HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-4-11Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
APRIL 11, 2012
10:00 A.M. – Piedmont Virginia Community College – Main Building Auditorium, Room
223
1. Call to Order.
2. Comprehensive Target Markets Report, Presentation by Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic
Development (TJPED).
3. Adjourn.
3:00 P.M. – County Office Building – Room 241
1. Call to Order.
2. Presentation: Target Industry Study Final Report.
3. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan Review.
4. Adjourn.
6:00 P.M. – County Office Building – Lane Auditorium
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation recognizing April 21-29, 2012 as National Park Week.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next page).
9. Adoption of FY 2012/2013 Operating and Capital Budgets.
Public Hearings:
10. ZMA-2010-00011. Estes Park (Signs #88&89). PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.75 acres on Tax
Map/Parcel 03200000003300 and TMP 03200000003400 from R-1, Residential zoning district which allows 1 unit/acre to
PRD, Planned Residential Development zoning district which allows residential (3–34 units/acre) with limited commercial
uses and to rezone 0.56 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 046B4000000500 from R-1 Residential zoning district to R-1
Residential zoning district with proffers. Proposed number of units is 66 for a density of 5.33 units/ acre. PROFFERS: Yes.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01–34 units/acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossing, approximately 800
feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP
03200000003400, and TMP 046B4000000500 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
11. ZMA-2011-00005. Greenbrier Commons (Sign #51). PROPOSAL: Rezone 2.000
acres from Light Industry (LI) zoning district which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential
use) to Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning district which allows residential (3-34 units/acre) mixed with commercial,
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0411/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/2/2020 10:34:17 AM]
Tentative
service and industrial uses. No residential units proposed. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO. PROFFERS: YES.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial, professional office; research and development,
design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1. LOCATION: 340 Greenbrier Drive,
Charlottesville, VA. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0010A00800. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
12. Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Section 4-200, Running
at large prohibited - To restrict dogs from running at large County-wide.
13. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
14. Adjourn.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: December 7, 2011.
8.2 Set a public hearing to consider Ordinance to Amend County Code - Chapter 10, Offenses – Miscellaneous, to add
Section 10-120.1, Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violations.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0411/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/2/2020 10:34:17 AM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Target Industry Study Final Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session to review and discuss final results of the
Regional Target Industry Study
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley and Davis; and Ms. Catlin and Ms. Stimart
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 11, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development is overseeing consultant work on a Target Industry
Study for its member jurisdictions, including Albemarle County. This study identifies types of industries that have the
strongest potential to succeed and offer the best prospects for "good jobs," meaning jobs that offer a higher quality of
life (security, higher wages, training, flexibility), both in our larger region and specifically in Albemarle County. The
target industry analysis matches locality preferences, economic characteristics, resources and advantages with
general location and work force requirements for desired industry segments. Staff believes that the Target Industry
Study will be an important basis for strategic economic development that will help Albemarle County assess and
leverage its unique assets to provide economic vitality and diversification and to develop a place-specific strategy that
supports the County’s long term quality of life, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The consultant, Younger Associates, will present the final results of the study to regional stakeholders on Wednesday
morning, April 11, and Board members have been invited and are encouraged to attend that session at 10:00 am at
PVCC. The work session scheduled for the Board on the afternoon of April 11 will allow the consultant, Board
members and staff to focus specifically on the study’s results and recommendations for Albemarle County.
DISCUSSION:
The report presents regional target industry groups for the overall TJPED region and also identifies target industry
groups for each participating county and the City of Charlottesville. The optimal targets were developed by analyzing
the industry groups currently in the region’s economy and identifying those industries with the strongest local rationale
and best industry outlook for Central Virginia. While the report will be very useful and will inform us of important
realities in our community regarding workforce, industry groups, etc., it will be up to the Board of Supervisors and staff
to confirm our final priorities for targeted industry groups based not only on the data but on established goals and
policies of Albemarle County and compatibility with the County’s character and preferences. Detailed information from
the study will be valuable in informing several components of the Comprehensive Plan update process as it moves
forward.
Future steps will involve determining specific actions for directing economic development energy and resources
toward those identified target enterprises, including further discussion of a fast track review process for targeted
industries that meet selected criteria.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no identifiable budget impact at this time.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board accept the Target Industry Study as presented by Younger Associates.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive
Plan Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Status of
Planning Commission Actions to date on
Comprehensive Plan Update
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Graham, Cilimberg, Echols
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE: April 11, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND: Staff provided a summary of the Planning Commission’s work to-date for the March 7
Board of Supervisor’s meeting. At the request of the Board, the Clerk provided additional information so
that a more comprehensive discussion could take place at the April 11 meeting.
On March 8, staff held a neighborhood meeting for the southern urban areas (Neighborhoods 4 & 5).
Approximately one hundred persons attended that meeting and input was received on the existing goals
and Land Use Plan.
On March 20, the Planning Commission continued its work on the Comprehensive Plan update with a
worksession on the industrial land inventory, rural interchanges, and locations for industrial uses and target
Industries. The staff report for that meeting is provided as Attachment I.
On April 2, a follow-up neighborhood meeting for the southern urban areas was held in conjunction with the
western urban areas (Neighborhoods 6 & 7). Input was received on recommended goals and two land use
alternatives for development of the framework plan for the neighborhoods. The Planning Commission will
receive this information for its April 24 meeting.
DISCUSSION: At the March 20 meeting, the Commission provided the following recommendations:
Interstate Interchange Policy
No changes are needed to the Interstate Interchange policy for Rural Areas, including the Crozet
interchange which the Commission considered to have been previously decided during the Crozet
Master Plan.
Bring back a recommendation for future land use on the south side of the Shadwell interchange
including the north side of Rt. 250 from I-64 to Hunter’s Hall Industrial Park.
Benchmark projected needs over time. Twenty years may be too far in the future to project employment
needs – monitor inventory of industrial/employment land and assess needs every 5 years.
Add language to the text of the Land Use Plan for the urban interchanges, similar to what was done for
the Fifth Street Avon project that would allow for industrial rezonings also.
The uses suggested by staff for rural interchanges would likely be appropriate in other places in the
Rural Areas so they should be considered for inclusion in the zoning ordinance. Staff needs to bring
back recommendation on size, scale, and constraints needed for the potential rural uses noted in the
staff report as well as for mini-warehouses & contractors storage yards.
Designating Additional Industrial Land
The Commission asked for the following additional information once the Board has provided direction on the
Target Industry Study:
Bring back actual acreage and location needs for target industries and businesses.
Bring back additional information on parcels of 3 acres and remove information on parcels of less than
3 acres in the inventory.
Bring back information on commercially zoned properties that can accommodate the targets.
Consider the transportation impacts of targets.
See if the Boulders Road area near NGIC and the properties in Neighborhoods 4 & 5 between Avon
and Rt. 20 would fill some of the needs of the targets. If so, these areas should be considered f or
industrial designation.
If a need continues to exist for larger parcels than currently exist in the inventory, approach owners
about consolidation of smaller parcels in industrially designated areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS: This report is provided for the Board’s information. If the Board would like more
information on any specific topic, staff can provide this during the work session or at a subsequent Board
meeting.
Attachment I: Staff Report for March 20: Industrial Land Inventory, Rural Interchanges, and Locations for
Industrial Uses and Target Industries
Planning Commission minutes of March 22, 2011; July 26, 2011; September 13, 2011; September 20, 2011;
October 11, 2011; November 29, 2011; February 8 (Joint w/Board), 2012 and March 20, 2012
Return to agenda
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 1
STAFF PERSONS: ECHOLS, SORRELL, WEAVER
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION: MARCH 20, 2011
CPA 2013-00001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION
Worksession 6 – Industrial Land Inventory, Rural Interchanges, and Locations for
Industrial Uses and Target Industries
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission has discussed the inventory of residentially designated and
zoned lands, potential residential expansion areas (October 11, 2011) and opportunities
for more commercial uses in support of agriculture and tourism in the Rural Areas
(November 29, 2011). On February 14, the Commission met with the Board of
Supervisors on the Target Industry Study and both bodies were presented with
information on the inventory of non-residential land and characteristics of the interstate
interchanges. This worksession is a continuation of the discussion on the needs for
industrial land.
PURPOSE OF WORKSESSION
This worksession is intended to provide information on our needs for industrial land,
whether we have enough land in the right locations, and whether we have parcels of the
right size for future needs.
LAND AVAILABLE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE
The February 14 staff report showed the amount of land both zoned and designated for
industrial uses. This information has been further refined to show where additional land
area could be rezoned to increase the supply. Table 1 on the following page shows that
most of this additional land is in Piney Mountain and Hollymead, with additional areas in
Crozet, Neighborhood 1, and Neighborhood 4. In addition, there are approximately
3511 acres of commercially zoned land with over 4.6 million square feet that has been
zoned for commercial use in the last ten years. While the amount of commercially
zoned land is believed to be sufficient for commercial land uses and could also
accommodate some light industrial uses in the future, depending on changes to zoning
allowances, the amount of commercial land that could accommodate light industrial use
is unknown and will be subject to market forces.
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 2
Table 1: Vacant Non-constrained land in Current Land Use Plan Designated
for Industrial Use (by # of designated acres)*
Development
Area
Area with
RA &
Residential
Zoning
Area with
Commercial
Zoning
Area with
Industrial
Zoning DA Totals
Crozet 7.83 0 **52.89 60.72
Village of
Rivanna 0 0 0 0
Piney Mountain 32.93 8.86 9.55 51.34
Hollymead 191.78 3.45 ***322.98 518.21
1 6.08 12.5 0 18.58
2 0 4.9 0 4.9
3 0 0 0 0
4 11.13 1.71 36.34 49.18
5 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0
Subtotal: 249.75 31.42 421.76 702.93
Minus Constrained Land Area: 28.93
****Total: 674.00
*Land in portions of less than 1 acre in area has been excluded, totaling 29.91 acres.
**Includes 2 acres of Acme Visible Records land which would not be available until 2016
***Includes UVA Research Park
****Report of 2-8-12 indicated 841 acres of non-constrained land; this figure inadvertently
included 127 acres of constrained land in the UVA Research Park
THE NEED FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND AND TARGET INDUSTRIES
Analysis of the County’s future employment needs can provide direction on the amount
of land needed for industry in general. The future need for designated land relates to
many things including target industries and expectations for how industrial activities and
associated land and shipping needs will occur in the future.
Staff has used two different approaches in projecting future needs. The first approach is
similar to what was done for to project future needs for residential land. It should be
noted that predicting the types of jobs that will be created over the next twenty years is
a difficult task, given the changing world economy. Home-based businesses and
telecommuting are expected to grow. It is unknown to what degree outsourced jobs
such as call centers and true manufacturing will come back to the U.S. One cannot
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 3
speculate how the rising cost of fuel and shipping will affect manufacturing, which in the
past few decades has tended to move to other countries. Based on the trends of the
most recent past, though, staff has done some analysis to predict a need for industrial
land area needs.
Using the employment projections from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, extrapolated
through 2040, Albemarle will have an estimated 18,000 new jobs in the year 2030. Of
those new jobs, 3,000 are expected to be industrial or “quasi -industrial” jobs which have
very low floor area ratios. Land area needed for these new jobs is expected to range
from 200 to 557 acres. As provided in Table 1, the maximum amount of designated land
area available is approximately 674 acres; however this total assumes rezoning of all
industrially designated land. Available land with existing industrial zoning is
approximately 376 acres. Therefore, in order to exactly match the projected
employment needs by 2030, up to 181 acres of additional zoned land will be needed
from the supply of vacant industrially designated land. As previously mentioned, over
the next year the County will be working to pro-actively zone land to an industrial
designation to increase the supply of land available for industrial uses.
Having a supply of land for industrial uses over the next 20 years does not guarantee
that the same land will meet all of the needs of future industrial users. Industrial land
will need to be available which meets the needs of the targeted industries which the
Board will review on April 11. Location, size, and developability are all important to
consider when designating land for economic development. Once the targets are
discussed by the Board of Supervisors, staff will reassess this analysis to make sure that
the supply of industrial land can meet the needs of the finalized target industries. In
order to keep on track with the Comprehensive Plan Update, staff is going to use the
preliminary results of the study’s recommended targets in the analysis below. If the
Board decides the County should be going a different direction than the direction
recommended by the consultants, then additional information will be brought to the
Commission later in the spring.
The recommended target industries are:
Bioscience and Medical Devices
Business & Financial Services
Information Technology and Defense & Security
Complementary targets are:
Health Services
Arts, Design and Sports & media
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 4
Characteristics of the targets are highlighted below:
Table 2: Target Industry Requirements
Target Industry Land & Building Requirements Other requirements
Bioscience and
Medical Devices
3 to 5 acres, 1 story; 50,000 + sq. ft.
ceiling min. 9’6”
site must facilitate future expansion
High quality lighting, Sound insulation,
Vibration reduction
Industrial zoning
Manufacturer’s needs for water, sewer,
power (gas or electric), fiber optic
Distribution of product by truck or air
Desired proximity to CBIC incubator
(Downtown), UVA, or UVA Research Park
Business &
Financial Services
3 to 25 acres; square footage requirements
vary; multiple stories are possible for many
uses
Larger operations can work well with mixed
use; many can use office buildings
Some targets can locate in larger buildings
such as State Farm HQ, or office parks such
as CFA HQ in Fontaine
A particular type, data centers, will be large
one-story buildings, segregated from other
uses.
Commercial zoning
Most businesses have standard office
needs
For data centers: FIBER OPTIC, large
Water, Large POWER, Redundant power
(batteries, generators, dual grids)
Information
Technology and
Defense &
Security
3 to 25 acres; 10,000-50,000SF – small
scale, high-end electronic products
manufacturing
Defense/Info Tech manufacturing can be
accommodated into both existing office and
industrial buildings
Not as likely to locate in mixed use.
Manufacturing needs high ceilings for
managing equipment
Commercial or Industrial zoning,
depending on specific use
Product distribution of defense equipment
by truck, rail or air shipment.
Desired proximity to UVA Research park
and the Rivanna Station, but not
mandatory.
Defense and Info Tech consulting
operations require GSA development
standards for terrorism security
protections (distance from main roads,
segregation, and minimal window
exposure).
Manufacturers’ needs for, water, sewer,
power (gas or electric), fiber optic
Health Services
Avg. 3-5 acres; square footage
requirements vary; multiple stories are
possible for many uses
Health includes -Nursing care, residential
care, continuing care retirement
communities
Can be accommodated in mixed use,
institutional or residential land uses
Commercial zoning
Nursing home water use considered
comparable to hotel rooms.
Ability to support ambulatory care and
proximity to hospitals
Arts, Design and
Sports & media
Acreage varies as does building size
Sports can require indoor or outdoor playing
fields. Arts can adaptively re-use existing
buildings
Design and media firms can locate anywhere
Commercial zoning
Businesses have standard office needs
Indoor/outdoor sports may generate large
amounts of traffic at peak hours
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 5
In keeping with the County’s growth management policy, these uses should be located
in the County’s designated Development Areas. Of these targets, only Bioscience &
Medical Devices and Information Technology - Defense & Security might need land
zoned for industrial use. The Office/R&D Flex/Light Industrial designation from Places
29 and an Industrial or Industrial Service Designation could be used to address needs for
land area for these targets.
As can be seen in Table 2, the recommended target industries generally have a land area
requirement of between 3 to 25 acres. While many of the industries can be
accommodated in commercially zoned areas, manufacturing facilities as the primary use
will require industrial zoning. Building square footage varies but can be up to 350,000
sq. ft. for larger facilities like data processing centers, corporate headquarters, or call
centers. All targets have need for high-speed internet access and public utilities with
some having large water and power needs. Transportation needs are specific to each
business.
As stated earlier, only the Bioscience & Medical Devices and Information Technology -
Defense & Security targets would appear to have need for purely industrial zoned land.
Bioscience & Medical Devices have parcel requirements of 3 - 5 acres, while Information
Technology – Defense & Security targets require 3 – 25 acres. The characteristics of the
undeveloped industrially designated and zoned land supply is shown in Table 3 below:
Table 3: Undeveloped Industrially-Designated Parcels (includes constrained land)
Parcel size
Designated & Zoned Industrial
(# of parcels)
Designated & not zoned
industrial
(# of parcels) Total
1 to 4.99 ac. 15 21 36
5 to 9.99 ac. 11 17 28
10 to 14.99 ac. 1 4 5
15 to 24.99 ac. 1 4 5
25 ac. or more 1 1 2
Total 29 47 76
From this table, one can see that there are very few parcels available for larger land
users. At present, there are only 5 parcels of land designated for industrial use in the
category of 10 – 14.99 acres, 5 parcels in the category of 15 – 25 acres, and 2 parcels
greater than 25 acres in size. This table does not show that several of the larger parcels
are owned by the same property owner and could be combined to provide for larger
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 6
parcels, such as many of the parcels shown in purple
in the map to left. Streets and road networks may
need to be expanded and new roads built in order to
provide access to some of these parcels near the
Airport and Hollymead Town Center.
Map to left shows area south of Hollymead Town Center and
west of Rt. 29.
Conclusions:
In terms of raw acreage with environmental constraints removed, sufficient land
area could potentially exist to accommodate future needs for industrial land, if
land which is designated for industrial use is rezoned. The proviso is that not all
land is created equal and some parcels will need significant investment in road or
utility infrastructure.
If a target industry or employer needs a large parcel, there are fewer parcels from
which to choose; although, in a few instances one owner may own a number of
adjoining parcels.
While most of the land in the Development Areas is hilly, some sites are more
environmentally challenged than others, including land designated for industrial
use.
Due to their characteristics, a large number of the identified target industries
actually could be accommodated in land already zoned for commercial us e unless
they involve manufacturing.
LOCATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES AND TARGET INDUSTRIES
This part of the staff report speaks to opportunities for more geographically dispersed
locations for industry, in particular, the interstate interchanges. Staff has also looked at
locations where larger parcels of land might be redesignated for industrial use to serve
potential target industries.
Shadwell
The Shadwell interchange is one which has created interest among Planning
Commissioners and Board of Supervisor members. It is in very close proximity to
Pantops and has the presence of businesses along Rt. 250 East near the interchange
and the presence of a large undeveloped site (South Lego Farm) at the southwest
Rt. 29
Dickerson Rd.
Airport
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 7
corner of the interchange. The Commission and Board have considered but not
approved several rezonings in this area. It was noted in Board and Commission
actions that the interchange is located at the gateway to the Southern Albemarle
Historic District and has several properties that have been placed under easement
and are also historic resources. However, it has also been noted that this area could
provide industrial land opportunities. Attachment A provides a detailed analysis of
the interchange.
There are two areas of the Shadwell Interchange that have been analyzed for this
report. The first is the southwest corner of the interchange, South Lego Farm, which
has a large 60 + acre farm which is mostly undeveloped. The second area is the land
on the north side of Rt. 250 extending from the Comfort Inn to the Hunters Way
Industrial Park.
The South Lego Farm property is made up of 50 acres and approximately 25 – 30
acres appear to be developable. At present, in order to meet VDOT requirements for
an entrance, two developed properties must be crossed as well as a major ravine
containing a stream. Building the stream crossing is expected to be very expensive
as the land drops 80 feet to the creek before rising 60 feet on the other side.
On the north side of Rt. 250, there are several residentially developed properties,
some vacant properties, and businesses. Redevelopment of the residential
properties would require acquisition and road construction, which will require steep
road cuts.
VDOT believes that significant interchange improvements will ultimately be
necessary which could result in acquisition of large areas of land, possibly on both
sides of Rt. 250. Such improvements may involve the provision of alternative access
points to the South Lego Farm property and properties on the north side of Rt. 250
which could render some or all this property more developable. But until design
plans for these improvements have been developed it is unknown what access and
impacts to adjacent properties will be.
Therefore, staff does not recommend inclusion of the southern part of the Shadwell
Interchange in the Development Areas for industrial development at this time.
Current conditions regarding access, topography, provision of sewer service and
impacts to Monticello, the Southern Albemarle Historic District, and other resources
make development of these properties problematic. The lack of plans for
improvements to the interchange leave questions as to what future development
might be possible. Staff does see potential for this area if these issues are addressed
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 8
and recommends that this interchange area be revisited for expansion possibilities
during the next review of the Comprehensive Plan. Potentially by that point design
plans for the interchange improvements will be complete.
Urban Interchanges
There are 3 ½ urban interchanges in the Development Areas. Of those
interchanges, vacant land exists south of the interstate at the Rt. 29 South exit,
the southwest quadrant of the Fifth Street interchange, north of I-64 between
Fifth Street and Avon Street, and in the southeast quadrant of the Rt. 20 inter-
change. The first two interchanges illustrated above are analyzed for potential
industrial use in Attachments B and C.
The Rt. 29 South and I-64 interchange is shown for Regional Service and has a
beverage distribution business and a few residences. This property has been
reassessed because of the amount of vacant land near the interchange and the size
of the parcels. It has fairly hilly terrain and the main problem with development is
access due to VDOT entrance requirements and the steep grades adjacent to Rt. 29
South. Future improvements to the interchange will likely affect the properties, b ut,
no necessarily provide for better access. Staff believes that the access issues must
be overcome for any more intensive use of the property, regardless of the use. If
either industrial or commercial development is desired, the development area
boundary should be extended west to provide better options for access. Otherwise,
the only place for access that can meet VDOT entrance requirements is through the
ravine that has been designated for preservation. Even in this case, extensive
grading will be needed, which will reduce the amount of developable land.
Staff believes that the area could provide for greater opportunities for industrial
development; it is essential that there be property owner support. At present, the
Rt. 29 South and I-64 Rt. 20 South and I-64 Fifth Street south of I-64
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 9
owner of a large portion of the property is not in favor of a redesignation to allow for
industrial development. If there was support, it would be advantageous to be able
to use Shepherd’s Hill Road for upgraded access to the area. Use of Shepherd’s Hill
Road also requires property owner support. Without resolution of the access issues,
very limited development can take place in this area.
The Southpointe property is located in the southwest quadrant of I-64 and Fifth
Street Extended. It is wooded with a few areas of critical slopes and has
approximately 12 – 15 acres of developable land. Though zoned R15, the property is
designated for Community Service and the owner desires to retain this designation.
Re-designation to an industrial use was not generally supported by attendees at the
Neighborhoods 4 & 5 meeting on March 8.
The property was designated for Commercial Service in 1998 when it was viewed
that residents in the southern part of the County needed access to shopping south of
I-64. Staff believes that this site could be used either commercially or industrially. If
the property were to be redesignated to an industrial use, other commercial
property may need to be designated in the southern urban neighborhoods to
provide service to residents south of I-64. A redesignation for industrial use,
however, should be supported by the property owners, which is not the currently
the case.
The Fifth Street – Avon properties, which are not shown on the maps above, are
located north of I-64 and are also primarily vacant at this time. Shown for regional
service, these properties were rezoned for a retail and office type development
including big boxes. In 2003, the Comprehensive Plan was amended to allow for
Regional Service. Subsequent to that, the properties were rezoned for a commercial
use with a plan for development. Although the Comprehensive Plan had changed,
the text of the Land Use Plan for Neighborhood 4 contemplated a potential
designation back to industrial use, should the commercial designation not be used.
At this time a request to modify the rezoning plan for development is under review
for the Fifth Street – Avon project. Staff believes that a change to the
Comprehensive Plan designation is not appropriate at this time as the owner
appears to be developing under the existing zoning. However, if the commercial
development does not take place, this property should be considered for a reversion
back to an industrial designation.
The southeast quadrant of the Rt. 20 interchange is the old Blue Ridge Hospital site
for which the owner, the University of Virginia Foundation (UVAF), would like an
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 10
institutional designation. County staff will be working with UVAF staff during Area B
discussions about future use of the property and whether a designation similar to
the UVA Research Park or Fontaine might be better at this time.
Other locations – Boulders Road Area
As mentioned earlier in the report, there is a need for large parcels that could serve
potential target industries. In looking for large vacant parcels which might offer
opportunities for redesignation, one area has emerged. That area is the land near
NGIC in Places 29 which is currently designated for urban density use. As one can
see in the images on the prior page, there are large parcels of land with limited
environmental constraints near the NGIC facility off of Boulders Road. These parcels
are designated for residential development. While it is important for residential
development to be near employment centers, it is possible that some of the
residentially designated areas could be reduced in size to offer greater industrial
opportunities at this location. If the Board of Supervisors endorses the
recommended targets, staff believes the Boulders Road area should be considered
for redesignation.
Boulders Road area near NGIC
Neighborhoods 4 and 5 are also under review for potential industrial designations
and the only area which appears to hold opportunities for redesignation is in the
area before the intersection of Avon Street Extended and Rt. 20. These properties
are shown on the following page. One large (12 acre) parcel south of Snow’s
Landscape and Garden Center on Avon Street Extended may provide further
opportunities for industrial development or designation. The property owner has
not yet been contacted about this possibility, but will be contacted prior to the
Commission meeting. No other large parcels, other than those described at the
interchanges, appear to have potential for redesignation in Neighborhoods 4 and 5.
NGIC NGIC
Rt. 29 Rt. 29
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 11
Properties between Avon Street and Route 20
Rural Interchanges
The February 14 staff report provided the characteristics of the rural interchanges
for review. The south side of the Shadwell interchange has already been addressed
earlier in this report. The Boyd Tavern/Blackcat Road Interchange and the Ivy
Interchange are the most rural. The Crozet/Yancey Interchange has characteristics
that are different from the other two interchanges.
The existing Comprehensive Plan does not recommend any additional development
at the rural interstate interchanges; however, both the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors have asked that this policy be revisited. In particular, the two
bodies have suggested that the rural interchanges be available for uses that have a
relationship to the rural and agricultural economy and have low impacts.
Characteristics of the uses which have been mentioned for the rural and agricultural
uses at the interchanges are:
Low traffic generation
Minimal or no need for water and sewer such that there would be no future
demand for public utilities
A small scale (building and parking footprint)
Could meet VDOT access requirements
Avon St. Avon St.
Rt. 20
Rt. 20
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 12
Would have little to no impact on natural resources
Could meet Entrance Corridor Guidelines
Are enhanced by having access to the interstate for distribution of products
Little to no impact on nearby historic or scenic resources
Staff believes that these characteristics could be included in a new policy for the
rural interchanges. If adopted, they could provide guidance for development
decisions and/or changes to zoning regulations. Show grounds, custom
slaughterhouses, sawmills, packing plants, and special events are currently allowed
by special use permit in the RA and may be particularly appropriate at interstate
interchanges. Other potential uses, could include:
Small storage and distribution facilities that relate to local agricultural or
forestry production
Landscape services
Wholesale nurseries
One other use for consideration does not necessarily relate to agriculture, forestry,
or agri-tourism uses. Contractor’s storage yards are important to the County’s
overall economy but are not allowed in the Rural Areas. Some contractor’s storage
yards could meet all of the characteristics recommended for rural and agricultural
uses at interchanges and benefit from a location at an interchange.
An applicant for a Comprehensive Plan change has requested that mini -warehouse
use be allowed at the Shadwell interchange. This use is allowed in the Development
Areas but not the Rural Areas. While this use typically does not have a relationship
to local agricultural or forestry production, there might be instances where such a
use could be appropriate in the Rural Areas. Places which immediately come to
mind are cross-roads communities; however, interstate interchanges might also be
viewed as appropriate because of proximity to major roads. If located on Entrance
Corridors, these facilities would need to meet Entrance Corridor Guidelines.
Staff believes the Crozet interchange would be better location for such uses with low
impacts due to the size of the roads at the interchange. The Crozet exits connect I-
64 directly to Route 250. Because of the very rural nature of the Ivy and Boyd’s
Tavern interchanges, future development that could meet all of the potential use
characteristics for rural interstate interchanges is less likely.
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 13
Conclusions
Needs for future industrially designated and zoned lands depend on the types of
business and industry which the County would like to support.
There are a number of parcels to support those industries, but there are not
many large parcels; most of the industrially designated land is in Places 29.
Vacant land at the southwest corner of the Shadwell Interchange would be
extremely difficult to develop at this time.
Vacant land at the urban interchanges designated for commercial uses appears to
be able to support industrial uses as well.
Access to properties at the southwest corner of Rt. 29 and the I-64 interchange
will be problematic unless changes to the Land Use Plan occur, either to remove
language related to preservation of a ravine or to expand the Development Area
boundary.
The owners of properties at the urban interchanges do not wish to change to an
industrial designation. Without owner consent, rezonings to industrial
designations will likely not occur. The Comprehensive Plan could contain
language which would be supportive of commercial or industrial uses at these
locations to open up future opportunities for development.
There may be additional opportunities to designate land for industrial use in
Neighborhood 4; however, the parcels would not be large and residents have
concerns about impacts.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the Commission direct staff to prepare draft Comprehensive
Plan documents to reflect:
1. The urban interchanges, other than Pantops/Shadwell, should be available for
office/R&D/flex/light industrial uses as well as commercial uses.
2. Expansion of the area near the Rt. 29 S/I-64 Interchange in the southwest
quadrant to allow for road access into the site.
3. Enlargement of the area designated for office/R&D/flex/light industrial uses near
NGIC in the Places 29 Master Plan.
4. Changes to the interstate interchange policy to allow for rural and agricultural
uses at the interchanges that have
Low traffic generation
Minimal or no need for water and sewer such that there would be no future
demand for public utilities
A small scale (building and parking footprint)
Could meet VDOT access requirements
CPA 2013-01
PC March 20, 2012 -- Staff Report Page 14
Would have little to no impact on natural resources
Could meet Entrance Corridor Guidelines
Are enhanced by having access to the interstate for distribution of products
Little to no impact on nearby historic or scenic resources
5. Allowance for contractor’s storage yards and mini-warehouses in the Rural Areas
under these conditions:
Low traffic generation
Minimal or no need for water and sewer such that there would be no future
demand for public utilities
A small scale (building and parking footprint)
Could meet VDOT access requirements
Would have little to no impact on natural resources
Could meet Entrance Corridor Guidelines
Little to no impact on nearby historic or scenic resources
Any recommendations for expanding the industrial designation between Avon Street
Extended and Rt. 20 south of the interstate will come after additional meetings with
Neighborhoods 4 & 5.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Analysis of Shadwell Interchange
Attachment B – Analysis of Rt. 29 South Interchange
Attachment C – Analysis of Fifth Street south of I-64 Interchange
Return to exec summary
Page 15 Attachment A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
SHADWELL INTERCHANGE
Area Name: Shadwell Interchange (southside)
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Physical Characteristics:
Critical environmental resources (streams,
floodplain and steep slope) exist on most
properties near the I-64 interchange.
On the north side, except for the Comfort Inn
property, a steep wooded bank exists in the right-
of-way between Route 250 and the properties
from North HL Lane for approximately 2/3 of a
mile.
Existing Uses:
The South Lego Farm is largely undeveloped at the
southwest corner of the interchange.
The Comfort Inn is located at the southeast corner of
the interchange.
Several homes take access from North HL Lane
An existing industrial park is located east of the
interchange with 6 properties zoned HC and 10
properties zoned LI.
Other Considerations:
The BOS has discussed the potential need for
greater utilization of interstate interchanges to
promote economic development.
John Chavan has requested that his parcel on the
north side of Rt. 250 be available for mini-
warehouses, either by expansion of the
development area or by permission through
zoning.
The South Lego Farm property is a 50 acre
property which might be able to serve some target
industry needs, should the BOS add it to the
Development Area.
South Lego was one of four farms owned by
Thomas Jefferson in the late 18th century. At least
four successive principal dwellings have stood at
Lego, a large farm east of Charlottesville, since
1800. Three of the properties have been
destroyed, the last one by fire. The current house
was built in 1951.
Other Considerations, Continued:
Adjacent properties are within the Southern Albemarle
Rural Historic District and the Monticello Viewshed
The property south of 250 across from Hunters Way
Industrial Park is within the Monticello Historic District
as well as property south of the Rivanna River
adjacent to the South Lego Farm property.
The area is adjacent to the Shadwell conservation
easement and close to a conservation easement
across the Rivanna River given by the Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Foundation.
There are environmental challenges to developing the
South Lego Farm property including a deep ravine
with an active stream.
Providing access to the South Lego farm property will
be difficult because of the ravine. A bridge would be
needed across an 80-foot drop on the east side and a
60-foot drop on the west side of the creek. The
alternative is putting the stream through a culvert and
filling in the slopes.
S. Lego Farm
Chavan
Southern Albemarle Historic District
Conservation
Easement
owned by
T.J.M.F.
I-64
Rt. 250 E
Pantops
Conservation Easement
Page 16 Attachment A
The southwest side of the interchange abuts the
Rivanna River on the south side and the river and
floodplain are included as an Important Stream
Valley in the Natural Resources Plan.
This reach of the Rivanna River (from the Woolen
Mills to the Fluvanna County boundary) is a
Virginia Scenic River.
The South Lego farm site and the Shadwell canal
lock/dam in this area are included on the Open
Space Map.
The South Lego Farm property is currently not
visible from Monticello, possibly because of tree
cover; properties on the north side of Rt. 250 are
visible.
Railroad tracks cross the southern part of the South
Lego farm site; however, due to steep slopes, they are
extremely difficult to access.
At present, the most developable land is the southeast
part of the interchange, approximately ½ mile from the
interchange and adjacent to an existing industrial park.
The intervening property in the southeast quadrant is
made up of mostly small parcels with existing
residences.
Topographic challenges currently exist with providing
access to the properties adjacent to the hotel.
Access to Utilities:
Six parcels adjacent to the hotel have water
service through ACSA from water line along 250
that runs to Glenmore. One residential parcel is
limited to water service to the existing structure
only.
The nearest ACSA sewer line is north of the
interchange at Hansens Mountain Rd. Providing
sewer service would require a pump station and
improvements to the existing Peter Jefferson
Pump Station. Costs for providing sewer service
are estimated at >$1 million.
Electric service is available to this area which
could support industry.
Transportation Issues:
Properties with developable acreage which currently
could meet VDOT access guidelines are north of Rt.
250, farthest from the interstate and closest to the
existing Hunter’s Way Industrial park.
The existing South Lego Farm Drive is too close to the
interchange to be used for commercial or industrial
traffic;
VDOT is developing plans for interchange
improvements to better facilitate traffic flow. Future
improvements to the interchange will affect properties
in this area and may ultimately make them more
developable.
Recommendation: Staff does not recommend inclusion of the southern part of the Shadwell Interchange in the
Development Areas for industrial development at this time. Current conditions regarding access, topography,
provision of sewer service and impacts to Monticello, the Southern Albemarle Historic District, and other resources
make development of these properties problematic. The lack of plans for improvements to the interchange leave
questions as to what future development might be possible. Staff does see potential for this area if these issues are
addressed and recommends that this interchange area be revisited for expansion possibilities during the next
review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 17 Attachment B
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
RT. 29 SOUTH/RT. 250 INTERCHANGE
GOLD EAGLE PROPERTY
Area Name: Rt. 29 South – Sieg Property Area -
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller
Physical Characteristics:
Hilly with a number of areas of critical slope
Contains a steep ravine area which is currently
identified for preservation in the Neighborhood 5
Plan
A stream with floodplain and stream buffer
requirements flows across the frontage of part of
the property.
Existing Uses:
Existing beverage distribution facility and several
houses
Other Considerations:
Property inside the Development Areas is
recommended for Regional Service on the Land
Use Plan
Existing zoning is HC – Highway Commercial and
R1 Residential
The property could be redesignated for an
industrial use, but the property owner would prefer
opportunities for mixed residential and commercial
use.
Major flattening of hills would be needed to create
building sites and those sites would be much
higher than the interstate.
Other Considerations, Continued:
Provision of access requires steep road cuts adjacent
to a ravine that is slated for preservation
Expansion of the Development Area boundary west
would be needed to accommodate a road which
would affect less environmentally sensitive land.
It is possible that Shepherd’s Hill Road could be
upgraded to accommodate access to developable
parts of the site; however, it is a private road and
permission would be needed from the owners.
Tree preservation of part of the site likely would be
needed to help buffer the appearance from I-64.
Access to Utilities:
Development area properties are in the
jurisdictional area for water and sewer but are not
currently served by water or sewer.
Transportation Issues:
A new entrance to the properties would be needed to
meet VDOT requirements.
Interchange improvements are proposed in the future
Pink Color on the map
represents Regional
Service Land Use
Designation; blue is
floodplain, and orange
represents a required
stream buffer.
Page 18 Attachment B
at this interchange.
Recommendation:
Staff believes that access issues must be overcome for any more intensive use of the property, regardless of the
use. If either industrial or commercial development is desired, the development area boundary should be extended
west to provide better options for access. Otherwise, the only place for access that can meet VDOT entrance
requirements is through the ravine that has been designated for preservation. Even in this case, extensive grading
will be needed, which will reduce the amount of developable land.
Staff believes that the area could provide for greater opportunities for industrial development; it is essential that
there be property owner support. It would be advantageous to be able to use Shepherd’s Hill Road for upgraded
access to the area. Use of Shepherd’s Hill Road also requires property owner support. Without resolution of the
access issues, very limited development can take place in this area.
Page 19 Attachment C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FIFTH STREET SOUTH INTERCHANGE
SOUTHPOINTE PROPERTY
Area Name: Southpointe Property
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Physical Characteristics:
Wooded with a few areas of critical slopes.
Appears to receive drainage from the interstate
Property comprises approximately 18 acres, of
which approximately 12 - 15 acres is developable.
Existing Uses:
Residential uses on three parcels near I-64
Other Considerations:
Property is designated for Community Service
Property owner desires to retain commercial
designation
Property is zoned R-15
Re-designation to an industrial use was not
generally supported by attendees at the
Neighborhoods 4 & 5 meeting.
Other Considerations, Continued:
There is a shortage of commercial service south of I-
64 for persons living in the southern part of the
County. It was for this reason that the property was
re-designated to Community Service in 1996.
An interstate location can provide for greater access
to commercial uses from other parts of the County.
Access to Utilities:
Is in the jurisdictional area for water and sewer
and both utilities are nearby.
Transportation Issues:
New entrance could meet VDOT distance
requirements and could line up with Stagecoach
Road.
Recommendation: Staff believes that this site could provide for either commercial uses or office/R&D/flex/light
industrial use. If the property were to be redesignated only to an industrial use, other commercial property may
need to be designated in the southern urban neighborhoods to provide service to residents south of I -64. A
redesignation for industrial use, however, should be supported by the property owner s, which is not the currently
the case. The better solution is to allow for either commercial uses or very light industrial uses at the site.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JOINT CITY/COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 22, 2011 FINAL MINUTES
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011 -- 6:30 P.M.
CITY PLACE, CITY HALL
CITY PLACE
The Albemarle County Planning Commission and Charlottesville City Planning Commission held a joint
meeting on Tuesday, March 22, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., in City Place,100 5th Street North East,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
County Planning Commission members attending were Calvin Morris, Vice Chair; Don Franco, Linda
Porterfield, Mac Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Chair, and Tom Loach.
Ed Smith was absent.
Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director, and David Benish, Chief of Planning.
City Planning Commission members present were Jason Pearson, Chairman, Lisa Green, Genevieve
Keller (Vice Chair), Kurt Keesecker and David Neuman (UVA Architect – Ex-officio).
John Santoni, Dan Rosensweig, and Michael Osteen were absent.
City staff present was Missy Creasy, Planning Manager.
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission staff present was Steve Williams, Executive Director,
and Summer Frederick, Planner.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist and Mr. Pearson established quorums of each of Planning Commission and called the joint
meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
1. Joint City/County Planning Commission meeting on Sustainable Communities Grant and
Comprehensive Planning – the following was covered by staffs and the Commissions:
a. Welcome and Introductions
b. Presentation from TJPDC on Sustainable Communities Grant
c. Process and schedule for Grant and Comprehensive Plans
d. Review of topics of regional interest
e. Commissioner Open Discussion
Joint Meeting Adjournment:
The joint meeting of the Planning Commissions was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. by Mr. Pearson.
Urban Development Areas – Albemarle County Planning Commission
Staff presented information on CPA-2011-00002, Urban Development Areas Amendment to
Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 6:0, approved a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff noted that a Planning Commission Public Hearing for CPA-2011-00002 would be scheduled.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JOINT CITY/COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 22, 2011 FINAL MINUTES
2
Old Business:
Mr. Zobrist asked if there was any old business. There being no old business, the meeting moved to the
next item.
New Business:
Mr. Zobrist asked if there was any new business.
THERE IS NO ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON TUESDAY,
MARCH 28, 2001.
THE NEXT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING CO MMISSION MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY,
APRIL 5, 2011. It was noted that the April 5th Planning Commission meeting needs to be adjourned
to Monday, April 11, 2011 for the Annual Meeting of Master Planning Councils.
There being no further new business, the meeting moved to the next item.
Adjournment:
The County Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. by Mr. Zobrist.
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m. to the April 5, 2011 meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the
County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 1
FINAL MINUTES
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 26, 2011
Work Session:
Comprehensive Plan Update
Work session to review the schedule, focus areas, and goals for the Comprehensive Plan update
(Elaine Echols)
Mr. Benish introduced the new staff person Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner. Mr. Sorrell and Ms.
Echols have been doing the bulk of the work on this staff report. Unfortunately, Ms. Echols is
out of town.
The following PowerPoint presentation was given:
CPA-2013-00001, Comprehensive Plan update
Planning Commission Work Session
July 26, 2011
Background
• 1989 – Last Overall Plan Rewrite
• Section Updates have been ongoing:
– Land Use Plan Update (1996)
– Natural Resources and Cultural Assets (1999)
– Land Use Plan – Neighborhood Model (2001)
– Affordable Housing Policy (2004)
– Rural Area Plan (2005)
– Land Use Plan - Transportation Section (2005)
– Land Use Plan - Community Facilities (part) (2007)
– Economic Development Policy (2009)
– Land Use Plan – Four Master Plans (2004, 2008, 2010 and 2011)
According to the Code of Virginia, localities are required to review their Comprehensive Plans
every five years. The last adoption of all of the elements of the Comprehensive Plan at the same
time was in 1989. The Land Use element was last reviewed and adopted in its enti rety in 1996.
Since 1996, the County has updated sections of the Comprehensive Plan as part of an ongoing
review.
An unintended result of the incremental approach to updating the Comprehensive Plan is that the
document has become very long, somewhat disjointed, and difficult for the public to follow. In
addition, some sections of the Plan have not received a complete review since 1996 . In February
2010, the Board directed staff to make the update to the plan a priority project for the
Community Development Department.
Tonight’s Work Session
A. Relationship of County Plan update to Livability Project and City Comprehensive Plan
update
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 2
FINAL MINUTES
B. Provide a summary of the recent citizen survey
C. Review methodology for plan update, including focus areas
D. Review Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and more concise format
E. PC input on other areas which need revisiting
A. Grant & City-County Work
PDC staff is assisting City and County:
• Facilitating public input opportunities
• Providing background info on areas of mutual interest:
– Land use where the entities abut;
– Regional transportation including Entrance Corridors;
– Environmental systems including greenways;
– Housing and regional economic drivers; and
– Community facilities and services.
• The City and County Planning commission’s held a joint meeting in March to discuss the
Livability Grant, its products and the relationship of the grant to the city and county’s
update of their comprehensive plan. In essence, the grant is intended to measure the
progress of the region of the city and the county along with the MPO’s efforts to
implement the sustainability accords, which were incorporated into our comprehensive
plans in 1998 and to provide recommendations for how to further implement and achieve
those sustainability accord goals.
• Some of the benefits of the grant work are that they are receiving a much more enhanced
public input process than they could have otherwise have done with just county staff.
TJPDC staff through the grant resources and the additional staff that the grant resources
provided that TJPDC staff is developing public input workshops based around topic areas
that are relevant and important both the city’s and county’s comprehensive plan and the
sustainability grant. Those workshops similar to the kick off they had in May is a type of
public input that they did not have the manpower to do just with our county staff. The
TJPDC staff is also providing the data for some of that information particularly for
background areas that are of mutual interest to the city, county and University. Those
areas are transportation, environmental policies, land use, economic drivers, housing,
and facilities-service provisions.
• Staff will bring back more information regarding these topic areas at future joint
City/County Planning Commission meetings. The next joint PC meeting is August 16th
(then September).
• He circulated a six page executive summary
B. 2011 Citizen Survey
• National Citizen Survey (NCS) conducted by IMCA
• Gathered citizen input about characteristics of the community & services provided by the
county
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 3
FINAL MINUTES
• Was timed so results would inform the County’s strategic and comprehensive planning
processes
• Summary of results was included in Attachment A
In 2011, the County contracted with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)
National Citizen Survey (The NCS) to conduct a survey of residents’ opinions about the
characteristics of the community and services provided by Albemarle County. The NCS was
developed by the National Research Center, Inc. in cooperation with the ICMA. The timing of
this statistically valid survey was such that the results would inform both the County’s strategic
and comprehensive planning processes.
The NCS survey is a more standardized approach than the County’s previous effor ts, so the
results can be compared with benchmark communities across the nation. Throughout the country,
certain public services, such as public safety, tend to rank higher than other services, so having
the ability to compare the ranking of services between Albemarle County and benchmark
communities provides additional and significant information for planning purposes.
• Staff distributed the six page summary mentioned in the staff report. He suggested that
they look at summary and come back to discuss it further at a later work session
• He highlighted several of the findings that were relative to the comp plan update.
• Some of the more favorable characteristics of our community were the overall
image and reputation; the overall appearance of our community; t he quality of
our natural environment; and the educational opportunities.
• Some of the least favorable characteristics of the community were basically
transportation related, bus travel, rail travel, bicycle travel, and also the
accessibility of affordable childcare.
• For zoning and land use there was a fairly low response 44 percent felt that land
use, planning, and zoning was excellent or good. Interestingly, they were very
consistent with national and like type community bench marks. It tends to be
their observation that is the type of response they get for this sort of question
because change in development is generally seen as a negative. They tend to get
lower scores in this area and the bench marks of other localities tend to merit that.
However, again they did get somewhat lower scores in that area.
C. Methodology & Proposed Schedule
Currently:
• Review consolidation of existing Plan goals and objectives - identifying areas in need of
study;
• Review list of expansion area requests for familiarization by PC;
Sept. 2011 to March 2012:
• Receive general input at workshops for the Livability Project for Land Use, Environment,
Transportation, Economic Drivers, Housing, and Transportation;
• Hold joint PC work sessions with City on areas of mutual interest;
Oct. 2011 to Jan. 2012:
• With PC, hold separate work sessions with the PC on identified focus areas in Plan;
February 2012 to May 2012:
• staff will do the writing part of the Comprehensive Plan to then bring back for PC review;
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 4
FINAL MINUTES
Completion:
• Expected public hearing(s) Summer/Fall 2012 with expected adoption by the Board in
early 2013
Regarding the METHODOLOGY AND GENERAL SCHEDULE FOR COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
• Staff has developed this methodology and proposed schedule for the update:
• Staff requested comments.
C. Focus Areas
• Interstate interchange policy
• Industrial land designations
• Capacity for development in the Development Areas and expansion area requests
• Rural land use
• Urban agriculture
• General land use and transportation for Neighborhoods 4, 5, 6 & 7 (including potential
reduction of the Development Area boundaries to remove the Biscuit Run property)
As with the Crozet Master Plan Update, staff is not anticipating changes to the County’s
overarching goals in the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion is ex pected in these focus areas where
the Commission may make additional recommendations after study.
In addition to the Focus Areas, staff plans to bring two other sets of changes to the Commission.
The proposed changes are 1) making sections of the comprehensive plan more “current” with
updated information and 2) making changes to the text and maps to standardize format and
reduce bulk. An example in the first area would be eliminating a strategy where action has taken
place, such as adoption of an ordinance to achieve a goal. has been pursued or an objective has
been satisfied. An example in the second area would be to standardize land use colors and
categories that are different among several master plans. All of this information is in the
attachment entitled, “Updates for Comprehensive Plan by Category.”
Staff requested comments.
D. Goals, Objectives –
Plan Hierarchy
• Goals: set direction
• Objectives: guide action
• Strategies: methods of action
All comprehensive planning efforts begin with a set of goals for a community. Albemarle is
fortunate to have a long history of land use planning on which to base land use and fiscal
decisions. Unfortunately, Albemarle also has at least 72 pages devoted to goals, objectives, and
strategies. Some of these goals, objectives, and strategies were developed at different times and
there is considerable overlap. In an effort to remove the overlap and concisely state the goals,
staff has consolidated the statements into the attached 20 page set of goals, and objectives
(Attachment B of staff report). The topics fall into 7 major categories:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 5
FINAL MINUTES
Vision and Core Values
Growth Management
Natural, Cultural, and Historic Resources
Economic Development and Housing
Land Use
Transportation
Community Facilities
In some cases, staff has retained the exact wording of a goal or objective that is in the existing
Comprehensive Plan. In other cases, where a goal is stated several different ways in several
different sections of the document, staff has tried to state the goal in a way that is simple but
retains the intended meaning. In addition, as staff has consolidated statements, it has also
attempted to add statements which reflect County policy but which are not stated specifically as
goals at this time. For example, the Biodiversity goals in the Natural, Cultural, and Historic
Resources section are written in a way, which suggests that the goals are the same for both the
Rural Areas and Development Areas. To better reflect that these goals are not necessarily the
same, staff has added words. Wherever staff has added language, it is noted. Otherwise, the
goals can be found in the sections of the Comprehensive Plan that are identified in Attachment
B.
Plan Vision & Core Values
VISION
Albemarle County will have beautiful Rural Areas and pedestrian-friendly urban
areas. It will continue to be a desirable place in which to grow up, raise a family
and grow old. The educational system will be world class and the County's
quality of life will be exceptional. The core values of the residents and property
owners will guide planning for Albemarle.
CORE VALUES
The residents and property owners in Albemarle County value:
• natural resources, rural character and visual beauty
• existing neighborhoods and neighborhood identities
• a diversity of businesses and employment opportunities that create a stable economy
• distinctive urban and Rural Areas
• high quality services and facilities
• education and lifelong learning
• a diversity of housing choices which is affordable for all income levels
• public safety
To begin the goals section, staff has added a “vision” and “core values” page. A vision statement
and core values has appeared in strategic plans for the County many times. In the attachment,
staff has attempted to state the vision once again and reflect the core values that have been
expressed many times by the community. The Commission is asked to affirm the vision and
core values as part of the overall comprehensive plan update.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 6
FINAL MINUTES
Generalized Goals
Growth Management
• Retain distinctions between DA and RA
• Plan for growth
• Don’t allow new development to hurt quality of life
Economy
• Have a diversity of employment opportunities that create a stable economy
Natural Resources
• Retain Systems of mountains and steep slopes
• Protect water quality
• Have undeveloped floodplain
• Have undeveloped wetlands
Cultural and Historic Resources
• Retain and preserve resources that are unique to Albemarle County.
Land Use
• DA: Have high quality development areas as places for new growth and redevelopment
• RA: Have thriving agricultural and forestal activities in the rural areas and minimal with
minimal residential development.
Transportation
• Have safe and efficient transportation networks.
Community Facilities and Utilities
• Have a safe, well-educated community with efficient and excellent facilities and services.
Recommendation
• Focus Areas – review, provide feedback & affirm
• Methodology – review & provide feedback
• Consolidated Goals & Objectives – review & affirm or ask for additional study
• ONGOING WORK OF STAFF:
• At present, staff is working on the capacity analysis for land use and initial reviews of the
expansion area requests. Staff will be contacting the applicants for additional
information on their individual requests in early August. The capacity analysis and the
additional information will be brought to the Commission in October.
• RECOMMENDATION:
• Staff recommends the Commission review and provide feedback on the proposed focus
areas and methodology for framing the goals, objectives, and strategies of the
Comprehensive Plan update. Staff asks that the Commission affirm the Focus Areas.
Finally, staff asks that the Commission review the consolidated goals and objectives to
affirm or ask for additional study in particular areas.
During the work session, the Planning Commission reviewed the schedule, focus areas, and goals
for the Comprehensive Plan update. Staff requested feedback on the following:
• Focus Areas – review, provide feedback & affirm
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 7
FINAL MINUTES
The Planning Commission agreed with the focus areas for the Comp Plan review as presented by
staff.
• Methodology & Scheduling – review & provide feedback
The Commission agreed with the methodology and scheduling submitted by staff
• Consolidated Goals & Objectives – review & affirm or ask for additional study
The Commission was in general agreement with the existing goals with some comments and
suggestions for further consideration.
The Commission expressed interest in organizing the goals and associated objectives and
strategies under the core value(s) they support.
Staff also provided a summary of The National Citizen Survey Albemarle County, VA 2011 for
the Commission’s information.
Public comment was taken from the following persons:
Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, submitted written comments that he hoped the
Commission would take under advisement. (Attachment A) He thought it was
imperative that they take a good hard look at the process and the methodology they are
going to use. There is one goal in the Comp Plan that he is adamantly opposed to.
Overall, he thought they have a very solid Comp Plan. However, it does not matter what
he or the Commission thinks. In the end it matters what the Board thinks. The
Commission needs to check back with the Board for feedback. It is a laborious process.
They need to take a good hard look at the objectives set forth in step one and then get
step one signed off on by the Board. Then they should come back and do step two and
three.
Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, expressed the need for the
Comprehensive Plan to factor in the defense intelligence facilities, the western bypass,
and Route 29 north of the western bypass. He thought they were a place people want to
be because of the documents they have. They still don’t know how much growth has
been approved and how much of that approved growth has been built. They don’t know
how the building permits line up with what has been approved, etc. They need that
information.
