HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-9-12Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
6:00 P.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8. SP-2010-00036. MonU Park (Signs #49&52). PROPOSAL: Creation of an athletic
club with 4 soccer fields and 96 parking spaces (changed from previous description of 7 soccer
fields and 168 parking spaces). ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas:
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); FH
Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding; EC Entrance Corridor -
Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
development along routes of tourist access. SECTIONS: 10.2.2.4 Swim, golf, tennis or similar
athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas -
preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density (.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Southeast
corner of US 29 and Polo Grounds Road (Route 643).TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 46 Parcel 18C.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
9. ZMA-2011-00010. Albrecht Place (Sign #101). PROPOSAL: Request to include
a required application plan on 3.398 acres for property zoned PDSC which allows shopping centers,
retail sales and service uses; residential by special use permit at a density of (15 units/acre). No
dwellings proposed. No change in zoning district proposed. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS No COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) – retail, residential,
commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space in Neighborhood 1 in Places 29.
LOCATION: Directly behind the north section of Shoppers World shopping Center and directly
behind 2111 & 2115 Berkmar Drive. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061M00012001E0. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Rio.
10. ZMA-2009-00001. 5th Street-Avon Center (Signs #2,3&5). PROPOSAL: To
amend the proffers, application plan and development framework of approved rezoning ZMA-2006-
00009, (changed to include application plan and development framework) which rezoned 81.94
acres. PD-SC - Planned Development Shopping Center zoning district allows shopping centers,
retail sales and service uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/acre). Approx. 470,000
sq. ft. of commercial uses proposed. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND
USE/DENSITY: Community Service/Mixed Use-community-scale retail wholesale, business and
medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0912/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/2/2020 12:30:56 PM]
Tentative
units/acre) Neighborhoods 4 & 5. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Northeast intersection
of Interstate 64 and Fifth Street Extended (Rt 631), bounded on the east by Avon Street Extended.
Access is Bent Creek Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076M10000002A0, 076M10000002B0,
076M10000004A0, and 077000000011E0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
11. SP-2010-000003. 5th Street - Avon Center - Parking Structure (Signs
#2,3&5). PROPOSAL: Parking Structure ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PD-SC
Planned Development Shopping Center - shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; and
residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) SECTION: 25.2.2(3) Parking Structure
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service/Mixed Use-community-scale
retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment
services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) Neighborhoods 4 & 5. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: Northeast intersection of Interstate 64 and Fifth Street Extended (Rt 631), bounded on
the east by Avon Street Extended. Access is Bent Creek Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL:
076M10000002A0, 076M10000002B0, 076M10000004A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
12. SP-2010-000003. 5th Street - Avon Center. Critical Slopes Waiver.
13. ZTA-2012-00011. Highway Commercial Wall Signs. Amend Sec. 4.15.12,
Regulations applicable in the C-1, CO and HC zoning districts, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 4.15.12 to increase the maximum area
allowed for wall signs in the Highway Commercial zoning district from 100 square feet to 200 square
feet, which was the maximum area allowed for such signs prior to a recent text amendment.
14. Discussion: Resolution in Support of the Commonwealth of Virginia Constitutional
Amendment on Eminent Domain.
15. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
16. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
17. Adjourn to September 21, 2012, 9:00 a.m., Woodland Pavilion at Monticello.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: July 11 and August 1, 2012.
7.2 Adopt Resolution Supporting the 2012 Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0912/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/2/2020 12:30:56 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2012 Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adopt Resolution supporting the Regional Natural Hazard
Mitigation Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis and Hanson
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 12, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
(VDEM) have approved the 2012 Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for member localities of the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC). The purpose of the plan is to prepare for natural disasters before
they occur, thus reducing loss of life, property damage, and disruption of commerce.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community
Goal 6: Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges
DISCUSSION:
Adoption of an active hazard mitigation plan is required by FEMA/VDEM in order for localities to access Pre-Disaster
Hazard Mitigation Assistance funds and the Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. For example, FEMA has
recently approved Governor McDonnell’s request for federal disaster assistance in the wake of the June 29 - July 1
storms. Roughly $4 million for hazard mitigation will be available to Albemarle County and other affected areas
statewide over the next year. An adopted and active plan is required before these funds can be disbursed to a locality.
The Hazard Mitigation Working Group, consisting of planning and emergency operations staff from each member
jurisdiction, has guided this update to the TJPDC plan. Throughout this planning process public input has been
actively sought and collected by members of the working group. Albemarle County representatives were actively
engaged in this process through participation on the Working Group, involvement in two public workshops, review by
the Albemarle-Charlottesville-UVa Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) on two occasions, and final review
by department heads and the County Executive Office.
The final plan is available online at:
http://www.tjpdc.org/environment/hazard.asp
BUDGET IMPACT:
The inclusion of action items in the plan provides the opportunity for our region to seek federal grant funding options
to address the recommendations contained in the plan. However, the County will not assume any obligation to fund
or complete action items in the plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Local approval of the plan is required by FEMA; therefore, it is recommended that the Board adopt the attached
resolution supporting the Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ADOPTION
OF THE
REGIONAL NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as amended, requires that local
governments develop, adopt and update natural hazard mitigation plans in order to receive
certain federal assistance; and,
WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District’s Regional Natural Hazard
Mitigation Plan has been prepared in accordance with FEMA requirements at 44C.F.R. 201.6;
and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has been involved in the preparation of the Regional
Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan through participation on the Working Group, participation in two
public workshops, review by the Albemarle-Charlottesville-UVa Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC) on two occasions, and final review by staff; and,
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have deemed the submitted plan satisfactory
with no changes recommended; and,
WHEREAS, hazard mitigation is essential to protect life and property by reducing the
potential for future damages and economic losses resulting from natural disasters; and,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
does hereby adopt the Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.
