably the most important part of the document." HUCKLE - She preferred staffs alternative version of the goal. Objective 1 IMHOFF - "First of all, we need to know where we are and what we do well and build on that before we start jumping into 'encouraging.' " She was uncertain as to whether this belonged in the Goals and Objectives section, or whether it should be a preamble to the section. She wanted a better sense of identifying what we do now, including figuring out what we don't want to have happen. "We don`t want a lot of low -wage jobs; we don't want jobs that import lots of workers to the area; we wouldn't want jobs that are high water users; we wouldn't want polluting industries." She wanted to to find a place in the Comp Plan to state "what works well and how do we build on that." "Somewhere in our strategies, we need not only to talk about attracting new businesses and new industries, we need to talk about how to work with existing businesses and industries." NTTCHMANN - "That comes out of the chute a little too fast for me." We really need to identify who we are, what we are, what we have to offer, and where we want to go, before we start saying we are going to encourage economic development. I think we need to shift the objective around (but) have it somewhere near the top. (Mr. Dotson agreed with reformulating this objective.) Objective I - Strategy 1 IMHOFF - She felt this was a good strategy, but suggested that the wording needed some work. "The committment of the County to growth management is very strong and I want to be sure when we talk about economic development that we link it with our past planning efforts." .16e 12-20-94 4 VAUGHAN - She felt the word "unique" should be better defined. "What is the difference between a "natural" quality and. a "unique" quality?" (Mr. Cilimberg explained how staff views these two terms. He suggested that perhaps the word "distinctive" could be substituted for unique.) HUCKLE - She supported this strategy. Objective I - Strategy 2 NITCHMANN - He agreed with this strategy but questioned how farmland was a part of this focus. He suggested this strategy could be expanded into more detail. 1MHOFF - "I want to be sure that we don't do anything that vompromises or undermines those very revources. For me, the agriculture open space is part of the package. It is not just the Blue Ridge and and the mountainsides. For me, it is very important that we have these historic roads with farm and forest and field and cattle and livestock. We don't spend very much time in this economic policy talking about specifically natural resource based industries. I expect that is because it is talked about elsewhere in the Comp Plan. But we have spent a lot of time talking about the diversity of our agricultural base and our forestry base. If it's appropriate to put in in here, I would. But I just want it understood that, for me, that is a very key part of this." She clarified she felt natural resource based indumies should be inlcuded more and she wanted to be sure that "we are protecting agriculture as part of the tourism component." (Mr_ Blue stated he could think crf several natural resource based i dtastries w-bich neighboring property owners would find very hacmfui to their lifestyles., -e,g. certain types of mining.) DDT SON - "I thirek tours . is one of our -t economic development tools.... Tourism, among other things, means retail jobs, food jobs, and other kinds of jobs. It bothers me when we say we don't want low -paying, low -skilled jobs, and- then we go out and we promote tourism. What we are saying is not that those are back jobs, we just don't want to have too many of them. We don't want it to get out of balance. If we are going to promote tourism, we are going to have those kinds of jobs and they can be an important component, but only a component." (Mr. Nitchrnann agreed.) HUCKLE - She supported this strategy, but did not think we want to be the kind of tourist attraction which some a;ber areau have developed into 4.g. Nashville, TN and Lancaster C ounty, PA). (Ms. Imhoff commented: "'That's why I want to attract tourism that docs not compromise the resource, which would be "killing the goose that laid the golden egg.") Objective t - Strategy 3 HUCKLE - She supported this strategy. .VG,_2 12-20.94 Objective I - Stragtegy S HUCKLE - She supported this strategy. Objective I - Strategy 6 RVIHOFF - 'Work with local employers" should be added somewhere in iris strategy. DOTSON - He questioned the inclusion of the phrase "particularly professional and technical." "If we are trying to help out the worker in greatest need, it is probably the low - skilled, Iow-pay person, not professional and technical." HUCKLE - She felt the word "target" needs to be defined. Objective I - Strategy 7 IMHOFF - "Do we want to encourage retired people to work here?" Do we need to address this more? Where does this fit in. "1 do think there is a value in having a retired population and that is an area we are growing in and I think some consideration of how to build on that should be part of an Economic Development Policy." HUCKLE - She supported this strategy. Objective i - New Strategy S RdHOFF - She suggested