The following is a summary of specific suggestions made by Commissioners:
Ms. Monteith’s Comments:
Liked having a vision and core values – however, some of the language in the vision was
“feeling” and some was “factual.” It needs to stay consistent with the type of language
used and language should be defensible.
Mr. Franco’s Comments:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 8
FINAL MINUTES
Stated that the core values need to more directly relate to the goals and objectives.
Relating core values will further help to reduce redundancy.
Goals could be grouped under the core values.
Goals could be grouped by rural area and development area, though such a grouping
would likely get quite complicated.
Goals should be prioritized and they should recognize what goals are achievable.
Mr. Morris’ Comments:
Questioned what a “World-class education system” actually was – does this phrase
actually add value?
On page 4 of 20 in the last goal – “avoid premature expansion of the development area.”,
he would like to see that in the Pantops Master Plan and Places29.
Ms. Porterfield’s Comments:
Ms. Porterfield indicated that 4 of the 6 suggested focus areas seemed to fit together – the
focus areas of the interstate interchange policy and the industrial land designations and
the focus areas of the DAs capacity for development and the focus area of general land
use and transportation for neighborhoods 4 through 7 (which includes the potential
reduction of DA boundaries to remove the Biscuit Run property).
Stated that some expansion area should be at interstate interchanges – the interstate
interchange policy should be reviewed to include interchange land area.
Stated that having a vision and core values was a good idea – they set the tone.
Stated that in the vision, the portion that said “…in which to grow up, raise a family and
grow old.” It should not imply that everyone will be here from birth to death and that the
last two words should say: “and/or grow old” to ensure the vision is not excluding people.
Ms. Porterfield’s Specific Comments to Attachment B:
Growth Management, “Overall Growth Management,” Goal 1, Objective 5 (page 2 of 20)
– Will a gentler rather than a “hard edge” be better?
Growth Management, “Sustainability,” Goal 1, Objective 4 (page 3 of 20) – Should not
an increase in storage capacity also be addressed here?
Growth Management, “Sustainability,” Goal 1, Objective 8 (page 3 of 20) - Should also
update this objective to reflect the current technology for waste-water disposal/use.
Should specific language be provided for hazards regarding drinking water.
Growth Management, “Growth Management and the Development Areas,” Goal 5,
Objective 1 (page 4 of 20) – Appropriate goal, however should the objective be
rewritten? Does density push the form?
Natural Resources & Cultural Assets, Sustainability, “Water Resources,” “Surface Water
in the Rural Areas,” Goal 1, Objective 4 (page 5 of 20) – Why is the Moorman River the
only one addressed? Needs to be more general.
Natural Resources & Cultural Assets, Sustainability, “Water Resources,” “Surface Water
in the Development Areas,” Goal 1, Objective 1 (page 6 of 20) – Why is Crozet the only
one addressed? Needs to be more general.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 9
FINAL MINUTES
Natural Resources & Cultural Assets, “Sustainability,” “Scenic Resources,” Goal 1,
Objective 1 (page 8 of 20) – ensure that this objective also permits new technologies such
as telecommunication facilities.
Economic Development & Housing, “Economic Development,” Goal 1 (page 10 of 20) –
add an additional objective to state that Albemarle works to bring new employers to the
County.
Land Use – Rural Areas, “Fiscal & Tax Tools,” Goal 1 (page 13 of 20) – a new goal is
needed to state that rural parcels should pay taxes to at least cover the cost the county
incurs to provide services to these areas.
Transportation, “Streets and Roadways”, “Development Areas,” Goal 1, Objective 1
(page 17 of 20) – Just references Places 29 Master Plan – should be more general.
Transportation, “Streets and Roadways,” “Development Areas,” Goal 2 (page 17 of 20) –
Need to also add to provide for mobility and access for police and emergency medical
vehicles.
Community Services, “Utilities,” “Water Provisions and Sewage Disposal,” Objective 3
(page 20 of 20) – where this objective states “Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas
outside of designated Development Areas in cases where property is: (1) adjacent to
existing lines…” Adjacent to existing lines should also include across a street. This
should also be noted as permitted only on a case-by-case basis.
Community Services, “Service Standards” (page 20 of 20) – Stated that all development
area services should be equal and if not we should strive to ensure each development area
has comparable services.
The Commission commented on the information provided and asked staff to take their comments
into consideration in the continuing work on the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Porterfield provided
specific suggestions and provided written comments. Some Commissioners provided
suggestions at the meeting, and other Commissioners indicated they would provide any further
comments in writing.
Staff noted additional feedback could be provided by Commissioners via email or in written
form.
No formal action was taken.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 10
FINAL MINUTES
Attachment A – 7-26-2011 Planning Commission Minutes
July 26, 2011
Comments to the Albemarle County Planning Commission
2012 Comprehensive Plan Vision and Core Values
Good Evening, I am Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public
policy organization covering-the City of Charlottesville, as well as-the Counties of Albemarle,
Greene Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today regarding your 2012 Comprehensive Goals by
Category Draft document.
I will be very specific in my comments referencing the document.
Page 2 Overall Growth Management Free Enterprise Forum believes you should add an
objective to have adequate land available in the development area to accommodate 20 years of
projected growth. This objective would be agreement with current state law.
Page 3 Sustainability objective 2 The Free Enterprise Forum strongly recommends the
elimination of objective number 2. We have steadfastly opposed Albemarle County getting into
the population control business.
Page 3 Sustainability Objective 7 &8 Sustainability is not well defined in either of these
objectives We encourage a better more concrete definition in these objectives.
Page Growth Management Goal 2 Objective 1 Add the phrase "While protecting property
rights," to the beginning of the sentence
Page -4 Growth Management-and the Development Areas Goal #3 reads "Provide
infrastructure and services to support new development" The Free Enterprise Forum believes the
words "existing and" should be inserted prior to new development
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 11
FINAL MINUTES
Page-4 Growth Management and the Development Areas Goal #5 is Pejorative. Rather than"
Avoid premature expansion of the Development Areas" The Free Enterprise Forum believes the
goal should read "Maximize Development Area Utilization"
Page-5 Water Resources Objective number 2 discusses the proliferation of septic systems in the
rural areas The Free Enterprise Forum does not believe there is significant evidence to support
that the proliferation of health department inspected, well designed and operated septic systems
have a negative impact on the rural areas. We feel this objective should be removed.
Page 5 Surface Water in-the Rural Areas Objective 4 Why identify the Moorman's river over
all other surface water? Isn't the Meechum's river and Rivanna deserving of equal protection?
Page 6 Stormwater Management
Objective 1 add the term or mitigating after the word minimizing
Page 7 Biodiversity and Biological Resources
Goal The Free Enterprise Forum takes exception to the use of the word "ethical" in describing
county benefits. We ask this term be removed.
Page 8 Critical Slopes in the Development Areas The Free Enterprise: Forum is a proponent -
for maximizing the use of land in the development areas for development (as referenced on Goal
5 on Page 4) thus we ask for this goal to be reworded "Protect critical slopes in the development
areas that are a part of stream valleys."
Page 9 Historic Resources Objective 2 The free Enterprise Forum believes the word protection
should be removed from this objective.
Page 13 Fiscal and Tax Tools The Free Enterprise Forum questions the use of the words"
negative impacts" and wonders whether "inconsistent with other aspects of the comprehensive
plan" would be a better wording
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 12
FINAL MINUTES
Page 14 Interstate interchange Development Objective-2 The Free Enterprise Forum. Is
unclear how Objective 2 supports the goal' stated on the same page.
Page 15 Land Use Development Areas Goal 3 Objective, l The Free Enterprise Forum strongly
encourages the inclusion of flexibility to this objective.
Page 16 Transportation Goal The Free Enterprise Forum suggests changing the middle line to
recognize the importance of transportation to economic vitality. The new language would read,
“which supports the growth management policy, the economic vitality policy and provides for
necessary Public Safety".
Page 16. Transportation Objective 2 references Vehicular Miles Traveled. Absent a metric to
accurately determine VMT, we suggest this language be removed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review these concerns with you, I am happy to answer any
questions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
29
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 13, 2011
Preparation for Joint City-County Planning Commission Meeting on September 20, 2011
(Elaine Echols)
Ms. Echols noted the Joint City-County Planning Commission meeting would be held on September 20,
2011 at 5:30 at City Hall in the NDS (Neighborhood Development Services) Conference Room, 610 East
Market Street.
Staff provided a handout with the goals. There were several people at the last meeting in August who
had some questions about their process. However, two of them are not here tonight. Therefore, she did
not know if anyone present had questions about the process or the goals. They could use this as a
question and answer session.
Staff would discuss the County’s Environmental Goals as part of the Comp Plan Update and then
proposed having a Question and Answer session. The main reason staff wanted to do this was to make
sure the Commission was familiar with the county’s goals before they got into discussing them with the
city. Their project was to see if they could come up with joint goals. If there are things in our list of goals
that they would need to know more about she was going to try to help the Commission with those now.
Mr. Zobrist said that was a good format. It looks like these are staff’s bullet points. The question is
whether the Commission would like to proceed with questions and make this a Q and A or do they want
staff to make a presentation. The Commission asked for a Q and A session.
Mr. Franco said when going over this he could not find the packet from a couple of weeks ago when they
did a work session that laid out the vision of the county and the core values. At that time one of his
comments was they were consolidating the goals, objectives and everything else that follows. It would be
nice to see them relate to those core values. What he got is that he looked at this and part of the
confusion was really trying to tie those back to core values. It would be helpful to include those in the
packet so they understand what they are trying to achieve in essence. Right now the focus is so much on
goals there is a loss in his mind why they even have that goal. What is the value it is protecting or
improving upon?
Ms. Echols replied that there was some work going on right now at the Board of Supervisors level to
develop their strategic plan. They are looking at the core values. They probably won’t change those core
values. However, they are looking at that and a vision. The ones she had given the Commission
previously were from a prior strategic plan. So staff can do that in terms of getting these things tied into
our core values and the last vision statement and core values from the last strategic plan. She would
email that information to the Commission so they can have that information for a frame of reference.
Before they do much more with that staff is kind of waiting on finding out what the Board is going to give
us so that they don’t have to reinvent the wheel.
Mr. Franco said that he appreciates that. What it really tied in for him was looking at just the
environmental stuff where it becomes so focused in the growth area debate in whether they should allow
different standards in the growth area, the development areas versus the rural areas, etc. It all se ems to
fall out because they don’t have the next step up in the thought or the bigger picture. He had a hard time
balancing how this really relates somewhat to the city. It would be helpful to see those.
Ms. Echols said she would email that information tomorrow.
Mr. Franco noted the other question he had was looking at the Comparisons City versus County. Part of
this would also be not just common ground – but would she be prepared to comment on what they might
be able to learn from the city. Some of it is kind of interesting. If they take their development areas one
might argue that they have a different standard for that. There are places in here that say they want to
maintain wooded cover. However, they have competing goals like the form of development, and overlot
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
29
grading that would reduce the amount of canopy. He sees as one of the goals that the city has is to
maintain a 40 percent canopy requirement. One of his questions would be if staff would be looking at that
as well to sort of provide some background saying this is where they ought to be heading because it
represents their future.
Ms. Echols said one of the things they want to do with our new comp plan because it is not clearly
articulated in some places about natural resources is how they do look differently at the natural resources
in the development areas and look at the natural resources in the rural areas. There are some things that
they did in that first flush of goals and objectives several months ago that tried to make those d istinctions.
Staff would like to approach this from those particular distinctions about what they are trying to do tree
cover wise and land coverage wise in the rural areas and what they are doing in the development areas.
What staff wants to do is find out how important that is to the Commission. Where they are with wooded
areas and that type of thing is they have our tree canopy requirements for commercial developments and
residential developments. They have particular areas in our Comprehensive Plan, the Open Space Plan
and some of the Master Plans that talk about specific wooded areas to be preserved. It is clear that they
need to be articulating that better. However, whether or not the county wants to pursue a 40 percent tree
canopy in its developm ent areas is more of a question for the Commission in terms of the goals they have
for just the reason he described. They have competing goals. She did not think they were
recommending that. She was not sure that was a starting place for staff to make a recommendation. But
if it is important to the Commission and they think that is where they need to be, then staff needs to hear
that from them. They will also hear that from the public.
Mr. Franco said that he was not necessarily saying that they need to be there. However, when he looks
at all of the goals, objectives, tactics, and things like that he did not see their number in there. He had to
do a lot of searching back and forth. He asked what our anticipated canopy requirement is today.
Ms. Echols replied that they don’t have one.
Mr. Franco noted they have a canopy requirement for site plans. He asked what that would be.
Ms. Echols replied that it was 10 percent in c ommercial developments and between 10 and 20 percent in
residential developments depending on the density.
Mr. Franco asked if they have any data that talks about residential development. He understands they
don’t have a requirement. However, what have they seen over the years? It would be helpful to know
what our developed community looks like and what it feels like relevant to that 40 percent standard.
Mr. Cilimberg noted it was a measurement.
Ms. Echols said that would be a measurement that they don’t have right now. They have land coverage.
It is something she thought they could get.
Mr. Cilimberg said it seemed like in part what he was hearing, which Mr. Franco was maybe speaking to ,
is there is a potential because our development areas are ultimately intended to be more like the city for
those same environmental goals for the city and our development area to have some similarities. They
need to understand what it meant before they would say it should be like that. That is an opportunity that
could come out of this process.
Mr. Franco noted it was learning from their past mistakes if there are mistakes or their past wisdoms. For
instance, personally he thought they were coming back around towards our rural area requirements as
they look at the remaining areas to be developed in the city with their critica l slopes and everything else.
They want it to be more rural. They have allowed development to occur close to creeks and sort of given
up on some of the environmental benefits of creeks over the years . However, now they are coming back
and claiming that. Therefore, what should they be doing up front to learn from their past lessons?
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
29
Mr. Lafferty said one thing that struck him is the measures that the city has in there. They say a certain
percentage and it was glaring that they came up with a statement in the environment goals to continue
research and update the Comprehensive Plan for viable strategies for green buildings. That does not say
anything to him basically. He was not going to talk about it right now. He would look at it and research it.
When they contrast that with them having definite measures it made him think that he would like to get
together with the rest of the Planning Commission without having a joint meeting. Then they could sit
down and talk about different issues. For instance, they were talking about where the 5 percent came
from urban versus developed area. They could have some discussions like that. Then he would have a
better understanding being a new Commissioner as of where they are coming from.
Ms. Echols noted that Mr. Benish talked to her about that. He explained to the Commission about the 5
percent not being a deliberate number having been the result of how the percentage worked. They
definitely are going to be talking to them about that on October 11. It relat es to the expansion areas. It
relates to how much capacity they have for growth and all those kinds of things. Staff definitely will be
back to the Commission on that one. They have the opportunity to build in work sessions based on the
topics that they want to go over with the Commission, but also ones that would come up that may relate
to policies. This is an input process. Next week is like the first discussion where they are looking at this
and thinking about questions that they have and information they can provide. The Commission should
ask for that. Then staff can give it back to them in order to review it along with the public input to see
what kinds of recommendations they would want to make.
M. Lafferty asked what kind of information they are waiting on from the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Echols said that is an excellent point. She was just listening to their last meeting. There seemed to
be a question about what our goals needed to look like in terms of performance measures. They are
talking about specifically the sustainability kinds of things that are in the city’s c omp plan that might not be
in our comp plan.
Mr. Lafferty replied no, he was talking about things in general like where they should be going with the
comp plan, and things like the interchange study.
Mr. Cilimberg said the comprehensive plan work really starts with the Commission. He did not think they
should be expecting the Board is going to be coming up with a list of directives of things that they expect
them to do in a certain way. What staff tried to do is convey to the Commission and the Board the things
they were going to be covering. One thing that Ms. Echols did mention earlier was that they expect the
Board will be doing probably in October is completing their strategy plan. That is where they have an
updated vision and statements in support of that vision that they would expect they would approve. Staff
does not think they are going to be earth shattering changes of any type, but they are going to be updated
based on where the Board feels like it wants to be over the five years in addressing some of the issues
they have. Certainly those are things they want to convey to the Commission. However, that is not really
holding them up in terms of the work they are doing.
Mr. Lafferty suggested it might be good idea that they have a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors
to get some feeling as to what they are talking about in this strategy plan. That would affect his outlook or
the way he would perceive the job he has in front of him.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the strategic plan is a five-year plan of the things that they want to be
addressing in five years. The vision piece is much longer term, which is also what should be considered
as important for the comprehensive plan. It is also where they are addressing things that are not part of
the comprehensive plan. They may address things like education, which the Commission does not really
do from a service standpoint. What might be helpful for the Commission, which staff can schedule into
their upcoming meeting, is a review of the updated strategic plan so they can understand what they did.
Then if they have some questions that arise out of that and they think they ought to do something else,
such as a joint meeting with the Board, then they can do that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
29
Mr. Morris agreed with what he is hearing with his colleagues that to do their job they need to know as
clearly as possible what is the Board’s vision and core values that they can then work from.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff can have a presentation to the Commission of that when they are complete.
Mr. Franco said for lack of having those now then he guessed in order to get through this process where
they are starting he would like to start backup at those things. He thought staff came to them a while ago
with 70 pages pared down to 25 pages. With the goal of paring that down even further, he would like to
focus in on that so that they can have streamline goals and better understand tho se goals before they
begin too much of this back and forth with the city. He would like to have those somewhat soli dified in our
minds so they know where they are headed.
Mr. Morris agreed.
Mr. Lafferty said it was valuable to him with the city if nothi ng else so they get more comfortable with each
other and get to know each other. Staff has done a great job in consolidating this and refining it down to
something that is a little bit more understandable. He looks forward meeting with the city folks bec ause
he had learned a lot from them just in discussions. However, he thinks there are many questions that he
has had that are sort of more fundamental questions they are talking about.
Mr. Cilimberg said in meeting with the city there are an exchange o f ideas and learning that goes on there
that is important if they are trying to find some common areas that they want to utilize in their future plans
that people who live in the area can rely on as being consistent between the city and the county. It is very
easy for staff to get a presentation for the Commission of the strategic plan decisions of the Board once
they are complete with that. It is not lengthy stuff. The Board will review that in an October meeting and
he assumed they would take action. Once they have completed that staff will have a presentation so the
Commission can see what that says and think about how that is tying into the comp plan work.
Mr. Franco said in the meantime if they related to the existing core values that would be help ful. As he
reads through this he suggested that they try to consolidate the existing goals because there are a lot of
repetitive goals. There are also things that are objectives that are listed as strategies and vice versa. He
thought they could pare this down pretty quickly and have it make more sense.
Mr. Cilimberg noted the vision statement is something that would be part of the strategic plan. He can’t
tell them exactly what that is going to say. That is one piece. Right now there are four values. They are
really more about how they look at conducting business as a county. They are not about land use value
or service value per say. It is about how they do business and about learning, stewardship, and
innovation. Those kinds of things are the value statements. He thought what they would find interesting
and would want to think about in terms of how they are looking at the comprehensive plan and the work of
the strategic plan is where they are focusing their attention in the next five years. What is it that they
really want to try to address or use as their guiding principles in the next five years? That will inform them
in terms of making sure in the comprehensive plan they understand those things. He did not think there
would be anything that is drastically different than what they have already seen. Staff can certainly
connect the goals and objectives to what they have now in terms of those.
Mr. Franco said he would like to start trying to streamline it more and more each time they see i t. It is not
to change what is out there other to consolidate it and make it more user friendly.
Ms. Echols asked them to look at the packet next week. They might see some of that in more of a
consolidated fashion that will help with the conversation next week.
Mr. Franco agreed that it was helpful.
Mr. Zobrist thanked staff since it is more manageable by having her boil it down to the bullet points. It
certainly is eye opening to see the differences. This is one step in getting on one page.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
29
Ms. Echols introduced Matt Weaver who is their staff person with TJPDC. He is working in our office for
three days a week. He did a lot of the work with the city on getting those goals together.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JOINT CITY/COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 FINAL MINUTES
1
Minutes
ALBEMARLE COUNTY AND CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Joint City/ County Planning Commission Meeting
September 20, 2011
Albemarle County Commission Charlottesville Planning Commission
Mr. Duane Zobrist, Chair Ms. Gennie Keller, Chair
Mr. Mac Lafferty Ms. Lisa Green
Mr. Calvin Morris Ms. Natasha Sienitsky
Ms. Linda Porterfield Mr. Dan Rosensweig
Mr. Edward Smith Mr. Kurt Keesecker
Mr. Don Franco Mr. David Neuman, Ex-Officio
Ms. Julia Monteith, Ex-Officio Mr. Michael Osteen (Absent)
Mr. John Santoski (Absent)
Albemarle County Staff: Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner
Charlottesville Staff: Ms. Missy Creasy, Planning Manager
Call to Order
Mr. Zobrist called the meeting to order for the County and Ms. Keller did so for the City at 5:30
p.m.
Ms. Creasy opened the meeting by outlining the agenda for the meeting. The environmental
goals would be discussed first, followed by a discussion of the “One” Map.
Mr. Rosensweig noted that nothing in the City comprehensive plan discusses preserving open
space within the County. He would like the City to develop goals that discuss preservation of
open space in the County because that open space is just as important to the County as it is to the
City.
Ms. Keller would rather focus on regional links and not dilute the City’s own environmental
goals.
Mr. Lafferty noted that topics such as climate protection, TMDL, and mountaintop protection
also need attention.
Mr. Franco suggested the County look at the City’s environmental goals to assess the
effectiveness of those goals. Paralleling what the City is doing will assist in protecting the
waterways in both the City and County.
Mr. Morris believes the Rivanna River should be discussed more in depth. The river serves as
common ground for the City and County.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JOINT CITY/COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 FINAL MINUTES
2
Ms. Echols questioned both commissions on any lingering environmental issues to be aware of.
Mr. Zobrist believes the shared benefit of the environment should be emphasized, but is curious
on how the City and County can work together to address these goals.
Mr. Lafferty believes air quality degradation needs to be addressed.
Ms. Keller highlighted the exclusivity of the City goals. She wants the City to look into
expanding the reach of their goals.
Mr. Franco mentioned that goals do not protect resources, objectives, and policy do. He thought
both the City and County should address the weaknesses in the plans. By addressing the
weaknesses, the goals of balancing differing objectives can potentially be accomplished.
Without further comment on the regional environmental goals, Ms. Creasy moved the discussion
to sustainable development.
Mr. Rosensweig thought the development goals focused more on buildings than sites. The goals
are lofty and great, but don’t hit the issue.
Ms. Keller believed more focus should be placed on City/County borders where development of
services may rise.
Mr. Zobrist asked what staff meant by “sustainable development.” Ms. Creasy noted the
definition would be left open so future conversations are not steered in one direction or the other.
The discussion then transitioned into water quality goals.
Mr. Franco thought it was interesting that the City did not have language that paralleled County
goals given the common waterways.
Mr. Zobrist desired to see some discussion on wells and the threat well digging in service areas
has on the community water table.
Ms. Porterfield made a point that the City and County cannot agree on water supply plans
including how to conserve water.
After comments relating to sustainable development had been made, Ms. Creasy transitioned the
discussion to Trails.
Mr. Lafferty noted that encouraging regional connectivity is very important.
Ms. Green echoed Mr. Lafferty’s assertion and encouraged the commissions to consider cyclists
and the availability of trails that connect Forest Lakes to the City or Crozet to the City.
Ms. Echols began the second portion of the meeting by introducing the regional land use goals.
She noted that following a field study of City/County borders, staff agreed the land uses were
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JOINT CITY/COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 FINAL MINUTES
3
compatible. Two areas chosen for more discussion were the Rivanna River border, specifically
where Pantops transitions into the City and the Woolen Mills City/ County border.
Mr. Rosensweig was interested in studying the Rio Rd/Gasoline Alley location. He referenced
the Torti Gallas study and how that had envisioned the Rio Rd/ Gasoline Alley area as mixed -
use.
Mr. Morris asked if there was any possibility of rezoning portions of River Road to make the
area more compatible with the County.
Ms. Keller highlighted the area between Barracks and Rio as areas projected for more growth.
Ms. Porterfield wanted everyone to keep in mind the Village of Rivanna development area and
how traffic from the east including the VOR, Lake Monticello and Zion Crossroads impacts
Pantops.
Following the discussion of land use, members from the public were able to speak.
Bill Emory, resident of the Woolen Mills neighborhood, asked that the River Corridor be
addressed, particularly the historic Darden Towe and Woolen Mills districts.
Neil Williamson, representing the Free Enterprise Forum, was concerned about the politicization
of some of the goals listed in the plan. He would like input from the City and County governing
bodies to cast realism over some of the goals.
Randy Salzman, resident of 10th and Page neighborhood, asked that both Commissions consider
greenways as transportation, not just recreation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 1
FINAL MINUTES
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 11, 2011
Work Session:
CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update
W ork session on Demographics, Capacity Analysis, and Expansion Area Requests (Elaine Echols)
Purpose: The Planning Commission held a work session to review and discuss three areas of
importance to the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update, as follows:
1. Current demographic and land use information
2. Trends and projections for future populations; land capacity for growth
3. Requests for expansions of the Development Areas
Mr. Morris noted that this evening he would ask the staff to discuss sections 1 and 2, the overall picture of
what they are looking at with the comprehensive plan. They would then discuss it as a Commission,
open it up to the public so the public can focus on that area, and then bring it back, discuss it, and give
staff any feedback that they might want. Then on section 3 there are about 12 specific items that they
want to look at individually. All of those items will be covered by staf f. The Commission will open it up for
public discussion and then bring it back to the Commission for discussion. The public as well as the
Commission will have a chance to digest this thing in smaller bites.
Ms. Echols said they have been working on the comp plan quite a bit lately more in a regional sense with
the city. Now they are getting into the County’s comp plan update. This is the first meeting where staff is
going to be bringing the Commission background information that relates to future decisions. They want
to go over the demographic information provided in the staff report, talk a little bit about trends ,
projections for population, the capacity they have for growth, and then go over the requests that have
been made for expansion for the development areas boundaries.
Parts 1 and 2: Current Demographics and Future Projections, Trends and Capacity
Ms. Echols presented PowerPoint presentation on Section 1 on demographic changes which will inform
the work with the comprehensive plan. The Commission held a discussion with staff, received no public
comment, and provided comments and feedback to staff.
Ms. Echols noted that Mr. Sorrell had put together a notebook concerning the capacity analysis with
provisional numbers.
Mr. Sorrell continued the PowerPoint presentation on Part 2 Trends and Projections highlighting the major
elements of current county demographics and what future projections were expected to be. Staff next
compared the projected population and need to land supply and resident ial capacity to show how the
County’s future residential need could be accommodated by our current land supply. Staff presented the
methodology for calculating the housing needs of future populations and a capacity analysis on the ability
of the undeveloped land to provide for future residential growth. The capacity analysis indicated that
there is sufficient developable land area on zoned parcels as well as designated parcels on the land use
plan to accommodate anticipated residential demand through 2030. The Commission held a discussion
with staff, received public comment, and provided comments and feedback to staff.
The Commission then had several questions and comments for staff.
Don Franco –
o Would like to see a breakdown by dwelling unit types in the approved rezonings since
2001 that have not been built (expand upon information in Table 6). This would help in
unit type projections which we do not have now. The biggest competition between the
growth area and rural area is going to be the single-family detached numbers.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 2
FINAL MINUTES
o In charts 6 and 7 he was looking for the historic information to get an idea of how they are
doing. There was some value in breaking down the price points.
o Asked how non-residential land area was backed out of the “land available for residential
development” column in Table 2.
o Asked what type of development are we producing now and stated that he did not believe
we are currently producing the higher densities the Comprehensive Plan desires.
o Asked what the metrics were for measuring success or failure in the future – is it less
dwellings in the Rural Areas? What do we use to measure success or failure?
Tom Loach-
o Questioned the development in the rural section. T he 35 percent average of
development in the rural growth area is a significant number since they are talking about
one-third.
The Commission next opened the floor for public comment on Parts 1 and 2.
Public Comment on Parts 1 and 2:
Morgan Butler, with Southern Environmental Law Center, stated that the capacity analysis was
conservative in its estimation of buildable lands. The analysis did not include a look at potentially
redevelopable land or the demand for dwelling units in the Rural Area. The analysis backed out
all critical slope and stream buffer land on potentially buildable land, but the county could grant
waivers to use these areas.
Jo Higgins stated that the density planned when developments have been rezoned over the last
10 years is not being achieved. Rezonings approved an upper limit but did not se t a lower-limit
floor.
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum , said the concurrency of infrastructure is important.
Expansions make sense where utilities already exist or are nearby. He also requested the
Commission to consider how they measure succ ess of growth in the Development Areas (and
non-growth in the Rural Areas).
Jeff Werner pointed out the average persons per unit multiplier used (2.19) is very conservative
and should be higher. He stated that people moving to the Rural Areas are moving to the RA to
be there not to be in some type of country suburbia.
Steve Blaine cautioned the Commission to rely upon on staff’s supply and need analysis because
historically central governments have done a poor job of predicting future need.
Scott Collins stated that if the Commission waits 10-20 years to include property within
Development Areas that is close to it now, it is likely such property will develop by -right and lose
the chance to accommodate greater density. The result would be “leap-frogging” to other parcels
further away from DA boundaries that would result in a less -compact development and utilities
pushed further out.
Requests for expansions of the Development Areas
Part 3: Expansion Area Requests
Ms. Echols continued with a PowerPoint presentation entitled, “To Expand or Not to Expand … that is the
question”, that highlighted expansion area request in Development 7, Hollymead, Pantops, Development
Areas 4 & 5 and the Shadwell interchange area. Section 3 of the report contained analysis of individual
requests for inclusion in the Development Areas.
Staff noted that more up-to-date information was going to be presented for the Redfields request,
since the staff report that went out to the Commission was not correct due to the Zoning Map
Amendment request preceding the Expansion Area request.
They hear a lot about the figure of 5 percent and wonder where did it come from and what does it
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 3
FINAL MINUTES
actually mean. In the staff report it was a matter of things just worked out that way. It has
become a convenient way to convey our goals for the county – 95% undeveloped and 5%
developed. Sometimes they look at that in terms do they want to retain that 5%. The question
should be rephrased more about what they want to have for future residential capaci ty rather than
land area and see how that all works out.
Staff proposed in the staff report some modifications of the boundaries , as follows.
One area to be removed relates to Biscuit Run and the Forest Lodge property for which a conservation
easement has been requested.
Biscuit Run’s Effect on the 5%
• Proposed staff revisions = 298 ac. net reduction in DA
• Leaving 22,113 acres in DA
• Removal of majority of BR still permits 5.0% DA
Currently: 23, 411 / 464,623 = 5.0% (5.04%)
Reductions: Polo grounds (southern end of 4) 85 acres, BR 561 acres out of 5 = 646 acres
23, 411 – 646 = 22,765 / 464,623 = 4.9% (4.90%)
Additions: Whittington 199 acres, 110 acres Mosby Mountain (what is not in already), 16 acres between
Mosby Mnt. & Redfields and 23 acres of Redfields already in lots = 348 acres
22,765 + 348 = 22, 113 / 464,623 = 5.0% (4.97%)
22,113 is a net reduction
Note: proposed to keep the 231 acres of BR in 4 in due to Breeden property & possibility of public utilities
need for BR property for cabins and etc.
Expansion Area Requests
• Neighborhood 7 on Barracks Road – There are three development area requests outside of that
area.
• Hollymead –Polo Grounds Road
• Pantops – Route 20 North
• Neighborhoods 4 & 5 – Redfields, Somerset Farm -
• Shadwell – Rt. 250 East and Interchange with I-64
The Expansion Area Requests, in this order, are as follows:
• Neighborhood 7 – These Barracks Road requests are not recommended because they are in
the drinking water supply watershed.
• Hollymead – This request on Polo Grounds Road is not recommended due to environmental
impacts.
• Pantops – These two requests might have value if improvements to Rt. 20 and 250 can be made
and sewer extension issues are dealt with.
• Neighborhoods 4 & 5 – Redfields is not recommended for approval. Somerset Farm may have
value if the historic, cultural, and environmental features are respected in conjunction with a
development proposal.
• Shadwell – The request is non-residential in nature. (We are recommending further study of this
area after the Target Industry Study and the area will be larger than shown on the map, at least
for study.)
Other Changes Recommended by Staff
• Biscuit Run – Boundary reduction – Rt. 20 South
• Whittington and Mosby Mountain – Old Lynchburg Road
Neighborhood 7 Expansion Area Requests
Morris, Montvue and Ingleridge Farm
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 4
FINAL MINUTES
1. Morris parcel – interesting question, between existing townhouse development, undeveloped
land, and then an apartment complex. Across the street from the Colonnades. To bring it into
the DA would mean a change in the water supply watershed boundary to the west. Understand
the applicant’s desire is for more than a residential use. Staff cannot recommend.
2. Montvue is further out on Barracks Road. It has some greater environmental constraints than
Morris does. It also has an historic structure on it. The request is for low density residential.
3. The third request on Barracks Road has to do with the Ingleridge Farm. It has a few of the same
issues environmental constraints. It is located in the rural areas and adjacent to a conservation
easement.
Neighborhood 7 Issues are fairly significant in terms of a policy shift.
• Water Supply Watershed – (Note: Ms. Higgins supplied information today on the water supply
watershed.)
• Barracks Rd Improvements
• Environmental and historic features
• How far do you go into the Rural Areas?
Mr. Morris asked as they go further out would they be taking everything from the current boundary of the
development area out to the new area. He asked would that all be included in the new development
area.
Ms. Echols replied that it had to be a contiguous area. .
Polo Grounds Road – Hollymead Expansion Area - Neighborhood 2
The request is for a piece of land between the two development areas of Neighborhood 2 and Hollymead.
Environmental Features and Tree Cover for the Polo Grounds Request was described as an area of
steep slopes with a fair amount of tree cover. There are advantages in keeping the forest cover on that
land for water resources. Staff does not believe this one is a good candidate for expansion due to the
following reasons:
Polo Grounds Road – Hollymead Issues
• Confluence of Rivanna River and Powell Creek
• Polo Grounds Rd. Improvements
• Water resources and forest cover
• Difficulty creating NMD-type development
Pantops
There are two properties:
1. Clara Belle Wheeler property, which formerly was in the development areas. It came out at what
they thought was the request of the owner of the property. The owner of the property said she
wanted to be back in the development areas before the Pantops Master Plan was adopted.
However, at that point the Board decided to go ahead and leave the property out.
2. Franklin Farm – Vermillion – They made a request at the end of the Pantops Master Plan process
to be brought in.
Pantops: Environmental Features for Wheeler and Franklin Farm - Vermillion
• There is a stream buffer in this particular area. This parcel has a fair amount of buildable area if
the issue of access can be taken care of.
• The staff report talked about sewer problems. Staff got some conflicting reports as to how easy it
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 5
FINAL MINUTES
would be to provide sewer to both the Wheeler and the Franklin Farm property. That needs to be
researched more. Pete Gorham , with the Service Authority, indicated that providing sewer under
the Rivanna River is not as imposing as it sounds. However, there would have to be some kind of
sewer extension that would take place on each of these parcels in order for them to be
developed. If this is an area the Commission expresses an interest in getting more information
on, staff can bring that back.
Pantops Issues
• Historic Structures
• Need for Rt. 250 at Rt. 20 Improvements
• Potential Rt. 20 N Improvements
• Access for Franklin Farm
Neighborhoods 4 & 5
Redfields Expansion
In a transactional disclosure statement Mr. Zobrist recused and disqualified himself from CPA-2010-
0001 Comprehensive Plan Update Expansion Area Request – Development Area 5 – Redfields.
Staff thanked Steve Blaine for pointing out some problems and issues with the staff report. Staff did err in
the report provided to the Commission. When staff did the analysis, they were writing the report at the
same time the ZMA report was being done. The CPA analysis got behind the ZMA report. Staff missed
some things that should have been caught. Staff wants to provide a more up-to-date report on the
Redfields expansion.
Last week the Planning Commission made a decision not to recommend approval of the rezoning. That
does not presuppose that the Comprehensive Plan decision has been made. The CPA stands alone.
The Commission’s decision needs to be on the CPA and not on the rezoning. The rezoning proposal has
some influence over it because they can see what is proposed.
Redfields Issues to Consider:
• The CPA stands alone
• Open space for use by residents
• Streams and slopes
• Value as an RA parcel
• Access
• Neighborhood Model Principles
• Adjacencies
Redfields - Value for Rural Areas
• Provides a conservation area for animal and plant habitat.
• A rural area stream will be affected by the cross ing; critical slopes may also be affected with the
development.
• Provides for low-impact recreational use to nearby residents.
Value for Development Areas
• Adds units in an area between existing residential developments with old zoning
• Has utilities
• Can meet some of the principles of the Neighborhood Model
Factors Favorable and Unfavorable
Favorable
• Is adjacent to the Development Area and to PRD zoning.
• Near major highway access and utilities.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 6
FINAL MINUTES
• Available land for development is used as intensively as possible.
• Utilities are available.
• The applicant is proposing the highest density on the buildable part of the land.
Unfavorable
• One way in and one way out of this property
• In looking at the potential to connect to the adjoining properties where there is a stu b out that
piece of property is in the rural areas right now. That would be something that needs to be
looked into.
• Sunset Avenue is substandard in design and alignment and not upgrades are planned for or
funded. The additional traffic on Sunset Avenue would need to be considered. This is an issue
to be considered because they have substantial infrastructure in a number of places in the
development areas now.
• Open space/trails that the community has been using will no longer be available.
• New trails are proposed in the area which could otherwise not be developed.
• The community of Redfields would be losing something that is fairly valuable and also provides a
rural area function of conservation.
Staff Recommendation
• Still cannot recommend approval because of the current function of the property for conservation,
slope preservation, and stream quality.
• If the Planning Commission wishes to expand in this area, staff recommends less impact to
critical slopes.
In the rezoning proposal the Commission saw a development plan that was not on the critical slopes.
However, staff believes that critical slopes would still be affected by the development proposal. Staff
would like some considerations given to the amenities that would be provided. Right now the trails
provide a significant amenity to the Redfields development and the trails that would be proposed really
are some difficult trails that would not be the same kind of amenity that they have right now because of
the steepness of the slopes.
Somerset Farm
Proposed Use:
• Up to 1902 units
• 2 centers
• 350K sq. ft. office and commercial
• No dev. Above 700’ elevation
Somerset Farm Issues to Consider:
• Approximately 273 Acres are buildable
• Within historic district; adjacent to Ag-For District and conservation easement
• Transportation improvements needed that would be similar to improvements for which money
was proffered in Biscuit Run
• Water service may be problematic because of the ability to serve at higher elevations.
• Historic structures on-site
• Can meet Neighbor Model Principles
• Would need to provide for extensive preservation on rest of 710 acres
• Current boundary of Rt. 20 forms a very visible edge between Rural Areas and Development
Areas
Staff Recommendation
• Still can’t recommend approval because of the current function of the property for conservation,
slope preservation, and stream quality.
• If the Planning Commission wishes to expand in this area, staff recommends less impact to
slopes. The development rights could potentially be eliminated at the top of the slopes. There
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 7
FINAL MINUTES
may be a good value for getting that for the development areas, again, if they need more
capacity.
Other Changes Recommended
Shadwell Interchange
- Chavan request is for designation to allow for mini-warehouses. There are issues to consider
since it is an economic development opportunity.
Shadwell Interchange Area Zoning
- The old zoning creates some large issues.
- Staff is recommending this whole area be considered for possible expansion area potential since
it might provide areas to meet economic goals and worthly of discussion.
Decisions
• Does the Commission believe expansion is appropriate?
• If so, which areas, if any, deserve more study?
The Commission then had several questions for staff.
Don Franco -
o Reiterated that he would like to see the dwelling unit types that were planned in the
rezoning projects that have unbuilt dwelling units within them.
o Also stated he would like to see how the unit type capacity in our Rural Areas compared
to the unit type capacity that has already been approved in rezoning projects –
specifically, how does the number of single-family detached dwellings we have approved
capacity for compare to what the trend is for such units in the Rural Areas.
o Stated the “Leap Frog” effect mentioned in public comment was an interesting point for
consideration.
o Indicated he liked a larger person per unit multiplier – such as the number Charlottesville
uses.
o Reiterated the need to understand how we measure success.
Tom Loach –
o Responding to the public comment about “Leap-frogging”, stated that the County has
failed to provide the needed infrastructure to support the Development Areas
o Stated that with the large amount of additional residential capacity that we currently have,
we should use this time to better plan for infrastructure improvements.
Linda Porterfield -
o Would also like to know what the number of dwelling unit types are that have been
approved in rezonings.
o Also stated that she would like to know the current number of vacant existing dwelling
units.
o Asked what services the County could really afford to provide in the Development Areas
to accommodate the existing inventory of approved yet unbuilt dwelling units.
Tom Loach -
o Does not support the expansion requests to that are in the watershed area s
o Stated that we need to look at a more micro, community level rather than the macro
Places 29 level.
o Did not feel that any expansions were warranted at this time.
Don Franco –
o Indicated that he needs more information (info he has requested at this meeti ng) before
he would be comfortable in making a decision on the expansion area request.
o Stated that rather than maximum facility, we should be looking at the “practical capacity.”
Tom Loach –
o Stated that with the impact that expansions would have on county services, it was
important to have the Board of Supervisors weigh-in on the expansion request and if
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 8
FINAL MINUTES
there was going to be enough funding in the CIP to cover needed infrastructure
improvements.
Cal Morris –
o If the Redfields expansion request was appropriate, could the DA boundary connect
differently from Mosby Mountain to Redfields?
o Also stated that the Polo Grounds Road expansion request was problematic with the road
issues.
o The Pantops requests appeared to merit further study, but providing utilities m ay be
difficult due to past issues in the area.
Linda Porterfield –
o Indicated she was hesitant to expand the development boundaries without knowing who
and how the needed road improvements would be handled. Stated that we need to fix
the road and traffic issues we have now before considering adding more land area to our
Development Areas.
The Commission took at short break at 7:42 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:50 p.m. and
returned to accept public comment on Part 3.
Public Comment on Part 3:
Jack Vermillion said he was the applicant for the Franklin Farm request and that while he had no
plans to develop the property at this time, he was surrounded by development and when his well
was damaged he had to get a special exception to have his home connec ted to public water. He
said he wished he had never suggested the County remove the property from the Development
Area as had occurred at his request years ago.
Steve Blaine, representative for the Redfields expansion request, stated that it was inappropriate
to consider expanding the Development Area to include Whittington and Mosby Mountain and not
include the Redfields property which has public water and sewer.
Nick Leveritt, representative for Wintergreen Land Trust, stated that they would like to include all
of the remaining land of the Wintergreen Land Trust into the development area (a portion of it is in
right now).
Scott Collins, representative for the Somerset Farm expansion request, stated that the property
is close to transportation corridors and the City and there are utilities nearby.
Christina Parker, Redfields resident, indicated opposition to the Redfields expansion request.
Wendell Wood, developer of Somerset Farms, stated that the property was within walking
distance to a several schools and the fire station. He also stated that the property did have the
ability to connection to public utilities.
Susan Murphy, Redfields resident, indicated opposition to the Redfields expansion request.
Cathy Cassidy, Redfields resident, indicated opposition to the Redfields expansion request.
Marcia Joseph, another representative for Redfields, indicated that the property was private and
the developer could put up a fence if they desired. She stated that the property’s relationship to
the rural areas was important and that it also makes sense to put the adjacent Wintergreen Land
Trust Property in the Development Area.
Jo Higgins, representative for the Polo Grounds Road expansion request, stated that the property
was surrounded by development and there were a lot of amenities that the county could get if the
property was developed.
Jeff W arner stated that the County shouldn’t be considering expansions if it cannot fund existing
transportation improvements.
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum , reminded the Commission that they are the body
that reviews and considers expansions of the development area boundaries not other advisory
boards.
Jo Higgins, representative for Ingleridge and Montvue expansions, stated that development was
adjacent to it on the north and east and that it was suited to rural farmette type lots of 2 acres.
Not including it in the Development Areas would be an opportunity lost.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 9
FINAL MINUTES
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the request back to
the Planning Commission for discussion and possible action. He asked exactly what staff expects the
Planning Commission to do tonight and if and when would these things be brought up again.
Ms. Echols replied that staff hoped the Commission might be able to advise them on whether or not they
wanted to do expansions of the development areas. The Commission has not answered that question,
but has listened to the requests. She also heard from at least one commissioner that more information is
needed before they can answer the question on whether or not they want to recommend expanding the
development areas. She thought at this junction what she would like to get is the list of questions the
Commission wants answers for and then they will bring back the answers to them and they can advise
staff on how they want to deal with the expansion area requests.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff has a feel for when that would happen. She thought that for the people who
came to speak from some of the areas that it would help if they had a clue. It did not have to be a specific
date, but whether staff was talking about a few months or three weeks.
Ms. Echols noted as she made a list of the questions the Commission wants answers for she thinks they
need to look at how much time that will take to get those answers. The information she heard that the
Commission asked for is as follows:
1. Information on the housing mix that is on the market in relation to the hole.
2. How well the zoning is maxing out its density.
3. A matrix on the mix of units that have been approved by a rezoning (Table 6).
4. Something that is more up to date on the rural area capacity,
5. The type of density that is being achieved in Charlotesville.
6. The single-family detached housing in the rural areas versus the development areas broken down
by value, if possible.
7. Several minor changes in the tables suggested by Mr. Lafferty.
8. What the metrics are for measuring success of our policies or plans.
9. How well the County is providing the amenities to the current development areas where the
problems are currently that are not being addressed. Specific areas would be as far as
transportation, the numbers of police, etc. The Commission wanted to know what infrastructure
improvements are needed just to serve the developments that already exist. The big question is
the infrastructure on any of the 12, or possibly 13, expansion requests.
Ms. Echols asked if she missed anything.
Mr. Franco said the only thing he was still looking for would be in staff’s opinion how they would measure
or what are the metrics for measuring success of our policies or plans. He asked if it was the number of
units in the rural area, the amount of acreage lost to development in the rural areas or density that they
achieve in the growth areas. What are the future metrics?
Ms. Echols replied that those are the things that the Livability Project is working on.
Mr. Franco said that is something they need to be considering during their project as well.
Ms. Echols agreed.
Ms. Porterfield added also how well the County is providing amenities to the current development areas
where there are problems that are not being addressed. Specific areas could be as far as transportation
goes, the numbers of police, and do they need more fire stations. Are there certain things that they are
behind on and what is the chance of catching up on that?
Ms. Echols replied the way she worded that was the Commission wanted to know what infrastructure
improvements are needed just to serve the developments that already exist.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 10
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Porterfield agreed that would be great.
Mr. Loach noted they would have to project out the 8,000 units, too. They have to be included because
they have already been approved. Therefore, they ought to be factored in. As a matter of fact, they
should probably factor in the 35 percent expected in the rural area on top of that if that is the current
average. Irrespective whether are not it is supposed to be there they will be there and will have an impact
on the roads and infrastructure.
Mr. Morris said that infrastructure is the big question for any of the 12 or 13 expansion requests.
Mr. Franco asked staff to speak briefly on the overall big process. He heard people asking where they
were going from here. He knows it is a slow process and not a decision that is going to be made this
month or year. He asked staff to explain in general that timeline.
Ms. Echols replied that their goal in CPA-2013-1 is to have something to the Board of Supervisors by
January, 2013 that they could potentially adopt. This is a very small piece of the whole.
Mr. Morris asked for staff’s benefit that the Commission go down the list by areas and get a sense of
where the Commission is right now on how strong they feel they should be looking further at areas in NH
7.
- The Planning Commission discussed and did not support expansions areas in Neighborhood 7.
One question was how the Western Bypas would affect this area.
- The Planning Commission did not support the Polo Grounds Road expansion.
Mr. Morris asked for thoughts on Pantops that included Franklin and the Wheeler area.
Mr. Franco said that he did not have strong feelings on either one.
Ms. Porterfield said she was scared to death to have anything else that is going through Pantops right
now. The Village of Rivanna Master Plan is written saying that they have to do something with Route
250. This is part of Route 250 essentially.
Mr. Smith said he did not know how much development could be done on the Franklin property by right.
Mr. Morris replied that he thought it was five.
Ms. Echols replied she did not know since it depends on how many development rights are in that area.
Mr. Smith noted that the owner is not interested in doing the development himself, but just wanted it
included. He was in favor of including Franklin.
Mr. Morris said as far as the Wheeler property was concerned, it was in there in the beginning and could
be put back in. It is not needed. As far as the Franklin property, they heard Mr. Vermillion say why he
wants to include it.
Mr. Loach said that he was against including Franklin and Wheeler properties.
Mr. Lafferty supported the Franklin property.
Mr. Morris advanced to Neighborhoods 4 and 5, which was Redfields and the Sommerset Farm.
Mr. Franco questioned what the benefit is. He thought that the staff report to date has said Sommerset
has a lot of advantages and disadvantages. He thought it warrants additional study. He thought
Redfields warrants additional study, but he could not support the density that was proposed last time in
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 11
FINAL MINUTES
the location within the neighborhood and everything else. There was to o much density proposed at the
back of the subdivision. He thought something back there with less of an impact that provides final
resolution to that privately owned land would be a benefit to the community.
Ms. Porterfield suggested Sommerset Farm because it offers both residential and commercial with two
centers that it be moved into the study of the interchanges because it does have interchange access .
Along with that she recommended that the Chavan property in the Scottsville District move into the
interchange section. She thought they both were partially commercial or all commercial in the Chavan
case, and it would be more logical to discuss them k nowing that the applications were not totally
residential. She could not support the Redfield proposal.
Mr. Smith said that Sommerset has a lot potential. He did not like the gross numbers that were there
since he felt it was too much. It depends on what the plan does. The utilities are in proximity. If not, they
make pumps and water tanks. He cannot support the Redfields proposal.
Mr. Morris and Mr. Loach both said they have no support.
Mr. Lafferty said they were basically talking about further study on Sommerset Farm. His position has not
changed on Redfields in non-support.
Mr. Morris noted that he assumed with Shadwell they were taking a look at that with the interchange.
Ms. Porterfield said if everyone agreed she felt Shadwell was logical and made sense to be studied with
the interchanges.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out he would not put Sommerset in the interchange study.
Ms. Porterfield replied that she was just saying that since it has commercial in it.
Mr. Lafferty said that it should be independent.
Ms. Porterfield noted it should go with the majority.
Mr. Loach understood with the interchange the commercial was supposed to be low impact and not using
water and sewer. It was for low employment centers and mostly for parking, etc.
Mr. Cilimberg said the way the interchange was described in the economic development plan and
priorities in the economic vitality action plan was to view them where public utilities were not available as
potential areas to support rural agricultural or supp lement with potential rural industrial type of use. In this
case he thought they have little different circumstance. In this interchange because there is public water
it is directly adjacent to the development area. So there are areas including the Chavan property that
may actually merit some look as they relate to the development area as well as the interchange. It is a
little different circumstance than the other interchanges that they are going to be looking at as part of the
Interstate Interchange Policy.
Ms. Porterfield said that it also does not say that they can’t look at the interchanges a little bit differently,
too. Obviously, they are a bit down the pike from having started that process. They are also looking at
another financial problem for the County and are already saying that they are not going to meet the
budgetary amount they need again and are going to have to do some cutbacks. It makes sense to start
looking at interchanges as potential areas to bring businesses that could generate i ncome for the County
other than just property tax. The reason she suggests Sommerset Farm is because it has an interchange
that serves it. That is why it might be something they might want to look at both ways at that point.
Mr. Morris asked staff does that help at all.
Ms. Echols replied that it all depends. There was at least one Commissioner supporting everything
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 12
FINAL MINUTES
except Ingleridge and Montvue. She did not know what to do with that. She did not know if that means
that everything but Montvue and Ingleridge there should be further study on that or if there was some kind
of majority that was being taken here that would suggest that they only go with what the majority wants.
Mr. Loach pointed out this was a question first for the Board of Supervisors to give us some direction
where they should consider expansion in view of the financial status of the County. This is going to add
on to that financial obligation. As far as infrastructure do they have money for roads, what is the future of
the road, and what does the six-year plan look like. He thought they need some information before he
was willing to consider the expansions.
Ms. Porterfield said her personal opinion is they don’t need any more residential right now. She was
basically saying she could live without all of the residential applications. The only two she suggested
moving forward were because they have opportunity for commercial. That is a whole different ballgame
than simply talking about property tax. She thought that they have p lenty of residential right now.
Somebody mentioned the fact that they need to make a decision as to what they really need. As Mr.
Franco said before, what they may really need are bigger parcels in the development area so that they
can figure out how to get people who might move into the rural area to stay in the development area.
That is a whole different ballgame than anything that is being offered to the Commission tonight.
Mr. Morris asked if there was anything else. He thought Ms. Porterfield hit it right on the head. It seems
that those people who had requested inclusion into the development area need a fair hearing from his
point of view. However, he would agree that based upon the figures they don’t need any more residential
at this particular time or probably for the next five to ten years.
Ms. Echols asked if the Commission was saying that all but those two they should bring back additional
information on, or did the Commission want to vote on whether or not they would bring additional
information back for any on the list.
Ms. Porterfield said she was willing to put a motion on the table.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved that based on the information provided by staff the County does not need
any more residential development at this point and for at least five additional years, they do not need to
study these applications anymore.
Mr. Loach seconded the motion.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that they go back to the list so they were clear. When they say these
applications are they referring to the five bullets in the presentation. He asked if it was the first four
bullets basically.