ADOPTED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on this ____ day of _______ , 2012.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP201000036 MonU Park
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Additional condition of approval based on Planning Commission
action
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Clark
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
September 12, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY: Benish
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on June 19, 2012, the Commission heard this proposal and deferred action until July 31,
2012 in order to allow the applicant to provide more information on the traffic and noise impacts of the
proposed use. On July 31, 2012, the Commission completed the public hearing on this item.
The traffic impacts from this use (in addition to the traffic generated by the SOCA soccer facility and
existing residential development) were a major issue of discussion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Commission recommended approval of the special use permit, but directed staff to develop a condition of
approval requiring an annual “traffic management plan,” to be approved by the Planning Director, that
would prevent major traffic backups due to overlaps with the SOCA facility’s schedule.
The Planning Commission also directed staff to clarify condition 2 to make it clearer that portable toilets
would be permitted on the site during any month when soccer activity would be permitted.
DISCUSSION:
Staff found several difficulties with implementing the “traffic management plan” approach recommended
by the Planning Commission:
The issue to be addressed in the condition is not traffic management, but major-event
scheduling. The focus of the discussion was on preventing overlapping events from
occurring at both soccer facilities at the same time.
The Commission did not provide any guidance on what grounds staff should use to
approve or deny the plan.
An annual approval is dependent on the information available at the time the plan is
submitted, and does not permit later modifications to the plan if events are added to the
SOCA schedule later in the year.
An annual traffic plan raises the expectation that County staff will analyze existing
conditions and the submitted plan each year before the start of the MonU Park season,
irrespective of other workload demands.
Enforcement of compliance with the approved plan would be difficult, as the events
would mainly occur at times when no Zoning staff members are available for monitoring
and enforcement.
The applicant has stated that he would prefer a condition prohibiting MonU Park events on the same days
as three named tournaments (the Sunburn, Frostbite, and Labor Day Weekend tournaments) and several
tryout events that are the largest daily traffic generators at the SOCA site. Staff has worked with the
applicant to develop the following additional condition based on this approach:
12. No games or practice sessions shall be held at MonU Park on the same dates that the
following tournaments and tryouts are held at the SOCA sports complex on Polo Grounds
Road:
a. U11/U12 (combined) tryouts and U13/U14 (combined) tryouts, which are
currently held at the end of April or during the month of May.
b. The Spring recreational tournament, which is currently called the Sunburn
and which is currently held on one weekend in June.
c. The Labor Day weekend tournament, which is currently called the College
Showcase and which is currently held on the Saturday and Sunday of Labor
Day weekend.
d. The Fall recreational tournament, which is currently called the Frostbite and
which is typically held on one weekend in late November or early December.
e. Any other tournaments and tryouts determined by the Zoning Administrator
to be of a scale that is similar to the tournaments and tryouts delineated
above.
This condition shall no longer apply if the Planning Director determines in writing that
road improvements or other changes to the existing traffic conditions on Polo Grounds
Road, including its intersection at U.S. Route 29, make this condition unnecessary.
Staff would point out that even this approach raises problems with enforcement. Staff would not be
available for monitoring of the events, and there could be difficulties with the interpretations of specific
terms (e.g., “tournament”) as they apply to any given event.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve SP201000036 MonU Park with conditions, including the
changes to condition #2 and the addition of condition #12.
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled
“Concept Plan for Special Use Permit Application for MonU Park” prepared by
Meridian Planning Group LLC, and dated 04-25-12. To be in general accord with the
plan, development shall reflect the following central features essential to the design of
the development:
a. Number of fields
b. Number and location of parking spaces
c. Absence of structures
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Games and practice sessions shall only be held during the months of March, April,
May, June, September, October, and November. In addition, during July and August,
no games shall be held, but practice sessions solely for club members are permitted.
Portable toilets are permitted on site during all months when soccer activity is
permitted.
3. Hours of operation for events on Saturdays and Sundays shall be no earlier than 11:00
a.m. and no later than 6:00 p.m.
4. Hours of operation for events Monday through Friday shall be no earlier than 4:00
p.m. and no later than sunset.
5. No overnight parking shall be permitted on the site. The entrance to the property shall
be closed by a locked gate when the fields are not in use.
6. No outdoor lighting shall be installed for this use.
7. No artificial irrigation shall be used or installed for the soccer fields.
8. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system permitted for this
use.
9. No fill shall be placed within the portion of the property within the Flood Hazard
Overlay District.
10. Upon termination of the soccer-field use, the surfacing of the driveway and parking
area shall be removed and the previously-disturbed land surface shall be returned to
vegetated cover or an unpaved accessway.
11. A Phase I archaeological survey shall be completed for areas to be graded for this use,
followed by appropriate mitigation measures as approved by the Planning Director,
prior to issuance of a grading permit.
12. No games or practice sessions shall be held at MonU Park on the same dates that the
following tournaments and tryouts are held at the SOCA sports complex on Polo Grounds
Road:
a) U11/U12 (combined) tryouts and U13/U14 (combined) tryouts, which are currently
held at the end of April or during the month of May.
b) The Spring recreational tournament, which is currently called the Sunburn and
which is currently held on one weekend in June.
c) The Labor Day weekend tournament, which is currently called the College
Showcase and which is currently held on the Saturday and Sunday of Labor Day
weekend.
d) The Fall recreational tournament, which is currently called the Frostbite and which
is typically held on one weekend in late November or early December.
e) Any other tournaments and tryouts determined by the Zoning Administrator to be of
a scale that is similar to the tournaments and tryouts delineated above.