an additional strategy --"To the greatest extent possible, insure that there is local determination over decisions affecting the quality and quantity of economic development by limiting the amount of land zoned for commercial, office and industrial use." Objective II BUCKLE - She felt "target" needs to be defined. She supported Strategy 1, but did not support Strategies 2 and 3. She was opposed to the use of the words "seek." and "target." Objective III NITCHMANN - Re felt this was very important and should be moved closer- to the top, possibly fallowing Objective 1. DOTSON - He suggested this objective should be in second position with emphasis on existing businesses and local talents. He suggested the addition of "small, minority and locally owned" businesses. (He was in favor of Objective V being first and a new Objective III being added dealing with the Regional approach). t240.44 JENKINS - "I think the support of the existing businesses, whether it is commercial, or whether it is industry, is a very, very important part of this." VAUGHAN - She felt this objective should be first. "I feel it's important that we support existing businesses before we support attracting new ones." HUCKLE - She expressed concern abut the definition of the ward "support." Objective Ili - Strategy 2 B4HOFF - "I'd like to spell out more specifically what an Economic Development Council would be. I think it is not just the business community. I want to be sure that we have a way for citizens to be involved and that we are. very encouraging of public and citizen participation throughout the process." VAUGHAN - "I fee, the rcgion should be placed in there too." Shc agreed oath Mr. Dutson's comments about the importance of consultation with neighboring counties. HUCKLE - "I do not support the Economic Development Council.." Objective III - Strategy 4 NITCHMANN - Though he did not object to this strategy, he cautioned against getting government involved in businesses in a very "micro -manner_" He suggested the additions of "minority businesses" along with small bEusinewes. (Mr. Dotson agreed that minority businesses should be addressed.) Mr. Nitchmann did not think it was the County's role to provide businesses with management or marketing expertise. He suggested further discussion of this strategy was needed. He questioned the meaning of "labor" in this sentence. HUCKLE - "It seems to one that financing is the job of banks. `Nc consider the resources already available --the Small Business Development Center at the University of Virginia, with help from PVCC and UVA. We have a valuable resource already in a non-profit group of retired business leaders called SCORE. They counsel existing, just -started, and interested businesses. These people have much more. expertise in the real world than any bureaucrat or booster available to counsel businesses, already. They counsel approximately 27% retail, 57%a service and the balance is manufacturing and construction businesses. According to their figures, 643% of small businesses fail in the first two years." (See Attachment C for Ms. Hackte's furrther comment on: this issue.) Objective IV NITCBMANN - "Yon are not going to make anything which is not 'recession sensitive."' He suggested this objective should be "toned down." .-0l_4 12-20-94 7 HUCKLE - "The way industry is changing all over the world right now, I question how we can target certain businesses. wily changes bring new technology and companies which are on top now may be out of business with the next technological advance." (See Attachment C for Ms Muokle'c fifrrher comment on this issue) Objective IV - Strategy I. N[TCHMANN - "I am concerned about the comments made about fiscal impact.... (Fiscal impact) was, from the start, to be a tool, and I want to mane sure that it is recognized as a tool and not the final word that says the model shows that this business or that Business is completely wrong for the county, and all these other reasons don't matter. It'nceds to be just one of the trey indices in making the decision on whatever support is going to be necessary." DDT SON - He agreed with Mr. Nitchmann that the fiscal impact analysis was ''not a litmus test." "I want to be realistic about how selective we can be. If we run the fiscal impact model and it turns up that some industry is not going to pay its way and the land is zoned and they want to come in —too bad, they're here. Now that's not going to happen. But we tall about targcting particular industry, I'm not sure that we have bait that is so species selective that we can catch one kind of industry mid not another. I think we have a big Ret. So I have a lot of concerns wbcn we talk about going out and trying to attract industry because 1 think our instruments are pretty non -selective even though our language suggests that we know just what we wait and we are going to go for that and nothing else. When we go, we're going to conic hack with a lot. So I think we need to be veq careful and just be honest about the limits on how selective we can be: And when we provide and plan for land, how sonny controls we have, or don't have, on who comes in and wants to buv that and come into the ,ixea--that's jlist part of life in a democracy. Rut we shouldn't deceive ourselves that we are going to be highly selective, because I don't think. we have the means to do it." HUCKLE - She supported 'ibis strategy. lMHOFF - Respondmg to Commissioners Votson's and Nitchmamn's concerns about the lAcal impact model: "Nothing in this policy rang any danger bells for me. I understood it was a tool. I understood it was one of many strategies." She felt the statement was "fairly bland," and she felt it should remain m the drxcumeat_ Objeefive IV -Strategy 2 HUCKLE - She supported this strategy. Objective V NI.TCH> N1N - "I a&►roe if we arc going to channel: the industrial areas into certain. zones, we are going to, as a county, have to expend the funds and do some infrastructure work, if that is whet we truly want to do. " -V v 12-20-94 9 IMHOFI~ - Referring to Mr. Nitchmann's comments, she stated: "I was inferring from your statement that you'd like to see in -fill development... that eeonomic development policies should, in some ways, be sure to phase development where there is water and sewer and other infrastructure to support it." (Mr. Nitchmann replied: "That's true.") Ms. Imhoff supported the idea of io-fill development: DOTSON = He felt this objective was most important and should be first. He suggested the use of "plan for adequate land..." rather than "provide for adequate land_..." " VAat we arc saying is that good plai-anting is our best eaonomic development tool, and that's whert we start." HUCKLE - She felt it was unrealistic to provide adequate land for a 20 year period because of rapidly changing business needs. Objective V - Strategy 1 NITCHNLANN - He questioned providing "three times" the needed office and industrial land,. He questioned the source of this number. (Mr. Dotson also questioned the "three times factor.") DOTSON - He was opposed to the specification of a number. "Instead, have gas look at the lands that we've planned, and then see what we've got after we do that. in other words, kind of work backwards into it." That may lead to changing the designation of some land which is e-u ntly designated for industrial or commercial use because it is not longer suited for that purpose. He suggested this as a possible strategy "so that what we offer really is good land." MiCKT.F - Sbe dio not support this strategy. She favored a 5-year planning target. Objective V - Strategy 3 HUCKLE - "We already have Peter Jefferson Plane and will soon. have UREF sites For the next 5 years." Objective V - Strategy 4 HUCKLE - She asked for an explanation of this strategy. (Mr. Cilimberg explained staffs intention in this strategy. He used Peter Jeffers6n place as an examble, explaiftfflg that staff bad worked to "help them define what was appropriate and work w tb the po ntext of the county's plan.") Ms. Huckle agreed that "was a worthwhile effort" and expressed the Dope that there would be "more done like that." �96, 6 12.20-94 Objective VI HUCKLE - "If local citizens need advice, they should take advantage of the proven expertise of some of the groups I have motioned before .hex than having people, Who, pe=' ps, have some self isttemst, or rot as much expertise as some of thew otht- folks." Objective VII � Strategy I HUCKLE - She supported the development of a coordinated economic data base and suggested the Planning District is the "logical source for this information and can be one of the contacts for businesses and industries along with each county's planning department and Chamber of Commerce." GENERAL STATEMENTS 1MHOFF = The words "promote," "seek;" "support," and "target" reed to be better defined. (Mr. Datson[ agreed. He felt these words were either "too agressive or ill defined.") "Those words do riot fit my image, yet, of what the role of the County is." "The responsibility of the County is, and what we do well, is we provide infrastructure, we have good schools, we have good information, we have a game plan. To we that is the promotion part." IMHOFF "We do better if we have some bargaining chips; I don't want to see too much overzoning of land," IMHOFF - She suggested a format where "not just one goal or one strategy is offered, bi1t maybe some competing ideas are put together in a staff report that allows the staff some give and take discussion," She felt a missing comanent of the proposed policy was an "analytical sense of where these goals and strategies are conning fmm She felt an imporhwt item to be considered is "how our area compares to other parts of the state." (Mr. Cilimberg reported that staff s research on past Commission discussions on economic development had not revealed a lot of competing comments.) NITCHMANN - "The whole basis of this economic development portion of the Comprehensive Plan is to be able to be sure that we can assist where we can in sustaining the economic vitality of this community, and at the same time being able to offer better Job opportunities to the citizens of the County." h'ITCMI&NTNT = "It is very gip:-rtant t at, :arc put a plan in cffcct that does. include this regional council. I think it is very important to us. I think we need to be a team player and we need to be part of