Ms. Porterfield replied that was correct that it was the first four bullets.
Mr. Morris noted that a motion and second was on the floor. He asked for discussion.
Mr. Franco said he was still nervous about making a decision without having the final data. He was
concerned that single-family detached may be a hole in the analysis at this point. He would like to see
that before everything is thrown out.
Mr. Lafferty asked to give Mr. Franco what he wants on how much delay are they talking about to have a
refinement in the figures.
Ms. Echols asked Mr. Franco if he was saying that he wants to see the metrics on the mix of units that
have been approved by a rezoning and something in relation to the rural areas, the demand in the rural
areas for single-family detached versus in the development areas how much supply they are providing
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 13
FINAL MINUTES
right now for detached
Mr. Franco replied yes that it was along those lines that they keep talking about the projects in the
pipeline. It would be looking at those and figuring out what that product mix is so they can better
understand what is coming down the pipeline as far as single-family detached goes. Then they can sit
down and look at what the past needs have been , which starts to tell him whether there is an adequate
supply of that or not.
Mr. Cilimberg reiterated that Mr. Franco’s interest there is to really have a feel for whether they have
enough opportunity for single-family detached in the planning period. He asked if that was really what he
was trying to get at since the market, as they know, is also changing. It is not what it was five or ten years
ago.
Mr. Franco replied yes, which was part of what Mr. Loach was asking for as far as the price points.
Mr. Loach said what he was trying to discern is why people are buying in the rural area versus in the
development area and be able to say in those two acre lots within certain price points. Then they could
see if there is anything they can do as far as changing them. He understands what he is saying as far as
in the growth area, but wondered in the 8,000 units how many would be single-family homes. With that
said he was not sure how they would extract out of that equation the change in market towards the
different types.
Mr. Franco thought they would get the stand alone in what he is asking for. They need the information
Mr. Loach was asking for as well or they have to make some assumptions about that. Right now he
does not have a good idea how many of those 8,000 units they have been talking about tonight are
single-family detached versus multi-family or townhouse. He thought the biggest competition for the rural
area house is a single-family detached house in the growth area. The percentage is changing, but that is
still the bigger component. Therefore, he would like to know how many of those are in the pipeline.
Mr. Morris asked Ms. Porterfield if she would entertain a motion to table her motion until this information is
gained.
Ms. Porterfield asked when they can get it. She asked if another work session is scheduled for this.
Ms. Echols replied that she did not have that information right now. The initial information on what is the
breakdown by unit on what has been rezoned won’t take long. That could be done in a couple of days.
Staff could probably get something out to the Commission in two weeks. As far as the price points that is
questionable.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out staff does not actually track that information.
Mr. Loach said he thought it was interesting what Mr. Franco was asking for. He did not think it changes
the equation overall what is available. It may give them some information on ways they may be able to
look at rural area development and make some impact on it within the growth area. But, he did not think
it was going to drastically change the capacity now as Ms. Porterfield said for five and possibly ten years.
He would recommend Ms. Porterfield go ahead with the resolution.
Mr. Smith said he would not support Ms. Porterfield’s motion because for five to ten years down the road
they certainly can’t ask these people to sit on their hands for that time period. He did not think any of
them knew the answer.
Ms. Porterfield suggested they vote on the motion. In reading the staff report it made her realize they
have more approved than they need. They may have gotten the wrong things approved. However, that
is the developer’s responsibility to then come back in and say they need to change what they asked for
because it was not selling and he wanted to do this or that. But to sit here and spend time and make the
residents of this County keep coming back to either support or fight a particular application that at this
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 14
FINAL MINUTES
point they really don’t need, she has problems with that. Not only do they not need it, but she is really
afraid that they can’t afford what they have already got. All they are going to do is lower the quality of life
of the people who live in Albemarle County, as Mr. Loach said. Based on that, she would ask to call the
question.
Mr. Morris asked that the motion be repeated.
Ms. Porterfield said the motion was that they do no further study on any of the expansion area request s
except for the Shadwell one that will move into the Interchange Study.
The roll was called.
Mr. Lafferty voted aye. Given the report, which is an excellent report, he believed that they don’t need to
have any further expansion.
Mr. Loach vote aye.
Mr. Morris voted aye.
Mr. Smith vote no.
Ms. Porterfield voted aye.
Mr. Franco voted no. W ithout an understanding of the product types that are in the pipeline, he can’t
support the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:2. (Franco and Smith voted nay.)
In summary the following action was taken:
Vice-Chairman Morris polled each member on the expansion requests to the 5 areas discussed tonight
(DA 7, Hollymead, Pantops, DAs 4 & 5, and the Shadwell interchange) and each member was given an
opportunity to explain their position on the expansion requests. Following this discussion, a motion was
made:
Ms. Porterfield moved to not consider the proposed residential expansions to DA 7, Hollymead,
Pantops, Development Areas 4 & 5 at this time due in part to the large existing supply of
residential capacity that is currently available in the Development Areas. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Loach.
Vote:
Aye: Morris, Lafferty, Loach, and Porterfield. Nay: Franco and Smith.
Mr. Cilimberg asked to add information on this year’s CIP submittal for the benefit of Mr. Loach’s
question. This year’s CIP submittals were not just a maintenance and replacement CIP. They actually
given the opportunity to request the needs they thought existed based on our development and our future
potential development. Not only was it a five-year CIP request, but it was a second five years of capital
needs requests. So this particular CIP is going to be going through an analysis that is a little different than
it has been for several years based on what are anticipated to be the real needs in the five to ten year
period. How that shakes out in terms of the review and ultimately how the Board decides is yet to be
seen. But, he thinks in this case they will have more of an indication of what kinds of project needs are
out there based on our plans, based on our deficiencies and based on what they expect needs to be.
That is not only for requests they made as community development, but also from other departments.
Mr. Loach noted that was his premise before that maybe this should go to the Board and let them tell us
within the context of this new and upcoming CIP.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 11, 2011 15
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Cilimberg noted they won’t actually have that until next year. The answers to the question that might
come from the Board really won’t come until the budget process is done.
Mr. Loach noted that they have to deal with what they have currently.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out he just wanted to let the Commission know what was coming. He thought there
would be a work session with the Commission in January just to inform them on how those requests were
moving forward.
Mr. Franco said there has also been a potential change in the funding strategies as well. He thought that
there was a two million dollar reserve previously that was lowered and they were encouraged to look at
some other funding sources.
Mr. Cilimberg said there have been a variety of revenue considerations. He did not think any d efinitive
decisions have been made. That will also happen as part of the budget process.
Mr. Morris pointed out that what would be sent to the Board at this time is the Commission does not
recommend any further increase in the development areas for residential as represented by the four
requests as shown in bullets.
Mr. Franco asked if the Commission was still going to get the information.
Mr. Cilimberg said it could be pertinent to their consideration in what land uses changes may be
necessary in 4, 5, 6 and 7, which are actually non-master planned areas that they will be taking up during
the comp plan work.
Ms. Echols noted that it would also be important as they talk about the housing section of the comp plan.
Mr. Collins asked with that ruling as far as the Shadwell Interchange was the commercial part of
Sommerset included in that motion.
Mr. Morris replied that it was not. However, he understood based upon what they said if Sommerset
Farm is considered in the interchange location that when that is considered it may come up again.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the Interstate Interchange analysis is based on some distances from the
interchange, which this would not qualify under. He wanted to be clear so not to mislead anybody.
Mr. Morris noted that Sommerset Farm would not be considered since the interchange would be based
upon the distance factor.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff will send the Commission’s action taken on to the Board for their
information. They want to keep the Board abreast of decisions that get made during the process of the
comp plan review.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 1
FINAL MINUTES
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 29, 2011
Work Sessions:
a. Economic Vitality Action Plan Annual Update (Lee Catlin)
Lee Catlin and Susan Stimart presented a Power Point presentation regarding the Economic Vitality
Action Plan Annual Update.
Ms. Catlin noted the discussion was about the first year of the Economic Vitality Action Plan and
presented the following information.
The Board adopted an Economic Vitality Action Plan in August, 2010 following a very extensive public
discussion and review process. Several items that are particularly important for the conversation the
Commission will be having this evening will be highlighted. It is important to recognize how the Economic
Development Policy of the County’s Comp Plan is the foundation of this Economic Vitality Action Plan. It
is really the implementation piece of that.
The stated purpose of the Economic Development Policy is to provide the local citizenry an improved
standard of living and enhanced quality of life, which is really very much what the action plan is all about.
The action plan states very specifically that it builds on existing commitments to growth management and
that all objectives, strategies, and action items in the plan are intended to achieve outcomes that ar e
consistent with the goals of the economic development policy section and all other sections of the
County’s Comprehensive Plan. The action plan is nested within and lives within the guidance of the
Comp Plan. The things they were going to be talking about this evening and over the next couple months
are very important to how this plan gets implemented.
The primary goal of the action plan is to increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues
through economic development by expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of
quality jobs for local residents. The benefit and economic well being first of current local residents and
existing local businesses is part of the philosophy and purpose behind the action plan. The Board
reviewed and endorsed a three-year work plan in November since the Economic Vitality Action Plan was
developed as a three-year action plan. The plan outlines the milestones that are supposed to be
accomplished in that year with the recognition that man y of the things they want to see come from this
plan are much more long term than three years. There are hopefully some milestones along the way that
let us know they are at least on the right track with some of the actions they are taking.
The first year of the plan has focused on several key areas establishing what they would consider basic
functions of a more focused proactive economic development effort , including being focused on
supporting existing businesses, business retention, business start up a nd expansion, and some level of
business attraction support as well. Another key area of focus for the first year has been achieving
meaningful regulatory reform that streamlines processes while maintaining the quality and high standards
called for in the Comp Plan and desired by the community. Those were the things in the first year they
were focused on trying to achieve.
The following points were discussed in the presentation:
• Review Status of First Year Work Plan
• Successes and Challenges
• Review Metrics
Objective 1: Improving Business Climate and Image - By September, 2011
One caveat when she sa ys things are complete is it means that actions are on track and under way. These
actions will never be complete because it is not one of those things they would check and say they were
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 2
FINAL MINUTES
done improving the business climate. They will be doing that forever. However, the action steps that they
specifically wanted to take to achieve these they feel like are either on track or have been accomplished.
Status: On track with work plan, working on establishing single point of contact
Highlights: Listening tour, quarterly roundtables, partner interaction
Next Steps: Phase 2 website upgrade, continued quarterly roundtables , continuing outreach
In developing those relationships
Objective 2: Simplify/Create Certainty in the Development Review process - By September, 2011
▲ All action items in this objective are completed - small business assistance underway
Status: On track with work plan, process improvements are ongoing
Highlights: Development review changes, ARB process improvements for Entrance Corridor
Development, small business toolkit
Next Steps: Administrative and legislative process improvements, sign ordinance
Objective 3: Supporting Quality Employment Opportunities – By September, 2011
▲ Approach for target industry study approved
▲ Targeted business retention program underway
Status: On track with work plan
Highlights: Target Industry Study, Business First, job gains, schools/business partnership
Next Steps: Target Industry Study – existing business analysis and workforce study,
continued business retention
Objective 4: Increased Options for Industrial Land (LI) Users – By September, 2011
▲ Zoning ordinance change for LI uses and Countywide voluntary rezoning completed
▲ Comprehensive Plan update process underway
Status: Several strategies/actions still underway
Highlights: Zoning ordinance amendment work
Next Steps: LI uses, voluntary rezoning, Comp Plan roundtable done and Comp Plan update
process moving forward
Objective 5: Focus on Rural Economy – By September, 2011
▲ Roundtables completed, findings to BOS
▲ Home occupation ordinance revisions completed
Status: On track with work plan
Highlights: Home occupation changes, farm wineries, 2011 Local Food awards,
Winebloggers conference
Next Steps: Monticello Artisan Trail launch, agri-business Comp Plan roundtable that the
Commission will be hearing the results of in the discussion this evening.
That concludes a quick summary of the first year and what they have accomplished with the work plan.
Susan Stimart will now discuss what they have seen in the year end review.
Susan Stimart, Economic Development Facilitator, continued the Power Point presentation. Staff has
done a great job in covering a lot of their successes and positive impacts this year.
New Commercial Development - Super Wal-Mart finished. Staff encouraged them to stay where they
were.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 3
FINAL MINUTES
Expanding Community Assets - Martha Jefferson Hospital opening brought 1,600 jobs and the new
medical offices opening on Pantops.
Leveraging Outside Resources - Micro Ware project where they were able to leverage state and grant
resources to help with the expansion of that project with their own economic opportunity fund. Also, 100
new jobs created in the old Comdial building.
Regulatory Reform – Items accomplished during this year with regard to improving the process without
lowering the standards or quality such as the New ARB procedures and the County signage work. They
are looking forward to administrative processes changes that are underway.
Expansion of Career Ladder Jobs
Year in Review – Challenges
Lack of Available Product - This was heard at yesterday’s Industrial Roundtable. Staff has done a
good job of filling our vacant industrial buildings. However, that means they don’t have a lot of
options for future growth and expansion activities. That is something they need to keep an eye
on what they can do to improve that.
• Researching needs of businesses and identifying options, will be informed by the target
industry study
Stagnant Economy
• Difficult to overcome macro trends, positioning ourselves to be opportunistic as
conditions improve
Competitive Environment
• Peer communities offering aggressive incentives, raising expectations
Job Losses
• Despite improving unemployment rate, have lost local jobs due to closures
Staff reviewed metrics they are now tracking on a quarterly and annual basis, as follows.
Albemarle County Economic Vitality Indicators (October 5, 2011)
Quarterly Data Time Periods Annual Change
Tax Revenue
*Sales Tax Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 + 6.6%
Hotel/Motel Tax Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 + 11.8%
Meals Tax Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 + 3.1%
Jobs & Income
*Unemployment Rate Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 - 0.8 pp
Total No. of Jobs Q4 CY 09 & Q4 CY 10 + 1.2%
Weighted Avg. Weekly Wage Q4 CY 09 & Q4 CY 10 + 6.2%
Workforce Ctr. Clients Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 + 38.8%
General Business Activity
*Total No. of Business Licenses Q3 CY 10 & Q3 CY 11 N/A
No. of New Bus. Licenses Q3 CY 10 & Q3 CY 11 N/A
Small Business Dev. Ctr. Clients Q1 CY 10 & Q1 CY 11 + 4
Small Business Dev. Ctr. Training Participants Q1 CY 10 & Q1 CY 11 + 5
Real Estate Market
No. of Single Family Homes for Sale Q3 CY 10 & Q3 CY 11 - 2.2%
Mo. Avg. No. of Single Family Homes Sold Q3 CY 10 & Q3 CY 11 - 7.0%
*No. Mos. Supply Single Family Homes for Sale Q3 CY 10 & Q3 CY 11 + 0.58 Mos.
FHFA Price Index for the C-Ville MSA Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 - 5.6%
Resid. Forecl. Rate per 10,000 Properties Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 N/A
Commercial Vacancy Rate -- No Data Reported
Development Activity
*$ Value of New Commercial Bldg. Permits Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 - 48.2%
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 4
FINAL MINUTES
$ Value of New Residential Bldg. Permits Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 - 2.4%
No. of New Residential Bldg. Permits Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 - 5.4%
Agricultural Economy
Wine Production (Liters Subj. to Excise Tax) Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 +41.6%
Private Sectors Jobs as % of Total Jobs CY 2009 & CY 2010 - 0.7 pp
Total Assessed Value of Taxable Real Property CY 2010 & CY 2011 - 0.8%
Commercial Zoning Clearances CY 2009 & CY 2010 - 10.9%
BPOL Tax Revenue FY 2010 & FY 2011 - 1.0%
Machinery & Tools Tax Revenue FY 2010 & FY 2011 - 22.5%
Resid. & Non-Residential R.E. Tax Split FY 2010 & FY 2011 No Change
The indicators that are showing growth includes sales tax, motel tax, and meals tax. From the second
quarter of 2010 and second quarter of 2011 they actually saw the un employment rate go down very
slightly. Work Force Center clients went up from where staff was tracking before. Part of that could be
attributed to a greater awareness of the facility. The center has been promoted and they have done a lot
more outreach. The center has become an important resource for our community. It is a one stop for
both job seekers and employers who are trying to figure out how to access some of the different
incentives.
The total number of new business licenses staff is saying tha t data is not available. However, that is
because they had to have a starting point. They were not collecting the number of new business licenses
from quarter to quarter. By end of this year they should have a good starting point for comparing year to
year.
The small business development center is another important metric. They provide grant funding to that
federal program and are continuing to seek as many as possible to provide guidance.
The real estate data is difficult to capture. The number of homes has gone down, but they have seen the
numbers in the month supply go up slightly. It is difficult to gage exactly where the real estate market is
headed from the numbers and combined information.
Looking at the value of new commercial building permits, staff found that went down pretty significantly.
However, that is reflective of the Martha Jefferson project being a really big project that was finished with
the building permit process in the prior year. That had a big impact on the data.
The last metric is the wine production. Staff is using that as a proxy because unfortunately USDA has cut
funding, which went to the State of Virginia for a really great publication used in years past called the
Grape Report. It was a state wide report of grape production in the different counties. They are able to
see every year that Albemarle County’s grape production is going up. This is the next best resource for
staff, which comes from the ABC tax on farm wineries product, which is an excise tax that they pay.
Additional indicators include annual data on employment. As noted, private sector jobs went down
slightly as a percentage of total jobs. That is an important metric for staff to gage as they are a university
based economy. They want to make sure they are still out there and trying to promote private sector jobs
to the extent that they can.
They saw a slight dip in commercial zoning clearances. It is hard to really make a generalization about
that going from one year to the next. Regarding Machinery, Tools and Tax Revenue staff will need to see
what happens next year. Staff tracks the ratio of residential tax revenue between residential property as
well as commercial property. At this point there has been no change in that ratio.
The next chart shows the unemployment trends going back to 2007. In 2011 there is a slight dip in
unemployment. Right now in 2011 it is at 5.1 percent, which means they have about 51,948 folks
employed by September and 2,008 unemployed. Private sectors jobs are a percentage of total jobs,
which goes back to 1991, which shows that the ratio is pretty consistent.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 5
FINAL MINUTES
Staff reviewed the following information in the Power Point presentation:
- Total assessed value of taxable real property in Albemarle County (CY 2007- FY2011) – This is
the largest basis of the county’s revenue for paying for services. They are seeing a slight dip
from 2010 to 2011.
- Hotel/Motel tax revenue – The chart shows this revenue has gone up. The same is true for Meals
Tax Revenue.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff from Commissioners.
Mr. Lafferty questioned the accuracy of the 15 percent decrease in homes and real estate taxes. His
assessed value has gone down much more than the percentage she indicated. He did not think these
numbers really reflect what he has been reading in the newspaper. His understanding is that it has gone
down a lot more than 15 percent.
Ms. Catlin noted this is also commercial and everything wrapped in. It is not just residential. Staff can get
back to the Commission with more detail on it.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that new construction gets added to the tax rolls.
Ms. Porterfield questioned if it includes the Martha Jefferson Hospital.
Ms. Stimart said staff will get back to the Commission on that.
Mr. Morris said on the number of business licenses he understands staff does not have it now by quarter.
He asked if staff had the total for A and B type business licenses.
Ms. Stimart replied that staff does not have the last quarter 2010 to the last quarter of 2011 comparison.
At the fourth quarter of 2010 they were at 39 business licenses. At the third quarter of 2011 they were at
64. Those quarters are not exactly comparable because one is reflective of the Christmas holiday season
and the other more of the fall period. She has data running from January to October of this year, which
shows a total of 232 business licenses. The business licensing process is different in the county and city
and hard to compare.
Mr. Morris noted that many people have a class A business license out of their home. Therefore, he was
surprised on how many small businesses there were in the county.
Ms. Stimart pointed out these are new licenses for the year. There are over 4,000 in the county.
Mr. Morris invited public comment on the Economic Vitality Action Plan. There being none, the public
hearing was closed and the matter opened for discussion by the Commission. He noted there would be
separate public comment on the second work session.
Mr. Franco commented that in some of the pictures or information provided, such as the motel tax
revenues, it might be helpful to track the total sales and what is being taxed as opposed to what the tax
revenues are similar to property values to know whether they are having growt h or just an increase in
taxes. He asked if the revenue increased simply because the tax rate was increased or because there
was a lot more activity.
Ms. Catlin replied that the revenue was increasing. However, that is something that can be shown.
No formal action was taken. Staff will take the Commission’s comments into consideration in continuing
the process.
b. Comprehensive Plan Review - Rural Land Use & Urban Agriculture (Elaine Echols)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 6
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Echols presented a Power Point presentation and summarized the staff report noting the prior
discussion gives some context for some of the work they are doing with the Comp Plan.
PURPOSE OF WORKSESSION
- The purpose of this work session is to set general direction on the issues as noted below and
assess if any changes are needed to the goals, recommendations and objectives in the Plan.
- After discussion, the Commission may wish to recommend changes to the Plan that would
provide future guidance for zoning text amendments.
- The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the possibility of adding a section to the plan on
tourism and to discuss expanding uses in the Rural Areas. Recommendations from this work
session will be used in development of the updated draft of the Comprehensive Plan.
The two parts of the work session are:
A. Tourism as a Goal (mostly in the Rural Areas). The urban agriculture will be brought back later in
this process for discussion.
B. Expanded Uses in the Rural Areas
Tourism as a Specific Goal - Tourism provides:
Economic vitality in the County’s Rural Areas
A link to agriculture, historic and scenic preservation, and maintenance of rural character
Revenue to the County with a limited investment
A way to make historic properties viable
Goals Should Reference These Parameters
Reversible
Appropriately scaled and cited
Minimal impacts to public health and the environment
Viable without requiring increase in infrastructure or services
Recommendation
Add specific goals for tourism
Alternative Uses In the Rural Areas (All alternative uses, except areas of assembly, came out of the
Roundtable held on November 1.)
Transient Lodging
Food Service
Distilleries and Breweries
Special Events
Low-impact Commercial Recreation
Areas of Assembly (Re: Special use perm it requests for places of worship)
Comp Plan or Zoning Amendment?
Staff is not talking about zoning text amendments. They are talking about the Comprehensive Plan and
how it can support the goals that they have for both our economy and rural area uses. Some of the
things they will be talking about would be translated into a zoning text amendment potentially in the
future. Special use permits should be kept in mind and are about whether or not a particular use is an
appropriate use in a particular location and at the scale being requested. What staff is saying is it should
be in the Comprehensive Plan as something to be considered under certain circumstances and it would
likely be translated into a special use permit. Then through the zoning text amendment they would be
providing the parameters that would be reviewed.
Transient Lodging
Bed & Breakfasts
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 7
FINAL MINUTES
Inns that have been used historically as an Inn and are located in a historic landmark identified in
Comprehensive Plan
Bed & Breakfasts:
Part of a home
Resident manager
Inside the home
Limited number of rooms (Five bedrooms can be used)
Part of the reasons they have these fairly restricted measures is they are trying to promote stewardship of
properties in the rural areas and also keep the impacts low. If they have a home that has some additional
bedrooms that are available for transient lodging they are going to be dealing with some similar water
uses, waste water disposal and similar traffic type of things. They are looking at reversible uses. One
could have a B&B in your home, stop operating it, and then the home is still a home. A question has
been raised whether these regulations are too restrictive in promoting tourism and allowing property
owners to be able to use their properties as bed & breakfast or for tran sient lodging.
Questions raised:
•Could the manager live outside of the home? There has to be a resident manager.
•Could the B&B be in a building other than a home , such as a barn? Or, could the resident
manager be living in a different building other than the home that the bed and breakfast is in?
These issues have been brought up. An email was received from Ann Mallek who is concerned that they
may be too restrictive in terms of bed and breakfast regulations and there ought to be some opportunities
to use other buildings on site. Staff has relooked at that and will be talking to the Commission about it a
little later. Staff thinks there are some conditions under which they could be more flexible in terms of the
bed and breakfast in what buildings could be used and how they would be used.
Inns - Bigger than a B&B but smaller than a “hotel”
Issues: water, wastewater, fire/rescue, roads
Historically they have not allowed for new inns to be constructed or new inns to come into existence
because they have concerns about the above referenced issues. Staff had a meeting during the last
month with the Health Department to discuss what their licensing involves. It was really quite an eye
opener to think about the amount of water that has to be used in an y kind of food preparation that would
go along with an inn. For example, laundering the sheets and towels for an inn could create a large
amount of volume associated with the water usage and the corresponding waste water disposal. The
bigger the activity the more impacts it has potentially to roads. So they have been trying to keep those
impacts down. Also, they recognize that fire and rescue service is not at the same level in the rural areas
as it is in the development areas. People cannot expect that they are going to have intermediate fire and
rescue service if they are out in the rural areas.
Questions raised:
•Should inns be allowed in buildings other than historic inns?
•Should inns be allowed in historic structures?
•Should new inns be allowed as solely new construction?
Recommendations:
B&Bs remain by-right as they are
Consideration given for unique circumstances such as “accessory unit” for the owner (potential
special use permit)
Inns in historic structures if appropriate in locat ion, size, and scale, and few impacts. When
dealing with historic properties staff thinks that the Historic Preservation Committee will need to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 8
FINAL MINUTES
be consulted before they would come back with any strong recommendations about how those
things could happen. T hey are worried about making sure that our historic properties maintain
their historic characteristics, especially architecturally and in their setting. They could provide
some good guidance that would help us achieve all of those goals.
Health Department Regulations and Local Foods
Food Service in the Rural Areas - Restaurants
Only allowed in historic taverns, inns, or private clubs in Rural Areas
Issues:
Water
Trucks – Food Delivery (Amount of truck traffic)
Wastewater
Destination
Can you keep it local? They want to promote local food production in our rural areas. However, a
restaurant needs more than local food to operate.
Recommendations:
Restaurants in historic structures if appropriate in location, size, and scale, and few impacts
Unique circumstances such as crossroads community or remote area to serve residents of rural
areas with appropriate location, size, and scale, and few impacts
Distilleries and Breweries
Cideries (hard cider) are currently allowed as farm wineries.
They get an ABC farm winery license and can enjoy all those same rights for uses.
Distillation of grapes might have low impact
Beer production and some distilleries require major amounts of hops/grains and water
Microbreweries seem to need a restaurant. (Note: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator is
present and can answer questions concerning microbreweries. She has done a lot of research in
other communities.)
Recommendations:
Very small distillation operation might be appropriate if product being distilled is grown on-site
(example: brandy from grapes) -- more research needed
Most distilleries would not be appropriate
Most microbreweries would not be appropriate
Microbrewery at scale of winery might be appropriate – more research needed
Special Events
200 persons -- by-right at wineries
150 persons -- by special use permit for other uses
Recommendation: Further Study
Commercial Recreation
Recommendation:
Update Zoning Ordinance to reflect current commercial uses
Assess impacts of commercial recreational uses to see if there is a threshold for low-impact
commercial operations to be allowed by-right
Areas of Assembly
Recommendation:
Identify thresholds where areas of assembly could be by-right
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 9
FINAL MINUTES
Staff recommends direction should be given about new or alternative uses that could potentially be put in
the Comprehensive Plan after further study. If they could find a way to put the parameters around what
they would allow in zoning by special use permit and by right, then the Comprehensive Plan can make
some recommendations without having to get solely into the details of the zoning text amendment.
Currently the Comprehensive Plan talks about the importance of improvements that would be in the rural
areas being reversible so they don’t lose that rural area character or a resource they have. One of the
things that came out at the Roundtable was the understanding of the people there and how much they
wanted things to be appropriately scaled and sited. There was no one at the Roundtable that was ask ing
for a McDonald’s franchise. There was nobody at the Roundtable who was talking about putting in a
Hilton in our rural areas or any kind of a huge operation. There is an appreciation in our business
community for the small scale commercial tourist related uses, which would also need to have minimal
impacts. Finally, the alternatives uses would have to be viable without requiring increases in infrastructure
or services as noted below.
Appropriateness Guidance Recommendations
Reversible
Appropriately scaled and cited
Minimal impacts to public health and the environment
Viable without requiring increase in infrastructure or services
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach commented on staff’s list regarding the appropriateness . He suggested one of the bullet points
to be specific to water quality and usage since almost all of the uses staff outlined in the presentation
were predicated on adequate water supplies, such as transient lodging, food service, distilleries, etc. He
questioned if staff has looked at the density of these businesses to ensure that the character of the area
is not changed, such as the location of more than one winery.
Ms. Echols replied there is consideration for the accumulative effect of a number of these kinds of u ses in
a particular location through a special use permit process. Since farm wineries are allowed by right, staff
cannot restrict them in terms of their locations and whether there are three or four on one road. If there
are other uses by special use permit they can consider whether or not the impacts of more than one in a
particular area are going to be great enough to go over the level at which they are comfortable because of
the cumulative impacts.
Ms. Porterfield asked when talking about transient l odging and historic buildings does staff have an age
for historic or will they go with what is national historic. National historic is if they have something that is
50 years or older it could be deemed historic.
Ms. Echols replied there is a list of historic properties in the Comprehensive Plan, which would be the
starting point. They would determine whether the property has been identified as an historic property or
could be added. The list includes properties with both age and significant architectural or historical
characteristics.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that would exclude the national definition. In other words someone with a
property not listed in the Comprehensive Plan could not have this type of lodging.
Ms. Echols replied that right now that is the threshold and their starting point for consideration.
Ms. Porterfield suggested staff look at only allowing a certain number in a specific area on a certain
amount of acreage in the rural area in order to minimize impacts. She was pleased to see the Historic
Preservation Committee mentioned numerous times in the report since it is a really good committee.
Mr. Morris suggested they give thought to expanding their views on bed and breakfast and allowing
restaurants in the rural area. There are a lot of places in other jurisdictions with fewer restrictions. The
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 10
FINAL MINUTES
competition is there and those businesses are doing very well. It just seems they are denying people who
own property in Albemarle County from taking advantage of the beautiful area that they have. It would be
a preferable place for him to go rather than going to Louisa County and Prospect Hill if he could get the
same dinner. He questioned if that area was on well and septic system. However, they really need to
take a real hard look at whether there is really a problem with excessive use of water and generation of
waste water. He suggested that they expand on this a great deal for bed and breakfast. However, he
was unsure about including inns.
Mr. Lafferty asked if Clifton was an inn.
Ms. Echols replied that Clifton was an historic inn. Currently bed and breakfast are allowed by right. Staff
would be happy to provide the Commission with whatever information they need to determine whether
they want to broaden these parameters.
Ms. Porterfield said right now by right the bed and breakfast is allowed five rooms within the same house .
She asked if staff’s proposal was to look at accessory structures and increased rooms.
Ms. Echols replied staff was looking at accessory structures, but not increased rooms. However,
increasing the number of rooms was something that could be looked at.
Ms. Porterfield suggested if staff was going to have accessory structures it would be worthwhile looking at
increased rooms and possibly being by special use permit since it would be outside of the by right. Mr.
Sullivan had contacted her about the possibility of looking at active farms to see how they could get into
the tourism business. There are people who want to go to farms and spend a certain amount of time. It
would certainly help with the economic feasibility of the big farms in the county.
Mr. Franco said in general staff was on the conservative side. Reversible may include the reuse of
structures as well. If they have an existing struct ure, he did not know it has to be historic to allow for it to
be reused for an inn or some other use. He would also say that the minimal impact statement ought to be
adjusted to reflect what could occur on the site. One of the reasons he supports these a dditional uses in
the rural area is to prevent the conversion of that rural land to residential land. When he looks at water
use if he was looking at a several hundred acre farm , he might look at the potential of what it is
residentially and at what the water use for all of those uses would be as opposed to just saying minimal to
give some kind of appropriate scale. He noted that staff talked about their goal to minimize trucks in the
rural areas. To the best of his knowledge cattle, cows, crops, milk, a nd wood all need trucks in the rural
area. The truck traffic already exists in the rural areas. He agreed they don’t want to have a big increase
in truck traffic and was not looking to overdevelop the county. However, he would like to see it broadened
to make it more feasible for people to preserve the whole sections of rural area land.
Mr. Lafferty said he appreciates the difficulty in trying to structure something like this. When they talk
about appropriate size and things like that he was worried that in the future people might say well we
have too many hoops to jump through and suggest that they streamline this. Then they could lose the
effectiveness of what they were trying to do. He agreed with Mr. Franco that this was probably too
restrictive right now.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out the Board adopted the country stores regulations three years ago. He did not
see where country stores were mentioned particularly in the food service. That was a big issue three
years ago in the 20 percent limitation. He asked if that would be considered in part of this review and has
staff received any input from any owners of country stores.
Ms. Echols asked Ms. McCulley if she had any input from any owners of country stores.
Ms. McCulley replied not recently related to this.
Ms. Echols said the health department during their discussion with staff gave such good information
regarding country stores and food service. There are a fair amount of health department regulations that
have to be met. If there is a restaurant or food service use where they are preparing and serving food
they have to do regular water testing and send the samples in along with all the other regulatory aspects.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 11
FINAL MINUTES
Therefore, there is some amount of that which would be self regulating. Staff had not intended on
opening up the country stores. If the Planning Commission wants, staff could go into that some more.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that staff take a look at that. If it had not been for the 15 seat maximum for the
Batesville Store, it might still be in operation. If they are going to look at restaurants in the rural areas,
they need to figure out whether there is a way to accommodate country stores and let them have more
seats or something like that.
Mr. Franco pointed out the 15 seats was a state health regulation.
Ms. Porterfield questioned what would be the difference between that and a restaurant.
Mr. Franco replied that he did not think there would be a difference. However, they would have to meet
the state health department standards for a restaurant.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Public comment was taken from the following persons:
Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, presented a Power Point presentation and asked the
Commission to take a good hard look at the examples presented in other areas and take in
consideration allowing those types of businesses in Albemarle County. He asked the Commission
to increase the economic opportunity in the Rural Areas; identify and remove unneeded
regulatory barriers, identify and mitigate impacts, grow prosperous new enterprises (and jobs) in
the 95% of Albemarle that is the Rural Areas.
Tom Olivier, chairman of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club and an individual representing a
working farm, presented a statement to the Commission. (Attachment 3 – Statement to Planning
Commission Regarding the Update of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan By the
Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club dated November 29, 2011) He pointed out the need to
cherish and preserve open spaces and the many resources they contain in order to protect their
sustainability. Some rural resources are priceless and need to be protected. He encouraged
small-scale local production and marketing of agricultural products and arts and crafts in the rural
areas. He encouraged staff to support the “eat local” movement. He supported small -scale
tourism and recreational opportunities in the rural areas provided they are done so in a manner
compatible with preservation of farms, forests, clean water and ecosystems.
Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, encouraged staff to go out to the community for
discussion and suggestions regarding the rural areas uses. He agreed with Mr. Olivier they need
to make sure the rural area is preserved and there is some assurance farm land remains intact.
Regarding increased traffic he noted in rural area economic activity there is already truck traffic.
He suggested that tax credits be taken into consideration.
Tom Sullivan, owner and leaser of a collection of farms of over 5,000 acres in the Scottsville area,
asked for changes in the transient lodging so large farms could have some opportunities made
available to increase their income to support and help preserve the large farming operations in
the county. He asked that they be allowed to use their large structures, such as a single -family
home for transient lodging particularly for weddings. They have to become a winery for special
events. It would be great that some part of the wedding party could stay overnight since it is a 40
mile trip into Charlottesville. He has contributed to paving the roads and helped with the fire
department. He was not sure if the structures on his farm would be considered historic.
However, he would like some consideration for the large farms to be allowed to have transient
lodging.
Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for further
consideration.
The Commission commented on the information provided as follows and asked staf f to take their
comments into consideration in the continuing work on the Comprehensive Plan.
Comments in general:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 12
FINAL MINUTES
The current goals for reversibility, scale, minimal impact, and viability without increase in services
should be modified. The issue of reversibility isn’t as important for tourist-related activities.
To assess impacts, a comparison should be made between a by-right subdivision and a
requested use.
Incentives should be in place to encourage owners to not subdivide their property. Consider a
tiered approach for new uses where a by-right use could occur if water usage is equivalent to a
subdivision. Above that amount of water usage, a special use permit would be needed.
Consider approving high water usage using activities on the basis of the Health Department’s
approval process.
Farm-tourism should be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Consider an agri-tourist district.
Comments regarding transient lodging and food service (restaurants):
New and existing structures, not just historic structures, should be available for bed and
breakfasts, inns, and small restaurants.
If there is any preferential treatment for historic structures, a definition for historic structures is
needed.
Allowances should be made for bed and breakfasts (tourist lodging) that would increase the
number of guest rooms and also allow for the resident manager to reside in a building on -site that
is not the same as the tourist lodge. Consider allowing the use of two to three outbuildings for
people to stay as well as five or six rooms within main house that serves dinner.
Look for similar uses that have been successful in other localities and what was needed to make
them successful without compromising the rural areas. Be open to alternative water and sewer
systems that could be placed on some of the larger properties.
Review requests on a site-by-site basis for impact and scale.
Consider allowing use of an existing structure by-right. Require a special use permit for a new or
expanded structure.
Re-look at country stores to see if parameters should be broadened for food service.
Comments on distilleries and breweries:
Consider distilleries and breweries in the rural areas on a case-by-case basis.
Although these uses are high water users, there may be sufficient water in an area to support the
use.
Existing infrastructure may be able to handle the traffic.
Comments on Low Impact Commercial Recreation:
Make changes to the zoning ordinance to “modernize” terminology and regulations for outdoor
commercial recreation, such as zip lines and mountain biking.
All commercial recreational uses in the Rural Areas should be by special use permit because of
site specific impacts.
Comments on areas of assembly:
Develop thresholds for by-right uses.
Special uses would still be important for higher impact areas of assembly due to potential scale
and traffic issues
Comments on special events:
Special events need to be more equitable across the board. It is unfair for farm wineries to have
200 person events by-right but all other events have to get a special use permit and only 150
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 13
FINAL MINUTES
persons would be allowed. Farms with large acreage should not have to be a winery in order to
have 200 people come for a wedding.
No formal action was taken.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 14
FINAL MINUTES
Attachment 1 –
Consent Agenda – Resolutions of Intent – Urban Development Areas – Streetscapes:
1. Zoning Ordinance and 2. Subdivision Ordinance.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT (Consent Agenda Item a1)
WHEREAS, a goal of the Neighborhood Model section of the Comprehensive Plan for
neighborhoods in the Development Areas is “appealing streetscapes” that will “make the neighborhood
inviting with street trees and landscaping”; and
WHEREAS, a key principle of the Neighborhood Model is “Neighborhood Friendly Streets and
Paths” that “include streetscape elements such as street trees”; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment,
awarded the County $50,000 in consultant support services to facilitate designating Urban Development
Areas and appropriate ordinances for their amendment “to incorporate the principles of new urbanism and
traditional neighborhood design”; and
WHEREAS, the scope of work for these consultant support services provided by the
Renaissance Planning Group included recommendations for poten tial amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance regarding use of “VDOT street standards to allow street trees in public rights of way . . .”; and
WHEREAS, the County’s zoning requirements for street trees have been reviewed and
amendments have been identified for consideration that can further the goals and principles of the
Neighborhood Model and Urban Development Areas;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance Section 32.7.9.6 and any other regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on this
resolution of intent, and return its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible
date.
* * * * *
RESOLUTION OF INTENT (Consent Agenda item a2)
WHEREAS, a goal of the Neighborhood Model section of the Comprehensive Plan for
neighborhoods in the Development Areas is “appealing streetscapes” that will “make the neighborhood
inviting with street trees and landscaping”; and
WHEREAS, a key principle of the Neighborhood Model is “Neighborhood Friendly Streets and
Paths” that “include streetscape elements such as street trees”; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment,
awarded the County $50,000 in consultant support services to facilitate designating Urban Development
Areas and appropriate ordinances for their amendment “to incorporate the principles of new urbanism and
traditional neighborhood design”; and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 15
FINAL MINUTES
WHEREAS, the scope of work for these consultant support services provided by the
Renaissance Planning Group included recommendations for potential amendments to the Subdivision
Ordinance regarding “location of . . . landscaping to insure appropriate urban form, particularly in public
road rights-of-way”; and
WHEREAS, the County’s subdivision requirements for sidewalks and planting strips have been
reviewed and amendments have been identified for consideration that can further the goals and principles
of the Neighborhood Model and Urban Development Areas;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good land development practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Subdivision Ordinance Section 14-422 and any other
regulations of the Subdivision Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on this
resolution of intent, and return its recommendations to the Board of Sup ervisors at the earliest possible
date.
* * * * *
Resolutions of Intent – Phase III Industrial Uses (ZTA-2010-00004).
RESOLUTION OF INTENT (Consent Agenda item b)
WHEREAS, one of the short-term priorities of the County’s Economic Development Policy is to
initiate zoning text amendments that further enable business and industrial uses in appropriate zoning
districts; and
WHEREAS, the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan recommends removing obstacles and
expanding options and flexibility for users of industrial land by amending the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in implementing the County’s Economic Development Policy and the Economic
Vitality Action Plan, the Board has already adopted two zoning text amendments pertaining to industrial
uses (ZTA-2010-001 and ZTA-2010-002); and
WHEREAS, it is now desired to consider amending the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to industrial uses in order to reflect current industrial technologies, and to increase flexibility
within the industrial zoning districts while at the same time preserving those districts’ integrity for true
industrial uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Plannin g Commission hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, including sections 4, 5, 26, 27, 28, 29 and any other
section deemed appropriate, as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on this
resolution of intent, and return its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible
date.
* * * * *
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 16
FINAL MINUTES
Attachment 2 –
Consent Agenda – Resolutions of Intent – Process improvements for:
1. Zoning Map amendments and special use permits
RESOLUTION OF INTENT (Consent Agenda Item d1)
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance includes regulations pertaining to applying
for and reviewing zoning map amendments (“rezonings”) and special use permits; and
WHEREAS, in order to improve quality and efficiency in the application and review of requests for
rezonings and special use permits, it may be desirable to amend the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to the application requirements and the review procedures for rezonings and special use
permits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code §§ 18-31, Administration and
Enforcement, and 18-33, Amendments, and any other sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be
appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 17
FINAL MINUTES
Attachment 3 –
Tom Olivier, chairman of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club and an individual representing a working
farm, presented a statement to the Commission. (Statement to Planning Commission Regarding the
Update of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan By the Piedmont Group o f the Sierra Club dated
November 29, 2011 on the following 3 pages)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 18
FINAL MINUTES
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 19
FINAL MINUTES
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 29, 2011 PAGE 20
FINAL MINUTES
February 8, 2012 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
DRAFT MINUTES
An afternoon-adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on February 8, 2012, at 3:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Christopher J. Dumler, Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
and Clerk, Ella W. Jordan.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:01 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Edward Smith, Andres (Don) C. Franco, III,
Richard Randolph, Calvin Morris, Thomas Loach, Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Julia Monteith
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Greg Kamptner, Mr. Mark Graham, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Ms. Lee
Catlin and Ms. Elaine Echols
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Work Session: Economic Vitality Action Plan Implementation Schedule:
a. Target Industry Study Results
_____
b. Comprehensive Plan Update Schedule regarding LI and Interstate Interchange Policy
The following executive summary was forwarded to the Board:
On January 11, 2012, the Board of Supervisors requested a joint work session with the Planning
Commission to discuss the status of several efforts related to the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan.
Three of the Plan’s goals are closely tied to improving the County’s ability to provide appropriate locations
for businesses: Goal #2 – Simplify/Create Certainty in Development Review; Goal #3 – Support quality job
opportunities; and Goal #4 – Expand options for light industrial land. These three goals contain a number
of strategies that are currently underway as described in the chart in Attachment A. One of those
strategies involves conducting a Target Industry Study to determine the County’s best suited enterprise
sectors. Several of the other strategies are strongly connected to the current Comprehensive Plan update
process as part of its implementation.
The Board of Supervisors has discussed whether the schedule for the Comprehensive Plan
update should be adjusted to allow consideration of LI/Interstate Interchanges to be accelerated in that
process. Because Board members recognized that the Target Industry Study is a foundational item for
informing the LI/Interstate Interchanges portion of the Comprehensive Plan update, the Board decided to
delay consideration of any adjustment to the schedule pending the results of the Target Industry Study.
Preliminary Target Industry Study results are now available from the consultant. In addition, staff has
prepared initial background material and obtained roundtable feedback on the LI/Interstate Interchange
elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission will review this material during the joint
work session, and the Board will be requested to provide guidance about the scheduling and sequencing
February 8, 2012 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
DRAFT MINUTES
of the Comprehensive Plan update process based on this discussion. Currently, the complete
Comprehensive Plan update is scheduled to be before the Planning Commission in Fall, 2012, with its
adoption by the Board of Supervisors scheduled for early 2013. A detailed schedule will be reviewed at
the work session.
The work session will be presented as two major topics – the Target Industry Study and the
Comprehensive Plan Update regarding LI/Interstate Interchanges. Following presentation and discussion
of these two items, staff will ask for Board direction regarding the scheduling and sequencing of the
remainder of the Comprehensive Plan update process.
Target Industry Study
The Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development is overseeing consultant work on
a Target Industry Study for its member jurisdictions, including Albemarle County. This study identifies
types of industries that have the strongest potential to succeed and offer the best prospects for "good
jobs," meaning jobs that offer a higher quality of life (security, higher wages, training, flexibility), both in our
larger region and specifically in Albemarle County. The target industry analysis matches locality
preferences, economic characteristics, resources and advantages with general location and work force
requirements for desired industry segments. Staff believes that the Target Industry Study will be an
important basis for strategic economic development that will help Albemarle County assess and leverage
its unique assets to provide economic vitality and diversification and to develop a place-specific strategy
that supports the County’s long term quality of life. Preliminary high level results of the study are provided
in Attachment B for initial review by the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission. It is important to
note that the study is still in a working stage, with opportunity for dialogue with the consultant and the
County’s regional partners to form the final product.
The consultant will present the full report containing the final results of the Target Industry Study
to stakeholders from all member jurisdictions in the next month or so. Once the final study is presented,
staff will evaluate the complete study results and will work with the Board to confirm final target industries
that not only have been identified as most likely to succeed based on the County’s capabilities and the
external environment but also that are compatible with the County’s character and that further its goals,
objectives and preferences. Future steps will involve determining specific actions for directing economic
development energy and resources toward those identified target enterprises.
Comprehensive Plan Update for LI/Interstate Interchanges
The Planning Commission’s work to date has included an analysis of goals and objectives,
residential capacity and future needs, and providing more opportunities for agricultural and tourist- related
commercial uses in the Rural Areas. Work on the LI/Interstate Interchanges is underway in preparation for
review by the Planning Commission, Specifically, staff from Community Development and the Office of
Community and Business Partnerships held a Roundtable on activities, amenities and infrastructure
needed to support business and industry in the County. Staff has also prepared material regarding the
County’s non-residential inventory, future needs for industry and employment.
Goal 4 of the Economic Vitality Action Plan contains the following strategy: As part of the current
effort to update the County’s Comprehensive Plan, include for the Board’s consideration a proposed
modification of the Interstate Interchange Policy that might allow lower impact industrial and rural-serving
uses at those intersections located in the rural areas but are also served by highway access.
Consistent with that strategy, the Roundtable held by staff also included questions on how the
interstate interchanges might be better used to support low-impact industries as well as provide support
for agriculture. The LI material, Roundtable feedback and information about the County’s interstate
interchanges, including their general description and characteristics, and current policy about appropriate
uses, is provided in Attachment C.
February 8, 2012 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
DRAFT MINUTES
The issue before the Board of Supervisors at this work session following discussion of these two
topics is whether there is interest in adjusting the Comprehensive Plan update process as it currently
exists. A schedule of that process is included with Attachment C.
Conclusions
The preliminary results of the Target Industry Study provide important high level insights regarding
the County’s potential priority industry sectors based on initial data and research. Further work will be
necessary by staff and the Board once the final report is presented to analyze the results, decide how the
information should inform our final priority target industry sectors and incorporate that work into the
appropriate areas of the Comprehensive Plan update, including industrial land capacity and interstate
interchange uses. Based on the results available to date, staff does not see a significant benefit resulting
from accelerating the LI/Interstate Interchange work by several months as opposed to the schedule that is
currently in place for the update process. Staff believes that other strategies of the Economic Vitality
Action Plan, including an industrial uses ordinance amendment and voluntary County-initiated rezoning,
would result in a more immediate availability of properly designated and zoned industrial land. In addition,
completing review of the Comprehensive Plan and the potential addition of more land designated for
industrial uses will not by itself make land ready for development. A rezoning of the property that is
consistent with the new designation would also be required by the landowner and need to go through the
normal rezoning process.
To encourage the expansion and new location of priority industries prior to the completion of the
Comprehensive Plan update, the Board of Supervisors could consider some type of formalized fast track
process for projects that provide significant economic benefits while still maintaining the high standards
that define our community and attract and retain quality employers. Used strategically, expedited review
for projects that meet defined strategic criteria can be an effective tool for encouraging preferred industry
growth in a community. Virtually all counties researched tied a fast track review option to qualified target
industry enterprises that meet certain other qualifications, for example minimum levels of job creation at
certain salary levels. The County’s review of a potential fast track option is scheduled to come before the
Board for consideration in March.
There is no significant budget impact associated with this item.
Staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan update remain on its current schedule, with the
entire plan recommendations scheduled to be presented to the Board in January 2013. This would allow
the careful consideration and integration of the Target Industry Study results into the appropriate
Comprehensive Plan chapters. Of most help in keeping the update on schedule will be decisions on how
the Target Industry Study affects the sectors of the economy the County wishes to support and how the
interstate interchanges should be used in conjunction with the target industries. These decisions will allow
for a coordinated effort with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan update.
_____
Ms. Catlin addressed the Board, stating that today was an important check-in opportunity on some
key work products: the Target Industry Study, and the Light Industrial (LI) and Interstate Interchange work
to date to include background material. She said that the decisional item needed from the Board was
whether it felt the schedule established for the Comp Plan update needed to be changed, as Board
Members had indicated they wanted to wait until some Target Industry Study results were completed. Ms.
Catlin stated that staff would also do an overview of the Economic Vitality Action Plan components, spend
some time on the preliminary Target Industry results as well as the LI and Interstate Interchange
background material, review the Comp Plan update schedule, and then provide a quick summary and get
some direction from the Board.
Ms. Catlin reported that staff wanted to begin the discussion in the broader context of the adopted
Economic Vitality Action Plan because, in looking at the three goals of the plan that were most closely
related to helping businesses establish themselves in the County, a lot of efforts are moving forward on a
number of tracts to improve the County’s effectiveness. She said that goal two included a strong
February 8, 2012 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
DRAFT MINUTES
commitment to streamlining the ministerial process and bringing that discussion forward in early 2012
along with legislative review work; the Target Industry Study draft was completed with the report moving
toward finalization; the Industrial Uses Ordinance change where the Planning Commission had a work
session on the industrial uses ordinance change, which rolls into a county-wide rezoning process; and all
of those items lead to the actions pertaining to the Comp Plan update. Ms. Catlin stated that the Industrial
Use Ordinance change and county-wide rezoning will have real potential to make appropriately zoned land
available much more quickly than other processes. She said a lot of these efforts are moving forward
simultaneously, some of them are inter-dependent on each other and need to be built on the efforts of the
other one and some of them are going to have a more immediate impact while others will have longer
term impacts in helping the County achieve the plan.
Ms. Mallek asked where the small technical changes to the ordinance, such as food service, fit in
this long, drawn out process.
Ms. Catlin responded that, on March 7, the Board would see the work the Commission has done
thus far on items such as the rural economy, and Board Members would have an opportunity to comment
at that point.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the Board would also be able to see what came out of the roundtables
regarding LI and HI designations.
Ms. Mallek said she was asking about the technical changes that do not seem to be a priority, and
stated those were the small, quick changes she was concerned about.
Ms. Catlin reiterated that the Board would have an opportunity to discuss that on March 7.
Ms. Catlin reported that the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED)
had overseen the consultant’s work on the Target Industry Study for all member jurisdictions, including
Albemarle County, and the study provided an understanding of industry groups already in the County and
the region as well as identifying those target industry groups with the strongest rationale and best industry
outlook for being successful. She said that the analysis matched the locality’s economic characteristics,
resources, advantages, and specific qualities and put those against the requirements for certain desired
industry segments in an effort to identify the best matches. Ms. Catlin presented a slide showing the
research and data that came out of the study, noting that it was very comprehensive and also included
information about the workforce.
Ms. Catlin stated that the study was viewed as the basis for strategic economic development
choices to help leverage unique assets to ensure the County was focusing on the kinds of industries and
enterprises that would be most successful here. She said that these were preliminary results and this is
still a work in progress, so it was important that the Board work with staff to digest the information and
assess the information in order to put the right lens on the data gathered through the study. Ms. Catlin
said that the Board and Commission would provide input today; the consultant will engage with staff again
in a couple weeks and then come up with a final report and meet with stakeholders from all of the Thomas
Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) member jurisdictions to roll it out. Ms. Catlin
stated that the consultant would then present to the Board and get their feedback.
Ms. Catlin said that the study analyzed existing industry groups in the community in terms of
growth, levels of specialization in the current economy, degree of connectedness to the County’s
economy, etc. She said the consultant took into account the County’s strategic focus of balancing growth
with maintaining outstanding quality of life.
Mr. Rooker commented that there should be a category called environmental considerations, as
that concept was sprinkled throughout the County’s Economic Vitality Plan.
Ms. Catlin responded that that was good feedback and would be shared with the consultant.