This condition shall no longer apply if the Planning Director determines in writing that
road improvements or other changes to the existing traffic conditions on Polo Grounds
Road, including its intersection at U.S. Route 29, make this condition unnecessary.
View July 31 Executive Summary
Planning Commission June 19 and July 31 Actions letter
Staff Report and attachments
Planning Commission minutes of June 19 and July 31, 2012
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP201000036 MonU Park
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Updated information for further discussion of this deferred special
use permit request for four soccer fields and 96 -space parking
area.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Clark
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
July 31, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: Benish
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on June 19, 2012, the Commission heard this proposal and deferred action until July 31,
2012 in order to allow the applicant to provide more information on the traffic and noise impacts of the
proposed use. Although much of that information proved to be unavailable, the applicant has requested
that this application remain on the July 31st agenda for Commission action. The applicant has also
requested that staff address a concern about accurately reflecting the club’s operating times that would
otherwise have come up in the first hearing.
After the public hearing, a Supervisor, Mr. Dumler, and Dr. Steve Thompson, an archaeologist serving on
the County’s Historic Preservation Committee, each asked that staff address the issue of possible
archaeological resources on this site. All these topics are discussed separately below.
DISCUSSION:
Traffic:
An issue of concern to the Commission and to several nearby landowners was the additional traffic that
this use could generate on Polo Grounds Road. Many residents reported that the road already has long
traffic delays, especially at the intersection of Polo Grounds Road and US 29, at least in part because of
the existing soccer-club facility located to the east of this site. The Commission requested that the
applicant and staff provide more information on the existing traffic situation
After the public hearing, Mr. Denunzio, the VDOT reviewer for this project, was unable to find any
traffic data on file regarding peak-hour traffic volumes or on levels of service at the intersection of Polo
Grounds Road and US 29. Since the commission’s meeting on this item, there have not been any major
events (peak traffic events at the SOCA facilities), meaning that staff was unable to observe peak traffic
patterns during those events. (According to SOCA’s online calendar, events in June and July are mainly
adult league games with only one game occurring at any one time.)
See Attachment 1 for the applicant’s estimates of the average number of trips generated by this use in
various seasons and days of the week. (Please note that each entry or exit is one trip, so these counts are
double the number of vehicles using the site.) The estimates range from 20 trips for practice sessions to
48 trips per game. Given four fields and 96 parking spaces, the maximum trip generation per game time
would be 192 (96 entering before the game, 96 exiting after the game). This would only occur if games
were held on all four fields with the same starting time.
See Attachment 2 for the applicant’s observations of traffic for one evening on Polo Grounds Road. Also,
staff observed an evening with two adult-league soccer games at the SOCA facility (one at 5:45 p.m., one
at 7:20 p.m.). The numbers of vehicles in the left-turn lane on Polo Grounds Road at US 29 were as
follows:
Traffic Signal Cycle Total # of cars stacked on Polo Grounds at US 29
1 (7:25 p.m.) 3
2 2
3 2
4 3
5 6
6 4
7 (7:40 p.m.) 2
Given the lack of more detailed information on traffic patterns at this site (such as a traffic study), staff
has insufficient information upon which to base additional recommendations.
Noise:
Neither the applicant nor staff was able to find a way to model or demonstrate the level or character of
sound that would be generated on this site. No changes to the proposed conditions of approval are further
recommended. Please note that the original conditions included a prohibition on the installation and use of
amplified sound systems.
Archaeology
As mentioned above, a concern about possible archaeological resources on this site has been raised. Staff
had initially felt that the minimal nature of construction proposed for the site would limit or prevent any
impacts. However, Dr. Steve Thompson, the archaeologist mentioned above, stated that this site is
potentially of major importance, and that it is likely that many of the artifacts that might be found on the
site could be expected to be found very near the surface. Staff will defer to Dr. Thompson’s experience.
As part of the approval of the existing SOCA soccer facility that is already in place on Polo Grounds
Road, the Board of Supervisors imposed a condition of approval requiring a Phase I archaeology survey
(essentially an initial survey) and Planning Division approval of any mitigation measures for construction
impacts on identified resources, to be secured before any approval of a grading plan. To appropriately
address archaeological concerns consistent with the SOCA approval, staff now recommends that the same
condition be applied to the parking area for this proposed use, as that is the only location that would see
any significant ground disturbance.
Operating Times
The original recommended conditions of approval would have prevented all use of the site during July
and August. However, this did not accurately represent the applicant’s needs, which include training
sessions for club members only during these months. As this is the least intense use the sight would see,
staff has revised the conditions of approval to permit practice during those months.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff once again recommends approval SP201000036 MonU Park with the modified conditions shown
below:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled
“Concept Plan for Special Use Permit Application for MonU Park” prepared by
Meridian Planning Group LLC, and dated 04-25-12.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central
features essential to the design of the development:
Number of fields
Number and location of parking spaces
Absence of structures
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Games and practice sessions shall only be held during the months of March, April, May,
June, September, October, and November. During July and August, no games shall be
held, but practice sessions solely for club members are permitted. Portable toilets may
only be on the site during these months.
3. Hours of operation for events on Saturdays and Sundays shall be no earlier than 11:00
a.m. and no later than 6:00 p.m.
4. Hours of operation for events Monday through Friday shall be no earlier than 4:00 p.m.
and no later than sunset.
5. No overnight parking shall be permitted on the site. The entrance to the property shall be
closed by a locked gate when the fields are not in use.