it.... That council can bring a lot of assets and tools to us at no additional cost to the county." HUCKLE - She wanted better definitions of "support," and "target." "Those wards scare me because I don't know what they are intended to mean.." l 12.20-94 10 NITCHMANN - He defined "support" as "lending a helping hand ,were it is needed." (The Roard's recent decision in relation to OF. wa:s given aF-.an example of this type cif , ppnrt.,l HUCKLE y She expressed concern abort the ;hoard's action in relation to the GE request. "This woes me bese if this industry gets money won't every other industry here that wants to expaud or improve itself also ask us for money. I think this is a dangerous precedent to set, especially for a business wbich is one of the largest industries in the country." DOTSON - He felt this version of the Economic Development Policy "had lost the flavor of the county," and that it read like "anyplace USA." He favored a preamble which addresses the county's strengths, its basic growth management policy, and "how the economic deve,lopment policy i4 inkmdeel to fill gaps and to maintain our steady low employment," DOTSON - AuM was concerned about an Economic Devclopm=t Council and questioned what its makeup would be. If there is to be such a council, he '1611t it should be .comprised of "a crass-scctiou spectrum of the comitaunily." DOTSON - He round the county's Vision statement to be useful in his study of the Economic Development Policy and he suggested staff might find the phrasing of the strategic questions helpful. DOTSON - Noting that there had been little reference to the commercial sector in the Policy, he felt it should address "all those people who employ," and not just industry. "It's not just generating gobs *hat we are after :m terms of indlustnal development, but it's also generating wholesale sales, retail saes and serw-wea, etc. I think we've left otut that middle man who is quite central." DOTSON - "One of the things I don't sec enough of (in this version of the policy) to mare me happy is an equal stature for work .force development. I'd like to see a more balanced approach to that." DOTSON - On the regional approach, he commented: "One of the things i like about this is that it leaves out any statement that says that the purpose of the regional partnership is soliciting marketing and advertising. T like. that., "I would like tQ go fij then and to more expti :-fly recognize some of the recently diwt<ussed City of Charlottesville economic development objectives and say, essentially, that we support those and we support some of the objectives of the outlying counties. My mind set is, almost, 'we sncowed when they succeed.' We ought to recognize what their role is as well as our awn. I would like to advocate the idea of sort of a mutual consultation along all of our borders whenever it concerns projects of greater than focal significance and 1 think that is part of recognizing our place in the regional economy as well." 12-20-94 11 JENKINS: "If we're looked on currently as being anti -growth, ... I'd certainly like for this document to get us closer to the middle of the road." JENKINS: "The regional aspect of what we try to do here, I think is very, very important. To the extent that we can include the regional document, or at least make sure that it is encompassed, is important." BLUE: "I can express my economic development theory pretty simply. Albemarle County has been a nice place to live for as long as I can remember --about 60 years, and it has been a nice place for most of the people I know to work for that length of time. What I am interested in now is in keeping it a nice place to live and also have it a nice place for everybody who lives here to be able to work; in other words, to improve their economic opportunities. That means creating some new jobs and I think you may have to do that in the manufacturing sector. I don't really have any strong feelings about how things are worded. I haven't disagreed with practically anything said tonight_ I think there are some positions that are from one side to the other and I always tend to be somewhat in the middle of the road. I hope that we can word this so that we will remove the perception from a number of people in the area who think that the County does not welcome any new manufacturing industry, no matter what it is. I would like to have that perception removed, and I do believe it is perception. On the other hand, I don't what it replaced with the perception that Albemarle County is open for business, regardless, with no strings attached. I think that would be a mistake." HUCKLE - "If we want people to come here we must maintain the features which set us apart from the rest of the country and which make people want to come here. If we succumb, any more than we already have, to the homogenizing of America, where you could be in any place and not be able to tell it apart from anywhere else, we will lose the growth potential that we have." NITCHMANN - "What we need to identify for sure is those businesses which this county cannot support, no matter what." (Mr. Dotson agreed and suggested the next question would be "What do we do about