February 8, 2012 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
DRAFT MINUTES
Mr. Lafferty added that having a category addressing upward mobility for the worker would be
good also.
Ms. Mallek said it could be career ladder jobs or something similar.
Ms. Catlin reported that the consultants did a lot of research and interviewing but recognized it
was still an ongoing dialogue with the County. She said that the consultant recommended three major
categories of optimal targets, i.e., targets that provide a solid business rationale for firms to locate here, or
existing firms to expand here, or new firms to start up here and also to provide County residents with a
strong reason to support a firm’s presence in the community. Ms. Catlin said that, for each of the target
areas that matched the screening criteria, two additional conditions had to be met: positive projected
employment growth over the next five years, and industry specific earnings greater than overall local or
state average.
Ms. Catlin stated that, based on screening criteria, optimal targets for Albemarle County fell into
three major categories including bioscience and medical devices, adding that the consultants felt the
County demonstrated strength and competitive advantages in this industry group already, with growth
potential generated by the number of startups here and commercialization opportunities provided by the
University of Virginia. She said that the medical devices subset had the potential to create some light
manufacturing jobs, and the consultants felt it was a good category because those occupations include a
wide variety of jobs from management and executive positions to life and physical sciences positions as
well as production positions. Ms. Catlin noted that these targets were expected to experience significant
growth in the future.
Ms. Catlin said that the County’s location between D.C. and the Research Triangle, two high-
performing areas, positions the County well for this particular industry sector. She stated that there was
high relative patent activity related to this industry group, and the University of Virginia’s degree
completions in fields such as biological sciences, chemistry, and mathematics were strong support
factors. Ms. Catlin added that consultants felt this target was expected to experience significant growth,
and potential gain of customers through mandated healthcare, innovation and new product development.
Mr. Randolph asked if the consultant factored in proximity to Richmond from the standpoint of
bioscience and medical devices.
Ms. Catlin reported that the consultants had done so, and mentioned several recent articles in the
newspaper about the strength of this area in that field.
Ms. Catlin said that the second category identified by the consultants was the business and
financial services industry, as the County had demonstrated some strong, competitive advantages as well
as specialization in growth momentum. She stated that there were already 500 or more firms operating in
this category, and they predict an average projected job growth over five years of 17% in some of the
subsectors of this area. Ms. Catlin added that the consultants see strong future growth due to increases
in electronic payments, retail electronic payment growth including mobile technologies, and returning to
the United States of some foreign outsource services because of diminished customer satisfaction and
inefficiencies, with subsets such as financial transaction processing, data processing and hosting, and
third-party administration of insurance and pension funds being particularly suited for this area.
Ms. Catlin stated that the third category identified was information technology and defense
security, building on two large existing federal installations and a large number of high-paying jobs with at
least 10 federal contractors currently, in addition to the presence of large industries such as Northup
Grumman and General Electric already. She said that there had been some concern about the direction
of defense spending and local reliance on that, but the consultants felt the intelligence community may be
more immune to some of those cuts than others and the trend toward moving those assets out of D.C.
into different areas may provide to be an advantage. Ms. Catlin reported that when the consultants look at
new product development, growth in the market for semi-conductors and consumer electronics, and
February 8, 2012 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
DRAFT MINUTES
increased use of electronics in transportation and in military industries, they put a significant focus on
communications equipment manufacturing, electronic connector manufacturing, and instruments and
related products manufacturing.
Ms. Catlin also reported that the consultants had identified complimentary targets that go along
with those primary categories, and serve to boost the attraction to the area, add to the quality of life,
support a vibrant and sustainable community including health services which can support an aging
population and relocating retirees, adding that arts, design, sports and media appeal to younger people;
and are features that help attract people to the area.
Ms. Catlin said that she wanted to discuss the fast-track review process as part of today’s
discussion, noting that it was the County’s goal to provide timely and responsive reviews for all applicants
which is what the ministerial changes and legislative changes pertain to, along with other work being done
by staff lately. She stated that there were businesses that bring such a strong advantage to the
community that it may be worth looking at how they could be put through the system as quickly as
possible. Ms. Catlin said that this approach could be put on a more immediate track than other items
related to the Comp Plan review. She added that other communities that were studied tied their fast-track
review to an incentive in target industry discussions which encourage expansion and location of these
priority businesses. She said that staff would be spending more time on this at the March 7 meeting but
wanted to identify this as a tool that could help with the business location issues that were discussed
earlier in the meeting.
Ms. Catlin stated that some of the criteria other communities were using in order to qualify
businesses for a fast track review process included whether a business was in the qualified industry
enterprise group adopted, and many communities with targeting have those strongly identified. She
reported that other criteria pertain to projects located in a priority area, such as a particular technology
zone or in focus priority areas of the master plan. Ms. Catlin stated that most communities researched
were looking at projects that provided value-added employment with higher wages than prevailing wages
or a particular number of jobs associated with that business. She said that some communities look at
enterprises that sell more than a certain percentage outside of the jurisdiction or serve multi-state and/or
international markets because those businesses bring new money into the local economy.
Mr. Lafferty noted that this also related to available transportation and felt the discussion should
include ways of getting product out.
Ms. Mallek commented that one category not on the list would be a project that was already
approved but needed to have some revision of element in its plans in order to move forward quickly or
gain a tenant, which is a little different than always looking at a business from the outside.
Ms. Catlin said that all of the things discussed today are completely geared toward existing
businesses, expanding businesses, and those businesses that are starting up in the community, as well
as appropriate target industries that the County would want to have located here.
Mr. Randolph asked if the consultants had any comparable communities in mind around the
country, citing Spartanburg, South Carolina’s ability to attract BMW because that locality put the
infrastructure in place first. He said those kinds of efforts make it easier to pitch to the industry. He said it
would be useful to look at comparable communities that have wrestled similarly with this process on a
national level and see how those processes have worked out in those communities.
Ms. Catlin said that would be a great idea, and said the new TJPED president has just started
work this week and has been in communities that have been through this process. She said it starts to
drive decision-making and planning in being able to attract and accommodate these targets.
February 8, 2012 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
DRAFT MINUTES
Mr. Snow stated that Culpeper analyzed what kinds of businesses they wanted to attract, then
brought them in with a minimum number of people and a minimum amount of infrastructure and he said it
was quite successful for that locality.
Ms. Catlin emphasized that a big component of this study is looking at the skill sets of the
employees who are already here, those employees that are unemployed or under-employed and what
could those people most likely do, so this study is really geared at the local community to help people
obtain employment or be employed at a higher level.
Mr. Snow commented that he couldn’t recall the exact figure of people leaving the County each
day to work in a different part of the state.
Ms. Mallek said there were 30,000 people going in and out, but Mr. Rooker pointed out that the
County had more coming in than going out.
Ms. Catlin asked the Board for any comments that staff should pass along to the consultant. She
said the final, full report will be rolled out to all the regional stakeholders and then staff will schedule a time
for the consultant to come to the County to talk about and assess the study.
Ms. Mallek asked if the results would be available by mid-March and Ms. Catlin said yes.
Mr. Rooker stated that, in talking to early-stage companies in the area, the biggest problem they
have is raising money and said that perhaps the Darden School could facilitate conferences in which
outside investors were brought in to hear pitches from local companies. He suggested staff get more
information related to this because, at the end of the day, the early-stage companies need to have
facilitated capital.
Ms. Catlin said that was a good point, and stated that the University’s Economic Development
staff have been sitting at the table for this study and were involved in the technology assets assessment
piece of it. She added that UVA is familiar with it and it is very important to have them continue to be a
part of the conversation.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that Mark Kroll had also been very involved in the Research Triangle Park,
and is another person who is very experienced in how to grow a company.
Ms. Catlin said that UVA officials showed a high level of interest in wanting to ensure the
ecosystem was ready for and supportive of the kinds of start-ups that are being launched out of there.
Ms. Monteith stated that UVA’s Batten School could be another resource in terms of innovation.
She added that, in addition to comparable communities, the County needs to consider its physical
infrastructure, what is available in this region, and access that information from a physical as well as a
people perspective. She pointed out that those issues are going to either create roadblocks or open the
gates, and it seems really important to consider.
Ms. Catlin responded that the consultants did an extensive inventory of physical assets and when
they meet with the County again, those specifics, such as utility analysis, could be further examined to see
how the consultants came to their conclusions and recommendations.
Mr. Boyd said that this was a good initial first step, but what he believes the County needs to
determine as a government entity is to find what its role is in this. He stated that, even though there are a
number of defined issues, it doesn’t mean that Albemarle County has to do it all, adding that what the
County needs to do is concentrate on going forward with eliminating some of the obstacles that might
prevent some of this from happening in the processes of government. He said that is an important next
step, and stated that there are a lot of good things in the study but, beyond that, it really is the private
February 8, 2012 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
DRAFT MINUTES
sector’s place to grow the jobs and the businesses and the County just needs to make sure it is not in the
way.
Ms. Catlin commented that this discussion was all foundational for decisions moving forward in
the Comp Plan update, which Ms. Echols would be presenting next.
Ms. Echols reported that the Planning Commission began its Comprehensive Plan update
process in July 2011 and has been working continuously since then and includes getting public input
through their work sessions, the Livability Project workshops, and the roundtables. She said that, as part
of the land use analysis that was part of the Comprehensive Plan update, staff looked at existing
inventory. Ms. Echols presented slides that indicated there was more land zoned residential than
designated in the Comp Plan, more land zoned commercial than designated in the Comprehensive Plan,
but less land zoned industrially than is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rooker said that, in looking at the target industries mentioned in the study, virtually any of
them could go into the University Research Park, but that land seems to always be left off the charts,
even though there is 3.1 million square feet of unbuilt space there and 300,000 square feet of unbuilt
space at Fontaine. He emphasized that those were the types of places where the target industries would
typically want to be, so it is really misleading not to reflect that information in the study.
Mr. Boyd responded that, at the roundtable discussions, those who were not affiliated with the
University said it was too expensive and too restrictive and added that start-up companies are not going
into those spots and pay the kinds of prices they are asking.
Ms. Mallek commented that it would still be appropriate to have it show up somewhere in the “pie”
of available land.
Ms. Echols said that information is reflected within the pie, and is designated as existing zoned
land of 6% and includes the UVA Research Park, which is industrial. She emphasized that the review
considered land area, not square footage, and there were several industrially zoned properties that have a
tremendous amount of available square footage. Ms. Echols also said that, in terms of vacant industrially
zoned parcels, those available parcels are small except for the UVA Research Park. She stated that the
County needs to have a variety of parcels that are available adding that most vacant industrial land is in
those small parcels. She stated that the voluntary rezoning would do a lot for increasing the number of
parcels, increasing the land area, increasing the amount of land and the location so that some of the
issues related to the small parcels might be taken care of through that action which is already on the list.
Ms. Echols said that, in terms of whether additional industrial land needs to be identified, she said
that they were looking at the economic development policy in the land use plan and, what is decided as far
as target industries go directs what kind of land and where it should be located that the County would want
to designate through the land use process. She stated that another piece of this in terms of looking at the
Comp Plan and what kind of additional industrial land would be needed, is work being done on
neighborhoods 4, 5, 6 and 7. Ms. Echols stated that there is designated land in neighborhoods 4 and 5,
especially in neighborhood 4, that should be looked at because there are three interchanges in that
particular area where there is land already designated in the urban setting that could be looked at as
potentially a different kind of designation and better meets the needs for target industries. She said those
neighborhoods were critical in the planning process, and the interstate interchange information was
something the Board had asked about and is included in their Economic Vitality Action Plan.
Ms. Echols said that one of the goals therein was to consider modifying the interstate interchange
policy to allow lower impact industrial and rural serving uses at rural interchanges, which is something the
Board had been asking about through the Comprehensive Plan process. She stated that the current
policy does not allow for lower impact industrial and rural serving uses in RA zoning districts so, in order to
make changes in that regard, there would need to be both Comp Plan and zoning changes. Ms. Echols
stated that the Commission would be looking at those areas in order to make recommendations, with
February 8, 2012 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
DRAFT MINUTES
direction taken from the Targeted Industry Study. Ms. Echols noted that urban interchanges would be
discussed at a later time, with the focus today just on rural interchanges.
Ms. Echols presented im ages of the Boyd Tavern/Black Cat interchange, Exit 129, noting that it is
a very rural, heavily wooded interchange and, although there are some vacant parcels, those abut
conservation easements, and most of the parcels in this particular area have critical environmental
resources on them. She said this interchange is located far from the jurisdictional area so there is no
water or sewer service available, and it is a very rural interchange with some protected properties nearby.
Ms. Echols presented images of the Shadwell interchange, noting that it would be considered as
part of development area expansion in the future. She said the Planning Commission has already asked
that it be considered to determine the attributes that it would bring to the development areas. She stated
that currently there was a patchwork of zoning in this area, with utilities nearby, environmental features
that pose some problems such as access to the Lego Farm property, visibility from Monticello as well as
its ownership of some properties in the area. Ms. Echols said that the Shadwell interchange would
warrant some additional discussion given those issues.
Ms. Echols reported that the Ivy interchange, Exit 114, is a lot like Boyd’s Tavern in terms of
having a rural appearance and is heavily wooded with significant environmental resources on and near the
properties, especially the critical slopes. She said that access to the parcels could meet standards, as
there are VDOT standards for spacing of crossovers, however, the roads around the interchange are fairly
narrow and winding. Ms. Echols stated that this interchange is far away from the jurisdictional area and
water and sewer would not be available here.
Ms. Echols said that the last interchange to consider is Exit 107, the Crozet interchange, which
has seen the most attention recently due to a request to put properties in the northeast side of I-64 in the
development areas. She stated that, through the Crozet Master Plan process, it was decided not to add
this area to development areas, but to study it in conjunction with the rural interchanges. Like Shadwell,
she said, there is existing zoning nearby and it could be served by public utilities. Ms. Echols said that
visibility in the northeastern corner is greater than it is at Ivy and Black Cat Road and, as with other rural
interchanges, there are a number of environmental resources on these properties near the interchange.
She stated that the entrances to the properties to the south and west of the interstate would have some
difficulty in terms of meeting VDOT entrance separation requirements, and part of the interchange is in the
Yancey Mills Historic District.
Ms. Echols explained that the next step in the process is whether to pull these issues out of the
current schedule for review or keep them as part of the overall Comprehensive Plan process, noting that
the current review schedule is very aggressive and staff is committed to keeping it on schedule and
providing the information necessary for people to be able to make the decisions they need to make. She
said that, regardless of whether the interstate interchange and light industrial work is pulled out and
processed separately, there would still need to be decisions made about the Target Industry Study. Ms.
Echols stated that the time to develop language for a Comp Plan amendment outside of the process
would require multiple hearings and extend the process, and staff felt there were advantages to keeping
this project on schedule with another work session date added to the Commission’s meeting schedule in
April.
Ms. Echols said that staff’s goal was to get a recommendation from the Planning Commission on
the entire Comprehensive Plan by the end of the year so the Board could have it to review in January.
Ms. Catlin summarized what staff reviewed at the meeting, including discussion on the tracks of
the Economic Vitality Action Plan (EVAP) and the Comp Plan process which will ensure that there is good
understanding that the ministerial process improvements, the legislative process improvements, the
industrial use changes, the voluntary rezoning, and the Target Industry Study are all very important items
that will require everyone’s attention to keep on track and moving forward along with the Comprehensive
Plan process. She said that the Target Industry Study results will be incredibly useful and beneficial and
February 8, 2012 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
DRAFT MINUTES
will ensure that the results are used in the best possible way. She said the County will need to continue
discussions and analysis as well vetting of those findings to determine how they work best for the County
and how they can inspire future actions. Ms. Catlin stated that the Comp Plan update is important but has
had little impact on the immediate availability of industrial land. She said the voluntary rezoning will make
product available in a more immediate fashion. She also said there could be some positive impact
realized by a fast-track review process for qualified projects that could move some projects along that staff
feels have such an important impact to the community that would justify some special handling.
Ms. Catlin concluded by stating that staff is recommending the Comprehensive Plan update
remain on its current schedule and that the entire plan be presented to the Board in January 2013. Staff
feels this would allow for the careful consideration and integration of the Target Industry Study results into
the appropriate Comp Plan chapters as well as keeping all of the other projects on track. She
emphasized that the most helpful strategy in keeping the schedule would be for the Board and the
Commission, along with staff and the public, to be aggressive about the decisions that need to be made
which will keep things moving along.
Mr. Thomas asked if the process could be moved along any faster and if staff was trying to get the
Comp Plan more organized.
Mr. Cilimberg referenced the particulars of the schedule presented, stating that there is a lot of
work yet to be done and that staff feels this is the most aggressive approach. He said that the schedule
does rely on the Target Industry Study to help with some of the industrial and interstate interchange
decisions that the Commission and Board will ultimately make, in addition to incorporating public input.
This does utilize one primary public hearing ultimately by the Planning Commission on the Comp Plan and
then one ultimate public hearing by the Board on the Comp Plan, rather than each section having their
own public hearing, which would extend the process.
Mr. Boyd said what bothers him about this approach is the attempt to do everything as one big
encompassing project, similar to Places 29, and said it’s very difficult to get one’s arms around a massive
Comprehensive Plan. He said when this is presented to the public, he is afraid the public will get lost in
the whole process because it’s such a huge update. Mr. Boyd suggested pulling out Light Industrial and
interstate interchanges so that people can concentrate on those issues. He acknowledged that, from a
planning standpoint, staff likes to consider the impacts on other parts of the Comp Plan, but that could be
done in the next step. He suggested moving forward in smaller segments. He added that, if there is one
big public hearing for massive changes to the Plan, a lot of things get lost in the shuffle.
Ms. Mallek stated that there wouldn’t necessarily be massive changes.
Mr. Boyd asked why it was taking so long if there weren’t massive changes.
Mr. Lafferty said one reason was the Target Industry Study because so much is contingent on that
particular area and doing anything ahead of that would be premature. He stated that several studies have
indicated that the County has enough rezoned commercial square footage to last for the next 20 years.
Mr. Boyd said that it doesn’t do any good if the area is in the wrong place, which is what he heard
in the workshops.
Mr. Lafferty stated that they wouldn’t have that information until the study is done.
Mr. Boyd said that it should be up to individual landowners to put their property up for some kind
of light industrial development, then find out it is in the wrong place. The County should be looking for the
people who are willing to develop their property.
Ms. Mallek said that there may not be adequate services or transportation to those sites.
February 8, 2012 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
DRAFT MINUTES
Mr. Rooker commented that it would become a piece-meal approach and would take much, much
longer because there would need to be Commission and Board hearings on each piece.
Ms. Mallek said that was the process ten years ago and it did take a long time.
Mr. Boyd said the light industrial and interchanges pieces could both be done together and that is
probably the biggest part of this whole process.
Ms. Mallek said the ZTA is the part she is trying to make sure is pushed along faster rather than
getting swallowed up. She said she has been assured that this is happening.
Ms. Catlin said the ZTA portion is moving along. She pointed out that the ministerial overhaul, the
legislative processes, and industrial uses leading to voluntary rezoning were on own track and are moving
along as quickly as possible and separately from the Comp Plan process.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that there was good input received last week regarding industrial uses
with the Commission and included public feedback, and the County is also looking at how commercial
uses might be integrated into industrial type uses with the understanding that commercial and industrial
becomes somewhat of a blend in today’s world. He said that is work staff is proceeding on; staff is not
waiting for the Comp Plan for that work.
Mr. Boyd asked if redefining what qualifies as Light Industrial requires a Comp Plan change.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that uses would not require a change, and explained that when the
industrial use zoning map amendment changes were made they would be done in concert with the current
plan and includes Places 29 recommendations. He said that, subsequent to the Comp Plan update, staff
might go in and make further changes to industrial land zoning in concert with that plan. Mr. Cilimberg
said Ms. Echols had mentioned specific neighborhoods 4, 5, 6 and 7 which may have industrial lands
identified through the Comp Plan process that should be zoned as a follow-up to the Comp Plan change.
He stated that staff is not going to wait until the Comp Plan is done to deal with those zonings that already
would be in conformance with the Comp Plan which would make up for that ‘pie chart’ difference.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that the interstate interchange projects were brought up five or six years ago,
and the County has been unable to address them and move forward with them.
Ms. Mallek explained that there is no active application right now for those.
Mr. Rooker said that they have zoned land and that’s all that a locality can do. He reiterated what
Mr. Boyd said earlier about private companies needing to create the jobs, and needing to make the
investment. He noted that landowners had zoned property on areas that were on the interstate and have
chosen not to go forward with their projects, and there was already designation in the Comp Plan for
industrial land. He pointed out that the decisions about whether or not to go forward with a project are
also based on what’s happening elsewhere in the County. He explained that there is a Hollymead Town
Center and Stonefield going forward, along with 8.5 million square feet, which is about a 40-year supply of
approved land zoned for retail/office/industrial. He said it is less likely that a piece of land off of Fifth
Street may develop, if they are looking at the other side of the County and seeing 2 million square feet of
retail being developed when they know there is only a certain amount of retail and office that can be
absorbed into the community. He stated that those are business decisions, not government decisions.
Ms. Mallek said that people were unlikely to invest where there is no demand.
Mr. Boyd said it is a government decision if the County is precluding people who want to develop
their property and essentially take away property rights. He mentioned that John Chevan at Shadwell had
proposed his property be rezoned, the Yancey Mills project that has been put forward, and the Crozet
February 8, 2012 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 12)
DRAFT MINUTES
Community Association voted against it, which they did not have the authority to do because it is not in the
Master Plan, but that is something he would like to see move forward.
Ms. Mallek said that Yancey Mills has been before the Board twice and has been voted down.
Mr. Loach said that the Yancey Mills project had also been voted down by the Commission twice.
He stated that he felt the Crozet Community Advisory Council did their due diligence; they took a poll of
the community and, in the end, the Planning Commission did not recommend it to the Board. He said
that, from what he was hearing at this meeting, it seems there is consideration of changing zoning on
property contiguous to growth areas even though there is already a significant amount of LI space in
Crozet, not to mention 60,000 square feet of flex space in the downtown area and a 31-acre lumber yard
at an opposing interchange. He stated that it is important to the growth area residents that, if the Board is
going to circumvent the will of the people in the growth areas because it thinks it’s a good idea to zone
land that’s rural, to change the zoning over the objections of the community, that would be a very
important decision.
Mr. Boyd said that he didn’t feel that it was circumventing the community because there was a
small group of people out there that are activists that get together and make the decisions for the
community.
Ms. Mallek responded that it is a very large number of people.
Mr. Loach stated that an independent study was done that received 700 responses out of a
community of 3,500 and the overwhelming number of people were against it.
Ms. Monteith said that the Commission and Board were asked specifically about a schedule
change, and their goal at this point is to see how the Target Industry Study would be integrated into the
Comp Plan. She requested from staff some examples of how the study would impact the Comp Plan.
Ms. Echols explained that with biomedical companies, for example, they may not need a
manufacturing facility; they may be able to use office R&D flex that is already designated in the Places 29
Plan and outside or inside the Research Park. She said it’s who the targets need to be, what their needs
are then, to advise on what the land area requirements are and the locations. She said that a distribution
center is a totally different animal from a biomedical research facility with different needs. When the
Board can advise staff on what it is that the County needs to be filling the need for, then those questions
can be answered. She said there is a very strong relationship here.
Ms. Catlin said it is staff’s intent to have the final target industry results available within the next
month which would allow staff to stay on the Comp Plan schedule. She said the rapid discussions and
decisions by the Planning Commission and the Board will help staff stay on track.
Mr. Loach said that his suggestion was for the LI recommendations to go back to each advisory
committee because those recommendations have not been reviewed at that level and, if there are plans
for changes in zoning or uses within the Master Plan areas, those committees should have a chance to
review and provide recommendations because county citizens have spent tens of thousands of hours on
these Master Plans and he believes the citizens deserve to see the changes that will be made.
Ms. Catlin stated that, at the town hall meeting, people were made aware of what that process
was and staff encouraged people to feed into the established processes. She said staff had committed to
e-mailing people to let them know exactly when their opportunities were to feed into the process because
staff felt it was important. The concern is staff’s ability to take four separate parallel processes and feed
them into something that is an established-forward moving process.
Mr. Boyd said that advisory council members could attend these meetings, noting that there was a
big contingency from Crozet today, but pointed out that he never thought it was the Board’s intent to add
councils as part of the decision-making process.
February 8, 2012 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 13)
DRAFT MINUTES
Ms. Mallek suggested that the individuals should get the packets, via e-mail, at the same time as
others do.
Mr. Rooker said that in their report, staff indicated that they didn’t see an advantage to
accelerating the LI and interstate interchange process and also said that other approaches would yield
available land more quickly.
Mr. Rooker moved to stay with the Comp Plan review schedule as presented by staff.
Mr. Snow asked for clarification that fast-tracking of projects is not tied up in this. Ms. Catlin
confirmed that fast-tracking is not tied up in the Comp Plan schedule, and staff would be presenting that
information in March.
Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
_______________
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012
PAGE 1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 14, 2012
Work Session:
Comprehensive Plan Update (Elaine Echols)
Future Housing Supply
General Plan Format
Ms. Echols presented a Power-Point presentation to explain the Comprehensive Plan Update on the
future housing supply and general plan format.
This work session is for general input and comment. No final decision making is being requested.
On October 11 the Planning Commission asked staff about the existing and future housing units and
some information on how cash proffers for affordable housing are being applied. Staff originally thought
Ron White was going to be able to make this meeting to discuss that. He found out last week he had a
conflict and could not attend tonight. Therefore, Ron W hite will be coming before the Commission in
March.
Future Housing Supply
Existing Housing Supply
Additional information on:
• Breakdown of DU type for pipeline units
• Housing types currently on the market
• SFD units in DA vs. RA
• Approved density vs. Comp. Plan density
• New City DUs - type & density
Mix of Housing Units Types
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012
PAGE 2
• Developers in City work with more confined space so development is often denser
• Avg. SFD lot: 6,600 sq. ft. = 6.6 DU/ac.
• Avg. SFA lot : 3,800 sq. ft. = 11 DU/ac.
• MF = 14 DU/ac.
• Developers in City work with more confined space so development is often denser
• Avg. SFD lot: 6,600 sq. ft. = 6.6 DU/ac.
• Avg. SFA lot : 3,800 sq. ft. = 11 DU/ac.
• MF = 14 DU/ac.
New Homes in the Rural Area
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012
PAGE 3
• Significant drop in BP and COs since 2007
• Trend: same or greater # of SFD units being built in RA compared to DA
• SFD in RA: Lifestyle choice, wealth or family land
Will Future Trends be the Same as Past Trends?
• Age of population
• Childbearing later in life
• Cost of gasoline
• Cost in standard of living
What do People Want?
• 508 responded to Livability Project survey on housing & job preferences
• Most County residents and commuters said they would prefer to live in Albemarle’s Rural
Areas
• Commuters:
• 61% of those who live out of the area cite housi ng cost and a better value for
their money
• Over 50% said housing affordability was major reason for not living where they
work
• Albemarle residents:
• Live here for lifestyle, amenities neighborhoods
• Live where they want to
Approved Density vs. Comp. Plan Density
Diversity of size, type & many unfinished projects make comparisons difficult
Historically, Comp. Plan densities have fallen short of the highest density desired (and the
low end of the range sometimes)
Meeting Comprehensive Plan densities can depend on location: Crozet & Glenmore
Bargamin Park & Avinity – achieving max.
Belvedere – close to max. on MF units
Foothill Crossing – not achieving density
Charlottesville New Dwellings
• Developers in City work with more confined space so development is of ten denser
• Avg. SFD lot: 6,600 sq. ft. = 6.6 DU/ac.
• Avg. SFA lot : 3,800 sq. ft. = 11 DU/ac.
• MF = 14 DU/ac.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012
PAGE 4
Infrastructure
• Available CIP & VDOT funds severely limited for planned projects
• Current needs not being met
Format and Land Use Categories
Reasons for Including Format Issues in Work session
• Bring BOS vision and relevant goals to PC’s attention
• Show how all of the subject areas in the Comprehensive Plan tie back to BOS vision and goals
• Proviso: Some topics may ultimately go under a different heading
Vision, Goals, and Objectives
Board of Supervisors
Vision Statement: A thriving County, anchored by a strong economy and excellent education system
that honors its rural heritage, scenic beauty and natural and historic resources while fostering attractive
and vibrant communities.
Objectives:
• Encompass more than the Comprehensive Plan
• Relate to actions the BOS is working on over the next several years
Board of Supervisors’ Goals
Related to Comprehensive Plan
• Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
• Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
• Protect the County’s natural, scenic and historic resources
• Ensure the health and safety of the community
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012
PAGE 5
•
New Standard Land Use Format
• Not set in stone
• Not for Places 29
• Would like to use for Neighborhoods 4 – 7 mini-Master Plans
• Will preserve special aspects of Pantops and Crozet Master Plans
Residential Designations -- essentially the same as now
Commercial Designations become Mixed Use Designations, categories similar to 1996 Land Use Plan
Multiple Industrial Districts become two districts: Office/R&D/Flex /Light Industrial & Industrial (no Light
or Heavy)
Schedule
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012
PAGE 6
Upcoming Meetings
• Community Facilities Workshop at City Space February 23 4 – 7pm
• Neighborhoods 4 & 5 – Early March
• Neighborhoods 6 & 7 – Late March
• Joint PCs Meeting - April
Questions or Comments
Housing Information
General Format
Land Use Categories
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Public comment was taken from the following persons:
Morgan Butler, Southern Environmental Law Center, questioned whether there was any need to
expand residential area to this expansion of the comp plan. From the meeting in October it was
clear there was plenty of growth and they decided not to propose an inc rease in the development
area since there was plenty of residential capacity. There is a fair amount of vacant land
available.
Tom Olivier, chairman of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, recognized the comp plan is
extremely important to public. From the state law point of view it is fundamental. He recognized
it was a key vision for developed area. The comp plan needs to offer biodiversity protection for
natural resource protection, which is important for community vision. They need to put in pl ace
environmental protections. The Population growth – with open space – needs to be sustainable
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012
PAGE 7
in the comp plan. The update needs to seriously examine conflicts between environmental
protection and economic vitality.
Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, submitted a Draft of Combined Information from
12/20/2011 Staff Summary and 01/08/2012 Staff Report for CPA. (Attachment B) This
information was referenced at last week’s Board meeting. The current inventory needs to be
taken into consideration before future growth is allowed. There is a large amount of unbuilt retail.
He would assume the multi-family attached would be shifted.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris invited discussion and comments from the Planning
Commission.
The Commission commented on the information provided as follows and asked staff to take their
comments into consideration in the continuing work on the Comprehensive Plan.
Comments in general on Future Housing Study:
There was some question about the form of development taking place in the development areas.
A suggestion made to review the forms, such as large lot subdivisions and compact
developments that have been successful.
There was some fear expressed that the Commission was not looking at expec ted demand for
housing by type for 20 years but just the number of units that could be built.
One Commissioner said he hoped that houses built in the DA were comparable to those built in
the RA. He said we don’t want to force people to the RA because the y can’t find a comparable
house in the Development Areas and don’t have the opportunity. He asked if we need to change
something to make it possible to build the type of unit in DA being built in RA.
Another Commissioner commented that there are some distinctive differences between housing
in the DA and RA that relate to “setting”. He said that sometimes there is not a comparable
option in the DA if someone just wants to live in the RA.
It was suggested that a discussion needs to take place about the buil ding trend in the Rural Area
and on whether that trend should continue or it should be encouraged.
A Commissioner noted that we need to look at available housing stock when analyzing supply
and demand. She asked if we are really representing the amount o f housing stock on the market.
Later provided the total number of units by type that are on the market right now as 602 single
family units, 147 townhouses, and 85 condominiums.
A question was asked if cluster development would be useful. Staff responded that it is now by
right, but not used very often.
A question was asked concerning the percentage of 5 acre lots that were available in the RA.
A question was asked whether purchasers of recently built single family homes in the DA would
tell us about why they chose to live in DA versus the RA.
Comments in general on General Plan Format:
A suggestion was made that staff look at what the city is going to use as their format for possible
consistency.
A suggestion was made that the staff see if we could simplify the categories into possibly just
three categories, neighborhoods, centers and areas.
A Commissioner asked that staff explore ways to make sure that recommendations in the comp
plan refer back to the goals established by the Board. In addition , it should be made clear how
ordinance amendments are done to tie into the county’s goals so they can have topic areas that
the board is already using.
No formal action was taken.
Staff invited other comments from the Planning Commission. Staff is goi ng out and working with
Neighborhoods 4, 5, 6 and 7 to develop a “mini” master plan to bring back to the Planning Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012 - CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Work Session
PAGE 1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 20, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, at 6:00
p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Richard Randolph, Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Don Franco,
Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use
Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business
Partnerships, Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Phil Custer, Engineer; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer;
Ron White, Director of Housing; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of
Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Francis MacCall, Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none,
the meeting moved to the next item.
Work Session
CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Revision –
Work session 6 - Industrial Land Inventory, Rural Interchanges, and Locations for Industrial Uses and
Target Industries (Echols, Sorrell, Weaver)
Andy Sorrell and Elaine Echols presented a Power-Point presentation.
Mr. Sorrell presented the first portion of the presentation.
Tonight the discussion will be held on the following issues:
Industrial Land Inventory,
Rural Interchanges,
Locations for Industrial Uses, and
Target Industries
The schedule is as follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012 - CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Work Session
PAGE 2
Upcoming Meetings
• Historic Pres./Natural Heritage E.C. Workshop at Water Street - March 29 4 – 7pm
• Neighborhoods 4,5, 6, 7 – April 2
• Joint PCs Meeting – April 17
Mr. Sorrell noted there will basically be three portions to the presentation. Staff will be happy to answer
questions after each section. He asked how the Commission wanted to handle it.
The Planning Commission requested to take the presentation in segments so that they focus their
attention on it.
Mr. Sorrell noted the first portion of the presentation will be speaking to:
Presentation Overview
• Available Industrial Land
• Industrial Land Need and Target Industries
• Locations for Industrial Uses & Targets
• Land in Development Areas
• Urban Interchanges
• Rural Interchanges
• Conclusions & Recommendations
Industrial Land Area Needs
Based on Employment Projections
• 2030 -- approx. 18,000 new jobs
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012 - CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Work Session
PAGE 3
• 2030 -- 3,000 industrial/quasi-industrial jobs
• Land area needs for these jobs: 200-557 acres
Formula
[Employees X square footage/employee for use X F.A.R. for use = acreage needed. Range of land area
relates to low and high square footage/employee.]
Available Industrially Designated Land
• This chart shows that most designated but not zoned industrial land is in the Piney Mountain &
Hollymead Development Areas. Land with residential zoning and rural area zoning that has
industrial designation is generally located in those areas. Other areas have some, but the majority
is in the Places29 area. There is also land area that h as industrial zoning and designated
industrial. So that is land that could potentially be used without having to be rezoned for an
industrial use.
*Land in portions of less than 1 acre in area has been excluded, totaling 29.91 acres.
**Includes 2 acres of Acme Visible Records land which would not be available until 2016
***Includes UVA Research Park
****Report of 2-8-12 indicated 841 acres of non-constrained land; this figure inadvertently included 127
acres of constrained land in the UVA Research Park
Disclaimer/Clarification
• Page 2 of staff report 422 acres of designated land with industrial zoning
• Page 3 of staff report says 376 acres of industrial land (which came from Feb. 8 staff report)
• Correct # is 422 ac – the Feb. 8 staff report missed a few of the vacant parcels because they
were part of planned districts. (Ex. Industrial area of HTC – zoned NMD)
Undeveloped Industrially-Designated Parcels
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012 - CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Work Session
PAGE 4
• Few available parcels for larger land users
• Only 12 parcels 10 or more acres of that only 2 are 25 acres or more
• Some opportunities exist to combine parcels
Staff presented a map showing land that could potentially accommodate some additional industrial zoning
that had the industrial designation by the Comp Plan, which was south of Hollymead Town Center.
Access would be one of the bigger issues with that getting to that site since it was not directly accessed
from a major road right now.
Industrial Land Need
Recommended target industries:
• Bioscience and Medical Devices
• Business & Financial Services
• Information Technology and Defense & Security
Complementary targets:
• Health Services
• Arts, Design and Sports & media
Target Industries
– Bioscience & Medical Devices: 3-5 ac. parcels
– Info. Tech. and Defense & Security: 3-25 ac. parcels. (Some targets might need area for
buildings up to 350,000 sq. ft.)
Other requirements:
• High-speed internet
• Reliable electricity (some are large power users)
• Public utilities (some have large water needs)
Industrial Land Need Conclusions
• BOS needs to pick targets based upon recommendations of study and their input
• Many targets could use comm. zoned land
• Based on raw #s, need exists for 200 – 557 acres
• 674 ac. non-constrained land might be available (need buy in of the property owners)
• Few large parcels; some targets need large parcels
• Most properties in Hollymead-Piney Mountain area; some targets want to be in H-PM area
• Even with environmental constraints removed, some industrial designated sites will continue to
have challenges (access issues and things of that nature)
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Randolph asked staff to go back to the section where he talked about large electricity users where it
says high-speed internet, reliable electricity, and publi c utilities. If those are guidance as to where light
industrial development could occur he asked at the current time is there a single intersection on I-64 in
this county that meets those three capabilities where there high speed internet available, relia ble
electricity and public utilities that would meet the need for both high power users and high water users.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012 - CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Work Session
PAGE 5
Ms. Echols replied that there may be. Staff would like to go over the interchanges themselves and then
maybe staff could bring that back up at that time where they can give an idea of what those interchanges
are capable of.
Mr. Randolph agreed, but wanted especially to identify these three factors for that discussion when they
get to it.
Mr. Franco said it was important to note that it was not necessarily just for reliable but a lot of the users
associated with the IT and Defense need redundant power supplies and internet. That is an important
point.
Ms. Echols suggested that there may be a better word to use than reliability. Some parcels don’t have
continuous electrical supply because of different kinds of interruptions in the supply. It is the redundant
that is really more important here.
Mr. Loach said on the employment figures he noticed staff went to 2030 to get data. He wondered if staff
went back 20 years and looked at the LI rezoning to see if that same percentage of employment
extrapolated out the same.
Ms. Echols replied that no, they did not go backwards. They just went forward.
Mr. Loach noted that over the past couple of years the Board has rezoned over 130 acres of LI land to
commercial. One has to wonder if they went back 20 years if they could see that same curve. He
recalled a rezoning case several weeks ago involving a request from industrial to commercial. His only
objective is the methodology. He felt it should not have been used until they came out with a firm list of
target industries and looked at what their needs are going to be.
Ms. Echols noted the target industry study is in a preliminary stage and could change. That being said
they know there are a large number of users. There was just a variety of different kinds of potential users
within the categories that they have. What they tried to do was get at what are the ones who would have
the large land area. Staff does not know what the number is. They don’t know how much or how many of
those targets they would be looking for or how much they could accommodate. They believe they can
accommodate quite a bit with their already zoned land. In past staff reports staff has given them the
figures of the square footage that has been approved in the commercial developments. They know there
is an awful lot of land. They were trying to find a figure that they could work with in the sense of giving n
idea about additional land area that would need to be designated. It is not a science. It is an art. His
points are well taken. There are many targets. If these are the targets the Board chooses, that could go
into the commercial end. They don’t know what is needed until they decide what the targets are
Mr. Franco said it would be helpful if table 3 were redone so that they saw how many parcels were less
than 3 acres in size. He acknowledged that they were dealing just with the target industries, but that
same rezoning Mr. Loach was referring to really dealt with a size question as well. It was one of the
problems that applicant was having. She had an existing structure and was having a hard time keeping it
filled. There were a lot of things there. However, part of that conversation was that the parcel was
relatively small. If this was identifying that their target industries need a minimum of 3 acres, then they
ought to know how much of the acreage that is currently zoned and/or intended to be zoned LI doesn’t fall
into that range.
Mr. Loach asked when they are looking at 3 to 25 acres are they just looking horizontally or can they
accommodate these vertically on less land as well, too.
Mr. Franco agreed that was a good point. However, he felt if this is the information they are looking at he
would like to know if 3 acres is the right thing because they’ve considered verticality and all of the other
stuff. He would like to know how much of this acreage does not fall into that category.
Mr. Loach said this goes back to the premise that Ms. Echols said that they really should have the target
industries.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012 - CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Work Session
PAGE 6
Mr. Dotson suggested before this moves on that staff find out if the smaller adjacent parcels with the
same owner are easily assembled parcels
Mr. Franco noted he would go so far as to say it does not have to be the same ownership but just
contiguous pieces would be helpful.
Ms. Echols presented the next segment of the Power-Point presentation.
Interchanges and Other Possibilities
One of the places people are most interested are the interchanges. The interchanges are most
interesting because that is where they have the largest road network; where they have the greatest
amount of traffic; and potentially the most opportunities for economic development. There are seven
interchanges in the County with 3½ urban and 3½ rural. The one that seems to have gotten almost all of
the attention in recent months has been Shadwell Interchange. However, there is a runner up because
there are people from Crozet present tonight to speak.
Shadwell Interchange
Staff reviewed the issues and challenges regarding the Shadwell Interchange, as follows.
Issues:
• Access
• Utilities
• Interstate changes
• Topography
• Historic Resources (Monticello and Southern Albemarle)
Ms. Echols explained the above noted issues and the challenges.
Recommendation: Wait until interchange improvements are designed; revisit with next Comp Plan.
Rt. 29 South & I-64
(Sieg Distribution Facility)
- Designated for Regional Service
Issues:
• Access - (In our current Comp Plan it calls for preservation of the ravine. The ravine is about
the only area they can get access into the rest of this particular site. Therefore it is a challenge to
get access due to the topography.)
• Property owner doesn’t favor redesignation (One property owner indicated desire to have a mixed
use.)
Recommendation: Expand Development Area boundary to provide better access; allow for comm ercial
or industrial use. Consideration needs to be given to take the language out of the Comp Plan that says
the ravine needs to be preserved. They can’t do both.
Southpointe/5th Street
With the Avon/5th Street rezoning that took place there was concern at that time they were losing Light
Industrial land. The Comprehensive Plan left in the text an opportunity for that to be rezoned to an
industrial district for an industrial use should that commercial use not pan out. That is the same kind of
idea they have for some of these other ones. Right now it may not be what the owner wants to do. There
might be an industry that would like to have that spot and they might be able to work out something that
would then be in support of a rezoning for that area.
Issues:
• Owner of largest property doesn’t favor redesignation
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012 - CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Work Session
PAGE 7
• Only about 12 acres developable land
As with the other interchange, the property owner does not really want to lose that commercial
designation that they have right now. It is zoned R-15.
Recommendation: Allow for commercial or industrial use. In the text they would make that land
available for a rezoning to industrial or the commercial designation that they would be putting on the land.
5th Street / Avon Properties
If commercial development doesn’t take place, Comprehensive Plan allows for industrial use already.
Staff thinks this is going to be developed commercially. There is a rezoning to modify the plan that has
been submitted in recent weeks. Staff does not think right now this is in the mix of properties that are
available for industry.
Rt. 20 at I-64 (Blue Ridge Area Hospital Site)
University of Virginia Foundation wishes to retain institutional designation
Staff working with University of Virginia Foundation in area B discussions on future uses or other
designations
Staff members will be talking about this tomorrow to see if they might be able to figure out a way that this
could be available for the University should they want to make it available for a Light Industrial type of
use. She would defer to that conversation tomorrow in the Area B process.
Boulders Road area near NGIC
This area is designated for Urban Density Residential. Since it is such a large parcel it might be an
available land area to be designated. The idea would be that this industrial designation would just be
expanded. Staff thinks it is very important as they did at the Places29 planning time that they have some
residential in this area to allow for people who work in this area to get quickly and easily to work without
having to drive all the way up 29 or down 29. They don’t regulate where people live and where they work,
but they like to make that opportunity available.
Residential areas could be reduced for greater industrial opportunities
If Board of Supervisors endorses the targets that have been recommended, this one might be a
place to look to consider redesignation of some additional land.
Properties between Avon St and Rt. 20
Most of this property is Urban Density. There is a swath that is shown for Industrial Service. They think
there might be some opportunities to expand that down. It would not pick up a whole lot. There is not a
large property. This particular property would have to probably be accessed from both sides and it may
or may not be able to connect because there is about a 100’ drop from Avon down to Route 20.
Area adjacent & south of Snow’s Garden Center
Need property owner support
They will be working with that property owner through the Neighborhoods 4 and 5 planning process. That
is another place they have been looking for land that would he lp accommodate the needs of future
employers in the area.
Conclusions:
• Vacant land at SW quadrant at Shadwell/I-64 would be difficult to develop at this time.
• Vacant land at urban interchanges designated for comm ercial use appears could support
industrial uses; property owners don’t want to lose commercial designation.
• Better access is needed for properties at SW quadrant of Rt. 29 S/I-64 interchange.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012 - CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Work Session
PAGE 8
• There may be some opportunities to designate land for industrial use in Neighborhood 4;
however, parcels would not be large and residents have concerns about impacts about adding
more industrial land in that particular neighborhood.
Recommendations:
• Allow for urban interchanges (not Pantops) to be used for office/R&D/flex/light industrial uses as
well as comm ercial uses.
• Expand Development Area near Rt. 29 S/I-64 Interchange to provide area for access into the site.
• Redesignate some of the residential area near NGIC to office/R&D/flex/light industrial
• Work with University of Virginia Foundation on the Blue Ridge Area Hospital site with Area B
• Look for opportunities in Neighborhood 4 for more industrial property.
This all predisposes that those are the right targets. If they are not the targets the Board wants to work
with, staff will be coming back to the Planning Commission. However, with the schedule that is what staff
had to work with.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Randolph asked if there was a good possibility out of all of these different targets that they will
establish a list of priorities based on the characteristics and suitability of each of the interchanges just
reviewed so there would be a ranking from a development standpoint where there would be the least
environmental impact. What is left out of the equation is any discussion about ind ustrial development in
any of these undeveloped areas and the impacts in terms of rivers and streams in that habitat.
Ms. Echols replied right now at the urban interchanges there are some uses such as office uses that
could occur, which with our zoning would be under the current regulations. In terms of the changes in
designations and the new areas they would be looking at the targets, what their needs are, and doing a
more detailed review of what the Commission had just seen. However, in terms of rankin gs staff was not
planning on doing that. She would ask Ms. Catlin. Staff plans to work though this Target Industry Study
and then see where they go from there.
Ms. Catlin pointed out where they were in the process. They have two parallel things that are moving
forward. For the Target Industry Study they are in the final stages of the study itself. However, they are
in the early stages of determining exactly how well those targets fit for Albemarle County and our
preferences and concerns about environmental impacts, etc. What they have been trying to do in
working with Ms. Echols is talking about what capacities might there possibly be at the same time that the
Board is working through which of those target industries really will be the ones that work for us, are there
additional ones that they have not even talked about, etc. The matching of the two of those things is
going to have to be worked out over the next couple of months, which is why she thinks Ms. Echols in
several instances said this is a preliminary look at capacity and inventory and when it might be possible.
However, certainly the finer work of matching that up with exactly where they end up with the Target
Industry Study, including environmental constraints and issues , is going to have to be worked out. That
may require coming back to the Commission and revisiting some of this.
Mr. Franco said that he was not trying to promote one piece over another. There is a lot of additional
study that is required. When they talk about the s ection that is to the Southwest of 29 and 250 at
Shadwell it makes more sense that they should look at it and decide whether they want it included now
and then let VDOT design their access to that piece in the future and their interchange around our needs
versus waiting to see what VDOT does and potentially having to come and redo work. He was not saying
that piece belongs in there. He was simply saying let’s not wait for VDOT to react to what they do. Let’s
decide what is best for us first.
Ms. Echols continued the Power-Point presentation.
Rural Interchanges
The Board spoke to the community, staff, as well as the Commission on what they wanted to see on rural
interchanges. What they said was they wanted to have uses at those interchanges that have a
relationship to the rural and agricultural economy and have low impacts. What staff has been looking at
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012 - CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Work Session
PAGE 9
is how that actually happens. First they looked at the interchanges. These things were in the February
8th report as well as that presentation. The y looked at the three different rural interchanges and their
characteristics. The other half is Shadwell.
Boyd Tavern/Black Cat Interchanges
• Very rural & heavily wooded
• Vacant parcels abut conservation easements
• Most parcels have critical environmental resources
Staff does not think there are many uses that could go in this area. Someone might be able to make a
case in this area that would be supportive of agriculture and agri -business and need that kind of a
location.
Ivy Interchange
• Very rural & heavily wooded.
• Critical environmental resources.
• Access to parcels from interstate could meet standards, but roads are narrow and winding.
The roads are not accommodating. The very narrow and winding roads don’t support a lot of traffic .
Crozet Interchange
• Decision to remain Rural as part of Crozet Master Plan update
• SE quadrant has good access and adjacent to large tracts of agri-industrial land
• NE quadrant -- potential historic district
• SE and SW quadrants difficult to use and access
The Crozet Interchange is not quite as rural or winding and really takes them down 250 into Crozet. A
decision was made with the Crozet Master Plan when area was under consideration for either having
some kind of a special designation or being included in the devel opment areas. The decision was made
by the Board that it was not going to become part of the Crozet development area. However, the Board
wanted them to look at what could happen there, again, in support of agriculture and agri -business.
The Southeast quadrant does have good access from 250. It is adjacent to industrially designated land
right now. This is in the Greenwood Historic District. Many concerns have been expressed by the
community of Crozet. The Commission received a copy of the resolution that will be introduced tonight
that there is the desire by most of the Crozet Community that this remain rural. Staff has looked at it in
terms of what its opportunities and challenges are. It potentially has some opportunities for those kinds of
uses that would be support of agriculture.
Characteristics of Future Uses
At rural interchanges –
• Low traffic generation & meet VDOT access requirements
• Little need for water & sewer i.e. no future demand for public utilities
• Small scale
• Little impact on natural resources or nearby historic or scenic resources
• Could meet Entrance Corridor Guidelines
• Interstate access enhancing product distribution from the rural areas with an emphasis on local
Potential Comprehensive Plan Changes
• Recognize rural interchanges have potential benefits for supporting the rural economy
• Add provisions for characteristics of uses that would be appropriate at rural interchanges
• Add information on other uses that might be appropriate in RA
• Recommend changes to Zoning Ordinance
Potential Zoning Ordinance Changes
Existing RA Special Uses:
• Show grounds
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012 - CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Work Session
PAGE 10
• Custom slaughterhouses
• Sawmills
• Packing plants
• Special events
Examples of Potential Additional RA Special Uses
• Small storage and distribution facilities that relate to local agricultural or forestry production
• Landscape services
• Wholesale nurseries
Staff noted that special use permits are about is this the right location for this use at this time. There is a
lot of discretion that is given to the Board of Supervisors in their decisio n making about what goes where
when there is a special use permit involved.
Other Potential Special Uses
Not necessarily supportive of Rural Ag, but may have a place in RA
• Contractor’s Storage Yards
• Mini-warehouses
Those uses also have many of those sam e features that they were recommending for the interchanges.
Mini-warehouses go in the development areas, but they don’t require any utilities. To make a use that
does not require water and sewer and very little electricity there is some desire to have t hose in places
where they can better meet the needs of the community.
Staff has made some recommendations about some other uses.
Change interstate interchange policy to allow for rural and agricultural supportive uses at the
interchanges that have:
• Low traffic generation
• No need for public utilities
• Small building and parking footprint
• Little -to -no impact on natural or historic resources
• Could meet EC guidelines
• Enhanced by access to interstate for distribution of products
Add wording to the Comprehensive Plan which supports other uses, such as contractor’s storage
yards and mini-warehouses which may be appropriate in the Rural Areas where they have:
• Low traffic generation
• No need for public utilities
• Small building and parking footprint
• Little -to -no impact on natural or historic resources
• Ability to meet EC guidelines (if in EC)
• A location near an interstate interchange or crossroads community to serve residents
Comments and Direction
• Industrial Land Supply
• Industrial Land Need
• Interchanges
– Urban
– Rural
Mr. Morris invited questions and comments.
The Planning Commission held a discussion on the information presented in the presentation, including
questions for staff, and noted issues and concerns, as briefly summarized below. A detailed summary of
the Planning Commission’s comments and suggestions from their discussion are provided after the public
comment.
• Crozet Interchange should not be on the list. Master plan approved by the Board of Supervisors.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012 - CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Work Session
PAGE 11
• Preserve natural resources unless have a good reason to do so.
• No compelling reason on rural interchanges to add industrial uses.
• It would change the character of districts – reducing beauty of region. No pressing demand to go
in this area.
• If place those type of uses as discussed at interchang es – think about what kind of potential
congestion creating.
Mr. Morris noted that the Commission would take a ten minute break and then take public comment
afterwards.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:27 p.m. and the meeting reconvened 7:34 p.m.
Mr. Morris noted that they would now hear comment for clarification from Lee Catlin.
Lee Catlin reminded the Commission that the information provided by staff on the interstate interchanges
and potential uses at those interchanges was at the request of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Public comment was taken from the following persons:
John Savage, CCAC member, read the CCAC petition or resolution of intent in opposition to the
Crozet Interchange or any commercial development thereon. The CCAC asked that the Crozet
Interchange be taken off the table since the Crozet Master Plan opposed any type of commercial
or industrial rezoning at that interchange. It was suggested that staff look at the Greenwood
Historic District map since the Crozet Interchange is included in that area and the area should be
preserved.