6. No outdoor lighting shall be installed for this use.
7. No artificial irrigation shall be used or installed for the soccer fields.
8. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system permitted for this use.
9. No fill shall be placed within the portion of the property within the Flood Hazard
Overlay District.
10. Upon termination of the soccer-field use, the surfacing of the driveway and parking area
shall be removed and the previously-disturbed land surface shall be returned to vegetated
cover or an unpaved accessway.
11. A Phase I archaeological survey shall be completed for areas to be graded for this use,
followed by appropriate mitigation measures as approved by the Planning Director, prior
to issuance of a grading permit
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Applicant’s Traffic-generation Estimates (See Below)
2. Applicant’s Traffic Observations on Polo Grounds Road (See Below)
Click here to view the June 19, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report
Applicant’s Traffic-generation Estimates
Traffic projections for games based on:
2 teams of 15 players per team=30 players. Players typically car pool to average 2 players/car
1 coach and 1 assistant coach per team=4 coaches
3 referees per game
Players/parents=30 trips
Coaches=8 trips
Referees=6 trips
Miscellaneous=4 trips
Total = 48 trips
I added 4 miscellaneous trips to allow for less than anticipated car pooling by players/parents.
Total trip could also be slightly less than projected due to:
1. More than anticipated car pooling by players
2. Car pooling by coaches
3. Referees that travel to the field and then officiate back to back games, thus being counted twice
while only entering and exiting park once
Traffic projections for practices based on:
15 players/team, with players typically car pooling to average 2 players/car
1 coach and 1 assistant coach
Players/parents=16 trips
Coaches=4 trips
Total = 20 trips
Attachment 1
Applicant’s Traffic Observations on Polo Grounds Road
I did sit at our entrance on Polo Grounds Road one weekday evening, and counted the cars that went past
our entrance to Route 29. SOCA had 4 games and a camp going on from 5:00-8:00pm which is a fairly
good amount of activity. The traffic numbers were:
Wednesday, June 27
5:00-6:00pm 79 cars
6:00-7:00pm 40 cars
7:00-8:00pm 92 cars
There was not any back up at the light.
Return to Sept 12 exec summary
Attachment 2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
July 13, 2012
Tim Miller, P.E., L.S. / Meridian Planning Group, LLC.
3525 Three Notch Road
Kents Store, Va. 23084
Dear Mr. Miller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 19, 2012, by a vote of 5:0 deferred
the above-noted petition. Therefore, this item has been rescheduled for Planning Commission public
hearing on July 31, 2012.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission will meet at 6:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor,
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Return to exec summary
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Cc: Monticello United Soccer Club
P.O. Box 7214
Charlottesville, Va. 22906
Crockett Corporation
435 Park St
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
August 9, 2012
Tim Miller, P.E., L.S. / Meridian Planning Group, LLC.
3525 Three Notch Road
Kents Store, Va. 23084
RE: SP201000036 MonU Park (signs 49 & 52)
Dear Mr. Miller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 31, 2012, by a vote of 6:1,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled
“Concept Plan for Special Use Permit Application for MonU Park” prepared by Meridian
Planning Group LLC, and dated 04-25-12.
a. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following
central features essential to the design of the development:
i. Number of fields
ii. Number and location of parking spaces
iii. Absence of structures
b. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may
be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Games and practice sessions shall only be held during the months of March, April, May,
June, September, October, and November. In addition, during July and August, no
games shall be held, but practice sessions solely for club members are permitted.
Portable toilets may only be on the site during these months. (Staff to work on language
regarding portable toilets prior to Board meeting to clarify that portable toilets are
permitted on site during all months when soccer activity is permitted.)
3. Hours of operation for events on Saturdays and Sundays shall be no earlier than 11:00
a.m. and no later than 6:00 p.m.
4. Hours of operation for events Monday through Friday shall be no earlier than 4:00 p.m.
and no later than sunset.
5. No overnight parking shall be permitted on the site. The entrance to the property shall be
closed by a locked gate when the fields are not in use.
6. No outdoor lighting shall be installed for this use.
7. No artificial irrigation shall be used or installed for the soccer fields.
8. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system permitted for this use.
9. No fill shall be placed within the portion of the property within the Flood Hazard Overlay
District.
10. Upon termination of the soccer-field use, the surfacing of the driveway and parking area
shall be removed and the previously-disturbed land surface shall be returned to vegetated
cover or an unpaved accessway.
11. A Phase I archaeological survey shall be completed for areas to be graded for this use,
followed by appropriate mitigation measures as approved by the Planning Director, prior
to issuance of a grading permit.
12. Staff to develop (prior to the BoS meeting) a condition that will require an annual traffic
management plan based on the scheduling of events on the site, to be approved by the
Planning Director before soccer activity can begin each year.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on September 12, 2012.
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,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc: Monticello United Soccer Club
P.O. Box 7214
Charlottesville, Va. 22906
Crockett Corporation
435 Park St
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201000036 MonU Park Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing: June 19,
2012
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBA
Owner/s: Crockett Corporation Applicant: Monticello United Soccer Club
Acreage: 79.5 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.4 Swim, golf,
tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference
5.1.16)
TMP: 04600-00-00-018C0
Location: Southeast corner of US 29 and Polo
Grounds Road (Route 643)
Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA -- Rural
Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots); FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide
safety and protection from flooding; EC Entrance
Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of
historic, architectural or cultural significance
from visual impacts of development along routes
of tourist access.