that?" He suggested: "Maybe we want to look back at our industrial zoning districts and make sure those require special permits so we can look at those carefully. But we're not going to have every use require a special permit and we just need to know that.") IMHOFF - "We need to be very clear (right up front in the definition or something) that we are using industry to route this policy in a very broad sense." (Mr. Cihmberg explained staff had meant that industry be used as a catch-all phrase.) Ms, Imhoff suggested that a definition of industry be included at the beginning of the document. NITCHMANN - "A job is a job and we have to have all levels of jobs." 12-20-94 12 NITCHMANN - On the suggestion of a preamble: "I don't see where nay other goals have a pregin?hle, but it's our Comp Plan and we can do it if we want," He sqggested staff may be able to use the Vision statement in developing a preamble about "how we view outselves today and in the future." DOTSON - "I think there is definite consensus that we arc all very regionally aware; that we are sensitive to the need for regional cooperation. The partnersbip is one partieular vehicle. 1, for one, don't want to stop thcre. I am also very concerned about what the job description, and makeup and operational procedures are of that partnership. I think there is a lot yet to be ironed out before I would feel really supportive of it. But on the principle of regional cooperation, I think we've got a lot of headway we can make there and it is going to bent us all." NITCHMANNI - "We have come a long way. There is a lot of consensus here: Staff has done an excellent nob. The next work session was set for January 17th, with a public hearing to be set.f0f January 24th. (the meeting moved from Room 7 to Room 5-6 for the Growth Area work session.) WORK SESSION Growth Aria Enansion - Discussion of Growth .A,rca hoping capacity and potential expansion areas. (Ms. Huckle provided wntton comments whiob are made a part of these minutes as Attachment D.) Staff answers to Commission questions: --The amount of vacant developable laud within the growth areas (5,983 acres) is far less than that shown in the 1993 ;development Activity Report (16,137 acres) because the report had not taken into account unbuildable areas such as critical slopes and f€oodplain areas. (Ms. Imhoff was uPc9 afortahle with what she dwri d as a "h uge di rep cy" between the two .figure&) Mr. Benish also explained: "We didn't focus in on the inventory of the existing zoned land; we focused on the existing C=p flan designations." (Iris. Imhof- "I want to know do we have enough, for the next 5 years, of pretty decent, nice land that is good for commercial, industrial and a variety of residential.") Mr. Benish felt staff had been conservative in its approach "because we didn't go down to every single parcel and calculate the potential acreage available because we don't know that they are realistically available to us." He explaci.ned further: "We may want, and you have indicated that you want, policy to encourage the use of those lands. But by evaluating what rase land is available in order not to overstate what is available --we didn't focus in on." Ms. Imhoff: "Good. I want r2-2a44 13 everybody to keep that in mind because what it says to me is, if you've been that conservative - and you have not counted in those lands for re-developmeat or in - fill development, then we are being very gencrous on some of this land that we are adding to the growth area." (Mr. Cilimberg later stated that he fett staffs inventory was a. realistic one.) --Growth area is defined as "those areas in our land use plan dc-sagnated for all us. othet than agricWtare or real was uses. It is the area where our development is anticiQated to be accommodated. The remaining areas are intended to be areas which do not support residential; commercial or industrial development." --The main factor which developers have identified as preventing the achievement of maximum densities, or clustering, on presently designated growth. area land is related to "limitations on maximising the utility of the land" e.g. steep slopes, amount. of land consumed by rights -of -way, Wading requirements, open space requirements. Commission continent& N TCHMANN - " if we don't want to keep proliferating the expansion in the rus al area, then we have to make it easiea- to do it within the growth area. If we are realty looking at growth area as it is today, we may end up finding that we don't need as much growth area if we allow more in -fill. We would save more land in the rural area in the long run." IMHOFF - Ms. Irnhoff felt it would be helpful to speak with representatives of the development community io see what they look for. She felt developers took more at the. availablility of infrastnicthre--."water and sewer and growth capacity are probably as important a, having to go throjigh the hiirdl cif a rezoning ,, NI:TCHPAANN 4 "Are there any zoning requirements now that are prohibiting denser growth in those areas (wbioh are prosently desigoated for growth but are not being developed)?" II-IMOFF - "I think you all (star) are aiming too far out and adding too rduch laird. If the