John Lowry, Chairman of Albemarle County Economic Development, suggested that the
discussion is about using the interchanges to further economic growth and businesses in the
county to provide jobs to the community. He urged the Commission to provide comments so the
Interchange Policy can be rewritten for future business development to create jobs.
John Chavan, a proponent for the interstate interchanges, particularly the Shadwell Interchange
said he wants to provide mini warehouses that will provide jobs. He has a hotel as a neighbor
and Route 250 at the Shadwell Interchange generates 30,000 to 50,000 cars per day. Mini
warehouses would be a compatible use to that area.
Mary Rice, resident of White Hall, opposed the Crozet Interchange. She suggested there should
be criteria for granting a special use permit, which should answer what is “low”, “minimal”, “small
scale” and “minimal impact.” There needs to be specificity.
Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, spoke against changing the interchange
designations and said staff’s projections were hand grenade estimates.
Alan Taylor, with Riverbend Management represented the Siegs, who own property at the Rt. 29
& I-64 Interchange. The Siegs do not wish a change in designation of their land at the
interchange to allow industrial use since they want to develop it as a mixed use project. They
intend to put together a Neighborhood Model plan which respects the environment, beauty of the
area and topography of the area.
Morgan Butler, Southern Environmental Law Center, spoke against the interchanges since there
is a fair amount of vacant land available for industrial. There was no pressin g need to go outside
of development areas to look for industrial land. Not all industrial uses need industrially zoned
land to locate.
Mary Gallo, Vice Chair of CCAC and Crozet resident, spoke against changes to the Crozet
interchange due to concerns from the residents and the schools. Trust would be broken with the
county if Crozet Interchange was allowed.
Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, said each interchange should be considered individually.
He said it is important to keep in mind how jobs are impacted by land use decisions.
The Commission commented on the information provided as follows and asked staff to take these
comments into consideration in the continuing work on the Comprehensive Plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012 - CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Work Session
PAGE 12
Comments in general to be addressed after the Board has completed its work from the target industry
study:
Bring back actual acreage and location needs for targets
If 3 acre parcels are still needed – how many do we have and where are they? Remove parcels
of less than 3 acres from the inventory information.
Bring back information on commercially zoned properties that can accommodate the targets
Consider the transportation impacts of targets
Retain the Boulders Road area near NGIC and the properties in Neighborhoods 4 & 5 near the
Industrial Service designation as a possibility for future industrial designation if needed.
Approach owners about consolidation of smaller parcels in designated areas, if there is a need to
have larger parcels
Interstate Interchange Policy
No changes are needed to the Interstate Interchange policy for Rural Areas, including the Crozet
interchange which the Commission considered to have been previously decided during the
Crozet Master Plan. (Mr. Smith disagreed because he felt that Crozet interchange still needs to
be considered.)
Bring back a recommendation for future land use on the south side of the Shadwell interchange
including the north side of Rt. 250 to Hunter’s Hall Industrial Park . (Mr. Smith disagreed.)
Benchmark projected needs over time. 20 years may be too far in the future to project
employment needs – monitor inventory of land and assess needs every 5 years
Add language to the text of the Land Use Plan for the urban interchanges, similar to what was
done for the Fifth Street Avon project that would allow for industrial rezonings also
Rural Area Uses:
The uses suggested by staff for rural interchanges would likely be appropriate in other places in
the Rural Areas
Bring back recommendation on size, scale, and constraints needed for the potential rural uses
noted in the staff report as well as for mini-warehouses & contractors storage yards
No formal action was taken.
Ms. Echols noted there would be an opportunity for this to go to the Board of Supervisors in April . Staff
has given the Board the report of everything the Planning Commission has done to date. Staff will update
the Board at the April meeting.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
NATIONAL PARK WEEK
APRIL 21 – 29, 2012
WHEREAS, there are 397 national parks across the United States, which provide accessible, safe,
and affordable places that allow us to appreciate the bounty of our land and these parks
offer opportunities for wholesome outdoor recreation, educational programs and
inexpensive family entertainment, which improve our nation’s overall health and
vitality; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is very fortunate to serve as a gateway community to the adjoining
Shenandoah National Park, an important component of the National Park system, and
we appreciate the abundance of programs and activities that they have to offer; and
WHEREAS, this year’s theme is "Picture Yourself in a Park" and encourages outdoor opportunities
to get outside, get healthy, and have fun; and
WHEREAS, during National Park Week, there will be a variety of special events and activities that
will take place and more importantly, admission to all national parks during this week is
free; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County would like to remind everyone that these national parks would not
exist if it wasn’t for the foresight, dedication and generosity of those who safeguard
these magnificent places and for that we applaud you.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize April 21-29, 2012 as NATIONAL PARK WEEK,
and call this observance to the attention of all our citizens, with particular appreciation
to our neighbor, the Shenandoah National Park.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to Amend County Code – Chapter 10,
Offenses—Miscellaneous to add Section 10-120.1,
Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violations.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Schedule a public hearing to consider an ordinance to add
Section 10-120.1, Designation of Police to Enforce
Trespass Violations, of Chapter 10, Offenses--
Miscellaneous, of the County Code.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Brown, Sellers, and
Schwertfeger
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 11, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Over the past several years, there has been an increase in complaints regarding vagrancy and loitering on business
properties during non-business hours. This loitering and vagrancy often involves individuals who are drunk in public
and often disorderly and is especially prevalent in the urban areas of the County during warm weather. As part of their
efforts to remedy this problem, the Albemarle County Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Chief of Police are requesting
that the Board of Supervisors consider the adoption of an ordinance, to be designated as County Code Section 10-
120.1, which would allow the owner, lessee, custodian, or other person lawfully in charge of a property to designate the
Albemarle County Police Department as a “person lawfully in charge” of such property for the purpose of enforcing the
County’s trespass ordinance. Designating the Police Department as a “person lawfully in charge” of a property would
allow police officers to order individuals found loitering on such property after hours to leave the property and allow the
officers to arrest for trespass anyone who refuses the order to leave or returns to the property without permission.
Authorizing the Police Department to act in this capacity is needed since many commercial property owners work
outside of the area and are not available to appear in Court to testify when these cases are heard. Many Virginia
jurisdictions have enacted similar Ordinances, including the City of Charlottesville.
A draft of the proposed ordinance is attached (Attachment A). This proposed ordinance is authorized by Virginia Code
Section 15.2-1717.1.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed ordinance allows a property owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge of a property to
designate the Albemarle County Police Department as a “person lawfully in charge” of such property for purposes of
enforcing Albemarle County’s trespass ordinance. This designation would be in writing on forms developed by the
Chief of Police and the County Attorney. The proposed ordinance permits the Chief of Police to accept or reject, in the
Chief’s sole discretion, the designation of the Police Department as a “person lawfully in charge” of a property. The
Chief can rescind the acceptance of such a designation at any time. Violation of the trespass ordinance is punishable
as a class 1 misdemeanor.
This new ordinance would allow Albemarle County police officers greater flexibility and authority in dealing with repeat
offenders and ongoing problems at various locations in the County. While the owners or lessees of properties can
currently issue no trespass notices against individuals and request that violations of those notices be prosecuted, the
trespasses usually occur after business hours by individuals not personally known to the property owners or lessees.
By allowing the owners to designate the Police Department as a person lawfully in charge, officers would be allowed to
order an individual to leave a property and not return, and to arrest any such individual who violates the order.
The Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Chief of Police believe that the proposed ordinance will be an effective and
relatively simple additional remedy to combat the vagrancy and loitering issues facing businesses in certain areas of
the County. The ordinance authorizes the Chief of Police, with the assistance of the County Attorney and the
Commonwealth’s Attorney, to set out the rules and procedures concerning the acceptance and rescission of
designations in order to provide maximum flexibility to effectively use this enforcement tool permitted by Virginia law.
AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance to Amend County Code – Chapter 10, Offenses—Miscellaneous to add Section 10-
120.1, Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violations
April 11, 2012
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
If an ordinance permitting the designation of the Police Department as a person lawfully in charge of property is
adopted, the Chief of Police anticipates the initial impact will be a limited number of requests for such a designation,
which will temporarily involve a small increase in administrative tim e for the Police Department. There may also be an
increase in court time for officers to assist in trespass prosecutions. However, no additional staff or officers are
anticipated to be hired to handle these matters.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Board set the attached ordinance (Attachment A) for a public hearing on May 2, 2012, for public
input and the Board’s further consideration.
ATTACHMENTS
A –Ordinance to add County Code Section 10-120.1
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO. 12-10(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 10, OFFENSES-MISCELLANEOUS, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 10,
Offenses-Miscellaneous, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Sec. 10.120.1 Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violations
Chapter 10. OFFENSES-MISCELLEANOUS
Sec. 10.120.1 Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violations
An owner, lessee, custodian, or person lawfully in charge of any real property may designate the
Albemarle County Police Department as a “person lawfully in charge of the property” for the purpose of
forbidding another to go or remain upon the lands, buildings, or premises as specified in the designation. The
decision whether to accept or rescind any such designation is solely within the discretion of the chief of police
or his designee, who may base his decision on factors including, but not limited to, resource levels of the police
department and the proper allocation of resources. Any such designation shall be in writing on forms
promulgated by the chief of police and the county attorney and shall be kept on file with the police department.
The chief of police, in consultation with the Commonwealth’s Attorney and the county attorney, shall
promulgate rules, regulations, and/or procedure for the acceptance, use, and rescission of such designation.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-1717.1.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Adoption of the FY 12/13 Operating and Capital Budgets
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board Adoption of the FY 12/13 Operating and
Capital Budgets
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 11, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On February 24, 2012, the County Executive presented his Recommended FY 12/13 Operating and Capital Budgets to
the Board of Supervisors. On February 29, 2012, the Board held a Public Hearing on the Recommended Budget and
then held four public Work Sessions. On March 14, 2012, the Board authorized the advertising of a $0.762/$100 real
estate tax rate for the 2012 Tax Year. On March 28, 2012, a Public Hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors’
Proposed FY 12/13 Operating and Capital Budgets and on the Calendar Year 2012 Tax Rates. On April 4, the Board
of Supervisors approved the tax rates for the 2012 Tax Year and discussed outstanding budget-related items. The
Board did not make any future changes to the FY 12/13 Proposed Budget at that time.
DISCUSSION:
The FY 12/13 Operating and Capital budgets total $311,438,139. This reflects the County Executive’s Recommended
Budget and changes made during the Board’s work sessions. The changes made during the work sessions are
summarized below:
The County Executive’s Recommended Budget included a $1,497,000 reserve for Board decisions. The Board
used the reserve to fund the following:
Unfreeze 3.0 Police Officers $236,068
Restore funding for TJEMS 19,257
Fund the Healthy Transitions Program at Region Ten 42,500
Restore funding for Literacy Volunteers 6,287
Restore funding for VPI Extension Service 27,492
Restore funding for OAR 10,798
*Provide funding to JMRL for salary and medical increases **67,771
Transfer to the School Division to be used for school bus
replacements
648,250
Transfer to Capital Improvement Fund 117,561
Add to Reserve for Contingencies 21,396
Subtotal $1,197,380
***Reduction of Budget (Return to taxpayers) 299,620
Total Use of Reserve for Board Decisions $1,497,000
* Additional funding for JMRL is contingent on a 1% salary increase actually being
provided to JMRL staff and the other localities also providing additional funding for
this purpose.
** During the work sessions, the Board approximated JMRL staff salary and medical
costs at $65,000 based on the information they had available to them at that time.
The actual impact in FY 12/13 is $67,771.
*** The use of the Board reserve funds and the $299,620 returned to taxpayers
results in a decrease in the planned real estate tax rate from $0.764/$100 to
$0.762/$100.
AGENDA TITLE: Adoption of the FY 12/13 Operating and Capital Budgets
April 11, 2012
Page 2
Use $60,000 in revenue from the collection of delinquent court fines to fund part-time support for the
Commonwealth’s Attorney.
The attached resolution formally approves the FY 12/13 Budget. Attachment A to the Resolution details the
adjustments made to the County Executive’s Recommended Budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached FY 12/13 Budget Resolution approving the FY 12/13 Operating and
Capital Budgets as recommended by the County Executive and amended by the Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment – Budget Resolution
Return to agenda
FY 2012/2013
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2012 is made up of the County
Executive’s Recommended Budget document and the amendments made by the Board of Supervisors.
2) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2012 is summarized as follows:
FY 12/13 Adopted
Administration $10,799,308
Judicial 3,979,231
Public Safety 33,003,587
General Services 4,455,921
Human Development (including PVCC)14,864,856
Parks, Recreation, and Culture 6,061,145
Community Development 6,108,235
Other General Government 1,887,798
General Government Special Revenue Funds 12,466,100
General Government Capital Projects 13,956,430
General Government Debt Service 3,027,757
Stormwater Improvements 131,045
Stormwater Debt Service 31,134
Education - School Operations and Other Funds 163,503,227
Education - Capital Projects 6,673,461
Education - Debt Service 12,967,956
City/County Revenue Sharing 17,520,948
TOTAL $311,438,139
3) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2012 as described in 1) and 2)
above is approved.
****************
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of _____ to _____,
as recorded below, at a meeting held on April 11, 2012.
Return to exec summary
1
Board of Supervisors April 11, 2012
Executive Summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201000011, Estes Park
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Rezone 12.75 acres on Tax Map/Parcel
03200000003300 and TMP 03200000003400 from
R-1, Residential to PRD, Planned Residential
Development, with proffers. A total of 68 single-
family attached homes are proposed for a density of
5.33 units/acre
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE: April 11, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On March 6, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Estes Park rezoning request. The Commission,
by vote of 5:1, recommended approval of the ZMA 201000011 with proffers on the condition that the following be
addressed prior to approval by the Board of Supervisors:
1. Right of access has been secured from the adjacent parcels TMP 46B4-5 and TMP 46B4-5A for the construction
(and right of way dedication) of a public road on these properties to serve the proposed Estes Park development.
2. Revision to the Affordable Housing Proffer (#3) is to the satisfaction of the Housing Director, and the Erosion and
Sediment Control Proffer (#5) to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
3. The Cash Proffer for Capital Improvements (#2) is changed so that the total cash proffer amount is based on the
total number of market value units built.
DISCUSSION:
Two of the three issues identified by the Planning Commission have been addressed by the applicant.
1. Right of access has been secured – The applicant and adjacent owners of the property where the proposed
access road is located have completed an agreement that will allow for the construction and dedication of a
public road to serve this development. In addition, there is a proffer (Proffer 1) that insures the development
road will be in place prior to issuance of the first of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the first structure on
the property.
2. Revisions to the Affordable Housing Proffer (#2) and Erosion and Sediment Control Proffer (#5) – Technical
corrections to both of these proffers have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Housing Director and
County Engineer.
3. Consistency of the cash proffer amount for capital improvements (Proffer 2) with the County’s Cash Proffer
Policy – The applicant has proposed a cash proffer amount ($754,000) that is based on the total number of
proposed units (68) minus the ten (10) affordable housing units potentially provided on-site (58 units * $13,000
per SFA unit = $754,000). The County’s Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities (Attachment V) allows for a
credit for the affordable units constructed as part of a development. The relevant section of the Cash Proffer
Policy for Public Facilities is provided below:
3. Determining number of dwelling units in rezoning: A rezoning’s impact on public facilities will be
evaluated based on the gross number of proposed dwelling units. When calculating the gross number of
dwelling units, staff will:
a. Use the upper end of the density range allowed by the rezoning.
b. Not give credits for those dwelling units permitted under existing zoning regulations (except as
provided in sections C(6)(c) and (e)) or on agricultural lots, and will not consider the transferring of
allowable units from other properties.
c. Exclude dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing under the County’s definition of
affordable housing
2
Board of Supervisors April 11, 2012
Executive Summary
The proposed Affordable Housing Proffer (Proffer 3) provides the option for the developer to either construct
affordable housing units or provide cash in lieu construction of affordable units. If the cash in lieu option is
exercised, fewer affordable units would be constructed and, therefore, more market rate units would be
constructed. As a result, the total number of affordable units to be built is not known at this time, so the
amount of credit for the construction of affordable units cannot be determined at this time. To be fully
consistent with the Cash Proffer Policy, the total cash proffer amount should be based on the total number of
market rate units that could be built. To make this proffer fully consistent with this cash proffer policy, the total
dollar amount proffered should be changed from “up to $754,000” to “up to $884,000.” The Commission
recommended that the proffer be revised provide the cash proffer amount consistent with total number of
market rate units constructed on the site.
The applicant believes that the $754,000 is consistent with the intent of the policy to offset the cash proffer
amount for public facilities by the level of commitment made to affordable housing, whether it be through the
construction of affordable units or a cash payment toward affordable housing programs in lieu of constructing
affordable units.
The Forest Lakes Homeowners Association has reviewed Proffer 5 (and referenced memorandum) related to
enhanced erosion and sedimentation control measures for site development and concur with this proffer as a means
to limit impacts to Arbor Lake, which is located downstream of this site and within the Forest Lakes development.
This proposal also requires the Board of Supervisors to approve a critical slope waiver for the disturbance of 0.1 acre
of critical slopes. The Planning Commission, by vote of 6:0, recommended approval of this critical slope waiver. The
staff’s analysis of this waiver request can be found in the August 23, 2011 staff report (Attachment IV, Page12).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff finds that the proffers are legally acceptable and, along with the application plan, address two of the three conditions
identified in the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval of this rezoning request. Because the Applicant’s
cash proffer amount for capital improvement projects is not consistent with the County’s Cash Proffer Policy for Public
Facilities and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff cannot recommend approval of this request.
Should the Board find that the cash proffer amount for capital improvement projects is acceptable then, at the conclusion
of the public hearing, the staff would recommend that the Board approve:
1) ZMA201000011, Estes Parking including the proffers dated March 30, 2012
2) Waiver of Section 18-4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for disturbance of critical slopes
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT I: Revised proffers dated March 30, 2012 (Note: A revised set of proffers correcting typographical
errors will be provided prior to the Board meeting)
ATTACHMENT II: Application Plan Dated January 17, 2012
ATTACHMENT III: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 6, 2012 (includes August 23, 2011 PC Staff
Report as attachment)
ATTACHMENT IV: County of Albemarle, Virginia Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities
View PC minutes of August 23, 2011; September 27. 2011; October 18, 2011; December 13, 2011; January 24, 2012
and March 6, 2012
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT I
ATTACHMENT I
ATTACHMENT I
ATTACHMENT I
ATTACHMENT I
ATTACHMENT I
ATTACHMENT I
ATTACHMENT I
ATTACHMENT II
ATTACHMENT II
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 201000011, Estes Park
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Applicant proposes to construct 68 single-family
attached units, in a pedestrian-friendly layout,
with a street network, with access to Worth
Crossing, and with 25% open space that
includes the stream on the property. The
property is located in the southwestern quadrant
of Proffit Road (Rt. 649) and Worth
Crossing/Leake Lane, approximately 800 feet
south of Proffit Road in the Community of
Hollymead. (TMP 032000000003300 and TMP
03200000003400)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
David Benish
AGENDA DATE:
March 6, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this proposal on August 23, 2011. The August 23rd staff report is
provided as Attachment D. The previous proposal consisted of constructing 68 single-family detached units served by a
public road network which would have connected to Moubry Lane, in the Forest Ridge development, and Worth Crossing
through an adjacent parcel containing Bright Beginnings Day Care. The applicant requested deferral at the August meeting
in order to address the comments and concerns raised by the Commission, which were:
1. Inadequate commitment to affordable housing. There was general consensus from the Commission that the cash
proffer amount for affordable housing should be based on the total number of dwelling units consistent with the
County’s cash proffer policy.
2. The applicant should insure that there is adequate protection of downstream properties, including Arbor Lake, from
erosion and sedimentation.
3. Provide for a tot lot or another recreational amenity in the 25% open space.
4. Improve temporary and long-term protection of the historic cemetery on-site.
5. Provide adequate road widths to accommodate parking on both sides of all roads.
6. Evaluate options for another point of vehicular access instead of the Moubry Lane interconnection. It was the
general consensus of the Commission not to make a vehicular connection to Moubry Lane. A second means of
access needs to be made.
The applicant has responded to the Commission’s concerns through changes to both the proposed application plan
(Attachment A) and proffers (Attachment B). Major changes to the application plan since the version reviewed in August
are:
The unit type has been changed from single-family detached homes to single-family attached homes.
A pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access only connection has been provided to Moubry Lane.
The sole access to the site is now through a proposed public road to Worth Crossing through adjacent parcels on
the north side of the site. No second means of access to the site is feasible at this time (except from Moubry
Lane). Three road stub-outs to adjacent properties have been provided for on the application plan as possible
future interconnections.
The applicant resubmitted a revised application plan with proffers in mid January, 2012 for review and requested to be
scheduled for review by the Planning Commission at the earliest possible date (March 6) in lieu of receiving staff comments
on the revised plan and providing revisions to the plan to address staff concerns.
ATTACHMENT III
DISCUSSION:
Staff has provided an overall assessment of the changes made to the plan and proffers to address the Commission’s
concerns.
1. Inadequate commitment to affordable housing—a general consensus from the Commission that the cash
proffer amount for affordable housing should be based on the total number dwelling units.
The applicant has addressed the Commission’s concern in concept. The affordable housing proffer is intended to
provide the option of providing 15 percent of the total units as affordable units or payments in lieu of units based on
the total number of units in the rezoning request (68). The applicant has previously based the proffer on the total
number of by right units (50). The status of the specific proffer language is discussed in the “Status of Proffers”
section of the Executive Summary.
2. The applicant should insure that there is adequate protection of downstream properties, including Arbor
Lake, from erosion and sedimentation.
The applicant is addressing impacts to downstream properties, including Arbor Lake, by proffering to provide a
higher level of erosion and sediment control measures than required under current regulations. The County
engineer believes this is the best approach for providing enhanced protection of downstream properties from
erosion and sedimentation. The applicant has submitted a memo identifying the additional measures which could
be provided with this development to implement this proffer (Attachment D). The County Engineer is reviewing the
memo and will work with the applicant to identify the appropriate implementation measures to be incorporated into
the proposed proffer.
3. Provide for a tot lot or another recreational amenity in the 25% open space.
The applicant has addressed the Commission’s concern. A tot lot has been provided in a newly proposed pocket
park. Some technical changes to the notes on the Application Plan need to be made to clarify location of the tot lot
facility.
4. Improve temporary and long-term protection of the historic cemetery on-site.
The applicant has addressed the Commission’s concern. Notes have been added to the application plan that
provide for an access easement to the cemetery and the installation of a black metal fencing around the cemetery
to be maintained by the HOA.
5. Provide adequate road widths to accommodate parking on both sides of all roads.
This issue has been addressed. The proposed roads are now wide enough to accommodate parking on both
sides of the road.
6. Evaluate options for another point of vehicular access instead of the Moubry Lane. It was the consensus
of the Commission not to make the interconnection to Moubry Lane. A second means of access needs to
be made.
The road network has been changed to provide a pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access only to Moubry Lane
(no vehicular access). The only access to the site would now be from a proposed public road to Worth Crossing
through adjacent properties located on the north side of the site (the Bright Beginnings Day Care property and an
adjacent property just east of Bright Beginnings). A similar connection was proposed on the previous plan as one
of two public road accesses to the site. There are no other options (besides Moubry Lane) to provide for a second
means of access to this site from an existing public road. Three other road stub-outs to adjacent properties have
also been shown on the revised application plan which could accommodate a connection to future development of
those properties
At this time, the applicant has not secured permission from the adjacent property owners to construct the public
access road to this development. The applicant is still in negotiations with the adjacent property owners of TMP
46B4-5 and TMP46B4-5A to secure the right-of-way necessary to construct the proposed road connection to
Worth Crossing; however, no agreement has been reached as of the writing of this report.
Status of Proffers:
The proffers have been amended by the applicant to reflect the changes made to the proposal and the
Commission’s concerns. The revised proffers are generally acceptable in concept and overall intent; however,
there are still a number of changes needed to before they are acceptable for signature (Attachment C). Staff has
provided the following comments regarding the draft proffers:
For Proffer 1, the Cash Proffer for Capital Improvements Projects, the proposed cash proffer amount
($754,000) is based on the total number of proposed units (68) minus the ten (10) affordable housing
ATTACHMENT III
units potentially provided on-site (58 units * $13,000 per SFA unit = $754,000). The County’s Cash Proffer
Policy allows for a credit for the affordable units constructed as part of a development. However, the
proposed Affordable Housing Proffer (Proffer 2, discussed in more detail below) is providing the option for
the developer to either construct affordable housing units or provide cash in lieu construction. As a result,
the total number of affordable units to be built is not known, so the amount of credit for the construction of
affordable units cannot be determined at this time. To be fully consistent with the Cash Proffer Policy, the
total cash proffer amount should be based on the total number of market rate units built. Staff believes
that this proffer can be, and should be, reworded to provide the cash proffer amount consistent with total
number of market rate units constructed on the site. The language of this proffer will need to be revised
and consistent with the Affordable Housing Proffer and finalized prior to review of the proposal by the
Board of Supervisors.
The previous Proffer 1 stated that the owner shall not submit a final subdivision plat or site plan for the
project unless it includes the Worth Crossing Road connection. This proffer was to ensure that this
connection, originally proposed as a second point of access to the site, would be constructed. This
connection is now the only access for the site and the project is not developable unless this connection is
made; therefore, this proffer is no longer needed and is being deleted. Deletion of this proffer is
acceptable to staff. Other proffers related to the construction of the road connection to Moubry Lane have
also been deleted consistent with the Commission’s direction.
Proffer 2, the Affordable Housing Proffer, has been modified to provide the developer the option of either
constructing affordable housing units or providing cash lieu of units in order to meet the Affordable
Housing Policy. The proposed total number of affordable units or cash amount (in lieu of construction) is
consistent with the Affordable Housing Policy (15 percent of all units). This “flexible” approach to
providing affordable units and/or cash is acceptable to staff in concept; however, the language for this
proffer will need to be modified to the satisfaction of the Housing Director and Planning staff to insure
successful implementation and management of the proffer.
The applicant has also modified the Proffer 5 to provide a higher level of erosion and sediment control,
above the standard regulatory requirements, in order to provide a higher level of protection for
downstream areas, including Arbor Lake. The language for this proffer will need to be modified the
satisfaction of the satisfaction of the County Engineer to insure successful implementation and
management of proffer. The County Engineer is reviewing the memo and will work with the applicant to
identify the appropriate implementation measures to be incorporated into the proposed proffer.
Other Site Development Issues:
There are several site development issues which have been identified as part of the review of the application plan for the
rezoning. These issues will need to be addressed at the site plan and/or subdivision plat review stage to the satisfaction of
the County Engineer. Any approval of this rezoning request and associated application plan does not imply that the
following issues have been addressed with this action:
This plan appears to involve significant lot-to-lot drainage, which is not recommended as it can create
significant problems for future homeowners. A typical rule-of-thumb is drainage through 3 lots maximum
before being physically diverted and picked up in a pipe system. “Lot-to-lot grading” for the development will
need to be addressed, particularly for lots along road D and E.
The size and location of stormwater management facilities will be subject to review and approval by the County
Engineer.
Lot 68 is located close to the stream and grading for the lot will likely impact the stream. Lot 68 should either
be eliminated or relocated further away from the stream.
All road stub-outs will need to be built to the property line.
SUMMARY:
This proposal is generally consistent with the goals, objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the
primary inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan is with the lack of inter-connectivity of the road network to existing
public roads, specifically Moubry Lane. Staff believes the most desirable road network to serve this development and the
surrounding area would include public road connections to both Moubry Lane and Worth Crossing, which would be
consistent with the interconnectivity strategies of the Plan. However, the Commission has previously recommended that
the road connection not be made to Moubry Lane to limit impacts to the Forest Ridge neighborhood. The applicant has
followed the Commission’s direction.
ATTACHMENT III
In summary, this proposal is generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan and is considered a good design for the site;
however, staff cannot recommend approval of the rezoning at this time until the following outstanding issues are
addressed:
Assurance that the public road connection to Worth Crossing can be constructed on adjacent properties not under
the control of the applicant. Without assurance that this road can be built, the development as proposed will not
have access to a public road and will not be developable.
.
The proffers are not yet in an acceptable form. Revisions need to be made to the Cash Proffer for Capital Projects
(# 1), the Affordable Housing Proffer (#2), and the Erosion and Sediment Control Proffer (#5) as noted in this
Executive Summary. Other technical, non-substantive corrections also need to be made to the document.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff cannot recommend approval of ZMA 2010-11, Estes Park at this time due to the outstanding issues noted above.
Should the Commission decide to recommend approval of this proposal, staff recommends that the Commission’s action
be conditioned on the following items being addressed prior to approval by the Board of Supervisors:
1. Right of access has been secured from the adjacent parcels TMP 46B4-5 and TMP46B4-5A for the
construction (and right of way dedication) of a public road on these properties to serve the proposed Estes
Park development.
2. The Cash Proffer for Capital Improvements (#1) is changed so that the total cash proffer amount is based on the
total number of market value units built.
3. Revision to the Affordable Housing Proffer (#2) is to the satisfaction of the Housing Director, and the Erosion and
Sediment Control Proffer (#5) to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. .
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Zoning Map Amendment:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park based on the condition that the issues
identified by staff are addressed prior to approval by the Board of Supervisors.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial,
he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Critical Slopes Waiver:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of the critical slopes waiver:
Move to recommend approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver for ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park, as recommended
by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of the critical slopes waiver:
Move to recommend denial of the Critical Slopes Waiver for ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park. Should a
commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Estes Park Rezoning Application Plan
B – Revised Proffers dated February 8, 2012
C – Memo from Collins Engineering—Additional Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures (dated 2/8/12)
D – August 23, 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park Staff: Judith C. Wiegand, AICP
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
August 23, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Not scheduled
Owner(s): Clifford H. Fox, Jr. and Ruth Johnson
Estes Estate
Applicant: Scott Collins, PE, Collins Engineering,
representing the owners.
Acreage: 12.75 acres Rezone from: R-1, Residential, which allows 1 unit
per acre to Planned Residential Development (PRD),
which allows residential uses (3 – 34 units/acre) with
limited commercial uses.
TMP: TMPs 032000000003300 and
03200000003400
Location: in the southwestern quadrant of Proffit
Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossing/Leake Lane,
approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the
Community of Hollymead. (Attachment A)
By-right use: 12 residential units and up to 18 units
with density bonus.
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Applicant proposes to construct 68
single-family detached units, in a pedestrian-friendly
layout, with a street network, with an interparcel
connection to Moubry Lane, and with 25% open
space that includes the stream on the property.
(Attachment B)
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 68
DA (Development Area): Hollymead Community
Places29 Master Plan Designation: Urban Density
Residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in the Hollymead
Development Area.
Character of Property: The property currently has
one older residence and outbuildings on it. The
gently rolling terrain includes a stream with steep
slopes running from the northwest to the southeast
across both parcels.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The property to the
north is residential with two churches and a daycare
facility, property to the east is the Forest Ridge duplex
residential neighborhood, property to the west is the
Worth Crossing townhouses, and the property to the
south is the Dominion Power substation.
Factors Favorable:
1. The project would result in a neighborhood of 68
residences close to major employers expected
to add jobs in the future and within walking
distance of retail and services.
2. The new development will be single-family
detached homes at a density and scale
compatible with surrounding residential
neighborhoods that adds another type of
housing to the mix of duplexes and townhouses
now available in the immediate area.
3. The project’s road network has been designed
to interconnect with roads on other nearby
properties as they develop, as well as to create
a road network that will serve the larger Proffit
Road/Worth Crossing area.
4. The applicant proposes to create a second
entrance by completing the interparcel
connection set up when the Forest Ridge
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The method used by the applicant to calculate the
number of units on which the number of affordable
housing units will be provided and the number of
units on which the cash proffer for capital
improvements will be paid does not follow the
method stipulated in the Affordable Housing Policy
or the Cash Proffer Policy of the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. The width of the streets in the proposed
development will allow parking on only one side of
the street; VDOT will require that the other side be
posted with “No Parking” signs, which may lead to
parking conflicts when the site is fully developed.
3. A tot lot or other type of recreational amenity has
not been provided within the 25% open space.
4. Additional minor changes need to be made in the
wording of the proffers and on the application
plan, as listed under Recommendation at the end
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 2
neighborhood was developed in the 1990s. The
existing cul-de-sac at the end of Moubry Lane
will be removed, the grade will be improved, and
affected driveways along Moubry Lane
extended to meet the reconstructed road.
5. The applicant has proffered to construct a
sidewalk and planting strip on one side of
Moubry Lane to provide a safer place for Forest
Ridge residents to walk once Moubry Lane
becomes a through street. By narrowing the
street, the sidewalk/parking strip will also serve
as a form of traffic calming for the Forest Ridge
neighborhood.
6. The project’s design preserves the main section
of the stream, an environmental feature that
flows diagonally through the center of the two
parcels. The stream will become an amenity in
the open space area.
7. Approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver will
enable the developer to make the most efficient
use of the property while preserving the main
section of the stream.
of this report.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this rezoning provided certain changes are made in
the application plan and proffers, as listed under Recommendation at the end of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver.
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 3
STAFF PERSON: Judith C. Wiegand, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: August 23, 2011
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Critical Slopes Waiver
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA 201000011, Estes Park
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.75 acres from R-1, Residential zoning district which allows 1 unit/acre to
PRD, Planned Residential Development zoning district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre)
with limited commercial uses. Proposed number of units is 68 for a density of 5.33 units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential –
residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth
Crossing, approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300 and TMP 03200000003400
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The two subject parcels are located in the southeastern quadrant of Proffit Road and Worth
Crossing/ Leake Lane. The property does not have frontage on any of the major streets in the area
(i.e., Worth Crossing, Proffit Road). The property currently has a residence and several outbuildings
on TMP 33-34. The property is bounded to the north by several parcels zoned R-1, Residential and
occupied by a single residence (TMP 32-35), two churches (TMP 32-36G/32-36E and TMP 32-
29D), a daycare facility (TMP 46B4-5), and a metal storage building (TMP 46B4-5A). The property
to the west is zoned R-15, Residential and is the location of the Worth Crossing townhouses. The
property to the south is owned by Dominion Virginia Power and is the site of a substation. The
neighborhood to the east, Forest Ridge, is zoned R-10, Residential and consists of 44 duplex
residential units.
A major issue in the area has been the creation of a street network sufficient to serve both existing
and proposed developments on all of the parcels in this area.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant would like to develop a pedestrian-friendly, single-family detached neighborhood of
68 homes, with a street network, an interconnection to Moubry Lane, and 25% open space. The
proposed density is 5.3 units per acre. A Project Narrative prepared by the applicant is included as
Attachment C.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant explained in the Project Narrative that the Estes Park rezoning would create a new
single family housing option in a pedestrian-friendly design within walking distance of commercial
uses and other amenities. Rezoning the property from R-1, Residential to Planned Residential
Development (PRD) would allow construction of 68 single family homes at a density of 5.3 units per
acre, which would be complimentary to the surrounding area and more in agreement with the
Places29 Master Plan land use designation of Urban Density Residential (the current R-1 zoning
would permit a maximum of 18 units with a density bonus). The applicant also indicates that
Neighborhood Model principles were considered in the design of the project, including pedestrian
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 4
orientation, interconnected streets, provision of open space, walkability, human-scale development,
and coordination with surrounding development. (Attachment C)
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
The property has been zoned R-1, Residential since the County’s comprehensive rezoning was
adopted in December 1980. Prior to 1980, the property was zoned agricultural.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Places29 Master Plan: The Master Plan recommends Urban Density Residential land uses for
the two parcels subject to this rezoning, as well as for much of the surrounding area. The two
parcels subject to this rezoning are within the red circle on the excerpt from the Master Plan
shown below. The orange color denotes Urban Density Residential. The primary land uses
expected in this designation are multifamily and single-family residential, including two or more
housing types. Since the proposed Estes Park development of single-family detached homes
would be surrounded by townhouses and duplexes, this proposal meets the recommendations
of the Master Plan. (Note: North is at the top of this illustration and the one below it.)
Parks and Green Systems Map:
As shown in the excerpt from the Places29 Parks & Green Systems Map below, there are only a
few, small areas of critical slopes on the two parcels subject to this rezoning (circled in red). The
lower portion of the stream through the center of the two parcels is also shown.
The dashed purple line running along Worth Crossing denotes a proposed bike lane. The
dashed orange line running along Proffit Road denotes a proposed multi-use path. Neither of
these lanes/paths will affect the Estes Park property directly, although they will, when built,
provide amenities for the residents of the proposed development.
Proffit Road
Worth Crossing
US 29
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 5
The Neighborhood Model: Staff’s analysis below indicates how well the proposed development
meets the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model.
Pedestrian
Orientation
The application plan shows sidewalks on both sides of all streets in the
proposed development. There is a short segment of asphalt sidewalk
on Worth Crossing directly in front of the Worth Crossing townhouses,
but there is no sidewalk on Worth Crossing north of the proposed
entrance to Estes Park. The sidewalk shown on the south side of Road
B could be connected to the asphalt path, while the sidewalk on the
north side of Road B could be connected to a future sidewalk on Worth
Crossing north of the entrance. If the sidewalk on the north side of
Road C is shown all the way to the corner of Moubry Lane, this
principle will be met.
Neighborhood
Friendly Streets
and Paths
Sidewalks and paths have been provided for adequately. The streets
are generally neighborhood-friendly, except that they are too narrow to
accommodate onstreet parking on both sides of the street. Staff is
concerned that, with the small lot size, conflicts may occur if parking is
limited to one side of the street. If onstreet parking was available on
both sides of the street, this principle would be met. (for further
discussion, see “Streets” in the Staff Comments section below)
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
The Plan shows a main entrance from Worth Crossing and a secondary
one through Moubry Lane. There is also a stubout to the south that
could be connected if the adjacent property ever develops. The road
network is excellent; it provides the connection between Worth
Crossing and Moubry Lane without creating a road that could be used
as a “speedway.” This principle is met.
Parks and Open
Space
The applicant has maintained 25% open space and incorporated the
longest stretch of the existing stream into the open space. Staff
believes that if a recreational amenity, such as a tot lot or picnic
area is included, this principle will be met.
Neighborhood
Centers
The proposed development and the area around it are intended to be
residential to support nearby centers. The nearest center is on the west
side of Worth Crossing; residents of the proposed development will be
Proffit Road
Worth Crossing
US 29
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 6
able to walk to a major grocery store and several other shops and
businesses. This principle is met.
Buildings and
Spaces of Human
Scale
The proposed neighborhood would include 68 single-family homes that
are arranged in a compact block pattern. The maximum building height
would be 35 feet. When the homes are designed, staff would like to see
the garages deemphasized by placing them so they are no closer to the
street than the front of the homes. This principle is met.
Relegated Parking Two offstreet parking spaces have been provided for each residence;
one is in the garage and other is in the driveway in front of the garage.
County regulations require two offstreet spaces for single-family
detached dwellings (Section 4.22 definition of Single Family Dwelling,
and Section 19.10). So, the proposed development meets County
parking requirements. However, the parking will not be relegated unless
the front of the garages are either flush with the front of the house or,
preferably, recessed so the emphasis is on the front of the house rather
than the garage. Until the designs for the houses have been
developed, staff cannot determine if this principle is met.
Mixture of Uses The proposed single-family neighborhood has a duplex neighborhood
and a townhouse development adjacent to it. Two churches and a
daycare are also nearby. With the shopping center on the west side of
Worth Crossing, the mixture of uses in this area is excellent; this
principle is met.
Mixture of Housing
Types and
Affordability
When considered together with the adjacent townhomes and duplexes,
there is a good mixture of housing types in this area. No information
has been provided on eventual sales prices for the homes in the
development, although they have been described to staff as “mid-
priced.” The applicant proposes, with the agreement of the Office of
Housing, to provide cash in lieu of affordable housing units. As noted in
the discussion of proffers below, the method used to calculate the
number of affordable units does not comply with the requirements of
the Affordable Housing Policy of the Comprehensive Plan; this
principle is not met.
Redevelopment There is one residence and several outbuildings on one of the parcels.
These structures will be demolished in order to construct the
development. The applicant has documented the buildings in advance
of demolition, as requested by staff. This principle is met.
Site Planning that
Respects Terrain
The open space has been configured to include the stream and protect
the wetlands. There is only one small area of 2:1 slopes on the site
and the applicant has applied for a critical slopes waiver (See below).
No retaining walls are proposed. This principle is met.
Clear Boundaries
with the Rural
Areas
This project is not located adjacent to the boundary with the Rural
Areas so this principle is not relevant.
Economic Vitality Action Plan
The primary goal of the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan is to:
Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local
residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local
residents and existing local businesses.
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 7
The proposed Estes Park development would support the Plan by providing housing for employees
of existing and potential businesses in the County, particularly in an area of the county where
employment growth is expect to occur.
Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Economic Vitality
Action Plan.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district: The following section is an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance:
PRD districts may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map in accordance
with the provisions set forth generally for PD districts in sections 8.0 and 33.0, and with
densities and in locations in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
The PRD is intended to encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and
toward impact on the surrounding area in land development. More specifically, the PRD is
intended to promote economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities,
appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with the best
interest of the county and the area in which it is located.
To these ends, the PRD provides for flexibility and variety of development for residential
purposes and uses ancillary thereto. Open space may serve such varied uses as recreation,
protection of areas sensitive to development, buffering between dissimilar uses and
preservation of agricultural activity.
While a PRD approach is recommended for developments of any density, it is recommended
but not required that the PRD be employed in areas where the comprehensive plan
recommends densities in excess of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre, in recognition that
development at such densities generally requires careful planning with respect to impact.
(Amended 8-14-85)
The proposed Estes Park development complies with the requirements of section 8 of the zoning
code; it will be under unified control, will include an application plan, and will provide, operate, and
maintain common areas for the residents of the development. Estes Park is proposed for an area
designated Urban Density Residential (6.01-34 units per acre) in the Places29 Master Plan. While
the proposed density in Estes Park is 5.33 units per acre, slightly less than the minimum, the
development will be single-family detached homes on smaller lots, an appropriate residential
alternative to the townhomes and duplexes nearby.
The applicant has incorporated the stream into the 25% open space required for a PRD
development and has used it as an amenity on the site. The applicant has worked with the
neighbors and County staff to minimize impacts on surrounding developments and neighborhoods.
As an example, the applicant has proffered construction of a sidewalk and planting strip on one side
of Moubry Lane as a means of traffic calming and to provide safer walking places for all residents of
the area. Also, the cul-de-sac will be removed in a way that is sensitive to the grades of that part of
Forest Ridge and the close proximity of homes in that development.
The proposed 68 units represent a significantly more efficient and economical use of the land than
the 12 units (18 with density bonus) that would be possible under the current R-1, Residential
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 8
zoning. The applicants are proposing a road network that will not only serve the Estes Park
development, but will also tie into the surrounding developments and create the foundation of a
street network that will ultimately serve the entire southeastern quadrant of the Proffit Road and
Worth Crossing/Leake Lane area.
Staff believes that the proposal meets the intent of the Planned Residential Development (PRD)
district.
Public need and justification for the change:
The County is experiencing additional employment growth in the Places29 area as the Rivanna
Station Military Base expands and the University of Virginia Research Park continues to add
businesses. Providing housing for employees and their families in reasonable proximity to these
jobs is an important County goal. Rezoning the property so that additional units can be constructed
in a design that follows the principles of the Neighborhood Model will help ensure that additional
homes in a housing type not yet found in this immediate area will be built.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources:
The applicant has designed the development so that the main portion of the stream that runs
through the center of the parcels remains in the open space area; it will be a natural amenity.
The house and outbuildings currently on one of the parcels (TMP 32-34) will be demolished. They
have been documented by the Historic Preservation Committee prior to their demolition.
The Estes Family cemetery is located in the southwest corner of the site. It is currently very
overgrown and most of the graves are unmarked. The Historic Preservation Committee has viewed
the site and an expert in old cemeteries has indicated that the boundaries shown on the application
plan reflect the edges of the cemetery. Staff has requested that the applicant charge the proposed
homeowners association with fencing and maintaining the cemetery.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets: VDOT has indicated that:
While two offstreet parking spaces per unit meet VDOT requirements so that the proposed
development could be designed with parking on only one side of the street, VDOT would
prefer that the streets be designed for parking on both sides. Otherwise, one side of each
street will need to be posted with “No Parking” signs. VDOT has expressed concern that,
since the two offstreet spaces are one behind the other (one is in the garage), some
residents may choose not to use one or the other of their offstreet spaces. This might mean
more cars parked onstreet, might lead to parking in restricted areas, and could result in
residents’ complaints or parking conflicts if a resident’s home was located on the “wrong”
side of the street. Onstreet parking by residents would also cut down on the number of
spaces for guest parking or for the third (or subsequent) car belonging to a household.
According to the traffic analysis provided by the applicant, a left turn lane from Proffit Road
into Moubry Lane is not warranted at this time, but it is very close. Future background traffic
growth on Proffit Road could warrant a left turn lane into Moubry Lane. The construction of a
left turn lane appears to require acquisition of right-of -way from adjacent parcels to
accommodate the widening necessary for the left turn lane. (See Attachment D)
Staff agrees with VDOT’s recommendation that the streets be widened enough to allow parking on
both sides of the street.
Schools: Students living in the proposed Estes Park development will attend Baker-Butler
Elementary, Sutherland Middle, and Albemarle High schools.
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 9
Fire and Rescue: The Hollymead Fire/Rescue Station on Airport Road is the nearest station.
Utilities: RWSA and ACSA have provided comments on the proposed Estes Park development.
Water and sewer are available at the site and no problems with provision of them are known. (See
Attachments F and G)
The County’s Cash Proffer Policy states that:
It is the policy of the County to require that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential
uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed
necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. Accordingly, the Board will
accept cash proffers for rezoning requests that permit residential uses in accordance with this
policy. However, the Board may also accept cash, land or in-kind improvements in accordance
with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning.
This would mean that 68 single-family detached homes at $19,100 per unit would result in a total of
$1,298,800 minus the credit for the Sidewalk Expense.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
The primary impact anticipated on surrounding properties is an increase in traffic. The proposed 68
units are expected to generate approximately 729 trips per day, according to the traffic impact
assessment prepared by the applicant. These trips are not expected to cause adverse impacts on
traffic operations at the site entrance along Worth Crossing or at the Moubry Lane/Proffit Road
intersection.
The traffic study also evaluated whether a turn lane from Proffit Road into Moubry Lane was
warranted by the additional traffic from Estes Park. Construction of a left turn lane is not warranted.
VDOT has indicated, though, that the left turn lane may be necessary as background traffic
increases and/or additional development takes place in the area.
The design of the interconnection from Estes Park to Moubry Lane, as shown on the application
plan, meets both VDOT and County requirements. The design includes lowering the surface of the
road at the cul-de-sac, removing those parts of the cul-de-sac that will no longer be part of the road,
lengthening affected driveways, and returning the “surplus” portions of the cul-de-sac to adjacent
property owners.
Residents of the Forest Ridge neighborhood have expressed concern from the beginning of the
Estes Park rezoning that they would no longer be able to walk along Moubry Lane once it became a
through street. Forest Ridge was built before the County began requiring sidewalks and street trees
in Development Area neighborhoods. Forest Ridge residents also expressed concern about the
potential for speeding along Moubry Lane since the street is a wide one. Staff measured the width
as 38 feet from curb to curb. Staff suggested that a sidewalk built in the right-of-way on one side of
Moubry Lane would help reduce the width. VDOT noted that a planting strip (minimum 2.5 feet in
width) would need to be provided between the new sidewalk and the street. The total reduction in
street width will be approximately 8 feet. When cars are parked onstreet, that will further reduce the
“speedway” appearance of Moubry Lane. The applicant has responded to staff and VDOT requests
in Proffer 3 below, which provides for the requested improvements.
Phasing:
The applicant has indicated on the cover sheet and application plan that three phases are
contemplated. In a letter dated June 20, 2011, the applicant states that:
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 10
The Estes Park Project includes three construction phases. All phases are shown on the site
plan sheet of the application plan. Phase 1 includes lots 1-20, 26 & 27, and 38-47 and
associated infrastructure. Temporary turn-arounds will be provided as necessary with Phase 1.
Phase 2 covers the remaining of the lots and infrastructure on site. Phase 3 covers off-site
improvements to the Forest Ridge Neighborhood along Moubry Lane.
Staff has requested that the phasing information now included on the cover sheet of the application
plan be expanded to include the information in the paragraph above. Since the letter of June 20 will
not be adopted as part of the rezoning, the information needs to be on the approved plan.
PROFFERS
Attachment D contains the current draft proffers. Some changes in the wording relating to the form
of the proffer have been requested and others are expected prior to the Board of Supervisors’
public hearing. Individual proffers are described below:
Proffer 1: Worth Crossing Connection.
The applicant proposes to construct the entrance road into the proposed development, as shown on
the application plan. This proffer is necessary to ensure that the entrance is constructed as shown
on the application plan because much of the entrance road would be located on a parcel not
included in this rezoning application.
Staff supports the inclusion of this proffer. It has been recently revised, so staff is awaiting
comments from the County Attorney on the precise wording.
Proffer 2: Moubry Lane Sidewalk.
The applicant has agreed to construct a sidewalk, planting strip, and associated drainage facilities
within the existing right-of-way along the east side of Moubry Lane. The cost of these improvements
would be deducted from the funds received from the cash proffer for capital improvements. These
improvements will provide two important benefits. First, Forest Ridge residents will have a safer
place to walk once the cul-de-sac is removed and Moubry Lane becomes a through street. The
planting strip will also provide a small buffer between the sidewalk and the street, as well as a
location for residents’ mailboxes.
The second benefit is that the resulting street will be narrower, thereby providing a form of traffic
calming. When residents and their guests park along the street, the parked cars will increase the
traffic calming effect of the narrower street.
Staff believes this is an excellent way to deal with the increase of traffic on the Moubry Lane once it
becomes a through street and also supports funding these improvements through the cash proffer
for capital improvements funds.
Proffer 3: Cash Proffer for Capital Improvements Projects.
At the beginning of this proffer, the applicant explains the method used to calculate the number of
units on which the applicant is willing to pay a cash proffer for capital improvements. The applicant
subtracted the total number of units, including bonus units, that could be built under the current R-1,
Residential zoning (18) from the total number of proposed units (68). The result is 50 units on which
the applicant is proffering cash for capital improvements. Staff notes that the County’s Cash Proffer
Policy states, “[a] rezoning’s impact on public facilities will be evaluated based on the gross number
of proposed dwelling units.” To determine the number of units, the policy does, “[n]ot give credits for
those dwelling units permitted under existing zoning regulations (except as provided in sections
C(6)(c) and (e))….”
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 11
Sections C(6)(c) and (e) refer to credits that may be applicable. Section (c) states:
c. No increase or small increase in density: In rezoning applications where there is a minimal
increase in density, a credit may be given for the number of residential units allowed under the
existing zoning and the cash proffer amount will be based only on the estimated density
increase resulting from the rezoning. This credit may be allowed only for those rezoning
applications where the rezoning seeks the design flexibility allowed by the Neighborhood Model
zoning district or seeks to amend a prior rezoning with no increase in density. The credit should
not be allowed if the rezoning application seeks to increase density in a conventional, rather
than a planned, zoning district.
Staff does not consider an increase from 18 by-right units to 68 units to be a minimal increase, so
this credit should not apply.
Section (e) states:
e. Substantial upgrades to design/development standards: The Board may consider
development proposals that include substantial upgrades to current design/development
standards and ordinance requirements as justification for granting a credit to the pre-existing lot
yield. Pre-existing lot yields will be calculated using average actual recorded lot yields provided
the applicant has not otherwise submitted documentation indicating higher lot yields in
conformance with existing ordinances and reflective of site specific physical features.
Staff notes that the proposed development incorporates many Neighborhood Model features, but
the County generally achieves this result with other residential developments. So the fact that the
proposed Estes Park development will fulfill most of the principles does not distinguish it from other
residential rezonings. Staff believes that Estes Park should pay the full single-family detached
amount for all 68 units. This would mean that for 68 single-family detached homes at $19,100 per
unit, the total would be: $1,298,800, minus the credit for the Sidewalk Expense.
The Policy also includes a potential credit for affordable units constructed as part of a development.
However, since Estes Park is proffering cash-in-lieu of affordable units, this credit would not apply.
This proffer also includes language that the “Sidewalk Expense” should be credited against the total
amount the applicant would pay under this proffer. The “Sidewalk Expense” includes construction of
the sidewalk, planting strip, and related drainage facilities on Moubry Lane. Staff believes that these
improvements are essential to provide safer pedestrian facilities for the residents of Forest Ridge
and that these improvements would have to be made by the County, if not provided by the
developer. So, staff supports the inclusion of the “Sidewalk Expense” credit in the proffers. The
amount will be included in this Proffer prior to the public hearing before the Board of Supervisors.
Proffer 4: Affordable Housing.
It is staff’s understanding that, with the agreement of the County’s Chief of Housing, the applicant is
proffering to provide cash in lieu of affordable units, rather than the affordable units themselves. So,
the first paragraph (“a”) of Proffer #4 applies. The applicant proffers cash in lieu of 15% or seven (7)
affordable units. However, as with Proffer #3, this proffer is based on 50 units rather than the 68
included in the rezoning. The Affordable Housing Policy asks for a “minimum of 15%” of the units;
no credits are offered that would apply to the Estes Park rezoning. Staff believes that all 68 units
should be included in the 15% calculation, which would result in 10.2 units of affordable housing.