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions or Proffers: Yes
RA (Rural Areas) Requested # of Dwelling Units: n/a
Proposal: Creation of an athletic club with 4
soccer fields and 96 parking spaces (changed
from previous description of 7 soccer fields
and 168 parking spaces)
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
Character of Property: The property is a grassed
field with wooded buffers along Polo Grounds
Road and the South Fork Rivanna River
Use of Surrounding Properties: Uphill of the
site to the north, and across the river to the south,
most properties are in the Development Areas
and are residential. There are commercial uses
across the river along US 29. East and west of the
site is a band of rural land uses between the two
development areas.
Factors Favorable:
1. As recommended by the Rural Areas
chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the
on-site impacts of the proposed use can
be reversed if the use ends.
2. The use would assist in meeting the
demand for soccer fields in the
County
3. Impacts of the use would be limited by
the absence of lighting or amplified
sound systems on the site.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The use will generate additional traffic
on Polo Grounds Road, a rural road that
serves both Rural Area and Development
Area residents. However, the site’s
proximity to US 29 and the scale of the
use will limit the extent of those impacts.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP201000036 with conditions.
Proposal
PROJECT: SP201000036 MonU Park
PROPOSED: Creation of an athletic club with 4 soccer fields and 96 parking spaces (changed
from previous description of 7 soccer fields and 168 parking spaces)
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); FH Flood Hazard - Overlay
to provide safety and protection from flooding; EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect
properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development
along routes of tourist access
SECTIONS:
10.2.2.4 Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/
acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Southeast corner of US 29 and Polo Grounds Road (Route 643).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 46 Parcel 18C
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 2.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The property is located in a band of Rural Areas land parallel to the South Fork Rivanna River,
between a largely residential portion of the Hollymead-Places 29 development area to the north
and the commercial and residential areas of Neighborhoods 1 and 2 to the south (see attachments
A and B). There is an existing soccer complex with three full-sized field, some smaller fields and
practice areas, two paved parking areas, and a field house located approximately 0.25 mile to the
east.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting to use the existing field for four soccer fields for a childrens’ league.
The use would add a driveway and a 96-space parking area to the field. No structures, lights, or
amplified sound systems are proposed.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP201000060 proposed a practice baseball field on this same site. Records indicate that
the applicant did not pursue this application.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The proposed soccer use would be a daylight-only use. No lights or amplified sound
systems are proposed, and proposed conditions of approval (see below) would prohibit
them. Therefore light impacts on adjacent properties would be nil, and sound impacts
would be limited to unamplified voices during daylight. With multiple fields in use, it is
likely that voices will carry to nearby properties during the daytime hours of use. The
majority of nearby dwellings are in the Development Areas. The nearest dwellings are
located approximately 1,400 feet to the north, 1,850 feet to the east, and 1,200 feet to the
southwest. Staff opinion, therefore, is that these impacts will not be a substantial
detriment to adjacent properties.
Nearby landowners have expressed concern over possible noise (from pumps) and water-
quality impacts if water were to be pumped from the river into the fields for irrigation.
The applicant has stated that no artificial irrigation is planned. Staff is recommending a
condition of approval that would ensure that no irrigation systems would be installed.
The impacts of the use would also be limited by its seasonal nature (spring and fall), as
well as by it limited hours (due to the lack of artificial lighting). The applicant’s soccer
program operates mainly in the spring and fall. Staff is recommending conditions of
approval that would limit games and practices to three-month periods in the spring and
fall, and that would limit hours for games and practices to 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
weekends and 4:00 p.m. to sunset on weekdays. Another recommended condition would
require that the portable toilets for the use (no restroom structures are permitted in the FH
Flood Hazard Overlay zoning district) be removed during those months when the fields
are not being used.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
This proposed activity would use an existing farm field in the Rural Areas. The use will
bring additional recreational use to this portion of the Rural Areas, but would not change
the overall character of the Rural Areas district. Recreational uses are permitted in the
district by special use permit, and several such permits (for golf courses, soccer fields,
etc.) have been approved in the Rural Areas in the past. This use is consistent with other
uses permitted in the RA zoning district. Because this use would add no structures, it
would have fewer physical impacts and would be more reversible than most other
recreational uses.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Purpose 1.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance is “[t]o facilitate the provision of adequate police
and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage,
flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and
other public requirements;” This proposal would provide recreational facilities. While it
would not create a true public recreation area, it would help to meet existing demand for
soccer fields in the community.
Purpose 1.4.8 of the Zoning Ordinance is “[t]o provide for the preservation of agricultural
and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural
environment.” While this use would not confer permanent protection of this rural site, it
would not prevent future agricultural production on the site, as only a parking area and
driveway would be constructed. Recommended condition of approval (see below) would
prevent parking on the site when the fields are not in use, to limit pollution impacts from
vehicles, and would require the surfaced parking lot and driveway to be removed and
replaced with vegetation if the soccer-field facility is no longer in use.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
Permitted uses in the RA zoning district include farming, forestry, conservation, and
residential uses. This use would not impact agricultural, forestry, or conservation uses.
Residential uses could be impacted by noise and traffic. In this case, the design and scale
of the use would limit those impacts.
Will the use be in harmony with additional regulations provided in section 5?