idea is to have phased development and build off of existing infrastructure and try to get re- development and in -fill, then I think we should be talking about a 5-year period. You caa do 3 times the estimated land you need for future development, but I think them you should be aiming for this 5-year drunk because we are going to. be revising the Comp Plan again 5 years fFom Row. I Just think you've taken, off too big a bite." D TSON - He was concerned about setting "3 times" as a goal. (Staff explained that there was "no magic" in the number.) Both Ms. Imhoff and Mr. Dotson were opposed to having "3 times" written in the Plan. NITCHMANN - Have we done an analysis to be sure that the growth area that we have designated "is being utilized to its fullest extent, and if net, what is preventing it from being utilized to its fullest extent?" Are there things the County can. do to make the land more available for development? 12-20-94 14 JENKINS - "Do we know how many acres have been used in the last five years?" (Absorption Rate) DOTSON - "We haven't suffered a decline in the number of building permits because of insufficient land. So what does it mean that we don't have enough land? Does it mean there is no land available to develop? Does it mean there is no land available to buy now, to hold to develop in another 10 or 15 years. One of my impressions, but I don't know, is that a lot of the land has been sold and people are just waiting for the right time to develop it and that is the reason why somebody who wants to buy land today aright not find too much on the market. I don't really know. That's an impression. The data on those kinds of things would be really helpful." IMHOFF - She felt it would be difficult to proceed with the discussion without a better sense Of "how much acreage we have used in the last 5 years and exactly what we are looking at." BLUE - The development community would like to see a lot more land designated for development because it would keep the cost of land dawn. HUCKLE - She wanted to know why a lot of land designated for development is undeveloped. Mr. Cilimberg addressed the question and stated that in most cases it is because "that is the preference of the owner." Other factors mentioned were access problems or infrastructure limitations such as the extension of public water. DOTSON - He felt it would be helpful to have a map showing the present growth area, the parcels which have been used, and those which remain undeveloped. This would also help decide what areas might be feasible for expansion. Staff briefly described each of the neighborhood maps showing the presently designated growth areas. Mr. Benish confirmed that growth area expansions do not go into agricultural forestal districts, conservations easements, nor the Southwest Mountains. Commission comments and questions about the individual neighborhoods included the following: IMHOFF - Referring to growth area expansion on the east side of Rt. 20, south of Charlottesville, (as shown on one of the maps), she commented: "As a policy issue, I'd like to see less of that, where we bring growth areas up to the roads which, in my mind, encourages stripping along some of these roads. That section of Rt. 20 is very narrow. You don't add a lot of land and yet you add an opportunity to have multiple entrances along that road." (Mr. Benish explained this area was identified for possible expansion in the last Comp Plan review. However, it was decided not to expand in that area because of the sensitivity of Rt. 20 as a scenic highway and entrance corridor.) --1'7;A 12-20-94 15 Mr. Benish later asked if there was general consensus that there should be no growth in the east side of Rt. 20 South. Mr. Dotson stated that he wanted to look at the area before making a decision. Mr. Blue agreed that it would be difficult to get developments of any size without getting into sensitive slope areas, but he was not ready to "throw it out arbitrarily." Mr. Blue added: "I just think the southem area, going out that way --if we are going to have to have any growth area expansions, that would be my priority." Ms. Huckle asked about the depth of this area. She wondered if it was possible that clustering could be done without causing the need for a lot of curb cuts. 1W. Benish responded that though there are probably designs which would work, there would be no way to shield them from Rt. 20. Mr. Nitchmann was not ready to remove the area from consideration without further study. Mr. Benish summarized the Commission's comments: "I sense there is some concern and we need to be cautious." Ms. Imhoff clarified that she was not concerned about the area between Rt. 20 and Rt. 631, which is the majority of the acreage. Rather, her concern is about the "narrower area." DOTSON - Is there no expansion shown along Rt. 29 South because of the lack of water and sewer? Mr. Benish responded that the main reason is because of topography, i.e. it is very mountainous and "it is difficult to get off of Rt. 29," He confirmed that utilities are lacking as well. DOTSON - "There would be some real advantages in keeping the city more in the center of the built-up area if more growth went south