The Chief of Housing has indicated that, where the 15% works out to include a fraction of a unit, the
cash-in-lieu payment may use the fractional number rather than rounding the number up to 11, as
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 12
would be done for provision of actual units. Thus, 10.2 units at $21,125 per unit, would result in a
proffer amount of $215,475.
The County Attorney has indicated that the standard language used in this proffer relating to “for
sale” units is being revised. The applicant has been advised that further changes in this wording
may be necessary and may be made before the proffer is reviewed by the Board of Supervisors.
Proffer 5: Moubry Lane Interconnection.
The applicant has included this proffer to clarify for the residents of Forest Ridge that the “Moubry
Lane Interconnection” will be constructed with consideration for Forest Ridge residents. The proffer
states that construction of the interconnection will not begin until the rest of the Estes Park project is
nearing completion, that Moubry Lane and the interconnection will not be used as a construction
entrance, and that the cul-de-sac will be removed at the time the interconnection is made.
Staff supports this proffer as recognition of the need to mitigate the impacts of construction of the
interconnection as much as possible.
Proffer 6: Erosion and Sediment Control.
The applicant proffers additional erosion and sediment control. Staff is comfortable with this part of
the proffer.
Section b covers revegetation. The County Engineer has noted that the timeline for establishment
of permanent vegetation is now required by County ordinance, so it does not need to be proffered.
Staff recommends removing section b.
Staff also notes that the signature line for “Ruth Johnson Estes” will need to be revised to reflect
that her heirs will be signing these proffers.
WAIVERS
The applicant has applied for a Critical Slopes Waiver. The critical slopes waiver request has been
reviewed. Staff’s analysis follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The majority of critical slopes which need a waiver are along the stream banks on the property.
(See Attachment B, Grading Plan sheet)
Areas Acres
Total site 12.75 acres
Critical slopes 0.27 2% of site
Critical slopes disturbed 0.1 3% of critical slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable
alternative locations:
The portion of critical slopes off the Moubry Lane cul-de-sac is exempt, and will be disturbed to
make the road connection. The other road crossings are arguably exempt, because they involve the
layout of the development, which is being reviewed with the rezoning.
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18-4.2:
“movement of soil and rock”
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 13
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will help prevent any
movement of soil. Some movement may occur over time due to natural stream bank erosion.
“excessive stormwater runoff”
Some subdivision road and rooftops will drain through this stream to a stormwater pond.
“siltation”
Inspection and bonding by the County will try to minimize siltation during construction. Proper
stabilization and maintenance will help to achieve long term stability.
“loss of aesthetic resource”
This area will be visible from the roads and houses in the neighborhood. It is not currently visible
from off-site.
“septic effluent”
This neighborhood is serviced by public sewer.
Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns. These critical slopes are almost
inconsequential, and most of the disturbances are for roads and access, which could be considered
exempt.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The project would result in a neighborhood of 68 residences close to major employers expected
to add jobs in the future and within walking distance of retail and services.
2. The new development will be single-family detached homes at a density and scale compatible
with surrounding residential neighborhoods that adds another type of housing to the mix of
duplexes and townhouses now available in the immediate area.
3. The project’s road network has been designed to interconnect with roads on other nearby
properties as they develop, as well as to create a road network that will serve the larger Proffit
Road/Worth Crossing area.
4. The applicant proposes to create a second entrance by completing the interparcel connection
set up when the Forest Ridge neighborhood was developed in the 1990s. The existing cul-de-
sac at the end of Moubry Lane will be removed, the grade will be improved, and affected
driveways along Moubry Lane extended to meet the reconstructed road.
5. The applicant has proffered to construct a sidewalk and planting strip on one side of Moubry
Lane to provide a safer place for Forest Ridge residents to walk once Moubry Lane becomes a
through street. By narrowing the street, the sidewalk/parking strip will also serve as a form of
traffic calming for the Forest Ridge neighborhood.
6. The project’s design preserves the main section of the stream, an environmental feature that
flows diagonally through the center of the two parcels. The stream will become an amenity in
the open space area.
7. Approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver will enable the developer to make the most efficient use
of the property while preserving the main section of the stream.
Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning:
1. The method used by the applicant to calculate the number of units on which the number of
affordable housing units will be provided and the number of units on which the cash proffer for
capital improvements will be paid does not follow the method stipulated in the Affordable
Housing Policy or the Cash Proffer Policy of the Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 14
2. The width of the streets in the proposed development will allow parking on only one side of the
street; VDOT will require that the other side be posted with “No Parking” signs, which may lead
to parking conflicts when the site is fully developed.
3. A tot lot or other type of recreational amenity has not been provided within the 25% open space.
4. Additional minor changes need to be made in the wording of the proffers and on the application
plan, as listed under Recommendation at the end of this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this rezoning provided certain changes are made in the application
plan and proffers, as listed below:
1. The applicant meets the policies for affordable housing and cash proffers:
a. Affordable Housing Policy: 68 units * 15% = 10.2 units. !0.2 units * $21,125/unit =
$215,475.
b. Cash Proffer Policy: 68 units * $19,100 per unit = $1,298,800, minus the Sidewalk
Expense.
2. The applicant increases the width of the streets to permit parking on both sides of the
streets in the neighborhood.
3. A tot lot or other recreational amenity is added within the open space shown on the
application plan.
4. The following technical changes need to be made on the application plan:
a. Lot-to-lot drainage along roads D and A will need to be addressed, per the County
Engineer.
b. The sidewalk on the north side of Road C needs to be extended to intersect with
Road A.
c. The Phasing information now included in Scott Collins’ letter dated June 20, 2011
needs to be added to the phasing information now included on the cover sheet of the
application plan.
Staff recommends approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Zoning Map Amendment:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park with the changes in the
application plan and proffers as recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park. Should a commissioner motion to
recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Critical Slopes Waiver:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of the critical slopes waiver:
ATTACHMENT III
ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park
Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 23, 2011
Staff Report, Page 15
Move to recommend approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver for ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park,
as recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of the critical slopes waiver:
Move to recommend denial of the Critical Slopes Waiver for ZMA 2010-00011, Estes Park.
Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for
recommending denial.
ATTACHMENT A: Location Map
ATTACHMENT B: Application Plan, dated June 20, 2011 (five sheets)
ATTACHMENT C: Applicant’s Project Narrative, dated February 7, 2011
ATTACHMENT D: VDOT Comments, dated July 15, 2011
ATTACHMENT E: Draft Proffers, dated August 5, 2011
ATTACHMENT F: ACSA Comments, dated February 11, 2011
ATTACHMENT G: RWSA Comments, dated February 23, 2011
ATTACHMENT III
1
APPENDIX B
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors October 10, 2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
CASH PROFFER POLICY FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES
A. General
1. Authority: Virginia Code § 15.2-2303 enables the County to accept proffers as
reasonable conditions to address the impacts resulting from a rezoning. This authority includes the
authority to accept cash contributions to address impacts to public facilities generated by new
residential development.
2. Policy: It is the policy of the County to require that the owner of property that is
rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the
public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property.
Accordingly, the Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning requests that permit residential uses in
accordance with this policy. However, the Board may also accept cash, land or in-kind
improvements in accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning.
3. Reasonableness: This cash proffer policy must meet a “reasonableness” test, which
requires the Board to determine for each rezoning whether the amount proffered is reasonably
related both in nature and extent to the projected impacts of the proposed development on public
facilities. Through this policy, staff will recommend a maximum cash proffer in each case that
meets this test of reasonableness.
4. Public facilities covered by this policy: The following public facilities will be funded
by cash proffers: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety. The County does not
currently calculate a cash proffer value to fund public facilities such as water and sewer
improvements, jails, landfills and other government facilities.
B. Maximum Per Unit Cash Proffer Amount
1. Maximum: The maximum cash proffer that the Board will accept for public facilities
from residential rezoning applicants is $17,500.00 per SFD; $11,900 per SFA/TH; and $12,400 per
MF unit, to be adjusted annually without any further action by the Board according to the most
applicable Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index, as determined by the Director of Community
Development, and as expressly provided in the proffer statement.
2. Annual adjustment: Adjustments to the cash proffer amount due to projected public
facilities costs may be considered every fiscal year. Staff will re-compute net costs based on the
current methodology and recommend adjustments.
C. Calculation of Per Unit Cash Proffer Amount for a Rezoning
1. General: Pursuant to this policy, staff will (i) calculate the annual net cost of public
facilities; (ii) calculate the fiscal impact of a rezoning request that permits residential uses on those
ATTACHMENT IV
2
public facilities; and (iii) administer the collection and expenditure of the proffered funds in
accordance with State law.
2. Assumptions made in calculating the cash amount: Staff determines the cost of
public facilities generated by new residential development by relying on the assumption that any
revenue derived from growth (residential and commercial real estate taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc.)
will pay the normal operating costs for services to residents of new developments and a percentage
of the County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
3. Determining number of dwelling units in rezoning: A rezoning’s impact on public
facilities will be evaluated based on the gross number of proposed dwelling units. When calculating
the gross number of dwelling units, staff will:
a. Use the upper end of the density range allowed by the rezoning.
b. Not give credits for those dwelling units permitted under existing zoning
regulations (except as provided in sections C(6)(c) and (e)) or on agricultural lots, and will not
consider the transferring of allowable units from other properties.
c. Exclude dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing under the County’s
definition of affordable housing.
4. Use of averages: In determining the net cost per dwelling unit of a public facility,
staff relies on countywide averages, where possible. For certain public facilities, staff relies on
averages established for geographic service areas or districts established in the County.
a. Parks, libraries and public safety facilities: Since parks, libraries, and public
safety facilities serve the entire County, the geographic service districts for these facilities are
determined to be countywide. Rezoning requests will be analyzed on a countywide basis to
determine impacts on these facilities and proffers may be spent to fund these facilities countywide.
b. Schools: The impacts of a residential development on schools will be
analyzed on a district basis to determine impacts on schools. In order to ensure that the cash
proffered by an applicant is used to fund the public facilities impacted by or required for the
development, the County is divided into three geographic service districts corresponding to the
attendance zones of high schools. District 1 corresponds to the attendance zone for Albemarle High
School, District 2 corresponds to the attendance zone for Western Albemarle High School, and
District 3 corresponds to the attendance zone for Monticello High School. Funds collected from a
development within a District will be spent on school improvements within that District or for any
school improvement that provides relief for the District the development is in.
c. Transportation: With respect to transportation, the fiscal impact of rezoning
requests will be analyzed on a countywide basis, with cash collected from a rezoning expended on
transportation projects in the County’s Comprehensive Plan and associated Master Plans, CIP/CNA,
Strategic Plan, or VDOT Six Year Improvement Plan that relate to the impacts resulting from the
rezoning.
5. Consideration of demand, service level and cost: In addition to the use of averages,
staff will consider the four “components” involved in calculating what a new dwelling unit will cost
the County in terms of providing public facilities. These components are as follows:
ATTACHMENT IV
3
a. Demand generators: Staff uses the average for single family detached (SFD),
Single Family Attached / Townhouse/Condominium (SFA/TH) and Multi-Family/Apartment (MF)
to determine the number of persons per dwelling unit, the number of students per dwelling unit (for
elementary, middle and high schools) and the number of daily vehicle trips per dwelling unit to
calculate demand generators (population, population portion of population plus jobs, pupils, and
daily vehicle trips) associated with a new dwelling unit.
b. Service levels: Staff assumes that the public facilities contained in the
County’s CIP/Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) and Strategic Plan will accommodate ten years’
worth of new development in a manner that will maintain present levels of service. Service levels
are calculated on a per-person, per-pupil, and per-daily vehicle trip basis. (Service levels are
calculated annually).
c. Gross cost of public facilities: Staff calculates the gross cost of public
facilities. The term gross cost is used because a credit (described in C(5)(d) below) for anticipated
future revenues from a new dwelling unit will be applied against the gross cost. For example, to
calculate the gross cost of park facilities, the average persons per dwelling unit is multiplied by the
County’s per-capita CIP/CNA/Strategic Plan amount for park facilities.
d. Net cost: Staff calculates the net cost per public facility or maximum cash
proffer. This is the gross cost [(C)(5)(c)] per public facility minus the applicable credit [(C)(6)] per
public facility.
6. Credits: Staff calculates a credit to apply against the gross cost for each public
facility. The County has issued and plans to continue to issue general obligation bonds to finance
the construction of public facilities. New development will generate real estate and other taxes to
the County and staff assumes that a percentage of these taxes will go to help retire this debt. So that
new dwelling units are not paying twice (once through payment of a cash proffer and again through
real estate taxes) a credit is computed. For FY 08, that percentage is assumed to be 6%. Credits are
authorized for the following:
a. Land and public infrastructure: In some cases, a rezoning applicant may wish
to mitigate the development’s calculated impact on public facilities by dedicating property or doing
in-kind improvements in lieu of all or a portion of the cash proffer. The dedication of land and the
construction of public facilities recommended by the County’s CIP or its master plans, or otherwise
identified as being necessary to address the impacts resulting from the proposed development. Land
and improvements that are not identified in the CIP or in a master plan should be entitled to a credit
only when it is found that the proposed development creates an immediate need for the land or
improvement that is better addressed by the applicant dedicating the land or constructing the
improvement than by receiving the cash equivalent. Credit for transportation may be allowed for
off-site land dedication or improvements, as recommended by the Department of Facilities
Development.
(1) Determining value: The value of donated land generally will be based
on the current assessed value of the specifically proffered property (not the assessed value of the
property as a whole), not to exceed the cost per acre used in the calculation of the proffer. The
value of improvements shall be the estimated cost as if constructed by a governmental entity. If the
dedication or in-kind improvement does not fully mitigate the development’s calculated impact on
ATTACHMENT IV
4
public facilities, then the dedication and/or improvement’s value may be applied as a credit against
the development’s calculated impact on the applicable public facility.
(2) Maximum credit: The credit cannot exceed the development’s
calculated impact on the applicable public facility.
b. Operational expenses: Operational expenses where the Board determines that
the cash contribution reduces the demand for public facilities. For example, a cash proffer for the
operational expenses of public transit that eliminates the need for planned road improvements could
be entitled to a credit, which would be an amount comparable to the reduction in infrastructure
costs.
c. No increase or small increase in density: In rezoning applications where there
is a minimal increase in density, a credit may be given for the number of residential units allowed
under the existing zoning and the cash proffer amount will be based only on the estimated density
increase resulting from the rezoning. This credit may be allowed only for those rezoning
applications where the rezoning seeks the design flexibility allowed by the Neighborhood Model
zoning district or seeks to amend a prior rezoning with no increase in density. The credit should not
be allowed if the rezoning application seeks to increase density in a conventional, rather than a
planned, zoning district.
d. Small infill development with existing dwellings: In rezoning applications for
small infill developments, a credit may be given for each existing dwelling that will remain. For
example, if a rezoning application would rezone a lot with an existing house to allow three lots,
only two new lots would be created allowing two new dwelling units. If the existing dwelling unit
will remain after the rezoning, the cash proffer policy should apply only to the two new dwelling
units.
e. Substantial upgrades to design/development standards: The Board may
consider development proposals that include substantial upgrades to current design/development
standards and ordinance requirements as justification for granting a credit to the pre-existing lot
yield. Pre-existing lot yields will be calculated using average actual recorded lot yields provided
the applicant has not otherwise submitted documentation indicating higher lot yields in
conformance with existing ordinances and reflective of site specific physical features.
f. Unique circumstances: The County considers any unique circumstances
about a proposed development that: (i) mitigate the development's projected impact on public
facilities; and (ii) create a demonstrable reduction in capital facility needs. Unique circumstances
may include, but not be limited to, such projects like an age-restricted housing project. Staff, the
applicant or any other person may identify such mitigating circumstances.
7. Applicable policy: A rezoning’s fiscal impact on public facilities shall be established
under the cash proffer policy in effect on the date of the last public hearing prior to the Board of
Supervisors’ decision on the rezoning.
D. Timing of Contribution and Expenditure of Cash Contributed
1. Timing: Payment of the cash proffer for residential development must occur prior to
release of a building permit. Timing for dedication of property or in-kind improvements should be
specified in the proffer.
ATTACHMENT IV
5
2. Expenditure: The cash contributions shall be expended in accordance with State law.
Cash contributions received under this policy must be used for projects identified in the
Comprehensive Plan and associated Master Plans, CIP/CNA, and/or Strategic Plan. For public
facilities having a countywide service area (parks, libraries and public safety), the cash contribution
may be spent countywide.
ATTACHMENT IV
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 1
DRAFT MINUTES
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 23, 2011
ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.75 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 03200000003300 and TMP 03200000003400 from
R-1, Residential zoning district which allows 1 unit/acre to PRD, Planned Residential Development
zoning district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses and to rezone
0.56 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 046B4000000500 from R-1 Residential zoning district to R-1 Residential
zoning district with proffers. Proposed number of units is 68 for a density of 5.33 units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density
Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossing,
approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP 03200000003400, and TMP 046B4000000500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Judy Wiegand)
Ms. Wiegand presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a zoning map amendment to rezone two parcels that are currently zoned R-1, Residential to
Planned Residential Development (PRD) in order to permit the development of a new neighborhood with
68 single-family detached homes, a street network, an inter-parcel connection to Moubry Lane and 25
percent open space.
The future Land Use Map from Places29 Master Plan designates this area as Urban Density Residential.
The Neighborhood Density Residential generally expects a density range of 6.01 units to 34 units per
acre. This particular project has a density of 5.3 units per acre. It is a little under the minimum. However,
staff believes that this is compatible with the land use designation because they are single-family detached
homes and a 12.75 acre parcel.
A neighborhood of 68 single-family dwellings will fit in well with surrounding townhouses, duplexes,
and (further away) other single-family dwellings. The proposed development is in compliance with the
Master Plan.
Two parcels—and several of the surrounding ones—are zoned R-1, Residential. With a density bonus,
the result would be a maximum of 18 units that could be built on this site under the current zoning.
Rezoning to a Planned Residential Development district allows the 68 units, along with a road network,
and 25% open space.
The application plan: focus first on two parcels—
Road network—The main entrance from Worth Crossing into the proposed Estes Park development goes
across the property now owned by Bright Beginning’s daycare. They have jointly used the entrance.
Bright Beginnings has submitted a special use permit to expand the daycare and have shown the same
entrance road on that application plan with the special use permit. The main entrance with Bright
Beginnings daycare property is being worked out —Proffer #1.
There is a stream on the property, which starts north of the property and flows diagonally through the
property. The applicant by making good use of the proposed 25 percent open space has managed to keep
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 2
DRAFT MINUTES
the main segment of the stream as an amenity in the open space. There will be some pipin g of it and
some impacts to the critical slopes that are on the sides of it where the road crosses the stream.
Road network through rest of proposed development -
Inter-parcel connection proposed to Moubry Lane, which serves the Forest Ridge neighborhood of 44
duplex units. Forest Ridge was originally planned and built in the mid-1990s. The opportunity for this
connection (cul-de-sac) was set up at that time so that the connection could be made. The applicant at the
County’s request included that as a second entrance to the development. Most of the traffic is expected to
come in from the main entrance from Worth Crossing. The applicant has worked with the County and
VDOT staff to discourage a “speedway” where traffic would race through either neighborhood
• because of the way the roads intersect—right or left turns, stop signs,
• Estes Park streets will be narrow, and
• Moubry Lane will be narrowed for a sidewalk and planting strip on the east side. (Proffer #2)
The posted speed will be 25 miles per hour on all new streets and continue on Moubry Lane.
Moubry Lane right now from curve to curve is 38’ wide. The applicant has proposed to put in a sidewalk
and planting strip along the eastern side of Moubry Lane as part of both traffic calming and to make a
safer place for Moubry Lane residents to walk. It would narrow the street to about 30’, which would still
allow parking on both sides and help with making the street look a little narrower to make it less
encouraging for people to go zooming through there. Staff and VDOT feel that the people using this road
system once it is completed are going to be the residents of Forest Ridge and the proposed Estes Park.
After looking at the area road network they don’t believe this is going to be an encouragement to c ut
through traffic. It will be the residents of the two areas, guests, visitors and the occasional delivery truck.
An important aspect of the proposed development is that it will provide residents of Forest Ridge an
alternative route to Worth Crossing that doesn’t involve turning out onto Proffit Road. Instead, they will
be able to drive through Estes Park and out onto Worth Crossing—to the stores just across the street or
elsewhere. This will actually provide a benefit to them.
Neighborhood Concerns:
The applicant has met several times with the neighbors, in particular the Forest Ridge residents. Staff has
attended one neighborhood meeting and met with neighborhood representatives several times to discuss
concerns. The following are the most important concerns that have been raised.
1. Cut-through traffic speeding through Forest Ridge—lack of a safe place to walk along Moubry
Lane; residents now walk in the street; children play in cul-de-sac area, which is used as a
gathering place. The cul-de-sac would be removed as part of the connection to the street, which
is a requirement of VDOT that the rest of the cul-de-sac be taken out.
2. Moubry Lane becoming the main entrance into Estes Park
3. Cul-de-sac as gathering place and play area
4. Removal of trees and habitat on Estes property
5. Views of Estes Park from adjacent property; buffers?
The applicant has tried to address concern #1 by proffering a sidewalk. The applicant has tried to
reassure the residents by rewriting proffer #1 so that this development will not be constructed unless that
entrance over the Bright Beginning’s property is built. There is a small pedestrian type access that goes
down to a multiple acre part of Forest Ridge. There is a stream running through there. It is
topographically challenged. There could be some place back there to put a possible play area if they
chose to do so. There is a homeowner association that could try to address that as a way of replacing the
cul-de-sac should they chose to do so.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 3
DRAFT MINUTES
The applicant currently is showing some narrow buffer areas between their development and the adjacent
development. The zoning ordinance does not require buffers between one residential area and another.
Since these lots might be narrow there might be lots backing up to the edge of t he property, which is
permitted under the current zoning ordinance. These will be single-family homes with landscaping. Staff
does not think there should be a problem for one home to look at another one.
Traffic Distribution & Turn Lane Analysis
The proposed 68 units are expected to generate approximately 729 trips per day
Trips during AM peak: 57 (in + out)
Trips during PM peak: 74 (in + out)
Turn lane analysis for Proffit Road/Moubry Lane
No left turn lane required at this time
A right turn taper is nearly required on both Proffit Road and Worth Crossing .
Proffit Road: 5,700 vehicles per day (some improvements are planned, but not funded at this time)
Worth Crossing: 1,800 vehicles per day
Moubry Lane: 280 vehicles per day
The other part of the traffic study done was a turn lane analysis for that entrance between Proffit Road
and Moubry Lane. Basically, after looking at all the figures the traffic analysis said that no additional left
turn lane was required from Proffit Road onto Moubry Lane. The turn lane and right turn taper are not
warranted at this time. As noted in the staff report, it is not expected to cause adverse impacts at this
time. If the background traffic increases or additional development takes place in the area, Proffi t Road
improvements, including the turn lane and right turn taper will be necessary. Staff would like to point out
that traffic on Moubry Lane and Estes Park streets will be from those two neighborhoods; we do not
expect cut-through traffic because of the design of the road network.
Staff reviewed the applicant’s six (6) draft proffers, which are included in the staff report.
Proffer 1: Worth Crossing Connection
The Owner shall complete construction and make improvements to the portion of “Road B” that provides
a vehicular connection from the northern boundary of the Project to Worth Crossing, as shown on the
Application Plan, to the standards contained in Sections 14-410H and 14-422 of the County Code and as
shown as [“Typical Street Section (’52 Public R/W)” on sheet 3 of the Application Plan entitled “Site
Plan” (the “Worth Crossing Connection”)]. The Owner shall not submit the final subdivision plat or final
site plan for the Project for approval by the County unless it includes the Worth Crossing Connection.
The Worth Crossing Connection shall be constructed to Virginia Department of Transportation standards
and that all necessary lands determined by VDOT will be dedicated to public use as part of that first
subdivision plat or in conjunction with the first site plan. The Worth Crossing Connection shall be used
for construction access and completed prior to issuance of a building permit for any dwelling units within
the Project. For the purposes of this paragraph, construction of the Worth Crossing Connection shall be
deemed complete when it is constructed in conformance with the plans approved by VDOT and the
County Engineer has determined it is safe and convenient for vehicular travel.
Proffer #1 makes four important points:
1. The proffer requires completion of the primary entrance road over property owned by the owners of
the Bright Beginnings day care center. The applicants have been negotiating with Bright Beginning’s
owners and, once the rezoning has been approved, will go ahead with dedication and construction.
2. The final subdivision plat or final site plan may not be submitted for County approval unless the
connection is included.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 4
DRAFT MINUTES
3. The connection will be dedicated to public use as part of the first subdivision plat or in conjunction
with the first site plan.
4. The connection shall be used for construction access and completed prior to issuance of a building
permit for any dwelling units within the Project. In other words, the developer will not begin construction
of the rest of the project until the Worth Crossing Connection is constructed.
Staff supports this proffer. Unless the terms of it are fulfilled and the Worth Crossing Connection
completed, the rest of the development will not begin. This addresses staff’s and the neighbors’ concern
that Moubry Lane would end up being used as the primary entrance for Estes Park.
The County Attorney is still reviewing this language—staff received this revised language about two
weeks ago. Minor changes for form may need to be made between this public hearing and the Board’s
public hearing, but staff expects the content of this proffer to remain the same.
Proffer 2: Moubry Lane Sidewalk
The Owner shall construct a sidewalk, utility strip, and associated drainage facilities within the existing
public right-of-way on one side of Moubry Lane from the point where Road A connects to Moubry Lane
to the point where Moubry Lane connects to Proffit Road, to the standards and in the location shown on
the Application Plan (the “Moubry Lane Sidewalk”). The aggregate cost of the Moubry Lane Sidewalk
and drainage improvements are referred to as the “Sidewalk Expense.” In the event that the Forest Ridge
Home Owners’ Association is opposed to having this improvement installed, upon giving written n otice
to the Owner and Albemarle County, the Sidewalk Expense credit will be removed from the Cash
Proffers referenced in Proffer #3.
Proffer #2 promises the construction of a sidewalk, utility strip, and drainage facilities along the eastern
edge of Moubry Lane. This sidewalk will provide a safer place for Forest Ridge residents and others to
walk. Right now there is no sidewalk; Forest Ridge was built before the County required sidewalks and
street trees on neighborhood streets. This proffer grew out of Forest Ridge residents’ concern that there
would be no place for them to walk safely once the interparcel connection was made and the cul -de-sac
removed. The proffer will have a second benefit in addition to the sidewalk: narrowing the right-of-way
on Moubry Lane will act as a traffic-calming facility. When residents and visitors park their cars on
Moubry Lane, then that would further “calm” traffic. The proffer also provides that the expense for this
sidewalk and related facilities will be a credit against the cash proffer for capital improvements. Staff
believes this is an excellent way to deal with the increase of traffic on Moubry Lane to give the residents a
place to walk. The mailboxes will be moved to the utility strip. Staff supports having an expense credit
against the capital improvements because if the applicant was not building this the county would probably
need to look at doing it because they do need a sidewalk on that street.
Proffer 3: Cash for Capital Improvement Projects
This is the first of the two proffers where the staff does not believe that the applicant has followed the
direction that was given by the Board of Supervisors in the Cash Proffer Policy. As explained in the staff
report the Proffer Policy says that one should pay the cash proffer amount on all of the units being put in.
The applicant has asked that they only do it on the 50 units that they are adding that would not be
permitted there by right. This is something that relates to the Board’s policy. Therefore, the Board is
going to make a decision. Staff wanted to raise this issue with the Commission since it will be going on
to the Board. The two blanks will be filled in before the request goes to the Board for the total amount of
dollars and the amount for each unit as well as the sidewalk expense.
Proffer 4: Affordable Housing
This is the 15% of the rezoning units. Again, there is a difference of opinion as to what 15% of what
amount. The Affordable Housing Policy says it should be 15% of all of the units provided that are going
to be built. The applicant has done it on the 50 rezoning units. This is an issue the Board will need to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 5
DRAFT MINUTES
address. Staff did not put all of the for sale unit language in that deals with actual provision of units. It is
staff’s understanding the applicant has worked with the Chief of Housing, Ron White, and is expecting to
proffer to give cash in lieu of units. In addition, the County Attorney has informed staff that the language
related to the units themselves may need to be changed. A revision to it is being worked on. The
applicant has addressed the affordable housing in this manner. The language issue will be resolved before
the proffers are presented to the Board.
Proffer 5: Moubry Lane Interconnection
To minimize impacts of constructing the connection between Road A and Moubry Lane as shown on the
Application Plan (the “Moubry Lane Interconnection”) on the residents of Forest Ridge, the following
terms and conditions shall apply to the construction of the Moubry Lane Interconnection:
a. The Owner shall not commence construction of the Moubry Lane Interconnection until
construction of all other roads and infrastructure within the Project is nearing completion, such that the
Moubry Lane Interconnection is the last road segment within the Project for which construction will be
commenced.
b. The Moubry Lane Interconnection shall not be used for construction access associated with the
Project, except as necessary for construction of the Moubry Lane Interconnection itself, and except
further for construction of the Moubry Lane Sidewalk and associated drainage facilities.
c. The Owner shall remove the cul-de-sac at Moubry Lane at the time of construction of the
Moubry Lane Interconnection. This area will be planted and improvements installed in accordance with
the Application Plan.
Proffer 6 – Erosion & Sediment Control
a. Erosion and Sediment Control. The Owner shall, to the maximum extent practicable as
determined by the County’s Program Authority, provide additional erosion and sediment controls
to achieve a sediment removal rate of eighty percent (80%) for the Property. (As a reference,
current regulatory structural measures achieve a 60% optimal removal rate.)
b. Revegetation. Within nine (9) months after the start of grading under any erosion and sediment
control permit, permanent vegetation shall be installed on all denuded areas, except for areas the
Program Authority determines are otherwise permanently stabilized or are under construction
with an approved building permit. A three (3) month extension for installation of permanent
vegetation may be granted by the Program Authority due to special circumstances including but
not limited to weather conditions.
Staff would note that the part about revegetation is something that is now covered in the ordinance.
Therefore, the applicant may be asked to take that out since they don’t normally include in the proffers
things that are required by the ordinance.
Critical Slopes Waiver
The applicant has applied for a critical slopes waiver to deal with the little pieces where the road goes
over the stream. The total site is 12.75 acres. The critical slopes are about 2% of that site. Staff
recommends approval of that.
Factors Favorable:
1. The project would result in a neighborhood of 68 residences close to major employers expected to
add jobs in the future and within walking distance of retail and services.
2. The new development will be single-family detached homes at a density and scale compatible
with surrounding residential neighborhoods that adds another type of housing to the mix of
duplexes and townhouses now available in the immediate area.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 6
DRAFT MINUTES
3. The project’s road network has been designed to interconnect with roads on other nearby
properties as they develop, as well as to create a road network that will serve the larger Proffit
Road/Worth Crossing area.
4. The applicant proposes to create a second entrance by completing the interparcel connection set
up when the Forest Ridge neighborhood was developed in the 1990s. The exis ting cul-de-sac at
the end of Moubry Lane will be removed, the grade will be improved, and affected driveways
along Moubry Lane extended to meet the reconstructed road.
5. The applicant has proffered to construct a sidewalk and planting strip on one side of M oubry
Lane to provide a safer place for Forest Ridge residents to walk once Moubry Lane becomes a
through street. By narrowing the street, the sidewalk/parking strip will also serve as a form of
traffic calming for the Forest Ridge neighborhood.
6. The project’s design preserves the main section of the stream, an environmental feature that flows
diagonally through the center of the two parcels. The stream will become an amenity in the open
space area.
7. Approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver will enable the developer to make the most efficient use
of the property while preserving the main section of the stream.
Unfavorable Factors
1. The method used by the applicant to calculate the number of units on which the number of
affordable housing units will be provided and the number of units on which the cash proffer for
capital improvements will be paid does not follow the method stipulated in the Affordable
Housing Policy or the Cash Proffer Policy of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The width of the streets in the proposed development will allow parking on only one side of the
street; VDOT will require that the other side be posted with “No Parking” signs, which may lead
to parking conflicts when the site is fully developed.
3. A tot lot or other type of recreational amenity has not been provided within the 25% open space.
4. Additional minor technical changes need to be made in the wording of the proffers and on the
application plan, as listed under Recommendation at the end of the staff report.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this rezoning provided certain changes are made in the application plan
and proffers, as listed below:
1. The applicant meets the policies for affordable housing and cash proffers:
a. Affordable Housing Policy: 68 units * 15% = 10.2 units. 10.2 units * $21,125/unit =
$215,475.
b. Cash Proffer Policy: 68 units * $19,100 per unit = $1,298,800, minus the Sidewalk
Expense.
2. The applicant increases the width of the streets to permit parking on both sides of the streets in
the neighborhood.
3. A tot lot or other recreational amenity is added within the open space shown on the application
plan.
4. The following technical changes need to be made on the application plan:
a. Lot-to-lot drainage along roads D and A will need to be addressed, per the County
Engineer.
b. The sidewalk on the north side of Road C needs to be extended to intersect with Road A.
c. The Phasing information now included in Scott Collins’ letter dated June 20, 2011 needs
to be added to the phasing information now included on the cover sheet of the application
plan.
Staff recommends approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 7
DRAFT MINUTES
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Mr. Morris asked when talking to the applicant and VDOT was there any thought given to putting in any
traffic calming type of material such as speed bumps on both sides of the current cul-de-sac.
Ms. Wiegand replied yes, they talked with VDOT about speed bumps. VDOT does not want speed
bumps and does not permit on a public road like this. They talked about other possible things suc h as
bulb outs. However, because the street will be narrowed, they are not sure it will be needed. They are
also talking about increasing the curves, which will help slow things down. They are continuing the
discussion of possible traffic calming measures.
Mr. Benish pointed out speed bumps are typically permitted when there is an issue with a defined
speeding or cut through issue. That does not exist at this point in time. The ones in Ashcroft were done
after an analysis of traffic conditions. That is what warrants the ability to put them in.
Mr. Morris agreed with everything he was saying. However, he also knows it is hard to get speed bumps
after the road has been put in. He believed that 75 percent of the residents have to agree to it. It would be
good if it could be done earlier.
Mr. Franco said in some of the past proposals in this area closer to Profit Road there had been expressed a
desire by staff to have a public road connecting Profit Road to this project. He asked if there was sti ll an
intent of creating a mid block connection.
Ms. Wiegand replied this is the area where they had been trying to work on connections. With the
connection with Bright Beginnings, the connection would come in with a stub connected to this property
so that they could have a road that would go through this area. This does set up the beginning for a road
network in this area. One of the issues they have with it is that VDOT has been very clear they can’t use
this particular area as a road to go up through this area. They have to be able to work with one of the
other properties in order to get the road connected to Profit. It is being considered. However, since they
don’t have a rezoning proposal for this area they are waiting to see what happens.
Mr. Benish noted the issue in question was spacing for a public road. When a rezoning proposal would
come in, when and if on that property, they could evaluate its feasibility. However, it is less feasible
along that frontage because of the proximity to the Worth Crossing intersection. It is seen as a less
feasible public road access.
Mr. Franco noted from three years ago they were not pushing that as they were before.
Mr. Benish replied yes, he thought there was some issues about the number of public accesses and the
feasibility of those working properly, particularly with the possibility of a traffic circle being established
at Worth Crossing.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the right-of-way was already there as far as the two connections by the daycare
and to Moubry Lane.
Ms. Wiegand replied that the right-of-way for Moubry was already platted on the Forest Ridge plat. The
right-of-way for Bright Beginnings was under discussion and negotiation between Estes Park and the
owners of the Bright Beginning parcel. Normally with a rezoning, they would ask that the Bright
Beginning parcel either be included in the rezoning or that this particular stretch of right -of-way would be
dedicated or recorded prior to a public hearing. However, the Estes Park developer was going to have to
purchase this and they did not want to spend the money on it before knowing the rezoning was approved.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 8
DRAFT MINUTES
They have gone to the other alternative to proffer the road, which would be constructed before they
developed the property.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they are responsible for getting the right-of-way.
Ms. Wiegand replied that was correct.
Mr. Loach asked if there was anything on the site that would prevent them from incorporating the 15
percent affordable housing.
Ms. Wiegand replied not to her knowledge.
Mr. Loach asked with regard to the building of the sidewalks in the proffer arrangements was the
applicant saying he would build that sidewalk up to Moubry Lane, but would want to subtract that from
the cash proffer amount that he would have to put forth. That money would not be available to go back to
the County into the funds that would pay for capital improvements that are waiting for funding, but be
used immediately.
Ms. Wiegand replied that was correct.
Mr. Benish pointed out to give credits for those types of improvements was an acceptable part of their
cash proffer policy.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Representatives for the request included Ashley Cooper, with Cooper Planning, Scott Collins, with
Collins Engineering, and Alan Taylor of Riverbend Management.
Ms. Cooper presented a Power-Point presentation to explain the rezoning proposal, as follows.
Over the past year it has been quite an evolution for this project. She emphasized that they have
been working on Estes Park for about a year. They consider this project to be an infill project.
They are becoming part of this overall jig saw puzzle that is the neighborhood. They have been
working with the neighboring properties specifically Forest Ridge Neighborhood Association, the
Forest Lakes Neighborhood Association, and Bright Beginnings as well as staff.
When they first came in they had the entire stream piped for the property. It was a major change
when they decided that should be an amenity and that natural drainage should be preserved. It
was an unusual design in they really preserve almost the entire stream. When they began
working with Moubry Lane they knew it would be a concern that Forest Ridge’s cul-de-sac was
going to now be connected with another neighborhood. On previous proposals they did have
speed bumps. However, speed bumps were vetoed by VDOT. They did have more of a radius or
turn in the road to slow cars down. That was also vetoed by VDOT. The proposal reflects those
direct comments from staff and VDOT.
They feel this design will be a good connection for the two because with the actual intersection
someone will have to stop to make that right hand turn. Nobody will be going all the way down
the stretch of road to get around the neighborhood because they will have to stop to make that
right hand turn. They feel that aspect is good. They support the narrow road. They see that street
and pedestrian connection as a great asset to this area. They are working with the neighborhood
to make these changes.
They are meeting all of VDOT’s requirements for this type of road in the neighborhood. They
feel will be perfectly adequate for the parking needs. The narrow street sections will be a true
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 9
DRAFT MINUTES
asset. They will get a sidewalk and a planting strip. They will still have room for parking on both
sides with a nice narrow street.
They have been working with the Forest Lakes Neighborhood Association to make sure they go
above and beyond in all the erosion and sediment control measures. It is important that Arbor
Lake be protected throughout this process since they are directly adjacent. They are working with
them on a specific agreement should anything happen. They were hoping to have t hat settled by
this meeting. All of that will be worked out by the Board meeting. They hope to potentially join
their Neighborhood Association in the future. They have been working with Bright Beginnings
on the Worth Crossing to make a wonderful entrance to the neighborhood.
The proffer policy is the big piece of the puzzle. There is a credit for rezoning applications where
there is a minimal increase in density. They can give that credit for what is allowed by right.
This property allows for up to 34 units per acre, which would give an overall unit count of 433
units on this property. What they are showing is a residential property R-1 nearly staying a
residential property. They do consider that is a very minimal increase from what they can
actually do. They have calculated that by right allowance to be 18 units on this site.
Staff determines the cost of public facilities… by relying on the assumption that any revenue
derived from growth (residential real estate taxes), will pay the normal operating costs for
services to residents of new developments.
Credits are authorized for the following:
In rezoning applications where there is a minimal increase in density, a credit may be given for
the number of residential units allowed under the existing zoning and the cash proffer amount
will be based only on the estimated density increase resulting from the rezoning.
Places 29/ Comp Plan designation of Urban Density
Urban Density anticipates a maximum density of 34 units per acre or 433 units.
Estes Park proposes only a
minimal increase in density from what is allowed by-right.
Impact is minimal compared to what was anticipated by the County.
Proffer Credit Calculations
- The Estes and Fox property have paid real estate taxes to Albemarle County for R-1 land to cover
the services for 18 by-right units for the past 31 years.
- Current Zoning:
- R-1 allows for 1.45 units per acre (cluster development)
Project Size:
12.75 acres
1.45 units per acre * 12.75 =
18 units allowed by-right
Estes Park offers the following:
$821,300 cash proffer
$147,875 towards affordable housing
$969,175 in total contributions
Summary:
1. Working with the neighborhood.
2. Staff recommendation for approval.
3. Street design meets all VDOT standards and is appropriate for the creation of a safe
neighborhood.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 10
DRAFT MINUTES
4. Cash Proffer and Affordable Housing Proffer reflect a credit only for units that are allowed and
buildable on the property by-right.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Loach asked Ms. Cooper why they did not incorporate the 15 percent affordable housing in the
development.
Ms. Cooper replied they were just showing that basically anything in the by-right could go on the site and
that would not include affordable housing. They were just showing it for the additional units.
Mr. Loach asked if by right was R-1.
Ms. Cooper replied yes the by right is R-1, which was 18 units.
Mr. Loach asked why they were not showing 15 percent of affordable housing for the 68 units.
Ms. Cooper replied that was something they were open to discussing, but they did not include it in their
initial proffer.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:18 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:28 p.m.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Scott Eliff, a member of the Board of Directors of the Forest Lakes Community Association, noted that he
was not here to discuss Moubry Lane. He pointed out Arbor Lake was owned by the Forest Lakes
Community Association. The townhouses at Worth Crossing are also part of Forest Lakes. They
reviewed the general concept and the site plan with the developer and are pleased with the vegetative
buffer that they will put along Worth Crossing. They don’t have any issue, per say, with the rezoning for
68 houses. They have a big issue association with the potential siltation of Arbor Lake.
- The source of Arbor Lake is that property 32-33 and 32-34 and the stream they are protecting is
down the middle of that property. The last time there was a big development it was Hollymead
Town Center. Their Lake Hollymead got tremendously damaged by siltation that occurred by the
developer and the lack of adequate siltation controls. They had to result in filing suit against the
developers to get compensated for that. That is going to be ongoing. They have resolved as a
board to never let this happen again. It is inappropriate for their lake or amenity, which is an
aesthetic value, recreational value, and a source of homeowner value to be damaged by anybody
doing development.
- They have been very pleased with working with the developers of the Estes property who are
working on an agreement with them. However, that is not in place at the moment. They are very
concerned about the potential for siltation here. They had asked before this meeting that the
Commission defer consideration of this tonight so that they have a little longer to work out the
agreement with the applicant. It would compensate the Association and help reserve all of their
rights against potential siltation. Their Association has the financial and management
responsibility to maintain the lake, including dredging it. That would be a substantial cost which
they would save for over time in their reserve study. However, if there is siltation in the lake it
accelerates it and they have to dredge it sooner or more extensively, it would cost them a lot of
money. That is basically the issue with Lake Hollymead.
- One of the issues they have come up with recently and found through the discovery in their law
suit is that there are a lot of soils in this area where the Department of Natural Resources has
indicated that traditional measures of siltation control through erosion bonds and so forth are
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 11
DRAFT MINUTES
unlikely to work. A traditional approach of silt fences and erosion control ponds and so forth will
probably end up silting their lake and result in a major impact to the Association. They hope they
can put in place this agreement or whatever. In the absence of having an agreement in place they
would ask that the development either be postponed or denied so they are able to work it out.
Notwithstanding that, again, they like working with the applicant and think they will be able to
come to something, but want to protect their rights for their property.
-
Scott Mappi, member of Board of Directors of Forest Ridge Homeowners Association, said that they hear
very regularly that Albemarle County is trying to create not just residential areas but communities where
the residents can interact with one another. They the members of Forest Ridge, a homeowner’s
association of 44 families on Moubry Lane think this is the right thing for the county to do. They would
even suggest that they have already achieved the county’s goal. Moubry Lane currently ends in a little
circle of asphalt that they call a cul-de-sac, which they call their community center. It is where the young
children try out their peddle trucks, tricycles and toys. It is where the older children learn to ride their
bikes and where there is usually an active chalk hopscotch grid, where residents walk their dogs and
discuss everything with their neighbors. It is where their annual Fourth of July annual picnic parade ends.
They should see the video. The other night at about 7:30 p.m. she went out to water her flowers. T here
were at least 12 to 15 people in the cul-de-sac including parents supervising children at play, dog walkers,
children at play, and everyone talking to other people. It is something they need more of these days. The
cul-de-sac of Mouby Lane is their public square and town hall. There is no building, but it is the heart of
Moubry lane. They ask them not to take it away.
Ms. Mappi continued noting that most of the residents of Forest Ridge do not object to the proposed
development of Estes Park adjacent to us. What they object to is the plan eliminates the cul -de-sac and
makes Moubry Lane a dangerous through street. They understand the county’s reasons for this plan, but
seriously ask the county to please find another way. If Estes Park had a smaller number of houses the
county would not need to have a second entrance or exit and could leave Moubry Lane as it is. The
county could find another place for a second entrance road. The county could make an exception and
keep an existing community alive. No one planned Moubry Lane’s cul-de-sac to become their
neighborhood center. It just happened, which is often the best way. They ask that they do not destroy
this wonderful creation.
Joan Miller noted that 14 years ago she moved here from New York to be near her children. They love
the area. However, it is changing. She was very worried about the change since the area is becoming too
busy and commercial. She encourages the county to allow Moubry Lane to stay as is due to safety of her
grandchildren and its existing beauty. Farmers in Illinois say one can’t put ten pounds of horse manure in
a five pound bag, it does not fit. She thought that was what they were doing around here by putting too
many people in this area. They need roads and not just more people, which she thought was what was
happening. Moubry Lane is fine the way it is since they can park two cars on it. She asked that Moubry
not be changed.
Peter Walpole, resident of Moubry Lane for 11 years, strongly encouraged the county to find another way
to develop and protect their beautiful quiet little treasure that his child enjoys and not destroy the cul -de-
sac on Moubry Lane. His son, Max, wanted to say something. It is their home and community that they
don’t want destroyed. He asked the county to allow the applicant to develop, but to find another way that
does not impact Moubry Lane.
Max Walpole said that he did not like the aspect of taking down their cul -de-sac. It is a very nice place
and he liked it. He would not like it if it was changed due to traffic.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 12
DRAFT MINUTES
Jim Frey, Forest Ridge resident, spoke against the request. Before he was a Forest Lake resident he was
an international corporate executive and then was in municipal government in a very small New Jersey
town. He knows that in long range planning sometimes when the long range comes it is not the same as
when it was planned. Sam Craig put together what he thought was a housing development. A cul -de-sac
got him off the hook since he said they can use it as an outlet later. It is not a housing development. It is
a community. They have people from the Far East, Middle East, Europe, South America and New York
City with many diverse opinions and politics. That cul -de-sac has become a community center. He
asked the commission to figure it out. They don’t want to stop growth and want to let Estes Park develop.
However, there has to be another way to not destroy a community and not build Estes Park on top of their
neighborhood.
Cynthia Nath said that she respects the desire of the builder to do this, but this is a community. It is a
really good plan. However, she was struggling with it in that one of the rational for doing this very high
density project is because of the demand for housing in our area. She did not see it. She asked what the
build out of everything was that has already been approved and not developed. They don’t track that.
She felt that was a problem. She did not see an overwhelming demand for housing at this moment. They
are not taking into account the number of houses already on the market and unsold. She voiced concern
that they were harming a neighborhood for housing not needed.
Marie Portoghese, resident of Moubry Lane resident for 15 years, spoke against the request since she did
want them to take away her neighbors by opening up the street.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Commission.
Mr. Morris said this is a very difficult situation because they have been looking to have a development in
this area for quite some time. As Mr. Franco said originally they were looking at a different road coming
in here. He would hope they could revisit that in some manner. It is truly a community and he would hate
to see it destroyed in any manner, shape or form. However, as far as the master plan is concerned there is
connectivity. He was sorry the developer’s hands are tied. Somehow there has to be another second
entrance. He did not exactly what they can do for this individual and for the people in the community.
He opposed changing this wonderful community.
Mr. Loach asked staff if there is the need for a second entrance based on it being over 50 homes.
Ms. Wiegand replied yes it was based on fact that it was over 50 homes and the fact that when this was
laid out that they expected there to be an interconnection to make this a little wider neighborhood. That is
why staff encouraged the developer to do it.
Mr. Zobrist asked if they reduced the number of unit to 50 units would they still need the
interconnectivity.
Mr. Benish replied that the plan does require access to adjacent properties. At a certain threshold it does
not have to be vehicular access.
Mr. Zobrist said they could do walking access and not have vehicular access. He asked what the
threshold was.
Ms. Monteith relied it was 50 units.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 13
DRAFT MINUTES
Mr. Kamptner agreed it was 50 units for the second access. One course the county has taken in the past is
to require some type of access be constructed and then it be chained so it is accessible only for emergency
situations. They have done that at least a few items.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out it had been done in Running Deer, Cascadia and Gray Rock North.
Mr. Benish noted that was places where there are no existing roads a nd the public road could be stubbed
out for future connections. So other undeveloped properties could theoretically provide that second point.
Mr. Zobrist asked what could be done to not have the connectivity. The connectivity is required under the
Code because it is 66 units.
Mr. Franco said it was also encouraged by the Comp Plan.
Mr. Kamptner said that even if these parcels were not rezoned under the Subdivision Ordinance when a
plat came in staff probably look at it and the county has the authority to require that roads be extended to
the property line.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the county has the ability not to extend it.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes. At the plat stage it would be decided either by the agent or the Commission.
However, that decision is made at the plat stage. In the rezoning stage the Commission can make
recommendation to the Board who would determine if that was appropriate. It would be helpful if the
Commission could state the reasons why in this case that it is recommending that the extension not be
provided. It could also make a recommendation for an access at a different location.
Mr. Benish noted there is a stub out to an adjacent property to the south that eventually could provide a
second point of access.
Ms. Wiegand noted that it went to the Virginia Power property. They talked about this in the pre -
application conference with the applicants. There was an issue with trying to get the right-of-way so it
would line up with the entrance into the shopping center on the other side of Worth Crossing.
Mr. Benish said there is a practical feasibility to a utility of that second access.
Mr. Zobrist noted that it was done in Glenmore. The Commission could say stub it out on the south side
and leave Moubry Lane the way it is. The Commission would make the recommendation and then the
Board of Supervisors would make the decision.
Ms. Porterfield said based on that after they talked about these things the Commission could ask the
applicant to defer to come back with changes to the plan so an actual plan could be sent to the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Benish replied that is correct as well. The Commission could direct the applicant to look at other
items.
Mr. Loach noted that he would not support this proposal for a number of reason s. He was not happy with
the lack of 15 percent of affordable housing. He did not agree with the policy where essentially they
could pay it off. He was not happy with the cash proffers and the way they are by subtracting the money
for sidewalks, which would take money away from other projects in the CIP. He was not happy that they
were not proffering for the total number of houses, but just those over the by right.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 14
DRAFT MINUTES
Mr. Franco noted that regarding off-site improvements it has been common practice to provide a credit
back for those off-site improvements. He agreed with the affordable housing component. He would like
to see it incorporated into the project. However, he understands why it can’t be sometimes. His
observation on the affordable housing has been also is that they are collecting the funds but they are not
necessarily dispersing them as quickly as he would like to see. He would be willing to relook at the
affordable housing policy to even potentially reduce the number of required units in there in order to
make sure that a unit got in there. For instance, it is something like $250,000 to $270,000 of proffer. So
by giving to build a house and making sure it was affordable would be a way of satisfying that
requirement in his eyes. It would not hit 15 percent, but it would meet the intent of the ordinance to
provide affordable housing throughout the community.
Mr. Loach agreed with the speaker from Forest Lakes that the agreement should be part of the conditions
before approval.
Mr. Morris agreed. He thought there are a number of things he would really like to have answers to. He
was looking at a motion to approve or deny. Right now he did not want to do either one. He thought the
plan was wonderful except they were evading the end of the cul-de-sac. They may or may not want to do
it, but they have to do it. Or, they need to find another way to have that second entrance. He would really
like to see if they could look at that a little more thoroughly and possibly get the agreement with Forest
Lakes Homeowner’s Association. He noted that the applicant would have to request a deferral since the
Commission could not.
Mr. Franco noted concern with the road width.
Mr. Wiegand pointed out when VDOT looked at the road they meet the requirements to be accepted into
the state system because they have two parking spaces off site for each unit. However, the problem is that
even though they meet the standards VDOT and the county engineer is concerned that right now the
streets are narrow enough that once they are accepted into the state system they would have to be posted
for no parking on one side or the other on each street. Staff is concerned that is not going to leave enough
space for cars to park. There may be households with more t han two cars. Also, they could have people
coming to visit. It could be difficult to have enough parking here at certain times. Staff indicated that
they would like the streets a few feet wider to ensure they could have parking on both sides. Staff
believes by narrowing the boundaries around the edges or buffers that they could get enough space for the
street. They were looking for 30’ so to be wide enough to provide parking on both sides.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that the applicant defer the request since she did not want to vote on this request
tonight. She would like to see a tot lot on the plan. If the county did a stub out for Glenmore that had 750
homes she thought they could figure out a way to do it here. Lastly, she sits on the Historic Pre servation
Committee. They met last evening and are concerned that the cemetery be protected. They would very
much like to have the applicant at least fence the cemetery with temporary fencing prior to commencing
any site work including the initial grading on this area. Then not later than completion of the grading for
lots 1 through 12 in phase 2 the owner shall replace any temporary fencing with permanent fencing of a
lasting low maintenance variety including a gate at the western end of the access easement being shown
to the cemetery from road B. At that time the owner would also mow and other wise clean up the
cemetery and continue to maintain the cemetery and fencing until such time the owner turns such
maintenance over to the Estes Park Homeowner’s Association as will be covered in the Estes Park
covenants and restrictions. She believed that the 10’ access easement that they are showing handles this.