5.1.16 SWIMMING, GOLF, TENNIS CLUBS
Each swimming, golf or tennis club shall be subject to the following:
a. The swimming pool, including the apron, filtering and pumping equipment, and
anybuildings, shall be at least seventy-five (75) feet from the nearest property line
and at least one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from any existing dwelling on an
adjoining property, except that, where the lot upon which it is located abuts land
in a commercial or industrial district, the pool may be constructed no less than
twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest property line of such land in a commercial
or industrial district;
No swimming pool is proposed for this site.
b. When the lot on which any such pool is located abuts the rear or side line of, or
is across the street from, any residential district, a substantial, sightly wall, fence,
or shrubbery shall be erected or planted, so as to screen effectively said pool from
view from the nearest property in such residential district;
No swimming pool is proposed for this site.
c. (Repealed 6-14-00)
d. The board of supervisors may, for the protection of the health, safety, morals
and general welfare of the community, require such additional conditions as it
deems necessary, including but not limited to provisions for additional fencing
and/or planting or other landscaping, additional setback from property lines,
additional parking space, location and arrangement of lighting, and other
reasonable requirements;
As this use would be located on a 79.5-acre parcel with wooded buffers along the
road, staff does not feel that the types of fencing, landscaping, etc. needed for
urban swim clubs are needed. No lighting is proposed.
e. Provision for concessions for the serving of food, refreshments or
entertainment for club members and guests may be permitted under special use
permit procedures.
No such facilities are proposed for this site.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has approved the proposed entrance
design for this use, and stated that the “Soccer Complex” section of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation manual provides a good estimate of traffic
impacts for this type of use. The average trip-generation rate in that table, for a peak hour
on a Saturday, is 28.73 trips per field. For this four-field facility, that would mean that the
peak hour would see approximately 115 trips. (Each arrival and each departure is a trip,
so the number of vehicles involved would be half of the number of trips.) The average
annual number of daily trips (for Saturdays) on Polo Grounds Road at the intersection of
US 29 was 2,400.
For weekdays, the Trip Generation manual does not include estimated traffic-generation
rates for facilities with fewer than 7 fields.
Given these traffic-generation rates, the VDOT reviewer agrees with the applicant that
the 100-foot right-turn taper show on the conceptual plan is sufficient to provide safe
access for this use.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. As recommended by the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the on -site
impacts of the proposed use can be reversed if the use ends.
2. The use would assist in meeting the demand for soccer fields in the County.
3. Impacts of the use would be limited by the absence of lighting or amplified sound
systems on the site.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The use will generate additional traffic on Polo Grounds Road, a rural road that serves
both Rural Area and Development Area residents and an existing soccer facility.
However, the site’s proximity to US 29 and the scale of the use will limit the extent of
those impacts.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP2010-00036 based upon the analysis
provided herein, with the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled
“Concept Plan for Special Use Permit Application for MonU Park” prepared by
Meridian Planning Group LLC, and dated 04-25-12.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central
features essential to the design of the development:
Number of fields
Number and location of parking spaces
Absence of structures
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Games and practice sessions shall only be held during the months of March, April, May,
June, September, October, and November. Portable toilets may only be on the site during
these months.
3. Hours of operation for events on Saturdays and Sundays shall be no earlier than 11:00
a.m. and no later than 6:00 p.m.
4. Hours of operation for events Monday through Friday shall be no earlier than 4:00 p.m.
and no later than sunset.
5. No overnight parking shall be permitted on the site. The entrance to the property shall be
closed by a locked gate when the fields are not in use.
6. No outdoor lighting shall be installed for this use.
7. No artificial irrigation shall be used or installed for the soccer fields.
8. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system permitted for this use.
9. No fill shall be placed within the portion of the property within the Flood Hazard
Overlay District.
10. Upon termination of the soccer-field use, the surfacing of the driveway and parking area
shall be removed and the previously-disturbed land surface shall be returned to vegetated
cover or an unpaved accessway.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Special Use Permit:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2010-00036 MonU Park with the conditions
recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP 2010-36 MonU Park. Should a commissioner motion
to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Vicinity Map
Attachment B – Site Map
Attachment C – Conceptual Plan
Return to exec summary
SO UTH FORK RIVANNA RIVE R RESERVOIR SOUTH FO RK RIVANNA RIVER
LAKE HOLLYM EAD
NORTH FORK RIVAN NA RIVE R
RIVANNA RIVER
PO WELL CRE EKSEMINOLE TRLEARLYSVILLE RDRIO MILLS RD
POLO GROUNDS RD
NORTHFIELD RDW OODBURN RDBERKMAR DRHUNTINGTON RDASHWOOD BLVD
BENTIVAR DROLD BROOK RDC
A
R
R
S
B
R
O
O
K
D
RRIO RD W
P
A
N
O
R
A
M
A
R
D
H ILLS D A LE D R
MILLERS COTTAGE LN
RI
O RD
E
HOLLYMEAD DR
D O V E R R D
RUTLEDGE LN
IDLEWOOD DRPOWELL CREEK DRBENTIVAR FARM RDRAINTREE DRBRIDLEPATH DR
WOODBROOK DR
LOCHRIDGE LN
POWELL RDGRIVER INN LNS
A
N
D
Y L
N
B
E
R
WI
C
K
C
T CROSS TIMBER RDTURNBERRY CIRBELVEDERE DRR
U
BIN
L
N
MARLBORO CTPLEASANT PLTANNERS LN
MILFORD RD
R O B I N L NMADISON DRWI
LLI
AMSBURG RDHALF MOON CT
MYERS DR
EASTBROOK DRDELLWOOD RDENGLISH OAKS CIR NSTANLEY DR JUMPERS RUNBETHEL STATION RDRUSTIC WILLOW LNKNIGHT CT
BRIGHTON DR
TEMPLETON CIR
TEAKWOOD CVASHLAND DR
NATALI LNMALL DRSUN RI
DGE RDSEMINOLE TRLSP201000036 MonU Park 0 0.5 10.25 Miles¯
Attachment A
POLO GROUNDS RD
SEMINOLE TRLE M O N A C A N D R
RIO MILLS RD
W MONACAN DRMONET HLP
O
WH
A
T
A
N
C
I
R
CHEROKEE CTSEMINOLE TRLSP20 1000036 M onU Park 0 500 1,000250Feet¯
Att achment B
Attachment C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 19, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, June
19, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris,
Chair and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice-Chairman. Commission members absent were
Ed Smith, and Bruce Dotson. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Francis MacCall, Senior Planner; Joanne Tu Purtsezova,
Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner, David Benish,
Chief of Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy
County Attorney.