or west or east, something other than north. I think that is of some Concern in terms of regional planning, that is, not marginalizing the city by always focusing on the north." BLUE - He felt Mr. Dotson's comment about keeping the city more in the center of the built-up area was a good one and suggested that the Biscuit Run area might be an answer to this concern. He noted that the community has tried to encourage development in that area by providing utilities. He pointed out that expansion is limited to the west by the reservoir and to the south by topography. Therefore, this area (Neighborhoods 4 and 5) is the logical answer. He also felt another logical answer, in terms of topography, was to go northeast, but there doesn't seem to be the demand for a growth area there as there is in the 29 North area. He noted that the vision statement had shown that the public agrees that there should be no growth in the 29 North area, but "that's pretty much where it has to go, at least some of it." HUCKLE - She pointed out that Neighborhoods 4 and 5 "have a lot going for them," i.e. proximity to I64, a new school. BLUE - Referring to Neighborhood Three (south of Redbud Creek), he said there was no one in this area who would favor expansion into this area. IMHOFF - Referring to the Rivanna Expansion Area - She voiced the same concern as she had previously about Rt. 20 South, i.e. "you need to be very cautious about long, thin strips of not very deep land along roads. It encourages strip development, and not the kind of V qJ 12-20-94 16 development the county would benefit from. Rt. 250 east is extremely heavily travelled. I think you'd really have to justify road improvements out in that area." She recalled that. when Cxlenmore had been approved, it was understood by the public that. "it was going to: be village scale and that was it for 1.0, 15 or 20 years." She said h= received many public comments such as "Why. is all the development going into our section of tilt county? Not only do we get doubling of the Rivanna Village, but we're also getting development on 20 North." BLUE - Referring to the Rivanna Expansion area - He asked if either the Glenmore or Keswick treatment plants could handle any growth area other than what is already designated. Mr. Benish said they are sized to accommodate the existing growth area, but they are package facilities which could be expanded. Mr. Benish explained that a problem with this area is that it does not drain to Carroll Creek and it is within 5 ;Hiles of the water supply intake for Lake Monticello. Say pumping would he required,, whicim , as � g. er4etal r��le; �� clsgQw.Tagod.. IMHOFF - Referring to the Rivanna Expansion area - She tooted that Carroll Creek does. not have a lot of volume. 5bc expressed or mmeern abet "all that waste going into that creek, because you coulcWt dump directly into the Rivanna." She pointed out that even the Rivanna is iiot a high volume river, especially in the summer. She noted that the Rivanna is a State Scenic River, IM 10FF - Referring to the Rivanna Expansion area - She felt the road situation would have to be carefully considered. She pointed out that there is a very difficult intersection at Rt. 22 and Rt 250 and this road has gained a tremendous amount of traffic from Glenmore. IMHOFF - Referring to the Hollymead/Piney Mt. Expansion area - She noted that those areas which will eventually get access by the Meadowcreek Parkway, at some point in the future, will hocome growth areas because "you gust can't put that much public dollars into that major an inftastructure and not have it develop in higher density." IMHOFF - Referring to the Crozet area - "I know we said that we weren't going to look at things in the watershed. l think, personally for arse, the one exception is --not that l necessarily want to expand Crozet --but densities within Crozet I have brought up a couple of times. I may be the only person, but there is water and sewer out there." Mr_ Benish noted that there is expansion potential in the Lickinghole Creek area BUCKLE - She felt Crozet was a good place for in -fill. DOTSON - "Are there areas -the one I am familiar with is the Owensvilie Road --where there is a lot of what looks lily a lot of suburban development? There is also a lot of undeveloped property and; I think you've said, it's designated rural and doesn't look rural to you. Should we look at any areas like that for passible utility extension?" (Ms. Imhoff noted that the Piney Mt. area, going down Protfit Read, fits this desvfiption also.) -P 7-Al 12-20-94 17 BLUE - "I'd like to see another name for it, but in terms of expanding growth, other than the exceptions that we have from the 5 development rights, we're not going to do anything on expansion west because of the watershed.. It's pretty much been ruled essentially off limits for years." QW. Cilimberg responded: "Except for Crozet. Our position has been hands -off or, Ftc atcr id area. 11, Dotson fnit that utould be sttatyd as one n the -nding prhnnWiP n s, if it is iiGt atready.l Staff explained that the next work session will deal with public requests. There being no further business, the meeting adjo at 10:05 V. MIDI p.m. V ,