However, they wanted to make sure that the easement was clear on the plans. She assumed it would b e
part and parcel of the open space and not a piece of someone’s lot. They would like to see a proffer to
that extent added.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 15
DRAFT MINUTES
Mr. Smith said they were talking about making the streets wider. He despises the buffer areas on the
outside. They are either a jungle or else somebody extends their yard back. Where they lose that they
could gain space for the open space in the middle and expand the street. He did not like closing the cul -
de-sac. Regarding the grave yard, he was not sure they could demand that the owner maintain the grave
yard because it belongs to the family.
Ms. Porterfield noted she was not demanding but asking if the applicant when they are putting this
altogether couldn’t make it look decent and keep it looking decent if they are going to transfer it over to
the homeowner’s association eventually. The concern is that they have historic entities in this county. It
is a good idea if they can figure out a way to maintain those entities. If they can delineate the area and
mow occasionally, she thought they have taken care of the problem.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the applicant wants the Commission to vote on the request.
Scott Collins asked to make a couple of points. The cemetery is no problem since they have already
delineated it with the county.
Ms. Porterfield asked that they put it in writing.
Mr. Collins made the following comments:
- It was good to have narrower street and parking on one side. It does cut down on traffic. It is a
calming effect and keeps people from speeding in neighborhood. Narrow streets leads to slower
moving cars. It is a much better design. There is plenty of parking.
- They are there with working out a condition about the pond with Forest Lakes. They are on
board about having an agreement about siltation before the Board meeting.
- Regarding affordable housing, the problem they are having is with the down payment to get the
applicants into these homes. That is what they really want to see more of is monetary
contributions into the affordable housing program. The ini tial down payment seems to be the
hurdle for a lot of families, which is what they are focusing on. They are in tune with what they
want to do.
- Regarding the connection to Moubry Lane and a cul-de-sac versus a road connection they could
go either way. He would hate to get into the fact of having to come back and change the plan in
how it is going to connect or not with the Board ultimately making that decision as well. They
have a connection at the southern end and they have done that to allow developmen t down there
to have a connection. They can easily work out that change if they had an emergency connection.
They can work out the small change in the streetscape alignment to make that work.
- He would not see that as a need to come back here. This is a good plan and it can work. They can
accommodate that connection whether it is pedestrian, pedestrian and bicycle, or vehicle
whichever way the Board feels on that. They are open to that either way. He would like to move
forward with the intent that these couple of items they will definitely take care of.
The Planning Commission held a discussion on the proposal and provided comments on items that need
further work.
Mr. Benish summarized the Commission’s comments, as follow.
1. Lack of provision of affordable housing units. The recent trend to proffer cash in lieu of units
needs to be reviewed as part of a discussion of the Affordable Housing Policy. There was a
general consensus that the applicant should base the amount of the cash proffer for affordab le
housing on the total number of units.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 16
DRAFT MINUTES
2. Protection of Arbor Lake – Need to ensure that the agreement is in place.
3. Provide for tot lot or another recreational amenity in the 25% open space.
4. Better provision for temporary and long-term protection of the historic cemetery
5. Provide adequate road width to allow parking on both sides of public road.
6. Evaluate options for another point of vehicular access instead of the Moubry Lane
interconnection. It was a general consensus not to make the interconnection, but t o preserve the
cul-de-sac. Second means of access needs to be made. Typically, this issue would be addressed
during site plan review.
Mr. Collins said they do not have a whole lot of issues with the Commission’s comments. He would be
happy to make all those conditions of approval. They would be willing to go 50 percent on the affordable
housing and go ahead and change that as well. They would do 15 percent affordable housing, the
condition of having the Arbor Lake agreement in place, and they will widen the streets 12’ if that works
for everybody. The one trick about coming back and changing the plan is that they would like to just
make that a condition and if they don’t make the vehicle connection they make more of a pedestrian
connection or bicycle connection. Then they would do a variance to the plan and change that plan at the
time. What he would hate to do is go ahead and change the plan now and then go to the Board and have
them shoot it down because they are pushing the promotion of interconnectivity They are stuck in that
little turmoil. They can easily change the plan one way or the other with a variance and make that change
happen.
Mr. Collins continued that they have looked at the ability to connect with the Virginia Power property.
There is actually another property on the other side of that strip as well. They need to have both of those.
Right now with all of the utilities and the existing power poles it was not feasible. They have looked at
that entrance as a possibility. They are down to these two connections. These are the two best
connections. There is another connection north, but they ruled that one out as well. From the work on
Profit Road there could be no connection to Profit Road to the north because there was not eno ugh room
between Worth Crossing and Moubry Lane. He thought that a lot of this could be done with conditions,
especially the idea of connecting to Moubry Lane or not. That could be handled as well as with a simple
change to the plan when it comes back in for approval with the site plan.
Mr. Benish noted that the Commission could not condition a rezoning. They can either motion for
approval or denial with the basis that the expectations to be addressed with the Board or denial because of
the issues they have discussed.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out she would not do that. She got bumped into doing that on a couple of things
in the past and she really does not like it. If this Commission is doing its work, they will put it together
and they will stand behind what they are saying. When the Commission sends it to the Board of
Supervisors they should say this is the way it should be done. If at their level, the Board decides to say
that the Commission did not do it right or they don’t agree, that is up to them. However, the Commission
will send them something that is a complete package. That is not what he is asking them to do at this
point and she cannot support that. She would be very happy to support the things that have been said here
that he has agreed to if he will bring his plan back done that way.
Mr. Franco said he was torn because he has been the applicant before. He understands what the applicant
is saying and really thinks especially the interconnection is difficult. He thought the policy has been to
provide interconnections to help take the pressure off the bigger roads. He could see the Board going the
opposite direction. However, he also sees the point of sending their best foot forward. He was a little
torn on that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS ION – AUGUST 23, 2011 17
DRAFT MINUTES
Mr. Zobrist asked if there was a motion. He asked the applicant if he wants to defer or wants the
Commission to vote.
Mr. Collins requested a deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Smith seconded to accept the applicant’s request for deferral of
ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park.
Ms. Porterfield asked staff to work with the applicant for the earliest possible date that he can bring it
back.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out the next meetings would be September 13, September 20, and September 27.
Mr. Benish noted it would be preferable to defer to a date specific so they don’t have to readvertise.
Mr. Kamptner said if the Commission sets the hearing date now, it does not need to be readvertised.
Mr. Benish pointed out staff can make sure the Homeowner Association is made aware of this.
Mr. Zobrist asked how much time the applicant would like.
Mr. Collins asked for deferral to September 27.
Mr. Benish said that September 27 is a short turn around, but staff would make every effort with the
applicant to address all the issues.
Mr. Collins said they would have it submitted within five days if staff can turn it around.
Mr. Morris amended the motion to defer the request to the September 27 Planning Commission meeting.
The motion passed by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Zobrist noted that ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park was deferred to the September 27th Planning
Commission meeting. The applicant agreed to address the changes in the application plan and proffers as
recommended by the Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 1
FINAL MINUTES
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 27, 2011
Item Requesting Deferral.
ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.75 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 03200000003300 and TMP
03200000003400 from R-1, Residential zoning district which allows 1 unit/acre to PRD, Planned
Residential Development zoning district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) with limited
commercial uses and to rezone 0.56 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 046B4000000500 from R-1
Residential zoning district to R-1 Residential zoning district with proffers. Proposed number of
units is 68 for a density of 5.33 units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential –
residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth
Crossing, approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP 03200000003400, and TMP
046B4000000500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
DEFERRED FROM THE AUGUST 23, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
APPLICANT REQUESTING DEFERRAL TO THE OCTOBER 18, 2011 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
(David Benish)
Mr. Morris noted that the applicant was requesting deferral to the October 18, 2011 Planning
Commission meeting.
Mr. Kamptner said since the applicant is requesting deferral to a specific date the Commission
should open the matter for public hearing and provide any public comment.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public
hearing was closed and the matter before the Board.
MOTION: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded for approval of the applicant’s request
for deferral of ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park to October 18, 2011.
Mr. Morris invited discussion.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the Historic Preservation Committee met yesterday and there was
some discussion that maybe this applicant might want to consider moving the tot lot over to the
cemetery area in order that all lots to be sold would not be abutting the cemetery. There was
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 2
FINAL MINUTES
some discussion that might be easier marketing and might be better off for the maintenance of
the cemetery, access, and other kinds of things.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Morris asked for a roll call.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Kamptner noted just for the record that the public hearing was opened and closed on that
matter.
Mr. Morris noted ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park was deferred to October 18, 2011.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 18, 2011
Item Requesting Deferral:
ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.75 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 03200000003300 and TMP 03200000003400 from R-1,
Residential zoning district which allows 1 unit/acre to PRD, Planned Residential Development zoning district
which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses and to rezone 0.56 acres on Tax
Map/Parcel 046B4000000500 from R-1 Residential zoning district to R-1 Residential zoning district with
proffers. Proposed number of units is 68 for a density of 5.33 units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 –
34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossing,
approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP 03200000003400, and TMP 046B4000000500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(David Benish)
DEFERRED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 PLANNING COMMIISSON MEETING.
APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO THE DECEMBER 13, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING.
Mr. Zobrist noted the applicant requests deferral of ZMA -2010-00011, Estes Park to the December 13, 2011
meeting.
Mr. Morris questioned the reasoning behind the deferral request.
Mr. Benish replied that staff needs time to review the applicant’s resubmitted plan, which reflects the
Commission’s direction with different unit types and road design.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public
hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to approve the applicant’s request for deferral of ZMA -
2010-00011 Estes Park to December 13, 2011.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park was deferred to December 13, 2011.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 13, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 13, 2011
Item Requesting Deferral:
ZMA- 2010-00011, Estes Park
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.75 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 03200000003300 and TMP 03200000003400
from R-1, Residential zoning district which allows 1 unit/acre to PRD, Planned Residential
Development zoning district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses
and to rezone 0.56 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 046B4000000500 from R-1 Residential zoning district to R-
1 Residential zoning district with proffers. Proposed number of units is 66 for a density of 5.33
units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential –
residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial,
office and service uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth
Crossing, approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP 03200000003400, and
TMP 046B4000000500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
DEFERRED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
APPLICANT REQUESTING DEFERRAL TO THE JANUARY 24, 2012 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Mr. Zobrist noted the applicant requests deferral of ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park to the January 24,
2012 meeting.
Mr. Morris questioned how many times an applicant can defer, and Mr. Cilimberg replied there were no
limits to the number of times for deferral.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being no public comment, the
public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to approve the applicant’s request for deferral
of ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park to January 24, 2012.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park was deferred to January 24, 2012.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 24, 2012
Items Requesting Deferral:
ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.75 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 03200000003300 and TMP 03200000003400 from
R-1, Residential zoning district which allows 1 unit/acre to PRD, Planned Residential Development zoning
district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses and to rezone 0.56 acres
on Tax Map/Parcel 046B4000000500 from R-1 Residential zoning district to R-1 Residential zoning
district with proffers. Proposed number of units is 66 for a density of 5.33 units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential
(6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious insti tutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road
(Rt 649) and Worth Crossing, approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of
Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP 03200000003400, and TMP 046B4000000500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (David Benish)
DEFERRED FROM THE DECEMBER 13, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
APPLICANT REQUESTING INDEFINITE DEFERRAL.
Mr. Morris noted the applicant requests indefinite deferral of ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to approve the applicant’s request for indefinite
deferral of ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park.
The motion was passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park was indefinitely deferred.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-02-12
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 6, 2012
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park (Sign # 88 & 89)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.75 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 03200000003300 and TMP 03200000003400 from
R-1, Residential zoning district which allows 1 unit/acre to PRD, Planned Residential Development zoning
district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses and to rezone 0.56 acres
on Tax Map/Parcel 046B4000000500 from R-1 Residential zoning district to R-1 Residential zoning
district and rezone 1.8910 on Tax Map 046B40000005A0 from R -1 Residential zoning district to R-1
Residential zoning district with proffers. Proposed number of units is 68 for a density of 5.33 units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential
(6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossing,
approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP 03200000003400, 046B4000000500 and TMP
046B40000005A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(David Benish)
DEFERRED FROM THE JANUARY 24, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Benish presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report. This proposal is to
construct a development consisting of 68 single-family attached units, in a pedestrian-friendly layout, with a
street network, with access to Worth Crossing, and with 25% open space that includes the stream on the
property.
The Planning Commission initially heard this request on August 23, 2011. The applicant at that time
requested deferral to address issues that were identified by the Commission, which he would briefly go
over. There was also an issue with an adjacent property owner that provided at the time a proposed
second point of access to Worth Crossing. That applicant withdrew his willingness to participate in
providing for that access. Over the intervening period from August to now the applicant had to work
towards that issue as well, which contributed to some of the delays.
The Planning Commission issues that were identified at the August 23, 2012 meeting were:
1. Inadequate commitment to affordable housing. There was general consensus from the
Commission that the cash proffer amount for affordable housing should be based on the total
number of dwelling units consistent with the County’s cash proffer policy. It was based on the
additional units above the by right number.
2. The applicant should insure that there is adequate protection of downstream properties, including
Arbor Lake, from erosion and sedimentation issues during development.
3. Provide for a tot lot or another recreational amenity in the 25% open space.
4. Improve temporary and long-term protection of the historic cemetery on-site during construction
and after completion of the project.
5. One of the main issues was to provide adequate road widths to accommodate parking on both
sides of all roads. The initial road plan only allowed for parking on one side.
6. The biggest issue was that access was to be provided to Moubry Lane with a second access to
Worth Crossing. The applicant should evaluate options for another point of vehicular access
instead of the Moubry Lane interconnection. It was the general consensus of the Commission not
to make a vehicular connection to Moubry Lane. The applicant was asked to pursue an
alternative connection and to seek a second means of access.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-02-12
2
The applicant has responded to the Commission’s concerns through changes to both the proposed
application plan and proffers. The revised plan essentially addressed all of the major conditions a t least
in concept. Major changes to the application plan since the version reviewed in August are:
The unit type has been changed from single-family detached homes to single-family attached
homes.
A pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access only connection has been provided to Moubry Lane.
The configuration for the roads have changed somewhat. However, the areas of development
are essentially the same. The sole access to the site is now through a proposed public road to
Worth Crossing through adjacent parcels on the north side of the site. No second means of
access to the site is feasible at this time (except from Moubry Lane). Three road stub-outs to
adjacent properties have been provided for on the application plan as possible future
interconnections.
Most of the issues have been addressed. In terms of the status of the project the proposed plan is
generally consistent with our Comprehensive Plan, except for the interconnectivity with existing public
streets, Moubry Lane. However, this proposal is consistent with the direction that the Planning
Commission had provided and does not provide for that connection. There is no second means of
access to a public road because quite simply there is not another option for that given this development
location. However, the applicant has provided for three other stub-outs to adjacent properties, which
would allow for future connections but for the development over the long term.
The applicant in the revised proffers is requesting flexibility to address the affordable housing policy to
provide either affordable units or cash in lieu of units or some combination to meet policy. The prior
request had been to provide simple cash in lieu. Staff believes this is acceptable. It has been done in
other development proposals in concept to allow the option to do either/or or some combination.
Outstanding issues:
Public road access located on two separate parcels. Property owners not yet party to
application/no written agreement in place to provide access. The development as proposed will
not have access to a public road and will not be developable without this agreement. However,
staff has had letters from both property owners and they are in negotiations with the applicant.
They are working towards that and they have expressed a willingness to allow this roadway.
However, they have not signed the application for the rezoning as yet. They are positively
working towards that agreement, but staff cannot say it is in place at this time.
Proposed cash proffer amount for Capital Improvements are not based on the total market units
that might be built in this development proposal as per Cash Proffer Policy (Proffer 1). Now that
the applicant is requesting flexibility to provide for in kind or cash in lieu the way that the proffers
are currently structured the total cash proffer amount is based on ten affordable housing units
being provided. There is a credit that they typically provide for affordable units that reduces the
cash proffer amount to 58. However, with the f lexibility that they are requesting there may actually
be more market units built than 58. Staff has suggested that the cash proffer amount should be
based what the total number of market rate units that are ultimately built. Staff believes that can
be tracked to do that within the cash proffer and corrections to the affordable housing proffer. He
believed the applicant is basically offering a cash proffer amount based on 58 units. That is a just
a decision and recommendation that the applicant and the Board needs from the Commission on
that.
Modifications are needed to the Erosion/Sediment Control Proffer to reflect the applicant’s
proposal/memo (Proffer 4). The applicant has provided a memo outlining the enhanced
measures that they would provide to address erosion and sedimentation in an enhanced way with
the development of this site. The County Engineer has reviewed that memo and is generally
agreeable to those methods. However, the proffer at this point in time does not specifically
reference the memo and it does not reference who makes the decision on which improvements
need to be made. There is some clean up to that proffer that needs to be worked out.
There are also other technical corrections to the form of the proffer document that need to be
addressed.
Those are the primary issues with this development proposal. Otherwise, staff feels that it is consistent
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-02-12
3
with the Comprehensive Plan and is generally a good proposal. Staff cannot recommend approval at this
time due to the outstanding issues. However, if the Commission is comfortable and decides to
recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors staff would recommend that approval be conditioned on
addressing these issues prior to Board approval as identified.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Ms. Monteith said as she understands phasing one and two in this project is not typically how they handle
phasing. In other words, phase one is 2012 and phase two is 2014. I t has more to do with the way that
the site is going to get built out. She noticed there is only a storm water facility in the phase two areas.
She had two questions. One, what is the time lag between phase one and two. There is an existing
wetland and stream to remain that is in phase one. She just wondered what the buffering was on that.
Mr. Benish suggested the questions be left to the applicant to respond.
Mr. Randolph requested since several Commissioners were not here on August 23 an explanation of the
thinking of the Commission at that point as to why Moubry Lane would not be a viable second means of
egress and ingress to this proposed development.
Mr. Morris offered to answer the question since both lots are in his area. If they go out to that block
Moubry Lane was created and it was planned there would be a connection if another unit of Estes Park
was every built. However, due to the way that community has gelled that cul-de-sac has become the
community area where people get together to talk, children learn how to ride bikes, etc. It has really
turned into a community meeting place. As he recalled the residents requested very respectfully that they
not take that away from them. Having gone out to the site and seen the way that neighborhood gels out
there he was very much in favor of leaving it the way it was. Ho wever, he favored putting in a
bicycle/pedestrian emergency area to connect the two. They have done that in other areas such as
Cascadia.
Mr. Dotson said the concern was not with that connection creating through traffic in either direction , but
rather that street was a community adopted space.
Mr. Morris said that was an excellent point because that was a major factor also. If that was a secondary
way of getting out it would lead right to Profit Road. It would be very advantageous to a lot of people and
would probably greatly increase the traffic on that particular road.
Mr. Franco pointed out he was torn because the Comp Plan calls for interconnectivity. However, the
traffic and the cul-de-sac were the two big issues. At the meeting the public spok e strongly about the
interconnection. With the Chair’s lead he basically followed along. Since this is one of the last pieces up
there that he could see continuing to develop it with cul-de-sacs and not having that interconnection.
However, he was still torn because it was something in the Comp Plan.
Mr. Morris pointed out that stretch of road from the cul-de-sac to Profit Road is the greatest straight away
that they have coming out of Estes Park. They could just see the 15 to 25 mile an hour speed limit going
by the wayside.
Mr. Randolph asked if that is the community concern would it be possible where lots 28 and 27 are
currently designed to be located which is directly southwest of Moubry Lane, to designate the area as a
recreational space. If Moubry Lane is taking on a social recreational function he was thinking about the
objective of trying to ensure that there is twin access into this new phase of Estes Park. He suggested
that perhaps lots 28 and 27 could be designated as a recreational area. He was struck by the amount of
development in the space and the lack of attended recreational space . He would love to hear from
members of the community how they would feel about that with 27 and 28 or perhaps lots 29 and 28.
There should be some way that an exit to the east side of Estes Park could be made into more of a
recreational area to meet the objective of the residents and thereby ensure that the traffic would be
coming through. If both communities are using the space it is not an either/or pr oposition and it becomes
a collective proposition where the people in Estes Park and on Moubry Lane have a stake in ensuring that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-02-12
4
the speed limits are observed. Anyone speeding could be kindly informed that they need to slow down in
the future by a member of the homeowner association. He would like to see some deliberation on that.
He was concerned about only having one way into t his community. Given the level of development and
the number of people in there he was struck by the fact that there is only one road.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Scott Collins, representative for the applicant, Riverbend Management, on this project, said Mr. Benish
did a great job of summarizing where they are at this point and where they have been coming from the
August meeting to now. He would touch on a couple of items, as follows. He had no f ormal presentation
because he thought it has been well done.
Regarding the access agreement by W orth Crossing and the property owners, they are wrapping
up negotiations with both of those parcel owners that will be secured before the Board of
Supervisors meeting. It will probably be secured by the end of this week. That is all going very
well. They understand that mechanism needs to be in place in order for the rezoning to go forth.
That will all be taken care of.
The same goes as far as the erosion and sediment control proffer that they have been working on
with Forest Lakes to ensure protection of Arbor Lake. That has all been worked out with the
support of Forest Lakes to date and with the county. It is just a matter of making the adjustments
to the actual proffer language, which they could not do before this meeting. However, that will all
be finalized between now and the Board of Supervisors meeting to incorporate the couple of
sentences that will link the memo to the proffer. They are all in agreement on that at this time.
That should be taken care of as well.
Regarding the affordability proffer, the way everything is written there is some ambiguity to how
that proffer is actually implemented. That is what they have been faced with as early as Friday of
last week. Up until that point they were with the understanding that this project achieved the 15
percent affordability rate by them proffering ten affordable units. That is achieved either by
building those units and selling them at the affordable rate or making a contribution into the
Affordability Housing Department fund so they can help with the down payments or help with
future affordable housing needs. With that contribution that should count against what they were
providing. Therefore, in the way they look at it they don’t really consider that point as a market
rate based on that contribution to achieve affordable housing. The way everything is written it is a
little bit unclear as to how that is interpreted. He knew the Commission was going to be talking a
little more this month about the affordable housing policy. He was sure that would come up as
well.
In addition, he wanted to touch base on the cash proffers and the ability to get credit on the cash
proffers when they are not increasing the density in a rezoning much more than they could
already do on the existing zoning. This property is R -1 zoning. They could actually do 18 lots by
right. They are increasing that to 68 units. The Comp Plan for this area calls for the density to
be between 6 units an acres up to 34 units an acre. They are developing at a density of 5.3 units
an acre, which is far less than what they could actually achieve. If they tie all that in together
they can see that is somewhat fair not to have to pay the proffers on these additional 10 units. In
addition, the fact that on the 18 units they can achieve by right, they have been paying taxes for
county services for almost 25 to 30 years because it has been zoned land for that long. He
hoped the Commission could take all of that into account in their recommendation tonight as to
whether the cash proffer for market rate should be based on 58 units and not the 68 units.
Regarding the comments about the phasing, the storm management pond is shown in phase two.
However, for phase one development there will be a sediment basin and storm management
pond that will function. W here they currently show lots 18, 19 and 20 the erosion and sediment
control plan will show a basin that will be functional and operational in the area where all of phase
one will go in drainage to that facility. It will be piped over from that facilit y over to the new storm
water management facility once they start phase two. This will be over protected. The basin will
be oversized 50 percent for the wet volume and 50 percent for dry volume to ensure adequate
erosion controls. There will be different compartments in that basin as well to help with the
sedimentation of soils in the water and help address their additional erosion control measures. In
phase one, they will have a basin protecting the downstream lake and streams. As far as the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-02-12
5
stream, they will keep the stream buffer around the existing stream through the property. They
will have trees on the back sides of those lots to help protect that stream corridor as well.
Regarding the access question over to Moubry Lane between their developments, they worked
on that many months since the last meeting in August. It seems based on the Planning
Commission comment that connection is better suited as pedestrian access and emergency
connection. There are a couple of bollards that can be lifted. If the access is blocked up on
Worth Crossing, there is the access there. There is also a dditional access to the property from
the north coming down Profit Road that goes right between the existing church property and the
existing commercial property. That access will still remain to that commercial property. There is
a third access point that could be used for emergency access if W orth Crossing is blocked.
As far as the recreational aspect of the c ul-de-sac on Moubry Lane to Estes, they took the cul-de-
sac and said that was the recreational space for Forest Ridge. Then they their recreational space
at the intersection where they showed the tot lot and recreational facility. They c onnected them
with the pedestrian pathway, which ties the two recreational spaces together. That creates
continuity between the two neighborhoods and the recreational facility. They hope that these two
neighborhoods will overlap with their community programming and amenities and have activities
together that incorporate both developments in the end. That was the reasoning for adjusting the
design of the development and having some recreational space right there at that intersection
with the access connection between the two recreational spaces.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Ms. Monteith asked as a follow up what is the time frame between phase one and phase 2. The applicant
said they are going to be retaining the buffers around the existing wetland, but they don’t know what
those are. She asked what the buffers are.
Mr. Collins replied that it was the existing trees right now.
Ms. Monteith noted that it was not a typical stream buffer. It is not 50’ on either side of the midsection of
the stream.
Mr. Collins replied no, it was not.
Mr. Monteith asked if his definition of buffer is trees that happen to exist.
Mr. Collins replied that is correct.
Ms. Monteith asked what the time frame is between the two phases.
Mr. Collins replied right now the timing was going to be market driven. First they are going to develop
phase one. Another reason for developing the project in two phases is again addressing concerns of
erosion and sediment control. Obviously, this is not a 200 acre development that would be undisturbed
for two or three years at a time. It is good to phase projects in order to complete one phase before going
on to the next. If they did this all at one time it would be 12 acres of disturbed area open at one time.
They have proffered in their erosion and sediment control additional implementation of sediment control
measures, which is to develop in phases down to 6 to 8 acres at one time to help cut down on the amount
of disturbed area. The timing will probably be in a manner of a couple years or 18 months.
Ms. Monteith pointed out she saw that in the storm water proffers. It may be in the report, but she
somehow missed it. She asked for a clearer definition of what is in phase one and two. She asked if he
could give unit numbers.
Mr. Collins replied that everything west of the creek is basically phase one and everything to the east is
phase two. The creek splits the two phases. Phase one is basically lots 1 through 13, 61-68, and 56-60.
Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 would be in phase two because that would be the temporary storm
water management facility location for phase one.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-02-12
6
Mr. Randolph asked what the estimated value or range would be for these units.
Mr. Collins referred the question to the developer, Alan Taylor.
Alan Taylor, with Riverbend Management, said they were the developer of the property and would
develop the lots and sell the lots to a home builder. He can’t speak to the terms of what the overall value
of the home is going to be. He would anticipate in the $300,000 range, but probably starting in the high
$200,000 range.
Mr. Randolph asked if it would be condominiums or town homes.
Mr. Taylor replied that they would be fee simple attached units or technically a duplex. Regarding the
market rate versus affordable rate proffers, he questioned if the policy has been c hanged. In the
developments he has been involved with historically the way they have done it there was 85 percent of
the units at market rate and 15 percent of the units at the affordable rate. Therefore, they would pay
market rate proffer on the market rate units and then an affordability proffer on the affordable units. As
Mr. Collins was saying, what has happened in the last week or so is that there was a market rate proffer
on all the units and then an affordability proffer on 15 percent of the units. Essentially, there would be
cash proffers on 115 percent of the units. He was interested in the new policy change in affordable
housing.
Mr. Morris noted the Commission would bring that back for discussion and ask the staff.
Mr. Taylor said to further expand on the access issue, he noted it was an issue they had been dealing
with for months and hope to have a signed agreement this week. The final draft was circulated today.
Mr. Morris said one of the items brought to the Commission in the August meeting was an agreement with
the Forest Lakes residents.
Mr. Taylor replied that they had been meeting with the Forest Lakes residents, which was where the
erosion and sediment memo circulated by Glenn Brooks had come from. Mr. Collins met with Mr. Brooks
a number of times to implement above and beyond measures to make sure that the siltation events that
have happened to Forest Lakes historically don’t happen with this development.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Peter Walpole, resident of Moubry Lane for 11 years, said he was here at the August meeting and wanted
to thank the Commission. He brought his son, Max, who spoke at that meeting. They all understood
about the pre-existing idea of there being an access road through Moubry Lane. Moubry Lane has
evolved into a very special place. The cul-de-sac has very little traffic and the residents use that area as
a recreational and meeting place. Therefore, the residents would like to preserve that area. They were
very positive to the possibility of the melting of the communities over time. They were very open to the
emergency access for the vehicles. The idea of losing the cul-de-sac and having cars running up and
down the road makes him very sad. That is why they came to the August meeting and why they were
here tonight to try to protect what is a very special place for the community. He renewed their plea from
August to save Moubry Lane the way it is.
Ms. Mappi, on the Board of Directors for the Forest Ridge Homeowner Association, agreed with Mr.
Walpole about how they all feel about Moubry Lane. W hen developed it really was not developed
properly for connectivity. They have no sidewalks, which they have been back and forth on. The problem
is the children walk to the school bus at Profit and Moubry and there are no sidewalks. People try to cut
through and don’t pay attention to the 25 mile per hour speed limit. Therefore, she worries about the
safety of the children if they change Moubry Lane since it woul d destroy the area. She asked that they
keep Moubry Lane as it is.
Stenala Preston, resident of Moubry Lane, agreed with the previous speakers and asked that Moubry
Lane be left as it is. A direct connection would jeopardize the community by the danger of the cars
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-02-12
7
coming through. She supported having the emergency access and merging the communities together.
Having direct drive through would jeopardize lives at Moubry Lane.
Jim Frye, retired CEO for Worrall, said in August during their discussion the y came up with a wonderful
idea that protected the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac has become the center of the community. He
compliments the Commission and Estes Park in coming up with a wonderful solution that saved and
protected their community and the ability of America to live and the people to grow.
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said they have no position on the project. However,
they are concerned with some of the questions that have come up in recent weeks f rom the Commission.
It seems that they are looking at a plan for land use and questions of pricing and timing beyond the
questions that have been proffered with regard to phase one and two. These are market decisions. They
are looking at a land use plan. The cost and timing of the units beyond the affordable units are not in the
Commission’s purview. Those are the very few things that government does not control in the
development process.
Mr. Morris closed the public comment to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion.
Ms. Monteith noted in response to Mr. Williamson’s comment that the question she asked was a land use
question. She asked about the phasing specifically as it related to storm water. She questioned when
that is not a land use issue.
Mr. Franco asked that the Commission get an answer from staff regarding the confusion about the
affordable proffer and how it overlaps with the cash proffer. It has been his experience in the past they
were two separate proffers and have been applied at 85 percent and 15 percent. He asked if this is a
change in the policy
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was actually not. To be clear on the distinction, only market rate units are
under the policy to be covered by the cash proffer policy application. Where that has been differentiated
is when the affordable unit is not being constructed but instead cash is being given in lieu of the
affordable units. The only application of the cash proffer policy is to market rate units. If they build 15
percent affordable units those would not be subject to the cash proffer policy the way the policy has
worked as it was understood. However, if they don’t build and instead give cash then those units will be
market rate units and would be subject to the cash proffer policy the way the process has worked.
Mr. Franco said he did not think it has worked that way in the past.
Mr. Cilimberg said that he believed that it has. He remembered this coming up with the Rivanna Village
at Glenmore. That was discussed because there was some question of whether or not there was going
to be units produced or cash in lieu of units. That has been his recollection as to how the policy has
worked. He may stand to be corrected. However, when the units are being built as affordable they don’t
apply the cash proffer policy.
Mr. Franco said that his memory has been the opposite. It seems like it is a change in policy. He was a
little confused on how it would work if they take that approach. One of his complaints about the
affordable housing policy is the 90-day buy out since he thought they were losing opportunities. If the
builder/developer builds a unit and puts it out there and they can’t fill it after 90 days would they be
released from the $21,000, but then be subject to the other proffer. He asked how that would work.
Mr. Cilimberg said it was based on the intent to sell the unit as an affordable unit.
Mr. Franco said their intent was to sell it so they put it up there and so it would not be subject to it.
Mr. Cilimberg said they made the unit available. As he understands the way that policy has worked it
would not be subject to that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-02-12
8
Mr. Morris said there is an element of confusion. However, hopefully they can address it when they talk
with Ron White.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Ron White is not really in that part of the policy. He has made the choice in
some proffers whether or not they get the cash or have units produced. That has been an option that has
been built in to proffers previously.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out the cash proffer policy was adopted by the Board in October, 2007. It lays out
what dwelling units are to be counted when determining the cash proffers that are designed to address
the county wide impacts to schools, to public safety, and to parks and recreation. It provides that dwelling
units qualifying as affordable housing under the county’s definition of affordable housing are e xcluded
from that totally. It does not reference cash in lieu of affordable units. At that time in 2007, the Board had
approved a number of rezonings where the applicant had proffered cash in lieu of or the option of either
building or the cash in lieu of. So he thinks if this particular policy for excluding built affordable units had
intended to include cash in lieu the Board would have used that language in the policy. But, it did not. It
refers to the units themselves.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that was the clarity he hopes to also provide. He thought Mr. Kamptner did a good
job of describing it. However, that is the way they have used the cash proffer policies application since it
was adopted. They have to remember that actually a relatively small number of projects have been
through the process under the cash proffer policy. Many of the projects that were reviewed during th e
2000’s were before the cash proffer policy was put into place when there was not a specific policy as to
how to deal with the amount of cash per unit. Back then there were some affordable housing provisions
made as well. What Mr. Kamptner read was what they understand the application has been. If they
produce the unit they are not subject to the cash proffer policy. Otherwise, if there is cash in lieu of the
unit, then that unit was not produced. So it is going to be a market unit and will be subject to it.
Mr. Morris asked if they have that policy in writing so that the applicant can look at.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the Board can decide to vary from that policy.
Mr. Kamptner agreed since this is a policy and not an ordinance. Ultimately, the Board can decide
whether or not they want to strictly adhere to that policy or vary from it. The Commission is free to make
a recommendation on that particular question as part of their action.
Mr. Cilimberg asked to also note that Ron White is not involved in the policy aspect. He is involved in the
receipt of the benefits from the policy and how they actually are used.
Mr. Morris said he understands, but would think that he would be keenly aware of exactly what the policy
is.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that he is.
Mr. Benish said just to be clear in terms of meeting the affordable housing policy, they have. Their proffer
is very consistent in concept and they are providing 15 percent. They are offering to do that in kind or
through the cash in lieu. What they see as the deficiency to the policy is just a measurement of what was
the cash amount based on market rate units, which they feel can be easily adjusted. It just depends on
the total amount that the Commission and the Board wish for in this case.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out they are actually covered by two separate policy areas. It is two separate
proffers. The affordable housing and how that is provided is one proffer. The cash proffer for capital
improvement needs is another proffer. They are addressing two separate needs identified by the county.
Mr. Randolph said if they just say theoretically these units were to sell for $300,000 what would be the
affordable housing costs of these units. He asked if there is a formula that it would be two -thirds or three
quarters. He was trying to get a handle here of what affordable means if hypothetically they were looking
at units of $300,000.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-02-12
9
Mr. Morris said that as he understands it is based upon the average wage and is not on the cost of the
house itself.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a purchase price that qualifies as affordable, which was previously $180,000.
Mr. Kamptner agreed. However, he was probably rusty on what that exact dollar amount is right now. In
2007 or 2008 it was in the low 200’s. However, as Mr. Cilimberg said it is probably lower than that now.
It is probably around $190,000.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is one thing they confirm with Mr. White on as the units are coming on the market
to be actually produced. Ultimately, it is as the applicant mentioned they may be two years out in some
form of the development. So the affordable rate at the time that they would produce a unit might be
different than today.
Mr. Randolph said therefore if again hypothetically these units were to be s old for $300,000 and for
affordable purposes they would be $190,000, then they are talking about a significant incentive for
somebody who is a county employee or whatever they are profiled to if they are eligible for affordable
housing to be in these units. They are getting a new unit at a very good competitive market rate
compared to what the rest of the units within the community will be going for. That is all he was trying to
work out in his own mind. That is one of the reasons why he was requesting j ust a hypothetical figure as
to what the units will cost because they needed to talk about affordable housing. He was also interested
in contrasting what the value of these units were compared to the existing units in Mourbry Lane. He
wanted to find out if there was a differential in terms of the housing value between the two. He did not
see a differential at all. That was the basis of his earlier question just to go on the record.
Mr. Dotson asked staff what the status was concerning something he heard several years ago about
VDOT requiring two points of access if streets were to be public
Mr. Benish said the state policy right now has softened from where it previously was to require that all
adjacent properties be provided with potential connections in the future. In VDOT’s review of this
alternative plan there is with the exception of Moubry Lane now based on a local action for stub outs that
provide access to multiple locations. So VDOT has determined this is consistent enough with their
current policies.
Ms. Monteith said the other issue is they are providing a secondary emergency access route, which is
usually a major driver of these kinds of issues.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was an interconnectivity index he believed that VDOT has developed an d was
putting into place. That has been scaled back basically and has been modified to no longer be applied.
Mr. Dotson requested to ask a question of the developer.
Mr. Morris asked Scott Collins to come forward.
Mr. Dotson asked on the little cemetery in the corner where the proposal is to put some fencing he was
curious what kind of fencing, how tall and whether it would have a locked gate. He asked what they are
talking about.
Scott Collins replied that basically they were talking about a wroth iron fence around it about 4’ in height.
It is more of an amenity to the development as opposed to locking it away and protecting it from anybody.
There is a cemetery in Old Trail where he lives. Every weekend his children want to ride bikes and the
first thing they want to do is stop at the cemetery and walk around the cemetery. It is a little bigger than
this one and is enclosed by a 3’ stone wall. Cemeteries can be an amenity. There will be a little walking
path over to the facility. There will be a gate.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-02-12
10
Mr. Dotson said he was trying to figure out how the cemetery plays out in the future and if there are
members of the Estes family. In reading the staff report there is talk of an access easement. In
Shenandoah National Park, for instance, there are cemeteries where families are allowed to go back and
visit. He asked if that is what is in mind here.
Mr. Collins replied certainly. This is an open space and will be maintained by the HOA. There is an
access easement that provides access to the cemetery for the public. Anybody could essentially go down
the public street and get on the public access to go visit the cemetery.
Mr. Dotson said in looking at the site the cemetery looked like it was pretty well grown over. It did not look
like a mowed cemetery. It looked like a forest that probably had some fallen over stones and maybe
some other places of missing stones.
Mr. Collins replied that is correct. That is one of the things that will be done when the fence is put around
the cemetery and it is maintained by the HOA. It will be cleaned up and taken care of with the landscape
contract for the development.
Mr. Dotson said the thinking is that it is an amenity and not something where vandals should be kept out.
Is there any thought about making certain that the homeowners to be on adjacent properties are notified
through their deed or some other mechanism that this is a cemetery.
Mr. Collins replied that it was not part of their property and it would show up on the subdivision plat for the
entire development. Since this is an open space, it is deeded and owned by the HOA. There won’t be
any confusion that the homeowners adjacent to the cemetery would think th e cemetery is their property
and would push anything over to that area.
Mr. Dotson said he was a little torn about the amenity versus sort of the attractive nuisance and
vandalism aspects of this.
Mr. Collins suggested that he check out the cemetery at Old Trail.
Mr. Smith said that by definition it now is a grave yard. It will become a cemetery when it is maintained
Mr. Morris noted that was the request by a person who is on the historical society that they were hoping
that this would be taken under the wing of the developer and the developer agreed to it. It was not part of
the plan originally. The developer has agreed to take that on.
Mr. Randolph asked how the perimeter of the grave yard has been established. He asked how they know
where graveyard ends.
Mr. Collins replied that the cemetery has been field surveyed. They went out there with county staff. They
all met one day and established the limits of the cemetery. Everybody put stakes in around there. Then
they came back and surveyed it. They also had some tests performed to make sure there were no
graveyards outside of that location. That has all been confirmed.
Mr. Loach said as far as the affordable housing his policy is 15 percent. He was glad to hear the
developer say he was committed to building the affordable units. It sounded like last time that the county
was saying that they did not want the units, but they wanted the money. He felt that is not the way the
county should be acting. They have the 15 percent to increase the number of affordable housing units. If
in fact they have reached that threshold, then there should be no other need especially to ask the
developers to pay for 15 percent if in fact that is what the county is saying. Again, he was g lad to hear
that commitment tonight. As far as the road he agreed with Mr. Franco that it was touch and go as far as
the connectivity. He could live with what has been agreed to. When this gets to the Board it might be
more problematic if it is anything like the high end apartment up on Rio where the walking path was to
connect to that one other subdivisio n. That got into a fairly heated discussion with the Board of
Supervisors on the connectivity. Now it is just a walking path. He congratulated the developer on
committing to the units.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-02-12
11
Mr. Kamptner noted that was Arden Place.
Ms. Monteith said she was impressed that the neighbors have come out for a second time.
Mr. Randolph suggested that this should be remanded back to staff. He was struck by the fact that the
drainage issues remain on 18, 19 and 20. They need to be finalized and be in writing so t hat they see
what has been finalized. He thought there should be a recreational space for both Forest Ridge and
Estes Park. He asked if there was some way of incorporating that with Moubry Lane that it would be
wonderful. The right way is not finalized. It is not a done deal. He was very uncomfortable going ahead
with an application where it remains not finalized. Along with what Mr. Loach said the affordable housing
issue units are not optional, but are a necessity. If the county keeps taking money in lieu of affordable
housing the total availability of affordable housing will continue to decline. Unit 68 needs to be moved
and repositioned so instead of facing the street it needs to be at a creative angle. That was an issue
earlier that staff brought up in terms of lot 68’s proximity to the stream. He just f eels that there are still a
lot of nuts and bolts issues, or mechanical issues that need to be worked out. He was not comfortable
voting on this application at this point until they are. That does not mean that he is prejudiced against the
application. He thinks the developer has shown a real commitment to reworking it. He a ppreciates the
community for coming out in number and having eloquent presentations about their concern for the cul-
de-sac. He has learned from that and therefore certainly will withdraw his feeling that a second point of
access should be through Moubry Lane. He remains concerned, however, that there is only one means
of access at this time into this project. He worries about the precedent of that and how that could come
back to haunt us in the future. At this point he cannot really vote to move this application forward.
Mr. Morris asked if he had looked at the conditions and if a lot of his concerns were covered in the
conditions.
Mr. Loach asked staff if after hearing from the developer and the Commission tonight if his
recommendation was still for denial.
Mr. Benish replied that in essence either action will give staff proper direction. If the Commission could
cite the specific issues they have that are concerns to the Board of Supervisors, then they can engage
with the applicant to address those issues. He thought ideally they would like to have those issues as
straight as possible with the Commission’s recommendation to the Board. Given the time it has taken to
get this project to this point he thought conditions giving clear direction on what the expectations the
Commission has for what goes to the Board is a reasonable approach.
Mr. Morris said that was his primary concern.
Mr. Loach noted that they could add additional conditions if they wanted to.
Mr. Franco said he would like to react to one of the comments about the recreational space. It is
important to note that these are two different developments and they are not talking about public parks.
So the idea of requiring the applicant to build recreational spaces to serve adjacent communities while
laudable may not be practical from that sense. If the county were willing to take it over and maintain it ,
then that would be another story. However, if they are asking a group of the private citizens to maintain a
public park for the rest of the community he did not think that was fair.
Mr. Dotson noted a minor comment back to Mr. Franco. They also have p ublic land that is using
essentially as private recreation, the cul-de-sac. So it is both ways. The issue that primarily concerns
him is if not here, when, where will they require interconnectivity. They are potentially adding this Estes
Park development with three stub outs. So what does that stub out into? It is going into some vacant land
that somebody is going to develop. They will attempt to connect to those stubs. Then the residents of
Estes Park will come to us. He thought it was one of those situations where if he lived on Moubry Lane
he would not like it if the connection was contemplated or was going to be made. Then in the next breath
he would think he would say well there is a reason for it and it is not necessarily his preference , but there
is a reason for it. Therefore, he needs to accept it. He comes back again to the question of if not here ,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-02-12
12
where. They are not talking about a large number of units. Quite frankly, in driving and looking at the area
it seems that the people on Moubry Lane would use the streets of Estes Park more likely than the people
of Estes Park would use Mobry Lane because he did not think that area of Profit is very much a
destination. He did not know what they would be going to. Instead, he thought what they wou ld do is go
up to the major street behind the shopping center if they wanted to get up to the medical facilities on
Profit. He did not think they would go back down Moubry Lane. He did not see the traffic going back
down that way. He sees the traffic going up through Estes Park. That is a concern.
Mr. Morris said just to address that edification that he thought that has been a problem ever since they
really started looking at the Comprehensive Plan and putting in interconnections. Mr. Dotson was
absolutely right that they were looking at Estes Park and needed to focus on it for a moderate amount of
housing. When they were faced with the same thing with another subdivision that had 365 units it was
eventually approved with a stub out leading into another place. It has been a contentious issue right from
the start. Mr. Dotson was absolutely right and his question was well put - If not here, where, when
because there is always going to be a fight.
Mr. Loach said if in fact the land itself had not been designed with the infrastructure to support that, then it
would have felt more comfortable saying well the design was there for the connectivity so if and when
traffic did increase there was the infrastructure of sidewalks to take care of it. However, t hat was not the
case.
Mr. Franco said that he remained torn. In the original proposal the applicant did propose to provide
sidewalks along Moubry. But the thing that pushed him over the edge to say let’s no t have the
connection was that not at the cul-de-sac but one-half way between the cul-de-sac and Profit Road it is a
fairly straight road. The sidewalk was going to have to cross there and short of putting in speed bumps or
something like that, which they don’t want on public roads. Therefore, maintaining slower speeds through
there was going to be difficult. If there had been other interconnections or something that gave it that grid
feeling he probably would have been more adamant. However, he agreed that they have this policy and
they bend it constantly. At what point do they say that they are going to live with it.
Mr. Smith said that it is a cul-de-sac and it is not designed for stubbing. He agreed with Mr. Franco that
he would hate to see the traffic go through the straight stretch. They would possibly double the number of
houses that way. In thinking green they could ask the people on Moubry Lane if they would want to ride
their bicycle.
Ms. Monteith noted she did pay some attention to the storm water issues on this development. The
memo, which is attachment C, is fairly lengthy in terms of what type of improvements they are looking at.
One of the things she paid attention to was there was quite a few things that they were tracking through
the construction. However, there are also quite a few things that are built into the long term
improvements of this site. Both of those are important to mitigate. However, she thought they have
gotten more detail on some of the storm water issues and watershed issues here than they do in some
other cases.
Mr. Franco agreed that they have an applicant that has gone well above what is required of them to meet
the adjacent neighbors concerns.
Motion for ZMA:
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-2010-00011, Estes
Park, based on the findings in the staff report with the conditions identified by staff in the presentation
being addressed prior to approval by the Board of Supervisors.
1. Right of access has been secured from the adjacent parcels TMP 46B4 -5 and TMP46B4-5A
for the construction (and right of way dedication) of a public road on these properties to serve
the proposed Estes Park development.
2. The Cash Proffer for Capital Improvements (#1) is changed so that the total cash proffer
amount is based on the total number of market value units built.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-02-12
13
3. Revision to the Affordable Housing Proffer (#2) is to the satisfaction of the Housing Director,
and the Erosion and Sediment Control Proffer (#5) to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5:1. (Mr. Randolph voted nay.)
Mr. Morris noted that a recommendation for approval of ZMA-2010-00011 would be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors to a date to be determined.
Mr. Dotson asked to restate the obvious. The concerns expressed by various members will be reflected
in the minutes that go forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Morris replied absolutely in a verbatim format.
Mr. Kamptner noted there was also an action needed on a critical slopes waiver, which would be
recommended for approval or disapproval as a special exception to the Board.
Action on Critical Slopes Waiver
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Dotson seconded to recommend approval of the Critical Slopes
Waiver for ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park, as recommended by staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that the Critical Slopes Waiver for ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park would be forwarded to
the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval.
ZMA 2007-006 Three Notch’d Center
BOS 12/12/07 Public Hearing
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 2011-005 Greenbrier Commons
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Rezone 2.000 acres from Light Industry (LI) zoning
district which allows industrial, office, and limited
commercial uses (no residential use) to
Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning district which
allows residential (3-34 units/acre) mixed with
commercial, service and industrial uses. No
residential units proposed.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Yaniglos
LEGAL REVIEW: YES
AGENDA DATE:
April 11, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Anvince Land Trust, Sue A. Albrecht, Trustee
BACKGROUND:
A public hearing was held on this rezoning at the Planning Commission on February 28th, 2012. The
Commission recommended approval of the rezoning to the Board of Supervisors. This motion for
approval was conditioned upon the following corrections to the code of development:
Code of Development:
1. Staff to relook at the parking portion of the Code of Development to allow for parking
demand studies to be used in the future,
2. Staff to work out with the applicant whether to have the Code of Development provide for
inclusion of bicycle racks or that the applicant proffer that bicycle racks be provided, and
3. Revise the Code of Development to list all uses permitted by right and by special use
permit in a table format instead of using the Zoning Ordinance.
DISCUSSION/FINDINGS:
The applicant has worked with staff to address the Planning Commission’s concerns. The first
condition can be handled at the site plan stage. The site plan process allows for the submission of
parking studies.
The second condition can be found in the statement of consistency with the Neig hborhood Model
principles that is in Attachment I. The applicant will provide a bike rack on the property in the front,
southwest area of the site.
The applicant has submitted a revised code of development. Rather than a table format, the
applicant has listed the uses that are by right and by special use permit. Staff has found this
alternative acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of ZMA 11-005 with the attached Code of Development. (Attachment I)
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Code of Development, revised March 30, 2012
II. February 28, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report
ZMA 2007-006 Three Notch’d Center
BOS 12/12/07 Public Hearing
2
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT I
APPLICATION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
GREENBRIER COMMONS ZMA 2011-00005 RESUBMITTAL
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2011
REVISION: MARCH 18,2012
REVISION: MARCH 30, 2012
PROPERTY:
TMP 061WO-01-0A-00800
340 Greenbrier Drive
Albemarle County, Virginia
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Anvince Land Trust
Sue A. Albrecht
255 Ipswich Place
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
NARRATIVE:
This site is fully developed and is zoned Light Industrial. The application for the Zoning
Map Amendment from Light Industrial District to Neighborhood Model District is being
applied for in order to broaden the uses of the property. The intent with the change to
NMD is to maintain all LI “By Right” and all LI “By Special Use Permit” uses while
adding most HC “By Right” and most HC “Special Use Permit”. This ZMA will allow
for a more productive use of the front portion of the property, as well as better
complement the surrounding mix of properties on Greenbrier and Commonwealth Drives.
20A.3 – NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT – APPLICATION
REQUIREMENTS
20A.3.a – Statement of Consistency with NMD Principles
The proposed development alone does not meet all NMD principles. However combined
with adjacent properties the project contributes to NMD principles. The following is a
brief overview of the attributes of the development’s contribution to NMD principles.
1. Pedestrian Orientation – The development is located in an area of high pedestrian
foot traffic. The property is surrounded to the south, west and north with a variety
of residential housing inclusive of multi-story apartment units, townhouses,
duplexes, single-family homes and an assisted living facility.
2. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths – Pedestrian friendly sidewalks flank
both sides of Greenbrier and Commonwealth Drives with a traffic signal located at
that intersection as well allowing for safe pedestrian traffic in all directions.
3. Interconnected Street & Transportation Networks – The project is a single
building, and interconnected by county sidewalk systems and served by the bus
ATTACHMENT I
line transportation system. The site has stone steps at the west side of the property
connecting this development to the adjacent commercial property situated at the
northeast corner of Greenbrier and Commonwealth Drives enabling for a more
simplified pedestrian path of travel. Bicycle racks will be added to the front
southwest area of the site to further promote non-motor vehicular forms of
transportation.
4. Parks and Open Space as Amenities – The development has a green space along
the west property line with a picnic area amenity.
5. Neighborhood Centers – The project house businesses that currently serve the
neighborhood. The ZMA request would enable additional businesses to locate at
this site that would serve the neighborhood well.
6. Building and Spaces of a Human Scale – The nature of the existing development
fits the site beautifully.
7. Relegated Parking – The existing parking configuration effectively accommodates
vehicular traffic to the building as well as tractor-trailer and local delivery truck
access.
8. Mixture of Uses and Use Types – This development currently and historically has
accommodated a variety of LI uses and with the proposed NMD zoning the
opportunity to serve the neighborhood in a greater way will be enhanced.
9. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability – This development is an existing
single building with no opportunity for residential use. Per NMD variances
permitted, this development represents an infill project, and is within ½ mile of
five affordable housing types as well as many other mixed commercial uses.
10. Redevelopment – Not Applicable
11. Site Planning that Respects Terrain – Not Applicable
12. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Area – Not Applicable
In summary, This existing development is a compact, mixed-use project with an urban
scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses
within close proximity to each other within the development areas identified in the
County Comprehensive plan and in the Places29 Master Plan.
20A.3.b – Parking and Loading Needs Study – Not applicable due to existing conditions.