SP-2010-00036 MonU Park
PROPOSED: Creation of an athletic club with 4 soccer fields and 96 parking spaces
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); FH Flood Hazard -
Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding; EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay
to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts
of development along routes of tourist access
SECTIONS: 10.2.2.4 Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5
unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Southeast corner of US 29 and Polo Grounds Road (Route 643).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 46 Parcel 18C
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Scott Clark)
Scott Clark presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a special use permit request for a soccer field facility on Polo Grounds Road at
the intersection with US 29 in the Rural Areas. There is an extensive wooded area
along Polo Grounds Road and a small riparian buffer along the river. The proposed use
would occur entirely on the route of the existing access and within the open area.
Proposal Outline
• Four grass fields in existing open area of parcel
• Paved entrance drive
• Surfaced parking area for 96 cars
• No lighting
• No structures
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
2
• No amplified sound for the soccer use
Some of the neighboring land owners have questioned why the request to expand the
SOCA facilities farther down the road in 2006 was denied and staff is recommending
approval for this facility. Staff reviewed the Comparison – MonU Park vs. SOCA
Expansion Request in a chart.
Structures: The structures in the MonU Park proposal would be in the floodplain.
However, there can be no structures and no structures are proposed.
The SOCA expansion area was up above the floodplain. They proposed a 30,000
square foot building, which would have been one of the 15 largest buildings in the rural
areas.
Number of Fields: MonU Park is proposing 4 fields. The expansion for SOCA would
have had one indoor field and one outdoor field, which would be in addition to the
existing fields down at the floodplain.
Outdoor Lighting: MonU Park is proposing no lighting. The expansion for SOCA would
have had outdoor lighting to be used in the spring and fall season.
Distance to Nearest Dwelling: MonU Park – 1,200 feet
The expansion for SOCA was 300 feet from an existing dwelling.
Other Use Proposed: There are none for MonU Park. Originally the expansion
proposal for SOCA included four non-soccer events essentially renting the facility for
commercial uses as a fundraiser. That was eventually withdrawn after the Planning
Commission recommended denial of the proposal.
Different in Season: The SOCA facility would have made it m ore of a year round use.
During the summer and winter seasons they were not very active for community use.
Traffic Generation: The MonU Park - ITE estimated increase at peak of 57.5 vehicles
per hour (half arriving, half departing) – for example, between morning and afternoon
sessions. Assuming two (2) sessions and grouped arrivals (within one hour),
approximately 115 vehicles per day.
SOCA expansion - ITE estimated increase of 515 vehicles per day over current facilities
at peak use (from 357 to 872).
(Note: The ITE is based on a fairly small sample size. So the numbers are not meant
to be exact counts, but indicative of the scale.)
Public-facilities Demand: MonU Park – None
The SOCA expansion was going to need sewer because the site could no t support a
facility of that size on a septic system. Expansion of the sewer into the rural areas is
against Comprehensive Plan policy.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
3
Reversibility: The Comprehensive Plan talks about reversibility for commercial like
uses and can the land go back to agricultural and forestry or conservation, which are
priority uses, easily if the use ends. In the MonU Park proposal the only lasting footprint
would be the driveway and the parking area. Staff is recommending a condition of
approval that those be removed if the use ends. There was no reversibility for the
SOCA facility. The 30,000 square foot building plus an artificial field and the facility to
support that was not going to go away.
Parking: Both proposals would have 96 parking spaces.
Critical Slope Disturbance Requested: The SOCA facility needed a critical slopes
waiver; whereas, MonU Park does not.
Tree Clearing Proposed: There is no tree clearing proposed for MonU Park because it
is using an existing driveway and open area. Whereas, ther e was grading on the SOCA
facility to create the artificial field that would have disturbed a critical slopes area with
trees on it that would need to be replanted.
In addition from the SOCA trip estimation it was estimated that 96 percent of the traffi c
would go to US 29. The tunnel under the railroad tracks on Polo Ground Road is
always a concern for uses in this area. The estimate for the SOCA expansion, again,
was denied that said that 4 percent of the traffic would go that way. The MonU Park
use similarly is even closer to US 29. Therefore, staff would say that a similar
percentage would come from the highway there.
Staff passed out a handout to the Commission entitled Summary of Trip Generation
Calculation for 4 Fields of Soccer Complex June 19, 2012. Mr. DeNunzio from VDOT is
present to explain this and provide more information on why the proposed entrance
design, which is a 100’ right turn taper and no left turn, was considered appropriate for
this use. Several of the nearby landowners have questioned why this relatively small
entrance change was sufficient.
Mr. Morris invited Joel DeNunzio to address the Planning Commission.
Joel DeNunzio, VDOT representative, apologized that there was no paragraph in the
handout that explained it. He explained the first sheet is the trip generation. The
original plan was done off of the seventh generation ITE numbers. Since then they
have updated it. It is very similar numbers. However, what they see in the handout is
the eighth generation. The two highlighted numbers are the peak hour numbers or the
4 to 6 p.m. peak hour, which is 57.5 , and the Saturday peak hour, which is 55. In the
red is the existing Route 643 information.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out that the copies are not color coded.
Mr. DeNunzio noted it was the handwritten information.