Future studies, as required, will be submitted during site plan process.
20A.3.c – Storm Water – Existing Site Conditions to be Maintained
20A.3.d – Application Plan – Attached
20A.3.e – Code of Development – Attached
ATTACHMENT
20A.4 – APPLICATION PLAN
ATTACHMENT I
See accompanying submittal drawings and the following:
Non – Residential- Not to exceed 33,000 gsf
Residential – 0 gsf
This project contains one parcel.
This development includes green space, a picnic area, connecting stone steps,
and indigenous stonewall, trees and shrubbery all situated along the west property
line
ATTACHMENT
20A.5 CODE OF DEVELOPMENT
20A.5.a - Uses Permitted in the NMD By Right and By Special Use Permit:
This development requests to maintain all LI uses by right and all LI by special use
permit uses and to add most HC by right uses and most HC by special use permit uses.
See attached zoning code. See attached list of permitted uses by right and by special use
permit.
20A.5.b - The Amount of Developed Square Footage:
Existing Building contains 33,000 gsf. The proposed developed square footage is not
expected to increase.
20A.5.c – The Maximum Number of Residential Units:
This Building contains no Residential and none is anticipated.
20A.5.d – The Amount of Land devoted to Green Space:
Existing West Property Line of Green Space to be Maintained and equals 1/8 of the
site.
20A.5.e – Requirements & Restrictions Related to Use:
All the uses are within the one existing building on this existing site with a maximum
of 25% HC uses and a minimum of 75% LI uses.
20A.5.f – Uses Expressly Prohibited:
Any uses not listed in attached listing of permitted uses by right and by special use
permit.
20A.5.g – Architectural Standard:
Existing Development’s Architectural Character to be retained and any future
improvements to be consistent and compatible with existing neighborhood surroundings.
20A.5.h – Landscape Treatment:
ATTACHMENT I
See Accompanying Submittal Drawings
20A.5.i – Blocks
Existing Development therefore Not Applicable
20A.6 – PERMITTED USES
20A.6.a – By Right and 20.A.6.b – By Special Use Permit
All LI, All HC & All NMD uses in one existing building.
Light Industrial By Right:
1. Compounding of drugs, including biological products, medical and chemical as
well as pharmaceutical.
2. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9).
3. Manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, distribution of products such as
but not limited to: (Amended 12-2-81; 2- 20-91)
- Artists' supplies and equipment.
- Business, office machines and equipment.
- Cosmetics, including perfumes, perfumed toiletries and perfumed toilet
soap.
- Drafting supplies and equipment.
- Electrical lighting and wiring equipment.
- Electrical and electronic equipment and components including radio,
telephone, computer, communication equipment, TV receiving sets,
phonographs.
- Food products, such as bakery goods, dairy products, candy, beverages,
including bottling plants.
- Gifts, novelties including pottery, figurines and similar ceramic products.
- Glass products made of purchased glass.
- Industrial
controls
- Jewelry,
silverware.
- Light machinery and machine parts, including electrical household
appliances but not including such things as clothes washers, dryers and
refrigerators.
ATTACHMENT I
- Musical instruments.
- Paper products such as die-cut paperboard and cardboard, sanitary paper
products, bags and containers.
- Photographic equipment and supplies including processing and
developing plant.
- -Rubber, metal stamps.
- Small electrical parts such as coils, condensers, transformers,
crystal holders.
- -Surgical, medical and dental instruments and supplies.
- Toys, sporting and athletic equipment, except firearms,
ammunition or fireworks.
- -Watches, clocks and similar timing devices.
- Wood cabinets and furniture, upholstery.
4. Publishing, printing, lithography and engraving, including but not limited to
newspapers, periodicals and books.
5. Preparation of printing plates including typesetting, etching and engraving.
6. Research and development activities including experimental testing.
7. Scientific or technical education facilities.
8. Assembly and fabrication of light aircraft from component parts manufactured
off-site.
9. Storage yard. (Amended 11 -12-08)
10. Engineering, engineering design, assembly and fabrication of machinery and
components, including such on-site accessory uses as machining, babbitting,
welding and sheet metal work and excluding such uses as drop hammering and
foundry. (Amended 10-3-01)
11. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for
distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water
distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as
otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems
in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other
applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
12. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as
schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by
local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer
ATTACHMENT I
transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the
like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
(reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89)
13. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
14. Business and professional office buildings.
15. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 4 -17-85)
16. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
17. Warehouse facilities and wholesale businesses not involving storage of gasoline,
kerosene or other volatile materials; dynamite blasting caps and other explosives;
pesticides and poisons; and other such materials which could be hazardous to life
in the event of accident. (Added 12-2-87)
18. Storm water management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or
subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-02)
19. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added
10-13-04)
20. Farmers’ markets that will be conducted outdoors or within a temporary or
existing permanent structure (reference 5.1.47). (Added 5-5-10)
Highway Commercial By Right Uses:
1. Building materials sales.
2. Churches, cemeteries.
3. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2).
4. Educational, technical and trade schools.
5. Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric.
6. Financial institutions.
7. Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and service.
8. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
9. Funeral homes.
10. Furniture stores.
11. Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning, exterminators,
landscaping and other repair and maintenance services.
12. Light warehousing.
ATTACHMENT I
13. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental.
14. New automotive parts sales.
15. Newspaper publishing.
16. Administrative, business and professional offices.
17. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce (reference 5.1.19).
18. Wholesale distribution.
19. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for
distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water
distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as
otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems
in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other
applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
20. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as
schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by
local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer
transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the
like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
(reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89)
21. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
22. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
23. Uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of section 22.1, commercial,
C-1 (Added 6-19-91; Amended 9-9-92)
24. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93)
25. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.47). (Added 10-11-95; Amended 5-5-10)
26. Storm water management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or
subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-02)
27. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added
10-13-04)
28. Storage yards. (Added 11-12-08)
ATTACHMENT I
Light Industrial By Special Use Permit:
1. Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
2. Airport, helistop or heliport (reference 5.1.1).
3. Assembly of modular building units.
4. Moving businesses, including storage facilities.
5. Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 27.2.1.17. (Amended 12-2-87)
6. Wholesale business not permitted under section 27.2.1.17. (Amended 12-2-87)
7. Truck terminal.
8. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil
transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone
exchange centers; micro- wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers,
substations and appurtenances.
9. Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations (reference 5.1.27).
(Added 7-7- 82)
10. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water
consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses
permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of
sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 2 -13-85)
11. Body shops (reference 5.1.31). (Added 12-7-88)
12. Towing and storage of motor vehicles (reference 5.1.32). (Added 6-6-90)
13. Uses listed under section 27.2.1 with subordinate retail sales exceeding fifteen
(15) percent of the floor area of the main use. (Added 2-20-91)
14. Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91)
15. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93)
16. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41). (Added 2-5-
03)
17. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
18. Heavy equipment and heavy vehicle parking and storage yards. (Added 11-12-08)
19. Farmers’ markets that will be conducted in a new permanent structure (reference
5.1.47). (Added 5-5-10)
20. Uses permitted by right in the Heavy Industry (HI) zoning district that are not
otherwise permitted by right under section 27.2.1. (Added 6-2-10)
ATTACHMENT I
Highway Commercial By Special Use Permit
1. Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement
centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83)
2. Septic tank sales and related service.
3. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11).
4. Hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13).
5. Auction houses.
6. Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11). (Added 1- 1-83).
7. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41).
(Added 11-7-84; Amended 2-5-03).
8. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84;
Amended 9-9- 92).
9. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water
consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses
permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge
of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6 -14-89).
10. Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 24.2.1 (reference 9.0). (Added 6-
19-91).
11. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11). (Added 6-16-99).
12. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04).
13. Body shops. (Added 1-12-11).
14. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22).
15. Hardware.
16. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental.
17. Office and business machine sales and service.
20A.7 – RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
- Not Applicable
20A.8 – MIXTURE OF USES
As Allowed in LI, HC & NMD with a maximum 25% HC uses and minimum 75%
uses.
ATTACHMENT I
20A.9 – GREEN SPACES, AMENITIES, & CONSERVATION/PRESERVATION
AREA
As Previously Described as Part of Existing Conditions
20A.10 – STREETS
Not applicable
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 9, 2012
Anvince Land Trust; Sue A Albrecht & Larry J Mcelwain Co-Trustees
255 Ipswich Pl
Charlottesville Va, 22901-1619
RE: ZMA201100005, Greenbrier Commons
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0010A00800
Dear Ms. Albrecht:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 28, 2012, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Staff to relook at the parking portion of the Code of Development to allow for parking demand studies
to be used in the future,
2. Staff to work out with the applicant whether to have the Code of Development provide for inclusion of
bicycle racks or that the applicant proffer that bicycle racks be provided, and
3. Revise the Code of Development to list all uses permitted by right and by special use permit in a table
format instead of using the Zoning Ordinance.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on April 4, 2012.
View staff report and attachments
Return to exec summary
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
Planning Division
ZMA2011-00005, Greenbrier Commons
Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report, February 28, 2012
Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2011-00005, Greenbrier
Commons
Staff: David Benish
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
February 28, 2012
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Not yet determined
Owner(s): Anvince Land Trust Applicant: Sue A. Albrecht, Trustee
Acreage: 2.0 acres Rezone from: Light Industrial (LI) zoning district
which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial
uses (no residential use) to Neighborhood Model
(NMD) zoning district which allows residential (3-34
units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and
industrial uses. No residential units proposed.
TMP: TMP 061W0010A00800
Location: 340 Greenbrier Drive, Charlottesville, VA
By-right use: industrial, office, and limited commercial
uses (no residential use)
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: No
Proposal: The applicant proposes to rezone the
parcel from LI-Light Industrial to NMD,
Neighborhood Model in order to make the property
more attractive to prospective tenants.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: None
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 1.
Comp. Plan Designation: Office/R&D/Flex/Light
Industrial—commercial, professional office; research
and development, design, testing of prototypes;
manufacturing, assembly, packaging in Neighborhood
1.
Character of Property: The property is currently
built out with a 33,431 square foot building and a
parking lot. The applicant does not intend to make
any exterior changes to the building or reconfigure
the parking lot. (Attachment D)
Use of Surrounding Properties: The subject
property is surrounded by small office buildings, small
retail businesses, and some professional offices.
Closer to US 29, there is a convenience market and a
motel.
Factors Favorable:
1. Rezoning the property to NMD will permit a
wider range of tenants to lease space in the
building without impacting the “reversibility” of
use of the space for industrial purposes
2. The property will contain a minimum of 75% of
Light Industrial uses.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None identified.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this rezoning with the code of development provided.
ZMA2011-00005, Greenbrier Commons
Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report, February 28, 2012
Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Megan Yaniglos
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 28, 2012
ZMA 2011-00005, Greenbrier Commons
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA201100005, Greenbrier Commons
PROPOSAL: Rezone 2.000 acres from Light Industry (LI) zoning district which allows industrial,
office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) to Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning
district which allows residential (3-34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial
uses. No residential units proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO
PROFFERS: NO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial, professional office;
research and development, design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, packaging in
Neighborhood 1.
LOCATION: 340 Greenbrier Drive, Charlottesville, VA.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0010A00800
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The area on both sides of Greenbrier Drive between US 29 and Commonwealth Drive is home to a
number of small businesses, including offices, services, and small retail establishments. The
parcels immediately surrounding the subject parcel are zoned C-1, Commercial. Several properties
nearby on the west side of Commonwealth are zoned CO, Commercial Office, while a block of
parcels on Greenbrier closer to US 29 is zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The Comdial property to
the south is the only other Light Industrially zoned property in the area. The Comdial property is
separated from the subject property by a row of properties zoned C-1, Commercial on the south
side of Greenbrier Drive (Attachments A and B).
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant has requested the rezoning to Neighborhood Model District based on her attempts
over the past two to three years to find tenants for the space. The uses being proposed by the
applicant consist of a mix of Highway Commercial (HC) and Light Industrial (LI). Most of the
interested prospective tenants were looking for commercial, rather than light industrial space.
However, in order to keep Light Industrial uses on the site, the applicant is willing to restrict the
building to a maximum of 25% of HC uses and a minimum of 75% of LI uses. The site is completely
built out and the applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the building or to the
parking areas. For additional information, see the applicant’s narrative in Attachment C.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
As described more fully in Attachment C, the applicant has been searching for a tenant for the
property for two to three years. The tenants who are interested and able to pay the requested rents
are commercial ones that cannot lease space in an industrially zoned building. The applicant has
requested the rezoning and has provided a code of development that would consist of a mixture of
Highway Commercial and Light Industrial uses.
The applicant recognizes that the site will be restricted to the maximum 25% Highway Commercial
and minimum 75% Light Industrial uses. Also, the applicant recognizes that the number and mix of
uses on the site will be limited by the amount of parking available.
ZMA2011-00005, Greenbrier Commons
Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report, February 28, 2012
Page 3
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
The building on the subject property was built in 1973, by Sperry Marine. At that time, the parcel
was zoned Commercial Business. At the time of the countywide comprehensive rezoning in
December 1980, this parcel was rezoned to Light Industrial, presumably to make the existing use
conforming.
Parcels around the subject property were also zoned Commercial Business prior to 1980. At the
time of the comprehensive rezoning, these properties were all rezoned to Commercial. Since that
time, some have been rezoned to Highway Commercial. Parcels were rezoned to reflect current
use at that time. Most were in Commercial use. This site and the Comdial site were zoned Light
Industrial to reflect their industrial use at that time.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Places29 Master Plan: The Master Plan designates this parcel as Office/Research &
Development (R&D)/Flex/Light Industrial. This designation is intended to accommodate a wide
variety of possible uses, ranging from light industrial to retail and office. Office/R&D/Flex/Light
Industrial was chosen for this property during the preparation of the Master plan because of the
existing zoning (Light Industrial) and in recognition of the building type. The surrounding
property was also designated Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial in recognition of the variety of
uses, building sizes, and the potential to create, over the long term, a mixed use, employment-
oriented area.
The County has no comparable zoning district that includes as many employment, commercial,
and service types of uses as those contemplated in the Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial
designation. Staff is considering amendments to zoning text to address this need, including the
industrial use changes discussed with the Planning Commission at its January 31st work
session.
Places29 Green Systems Map: The Places29 Parks & Green Systems Map shows no
amenities, such as trails, or environmental features on this parcel.
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the Places29 Master Plan.
The Neighborhood Model: The proposed rezoning will change the uses that may locate on this
site, but no changes in the building, parking, or other existing site features are proposed. Since the
site will not change, only two of the Neighborhood Model principles are relevant to this rezoning:
Neighborhood Centers and Mixture of Uses.
Neighborhood Centers. This proposed rezoning would change the district to one that will be
more compatible with the surrounding commercial uses. Together, the commercial uses form a
center that will provide services and employment to the surrounding area and other parts of the
County. Adding the uses that would be permitted in a Highway Commercial district will
compliment the uses already located in the area, including offices, a small neighborhood
shopping center, a motel, and a restaurant.
Mixture of Uses. This proposed rezoning would permit some additional uses beyond those
permitted on the C-1, Commercial and CO, Commercial Office parcels surrounding the subject
property. Several other parcels closer to Seminole Trail are also zoned HC, Highway
Commercial. Additional uses permitted in HC districts that would be suited to the size of this
parcel and the existing building include: building material sales; machinery and equipment
sales, service and rental; and office and business machines sales and service; among others.
ZMA2011-00005, Greenbrier Commons
Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report, February 28, 2012
Page 4
Economic Vitality Action Plan
The primary goal of the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan is to:
Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local
residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local
residents and existing local businesses.
The property owner has been marketing the property as Light Industrial without success; most of
the prospective tenants are proposing uses that are not permitted on a Light Industrial district. This
property is surrounded by property zoned C-1, Commercial; CO, Commercial Office; and HC,
Highway Commercial. This proposed rezoning would make this property more attractive to tenants
who are looking for a location for a use similar to the surrounding ones, as well as preserving Light
Industrial use. Rezoning the property would assist the property owner’s efforts to lease the space to
a tenant to allow up to 25% of Highway Commercial uses, which would put an additional business
or businesses on the County tax rolls. Also, having other businesses in the existing cluster in this
area increases the drawing power of the area; people coming to one shop or service provider may
also visit another.
Staff believes that, balancing the need for additional tax revenues that would come from a business
on the subject property with the need to preserve industrial property, this proposal to rezone the
subject property is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Economic Vitality Action Plan.
Staff also notes that as the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are “modernized” to reflect the
current characteristics of commercial uses, business and industry, updated zoning for this area
could be considered.
Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Economic Vitality
Action Plan.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district: The following section is an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance.
The regulations in section 20A encourage a development form and character that is different
from conventional suburban development by providing the following characteristics:
- Pedestrian orientation;
- Neighborhood friendly streets and paths;
- Interconnected streets and transportation networks;
- Parks and open space as amenities;
- Neighborhood centers;
- Buildings and spaces of human scale;
- Relegated parking;
- Mixture of uses and use types;
- Mixture of housing types and affordability;
- Redevelopment;
- Site planning that respects terrain; and
- Clear boundaries with the rural areas.
While this rezoning does not meet all the characteristics of a NMD, it does meet several, including
mixture of uses and use types, neighborhood friendly streets and paths, and redevelopment. This is
a unique site where the building and parking are existing, however the applicant is having difficulty
ZMA2011-00005, Greenbrier Commons
Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report, February 28, 2012
Page 5
finding tenants to use the space. This rezoning will allow a mixture of uses while still maintaining the
Light Industrial Use that is a vital part of the County.
Staff believes that the creation of a Neighborhood Model district on this property will encourage the
location of businesses, including retail and light industrial. However, the amount of parking, the
location and design of the building, and the code of development all mean that the property will not
develop into a shopping center. The business faces a commercial arterial street (Greenbrier Drive)
and is near both US 29 and Commonwealth Drive. Greenbrier Drive, Commonwealth Drive and US
29 have sidewalks that will allow for pedestrian access to this use and other uses in the area.
Further, permitting business, office, retail, and light industrial uses to locate on this property will
bring additional business to an area that is already developed with similar uses; it will provide an
additional attractive, central location for businesses.
Public need and justification for the change:
As discussed above, fully leased properties are a greater advance to the community because more
businesses are available and because of the impact on the tax rolls. An isolated zoning district is
more difficult for the owner to lease and represents an opportunity for inappropriate uses to locate
in an area. By rezoning to Neighborhood Model District, the needed Light Industrial uses will remain
while allowing some commercial uses on the site.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: There are no environmental,
cultural, or historic resources on this property.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets: Since the commercial uses are restricted to only 25% of the building, no traffic concerns
are prevalent with this change. The Virginia Department of Transportation identified uses that may
increase traffic and the applicant has agreed to restrict those uses by special use permit only
(Attachments E and F).
Schools: There are no residential units in this proposed rezoning, so schools will not be affected.
Fire and Rescue: the closest fire station is the Seminole Fire Station and the closest rescue is the
Berkmar Rescue Squad, both located on Berkmar Drive between US 29 and Rio Road West.
Utilities: W ater and sewer are available to the site and no issues with either are expected.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
No impact on the surrounding properties is anticipated.The only possible impact on surrounding
properties might be an increase in traffic. As noted above, whether there will be any increase and, if
so, how much will not be known until a tenant or tenants are selected. Those uses that were
identified by VDOT as uses that may increase traffic will be by special use permit only. Since the
amount of parking on the site is expected to restrict the uses, it is unlikely that a major increase in
traffic will result from the rezoning.
It is important to note that many of the uses permitted in Light Industrial are also permitted in
Highway Commercial; the only major use type now permitted under Light industrial that would not
be permitted in Highway Commercial is manufacturing.
PROFFERS
No proffers are necessary for this proposed rezoning. This is an existing site with no new
development proposed, but rather just a change in the use of an existing building. The Code of
Development covers the restrictions of the uses on the site and what is required.
ZMA2011-00005, Greenbrier Commons
Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report, February 28, 2012
Page 6
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. Rezoning the property to NMD will permit a wider range of tenants to lease space in the
building without impacting the “reversibility” of use of the space for industrial purposes.
2. The property will contain a minimum of 75% of Light Industrial uses.
Staff has identified no unfavorable factors to this rezoning request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this rezoning with the code of development provided and the
conditions outlined below:
CONDITIONS:
1. Revise the Code of Development to list all uses permitted by right and by special use permit in a
table format instead of using the Zoning Ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2011-00005, Greenbrier Commons with the code of
development provided, as recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2011-00005, Greenbrier Commons. Should a
commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending
denial.
ATTACHMENT A: Location Map
ATTACHMENT B: Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT C: Project Narrative
ATTACHMENT D: Application Plan
ATTACHMENT E: VDOT Comments
ATTACHMENT F: Code of Development
Return to PC actions letter
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
ZMA-2011-005 Greenbrier Commons
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources February 14, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
300 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Zoning Info
Zoning Entrance Corridors
Scenic Byways
National/Virginia Byway
Recommended Byway
Proffers
Scenic Streams Overlay
Natural Resource Extracti
Zoning Classifications
Rural Areas
Village Residential
R1 Residential
R2 Residential
R4 Residential
R6 Residential
R10 Residential
R15 Residential
Planned Unit Developmen
Planned Residential Devel
Neighborhood Model Distri
Monticello Historic District
C1 Commercial
Commercial Office
Highway Commercial
Planned Development Sh
Planned Development Mix
Downtown Crozet District
Light Industry
Heavy Industry
Planned Development Ind
Town of Scottsville
ZMA-2011-005 Greenbrier Commons- Zoning Map
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources February 14, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
300 ft
Describe Request in Detail February 17, 2012
Greenbrier Commons
The property value of 340 Greenbrier Drive demands a per square footage rental rate that well
exceeds the ability of a typical manufacturing business to justify. The Light Industrial Zoning
District is generally very attractive for a business producing products on the wholesale level. In
my particular case, the location of my property in the 29 North Corridor seems to be much more
suited to the Neighborhood Model Zoning District. I have analyzed the tenant opportunities that
have been entertained since acquiring the property in 2000. Not a single one of the potential
manufacturer opportunities have been able to come to fruition. The calculations indicate that the
cost of my location is more than that type of business can support. Thus, these tenants eventually
elect to lease space in more remote locations at a more affordable per square foot rate.
Conversely, I have turned away a substantial list of potential tenants due to the fact that they did
not meet the requirements of Light Industrial Zoning District. These businesses fell into the
following “By Right” categories of Highway Commercial Zoning District:
Building Material Sales
Churches
Clubs
Factory Outlet Sales
Feed and Seed Stores
Machinery and Equipment Sales
New Automotive Parts Sales
Indoor Athletic Facilities
Office and Business Machine Sales and Service
Home and Business Services such as Grounds Care, Cleaning, Exterminators,
Landscaping and Other Repair and Maintenance Services
I worked extensively with these tenant prospects reaching an agreeable rate and term only to be
stalled by a zoning misfit generally connected to the Light Industrial Zoning restrictions as to the
allowable percentage of retail sales. This trend continues with the new tenant inquiries that I am
currently qualifying for an appropriate fit. Places29 Master Plan for the Northern Development
Areas adopted February 2, 2011 supports the Flex designation which seems to overcome the
challenges inherit in the strict nature of the Light Industrial Zoning Language.
Additionally, the neighborhood benefits from this proposed zoning change by allowing for
business entities that are more in keeping with the character of the surrounding mix of business
and residential uses.
1
Megan Yaniglos
From:DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [Joel.DeNunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent:Friday, December 30, 2011 10:58 AM
To:Megan Yaniglos
Subject:RE: Greenbrier Commons ZMA
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Megan,
I reviewed the proposed allowed uses with the size of the existing building and it does not appear that any will meet the
threshold for a Chapter 527 TIA. However, I would note that two of the allowed uses could generate between 2000 to
2500 VPD and four of the allowed uses could generate from 1000 to 2000 VPD. This amount of traffic could have
impacts to surrounding road intersections along route 29 and may need to be further analyzed prior to allowing those
uses. They are numbers 4, 10, 18, 25, 26 and 29.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
VDOT Culpeper
Land Development
434-589-5871
joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov
From: Megan Yaniglos [mailto:myaniglos@albemarle.org]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 9:47 AM
To: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: Greenbrier Commons ZMA
Joel:
Just wondering if you had a chance to look at the information I sent about the uses proposed at Greenbrier
Commons and if you had any comments on whether or not they will need a traffic study or any upgrades.
Thanks and I hope you had/are having a good holiday.
Megan Yaniglos, ASLAMegan Yaniglos, ASLAMegan Yaniglos, ASLAMegan Yaniglos, ASLA
Senior PlannerSenior PlannerSenior PlannerSenior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3004
fax: 434.972.4126
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (4-02-2012)
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 28, 2012
ZMA-2011-00005 Greenbrier Commons
PROPOSAL: Rezone 2.000 acres from Light Industry (LI) zoning district which allows industrial, office,
and limited commercial uses (no residential use) to Neighbor hood Model (NMD) zoning district which
allows residential (3-34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. No residential
units proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO
PROFFERS: NO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial, professional office; research
and development, design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1.
LOCATION: 340 Greenbrier Drive, Charlottesville, VA.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0010A00800
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Megan Yaniglos)
Ms. Yaniglos presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report for ZMA-2011-
00005, Greenbrier Commons.
This is a proposal to rezone an existing Light Industrial building and property from Light Industrial, LI to
Neighborhood Model District (NMD), which would allow both Light Industrial uses and Highway
Commercial uses.
The applicant has been seeking a tenant for this 33,000 square foot building and has been unsuccessful
thus far so wants to rezone the property from Light Industrial to Neighborhood Model District. The
tenants that have been interested are commercial uses that cannot lease the space that is currently
zoned Light Industrial. The property will contain Highway Commercial and Light Industrial uses and will
be restricted to 25% Commercial and 75% Light Industrial per the Code of Development. There are no
proffers necessary for this rezoning. It is an existing site with no new development proposed, but rather
just a change in the use of an existing building. The code of development covers the restrictions of the
uses on the site and what is required.
Regarding the overall proposed plan the applicant will be using the current site plan for the property that
is not proposing any changes. Again, the applicant will be limited in the number of and mix of uses on the
site by the amount of parking available existing on the site.
Favorable Factors:
1. Rezoning the property to Neighborhood Model District will permit a wider range of tenants to
lease space in the building without impacting the “reversibility” of use of the space for industrial
purposes.
2. The property will contain a minimum of 75% of Light Industrial uses
Unfavorable Factors: None Identified
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-2011-005 Greenbrier Commons with conditions.
1. Revise the Code of Development to list all uses permitted by right and by special use permit in a
table format instead of using the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff believes this condition can be alleviated between now and the Board of Supervisor s meeting. There
was not enough time to solidify the Code of Development to get it in a better form. However, staff wanted
to bring the request before the Commission because the applicant was ready to get some feedback on
the application.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (4-02-2012)
2
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph asked if there was any provision under Neighborhood Model to include bicycle racks in the
permitting process so that people wanting to access this with businesses would be able to go ahead and
park a bicycle and lock it to a rack.
Ms. Yaniglos replied certainly they can require that on site if the Commission would like to move that
forward. They can add it into the Code of Development.
Mr. Loach asked if staff is recommending approval for this rezoning from LI to NMD after they have been
hearing for months about the huge shortage of Light Industrial. It does seem like a bit of a p aradox.
Mr. Cilimberg noted this actually was the subject of their recent work session on introducing commercial
uses as a permitted use in light industrial districts because of some flexibility questions. It was something
they were willing to consider in the zoning text amendments as a special use permit in Light Industrial.
They don’t have that avenue right now so they are using the Neighborhood Model approach.
Mr. Loach said he understands exactly.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out staff had quite a bit of discussion with the applicant about industrial tenant
possibilities. It has been a real struggle for the applicant.
Mr. Franco said in Attachment F in item 20a (3) b it talks about a parking and loading needs study in the
existing conditions to be maintained. He asked does that preclude in the future if that is one of the Code
of Development items for the parking being amended for a parking study.
Ms. Yaniglos replied they will be restricted in the types of uses that go in the building by the existing
parking on site. If they brought in site plan for a use that required more parking than what was existing
they would not get approval for that use.
Mr. Franco noted if it were a current facility they could come in and under zoning sections could do a
parking demand study and demonstrate that there was adequate parking for that use and then have a
reduction. In the way this is written it potentially precludes that from happening in the future. He did not
think they would want to preclude that in the future.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that certainly could be revised.
Mr. Morris echoed Mr. Loach’s concern. When he read this it just seem ed that they have been talking
and talking about moving away from rezoning anything that was Light Industrial to any other designation.
He was just surprised. However, it does make sense.
Mr. Franco said that was one of his reactions, too. There were a couple things. One was their meeting
the other day where they tried to introduce these other uses. The other is if they look at the current Code
in order to zone something to LI they need to have a minimum of 5 acres. This is a 2 acre parcel.
Therefore, it kind of goes back to the discussion they also had about is the LI parcels they have really LI
parcels.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for applicant and public comment. He invited the applicant to
address the Planning Commission.
Sue Albrecht, resident in Albemarle County since 1980, said she was responsible for the management
and profitability of several Albemarle County business entities. She was the President of Design and
Environs Corporation and the managing partner of Cedar Bluff’s Stables as well as several residential
and commercial properties in the county most of which are held within Anvince Land Trust, which she
was the trustee and the sole beneficiary of. She purchased the first piece of property in 1984 and
continued buying property through 2006 for a total of ten parcels. Thus she is acutely aware of the
amount of the cash flow required to meet the June and December semi-annual Albemarle County tax
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (4-02-2012)
3
payments whether these places are leased or vacant. She annually pays in excess of $60,000 in real
estate taxes and $25,000 in insurance for these properties as well as $20,000 in property maintenance.
She was not here to dwell on the cost of ownership, but rather to present a rezoning solution for property
located at 340 Greenbrier Drive known as Greenbrier Commons. She is asking for this change in order to
eliminate a 25 percent vacancy rate, which she has experienced for quite a long time. By rezoning it is
going to increase the property’s attractiveness to a broader range of tenants.
Ms. Albrecht said she would like to share the ownership and zoning history of this site in order to
establish the unique characteristics that should be considered when evaluating the motivation for this
rezoning.
- This was Charlottesville’s first ice skating ring back in the mid ‘70’s. It ha d Commercial Business
zoning on it at that point. The ice skating activities ceased operation in 1980 and Sperry Marine
purchased the property. At some point during that time frame Light Industrial zoning was applied
to this site. Sperry Marine spent the next 20 years pretty intensively using this site for their mock
up building, research and development and for their engineering staff to work there. Around 1999
a parent company of Sperry Marine decided to consolidate all of the activities back at the
Seminole Trail plant and the property went on the market.
- She as trustee of Anvince Land Trust was successful in purchasing this property in 2000.
Through the help of the SPA and a local bank she was able to borrow and to invest over
hundreds of thousands of dollars into an extensive renovation to the front of this building in order
to put a much more dressed façade on it. This was to become the home of Design Environs
Corporation. These improvements nearly doubled the tax assessed value of this property.
Design Environs moved into their refurbished space in 2001. The new location demonstrated our
specialty, which is to design, build office furniture and install. Their tag line is “Your office, your
way”.
- At that point the vision of the company was to grow and increase sales. However, they were
clouded by the catastrophic events of 9/11 and the challenges in financing real estate. Her
company locally experienced an unprecedented drop in commercial furniture sales that was felt
nationally on the largest level that has ever been felt in the history of commercial furniture sales.
At that point the company’s growth plans were dashed and they had to shrink their operation and
look at a way to lease out a substantial percentage of the building to survive for the intermediate
future and for the long term. So tenants were eventually forthcoming for all portions of the
building, except for the front 8,000 square feet where a larger investment had been put into the
building. She had this space and it has been on the market since 2002. She has had one tenant
who had a lease. However, that tenant had a zoning violation and they were asked to leave.
- In analyzing these challenges it seems like over the last decade there is a reoccurring theme that
she wanted to share, which is the property value of Greenbrier Commons being located so close
to 29 demands a per square footage rental rate that well exceeds the ability of any typical
manufacturing entity to justify. So the Light Industrial zoning is generally very attractive to
businesses producing on the wholesale level, but in her case the location of the property and the
29 North Corridor seems to be much more suited to Neighborhood Model Zoning District. Sh e
has analyzed the tenants they have pursued and none of the manufacturing opportunities have
been able to come to fruition. The county has been proactive in sending people their way and
they have tried many, many different entities. The math just does no t work. It seems like these
tenants eventually elect to lease space in more remote locations where they can get more square
footage, more parking and a lower per square foot rate.
- She has turned away a substantial list of potential tenants due to the fact that they do not meet
the requirements of Light Industrial zoning. These buildings fell predominantly to the by-right
Highway Commercial District, such as building material sales, churches, clubs, factory outlet
sales, feed and seed stores, machinery and equipment sales, new automotive parts sales, indoor
athletic facilities, office and business machines service, and home and business services, such
as grounds care, cleaning, landscaping, etc. She has worked extensively with these tenant
prospects often reaching an agreeable rate and term only to find out they get stalled out by a
zoning misfit that is most generally connected to the Light Industrial restrictions as to the
allowable percentage of retail sales. That is their sticking point that the bus iness can only have
15 percent of retail sales. Most of these companies have more than that. So this trend seems to
be continuing even under the pressures our weakened economy. Last year the county adopted
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (4-02-2012)
4
the Places29 Master Plan for the northern development areas. Her building is supposed to be a
Flex Destination. However, there is no such designation. Thus working with staff they decided
that Neighborhood Model would be their best solution to try to overcome this vacancy problem.
- Please keep in mind that they are simply asking to add about two-thirds of the Highway
Commercial by-right uses while keeping all of the Light Industrial. Furthermore, they are capping
that at a maximum of 25 percent of the total building square footage. The maximum los t to the
county’s Light Industrial inventory is only 8,250 square feet. All that is really at jeopardy in the
whole review of this rezoning is a little over 8,000 square feet. This rezoning specifically helps
the ability to lease the front portion of the Greenbrier Commons building. It also brings it into a
better compliance with the surrounding commercial buildings. Greenbrier Commons is an
attractive practicable and flexible space at an affordable rate for local business owners. She
asked the Commissioners to approve this rezoning. It will enable the location to flourish.
Additionally, full occupancy at Greenbrier Commons generates positive cash flow, which is
something she has not had in this building for a long time. This goes a long way in securing
commercial loans for Albrecht Place, which is another development she has in the county’s
planning process. It is located on 3.5 acres directly behind Shopper’s World, which is about 1 mile
from this location. Several of the Greenbrier Commons potentia l tenants who don’t meet the
zoning requirements of HC or LI are fit for the PD-SC zoning at Albrecht. She would greatly
appreciate consideration and support to rezone to Neighborhood Model District spite of the Light
Industrial trend.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Dotson asked in concerning different approaches did she consider Highway Commercial or C-1 as
rezoning to be more consistent with the surrounding properties.
Ms. Albrecht replied that she actually did and put in the applications for Highway Commercial. Last
summer they put it under deferred because of the organization of information that eventually came into
their work session in Light Industrial. They felt it was in contradiction to try and go to Highway
Commercial. She actually appreciates the Light Industrial features that she has on the building and did
not want to lose those. She felt this solution was a lot more in keeping with what she thought the building
can offer. There are a lot of potential in the back half of the buildin g to do manufacturing if she had
someone who needs a small amount of square footage.
Mr. Dotson said they saw in the animal hospital how that parcel, which is about 2 acres like this, actually
had two zoning districts, Highway Commercial and C-1. Certainly his thinking was to march that up the
street to have Highway Commercial and Light Industry.
Ms. Albrecht noted that the building kind of splits at a natural point at about one-half and one-half. She did
not know if that was a reasonable solution to this.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and
the matter before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Dotson noted that he had a question for staff. This is a 2 acre piece of Neighborhood zoning. T here
is no residential component on the particular site. There is from a distance some residential. It almost
feels like spot zoning. The Places29 Master Plan calls for Office R&D – Flex Light Industrial, which
covers a lot. When he looks at the finding for Neighborhood Model Development there is about ten of
them or so. Evan though the earlier staff report pretty much argues that they can combine though he
thought it was a stretch. It was a creative stretch in some cases. He wondered what staff is thinking on
alternatives. It is an odd and unusual circumstance and situation. It is already an island of light industrial
surrounded by commercial. It is already a spot zone.
Mr. Cilimberg said in their conversations with Ms. Albrecht they did not want to lose what were the light
industrial features that existed there. In fact by going to a rezoning that was H ighway Commercial, as an
example, those light industrial features are going to be nonconforming. They did not feel that was the
appropriate answer. As well as the fact that they do see that there is ultimately as they heard in their
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (4-02-2012)
5
work session going to be more of a blending of what are some commercial and industrial uses and the
interest in having some flexibility for space to convert. This is somewhat of a case example of what they
discussed in their work session where they have an industrial building where some of the space is being
utilized and maybe temporarily or maybe long term as commercial, but it is convertible. It could be
industrial at an ultimate point. The only way they could accomplish that under current zoning was to use
the Neighborhood Model District. It was not the ideal approach. If they had actually had the provisions of
industrial zoning with commercial by special use pe rmit, then that is the route this would have gone. That
is what they discussed in the work session as an ultimate solution. But for Ms. Albrecht that solution is
months down the road and she did not want to wait for it. This was an approach to deal with the matter
before us. A lot of what is Neighborhood Model in that area is either on the ground already or is really not
classically a feature of this site. They are not getting some of the things that a Neighborhood Model
District would give you when it is built. This is the best fit for the circumstance. The Comp Plan for
Places29 seems to support the idea of flexibility in that area. There is still some industrial use with
Comdial, but actually in and of itself it has been space that has been used in a variety of ways. They did
not feel like losing the industrial component entirely was the answer.
Mr. Loach said they spoke before about this is a light industrial use that does not mean a light industrial.
Well obviously it did because it was being used for a light industrial use by Sperry. That said, he thinks
this is sort of an innovative approach as Mr. Dotson pointed out. He thinks it does show one thing. He
would almost characterize it as histrionics about LI. It may not be as severe as it has been portrayed.
Based on that and the recommendation of staff that he felt that this rezoning is the best way to use the
property, he was going to support the project.
Mr. Lafferty said the reduction of the LI down by 8,000 square feet just exaggerates the problem that it is
smaller and smaller spaces that the objection to LI being that there is not enough space of big enough
chunks of land, and this further reduces it down to a smaller piece. However, he was inclined to support
it.
Mr. Smith said he thought the project needs to move on.
Mr. Randolph said he liked the fact that it is reclaimable LI. He thinks that is very important here that
they are not losing LI in the long run. They are doing something here that provides adaptability and
flexibility to meet the needs of the home owner and hopefully the business community and the full
community in terms of services that are going to be there.
Mr. Franco added that it was in the direction that they talked about going as a community that is also
consistent with the master plan for the area.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved to recommend approval of ZMA-2011-00005 Greenbrier Commons with the
reasons and conditions stated in the staff report with the addition of asking staff to relook at the parking
portion of the Code of Development to allow for parking demand studies to be used in the future.
Mr. Randolph suggested adding the addition of bicycle racks if appropriate by the nature of the
businesses that are there.
Mr. Franco asked if they are requiring bicycle racks. They always have the ability to put them in if they
want to.
Mr. Randolph said he was recommending according to the businesses that are there. If a service
business comes in, such as paint stores, then there was no demand for bike racks. However, if there was
an ice cream store or business that would lend itself to bicycles, then he thought it would be appropriate.
Mr. Franco said he would agree, except he was not sure how to craft a condition to that extent.
Mr. Randolph suggested he recommend the inclusion of bicycle racks, but not require it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (4-02-2012)
6
Mr. Kamptner pointed out the Commission could either recommend the Code of Development provide for
it or that the applicant proffer that bicycle racks will be provided. He would leave it to staff to determine
that.
Mr. Morris said it could be worked out by the staff and the applicant.
Mr. Franco asked if the applicant is comfortable with that.
Ms. Albrecht said that she was willing to make the site pedestrian friendly.
Mr. Franco amended the motion to include bicycle racks to be worked out between staff and the
applicant.
Mr. Loach seconded the motion as amended.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2011-00005 Greenbrier Commons will go to the Board of Supervisors on a
date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with the reasons and conditions stated in the
staff report with the addition of the following:
1. Staff to relook at the parking portion of the Code of Development to allow for parking demand
studies to be used in the future,
2. Staff to work out with the applicant whether to have the Code of Development provide for
inclusion of bicycle racks or that the applicant proffer that bicycle racks be provided, and
3. Revise the Code of Development to list all uses permitted by right and by special use permit in a
table format instead of using the Zoning Ordinance.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Section
4-200, Running at large prohibited.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend County
Code section 4-200, Running at large prohibited, to restrict
dogs from running at large County-wide.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Sellers and Schwertfeger; and
Ms. Tevendale.
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 11, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 8, 2009, the Board adopted a comprehensive amendment to Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the County
Code which updated this chapter and brought the County’s animal laws into conform ance with State law. As part of
this comprehensive amendment process, the Board also prohibited dogs from running at large in all areas of the
County not zoned Rural Areas District, and in any Rural Areas District that was previously identified as a no running at
large area as specifically identified in the ordinance. The running at large ordinance provides an exemption for dogs
running at large that are deemed to be on a bona fide hunt during hunting season accompanied by a licensed hunter
or during field trials or training periods when accompanied by its owner. Attached is a map of Albemarle County which
marks the current areas of the County where running at large is prohibited. (Attachment A).
On March 7, 2012, the Board directed staff to prepare a proposed ordinance for public hearing and the Board’s further
consideration that would prohibit dogs from running at large County-wide.
DISCUSSION:
Of the 1,252 dog-related calls-for-service logged between the period April 1, 2011 to January 1, 2012, 43% (538) were
regarding dogs running at large (Re:“Stray”, “Hazard” and “Running at Large” categories). Of those 538 calls, 49.8% or
268 were found to be in rural areas. The other 50.2% (270) were reportedly in designated “leash-law” areas. The
ACO’s have identified the following pros and cons for the Board to consider in regard to this ordinance to prohibit
running at large County-wide.
Pros:
Potential reduction in the number of calls related to dog bites, dog versus companion animal
complaints, and dog versus livestock incidents
Potential reduction in the number of stray dog reports received in the rural areas
Potential decrease in the number of hazard calls received for dogs being in the roadway, and dogs
being struck by vehicles in the rural areas
Elimination of “invisible” boundary lines between areas where dogs can and cannot run at large
currently defined by the zoning designation of the property
Cons:
Potential resistance from dog owners in rural areas because many residing in the rural areas are
accustomed to the lack of restrictions for their dogs
Potential increase in the number of dogs taken to the SPCA due to lack of compliance immediately
after a County-wide prohibition
Expected increase in the number of dogs being tethered, and in the number of calls from citizens
regarding the welfare of tethered dogs
Expected increase in the number of calls regarding running at large complaints, with no additional
staff to handle the volume of calls
Potential confusion and difficulty identifying hunting dogs which may be at large as part of a bona fide
hunt, as allowed under the ordinance. Often times dogs used for hunting are not retrieved for several
days following a hunt and there is the potential for an increase in calls to report hunting dogs running
at large during or after a hunt.
AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Section 4-200, Running at large prohibited
April 11, 2012
Page 2
If an ordinance prohibiting dogs from running at large County-wide is adopted, ACO’s anticipate the initial impact will
be an increase in calls for dogs running at large, and for welfare and tethering issues. However, no additional ACO’s
are budgeted or planned to be hired to handle the increased calls; therefore, response times may be slowed by the
number of calls. Should any change to the running at large ordinance be considered and adopted, the ACO’s
recommend an education outreach to inform citizens.
The proposed ordinance (Attachment B) would amend Section 4-200 Running at large, to prohibit dogs from running
at large County-wide. It maintains the current exemption for hunting dogs.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Should the Board adopt the proposed ordinance prohibiting dogs from running at large County-wide, a significant
increase in calls for enforcement is expected, resulting in increased costs and the need for additional ACOs or a
decrease in response times. The Police Department currently has four ACOs that are responsible for a heavy call
volume. The estimated one-time and annual cost per ACO is as follows:
One time start-up cost (Operating and Capital Costs) $47,600
Annual costs (Total salary/benefits $43,246.57 + Anticipated Overtime $3,000) $46,246.57
Total cost for first year: $93,846.57
Annual cost thereafter: $46,246.57
RECOMMENDATION:
Although extending the running at large ordinance to the rural areas of the County is supported by the Police
Department conceptually, limited current staffing levels in both the Patrol and Animal Control Officer Divisions would
limit the ability of the Police Department to effectively enforce the running at large requirements at this time. The
adoption of this ordinance would likely result in a gap between citizen expectations for enforcement and the capacity of
the Police Department to respond in a timely manner.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Running at large map
B – Proposed Ordinance
Return to agenda
City o fCharlottesv ille
Key W est
Waver ly
North P ines
Peac oc k Hill
Whippoorw ill Hollow
Hessian H ills
Laur el H ills
Shadwe ll Estates
Earlysville Heights
Cedar Hills
Sunr ise A cr es
Georgetow n G re en
HuntwoodCorville Far m Sec tion O ne
I R I S H RD
IVY RD
SCOTTSVILLE RDLOUISA RDMONACAN TRA I L R D STONY POINT R D
RICHMOND RD
R O C K FISH G A P T P KEGORDONSVILLE RDBROWNS GAP TPKET
H
O
MAS JEFFERSON PK
W
Y
B LACKWELLS HOLLOW RDSEMINOLE TRL}ÿ53 }ÿ20
}ÿ6 }ÿ22}ÿ151
}ÿ6}ÿ20
£¤29
£¤250
§¨¦64
§¨¦64
IV Y
FAB ER
AFTON
KEE NE
CRO ZE T
ESM ONT
HA TTON
PRO FFIT
KESW IC K
CI SMO NT
SC HU YLER
GRE ENW OOD
WOO DRI DGE
FREE U NI ON
WH ITE H A LL
CO VE SVI LLE
BA TESV I LLE
EAR LYSVI LLE
NORTH GA RDE N
BA RB OUR SVI LLE
TOWN O F SC O TTSVI LLE
Prepared by Albem arle CountyDivision of Inf orm ation Services. Map created by El ise Hackett, March 2012.
Not e: The m ap elem ents depicted are graphic representations and are not to be const rued or used as a legal description.This m ap is f or display purposes only.µ0 2 41M iles
Roads
Rail roads
Developm ent Ar eas
City Boundary
County Boundary
Town of Sc otts vill e
Subdiv isions Included in Leash Laws
Draft: March 26, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 12-4( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY AMENDING ARTICLE II, DOGS,
DIVISION 1. IN GENERAL, SECTION 4-200, RUNNING AT LARGE PROHIBITED.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4,
Animals and Fowl, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Article II, Dogs, Division 1. In
General, Section 4-200, Running at Large Prohibited, as follows:
CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE II. DOGS
State law reference-- Va. Code §§ 3.2-6500 et.seq.
DIVISION 1. IN GENERAL
4-200 Running at large prohibited.
A. It shall be unlawful for any dog to run at large in the county. Dogs shall not run at large
in the county except in those areas zoned Rural Areas District; however, running at large in areas zoned
Rural Areas District is prohibited in the following designated areas:
(1) University of Virginia grounds lying within the county. (7-19-73)
(2) Crozet areas:
(a) Crozet areas, beginning at the point of intersection of Buck Road, State Route
789 and Railroad Avenue, State Route 788; thence, in a northwesterly direction along the south ern
boundary of Tax Map 55, Parcel 51; thence, in a northeasterly direction along the western boundary of
Tax Map 55, Parcels 51 and 51A, to the point of intersection with Tax Map, 55 Parcel 50; thence, in a
northwesterly direction along the southern boundary of Tax Map 55, Parcel 50 to the point of intersection
with Tax Map 55, Parcel 49; thence, in a northeasterly direction along the western boundary of Tax Map
55, Parcel 49 to the point of intersection with Tax Map 56, Parcel 1; thence, in a northwesterl y direction
along the western boundaries of Tax Map 56, Parcel 1 and Tax Map 55, Parcel 47, and following the
boundary of Tax Map 55, Parcel 47 in a northeasterly direction to the point of intersection with Tax Map
55, Parcel 48; thence, in a northwesterly direction along the southern boundary of Tax Map 55, Parcel 48
and then following the western boundary of Tax Map 55, Parcel 48 in a northeasterly direction and
continuing in a northeasterly direction along the western boundaries of Tax Map 56, Parcels 1B, 3 and 5E,
to the point of intersection with the Sunrise Acres subdivision (Tax Map 40A), thence, with Sunrise Acres
in a clockwise direction to the intersection with the centerline of White Hall Road, State Route 810;
thence, in a southwesterly and southeasterly direction with State Route 810 to the intersection with Buck
Road, State Route 789 and continuing along Buck Road, State Route 789 to the point of beginning.
(b) The real property commonly known as Claudius Crozet Park, comprised of the
following tax map, sections and parcel numbers: Tax Map 56A2, Section 1, Parcel 72; Tax Map 56A2,
Section 1, Parcel 72A; and Tax Map 56A2, Section 4, Parcel A4.
Draft: March 26, 2012
(c) Sunrise Acres Subdivision, as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court for the county, in Deed Book 367, page 312, and in Plat Book 367, pages 315 and 316.
(3) Country Green Apartments as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 453, page 553. (12-7-77)
(4) Waverly Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit
court of the county, in Deed Book 697, page 382, and Deed Book 781, pages 267 to 271. (12-16-87)
(5) Whipporwill Hollow as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit
court of the county, in Deed Book 643, pages 285 to 292, Deed Book 644, pages 269 and 270, Deed Book
646, pages 220 and 221, Deed Book 657, pages 789 and 790, Deed Book 659, pages 561 to 565, Deed
Book 694, pages 544 and 545, and Deed Book 867, page 253. (12-16-87)
(6) Key West/Cedar Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 353, pages 193 to 197, Deed Book 365, page 202, Deed
Book 37l, page 474, Deed Book 388, page 514, Deed Book 393, page 417, Deed Book 410, page 577,
Deed Book 420, page 259, Deed Book 505, page 607, Deed Book 530, page 35l, Deed Book 543, page
114, Deed Book 661, page 44, Deed Book 692, page 453, and Deed Book 809, page 623. (9-7-88)
(7) North Pines Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 703, pages 742 to 744. (1-17-90)
(8) The Meadows in Crozet as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 651, page 149. (8-8-90)
(9) Milton Heights Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 343, page 64. (8-17-94)
(10) Shadwell Estates Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 339, page 458. (8-17-94)
(11) Thurston Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit
court of the county, in Deed Book 637, page 456. (12-7-94)
(12) Lexington Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county in Deed Book 564, page 088. (3-12-97)
(13) Bedford Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county in Deed Book 365, page 212. (12-2-98)
(14) Westmont Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 1513, page 201, and Deed Book 1617, page 510. (5-3-00)
(15) Blue Springs Farm Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 1341, page 121.
(16) Farmington Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county in Deed Book 203, page 53, Deed Book 203, page 233, Deed Book 205, page
504, Deed Book 206, page 44, Deed Book 207, page 370, Deed Book 207, page 483, Deed Book 208,
page 130, Deed Book 209, page 195, Deed Book 213, page 296, Deed Book 216, page 44, Deed Book
Draft: March 26, 2012
223, page 146, Deed Book 240, page 203, Deed Book 246, page 183, Deed Book 247, page 315, Deed
Book 247, page 355, Deed Book 290, page 214, Deed Book 292, page 485, Deed Book 296, page 205,
Deed Book 325, page 225, Deed Book 357, page 527, Deed Book 394, page 63, and Deed Book 463,
page 72, together with all streets and roads abutting the lots depicted on the said plats.
(17) Section One of Corville Farm Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court of the county in Deed Book 474, page 003.
(18) Montvue Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit
court of the county in Deed Book 328, pages 86 to 88, Deed Book 343, page 204, and Deed Book 359,
page 585, and including Tax Map 60 Parcel 69C.
B. For the purposes of this section, a dog shall be deemed to “run at large” while roaming,
running or self-hunting off the property of its owner or custodian and not under its owner's or custodian's
immediate control. However, a dog shall not be considered at large if during the hunting season it is on a
bona fide hunt in the company of a licensed hunter or during field trials or training periods when
accompanied by its owner.
C. Any person who permits his dog to run at large shall be deemed to have violated the
provisions of this section.
D. Any dog observed or captured while unlawfully running at large shall be impounded in
accordance with Article III, Impoundment, of this chapter.
(7-19-73; 8-22-73; 9-26-73; 11-15-73; 12-19-73; 1-3-74; 1-23-74; 3-24-77; 5-22-74; 10-9-74, 1-22-75; 3-
10-76; 4-21-76; 12-7-77; 5-22-78; 6-21-78; 10-7-81; 5-21-86; 5-13-87; 9-16-87; 11-4-87; 12-16-87; 9-8-
88; Ord of 1-17-90; Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. No. 94-4(2), 8-17-94; Ord. No. 94-4(3), 12-7-94; Ord. No. 95-
4(1), 1-4-95; Ord. No. 95-4(2), 9-6-95; Code 1988, § 4-19; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-4(1), 12-2-98;
Ord. 00-4(1), 5-3-00; Ord. 03-4(2), 3-5-03; Ord. 04-4(1), 5-12-04; Ord. 05-4(1), 12-7-05; Ord. 06-4(1),
12-6-06, § 4-213; Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09; Ord. 09-4(2), 10-7-09)
State law reference-- Va. Code§ 3.2-6538.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
Return to exec summary