Mr. Lafferty noted that the handwritten information was barely visible.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
4
Mr. DeNunzio explained the Summary of Trip Generation Calculation handout.
The summary said on Route 643 Polo Grounds Road, the speed is 45 miles per
hour. The average daily traffic is 2,400 vehicles. Typically when they have traffic
data they have what they call a K and D factor. That determines what
percentage of traffic occurs in the peak hour as the K factor. Typically that is
about 10 to 12 percent. The defector is the directional factor that shows the
direction of most of the traffic, which is typically 50 to 60 percent. They don’t
have that data for Polo Grounds Road, which does not have enough traffic that
they actually generate that data. When they don’t have that data what they
assume is 11 percent for a K times D factor. From that they are able to
determine right turn and left turn lane warrant out based on that. If they look at
the PHDV under the ADT it says 264. Basically that is the 2,400 multiplied by the
11 percent, which is what hourly traffic they expect on Polo Grounds Road in
each direction in the peak hour of the afternoon. So that is 264 peak hour trips in
each direction on Polo Grounds Road.
From that they look at 264 approaching from the 29 side and 264 from the left.
So they look and get the right and left turn lane analysis. Typically their sp lits are
not 50/50. Normally it is anywhere between and 50 and 60. So the number
beside PHDV says 60 percent. That is if they take the peak hour traffic and they
apply the 60/40 split to it and the 317 represents what 60 percent of that is. A
conservative approach to this is to take 60 percent on the approach. So 60
percent coming from 29 to look at the right turn analysis and 60 percent coming
from the east to look at the left turn analysis. That is just the existing data.
The next page is what they do for right turn lane analysis. He explained the
numbers on the graph represent the peak hour numbers for oppo sing and
advancing volumes of traffic. They can see the top two dots lie within the taper
required. That is how they determined what the right turn taper needed to be. It
is all based on the existing volume and proposed volume of the site. The 57
number written in is assuming 100 percent of the traffic is coming from Route 29.
A right turn taper is also required for that. So even if 100 percent comes from
Route 29 it still warrants only a right turn taper.
The next two sheets are the left turn lane warrant analysis. The first one says
likely scenario. That is assuming a 60 percent split coming from the other
direction. Most traffic will probably come from Route 29. However, with a
conservative approach again he assumed that 60 percent comes fr om the other
direction. If they look at what that 60 percent is on the bottom graph these
graphs are all based on the volume that turns left into the site. The calculated
number as shown on the bottom graph is well outside of the left turn lane warrant
analysis.
Basically, what this is showing is that for the traffic generated from this site in the
peak afternoon hour, which is the peak hour of the generator, there is no left turn
lane warranted and there is no right turn lane warranted; however, there is a right
turn taper to allow for some deceleration of the traffic entering the site.
Mr. Loach asked Mr. DeNunzio to give an analysis in his opinion about general levels of
service on Polo Grounds Road.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
5
Mr. DeNunzio replied that the general level of service analysis for Polo Grounds Road
was a difficult analysis to come across. Typically, a two lane road can carry 1,700
vehicles per hour per lane, which seems like a real high number. That was seen on
roads more like Rio Road down the three lane section. The level of service on a two
lane road is nowhere near that. The level of service on a two lane road is for perfect
conditions being straight and no grades, good shoulders, horizontal curves, site
distance and vertical grades. Every factor that is not perfect decreases that level of
service. When they see 2,400 trips on a road even if it is not the perfect road with
everything they like to see the capacity is still not an issue on the two lane road itself.
Typically the level of service is applied more on the intersection. The sight entrance
intersection is not a concern with the level of service. The traffic will be able to move in
and out of the site just fine without delay.
Mr. Morris invited other questions.
Mr. Lafferty said they are putting more traffic on Polo Grounds Road. He asked if they
would consider changing the sequence of the light. They were saying that it backs up
now. He asked if he was saying there would be a taper on Polo Grounds Road or a
taper on 29.
Mr. DeNunzio replied all of this information is just for the site entrance. The intersection
at 29 and Polo Grounds Road is a different issue. When he was requested to look at
that intersection he sent a request to their traffic engineers to send the level of service.
He thinks they probably have that data. He sent that request today and did not get it
yet. He would share that information when he gets it. What he would be interested in
looking at with that data is the overall level of service at the intersection and the level of
service on the Polo Grounds approach, specifically the left turns to south 29. The other
turns normally would only be blocked by the stacking from the left turns or the volume
from Route 29 is so high that they can’t take a turn on red. They should have current
counts on that. He would share that information as soon as he gets it. He received
calls about that intersection not specific to this site probably within the past couple of
years about the stacking problems out there. T ypically the complaints have been from
his experience in the a.m. peak hour. If they look at the front sheet the a.m. peak hours
is extremely low volumes for this kind of site. They are looking at exiting traffic from the
7 to 9 a.m. peak hour as 3 vehicles. So it is prett y insignificant compared to the overall
traffic there. They are looking at 1 vehicle every 20 minutes on average. The queuing
in the a.m. peak hours are not a concern. In the p.m. peak hour for this type of site
there are 26 vehicles. That is if 100 percent comes to this. It could cause additional
queuing and a decrease in the level of service. That is something he would have to
look at and get them that information.
Mr. Morris noted that it had bothered him if they have 30 to 40 vehicles leaving the new
area at any one time and the majority of those will probably head for 29. There is only
.2 of a mile of Polo Ground Road between that entrance and light. It seems that is going
to stack up and back up very quickly. The number of times he goes there, which is quite
a bit living in Key West, the majority of the time the maximum cars that he can see
make the left hand turn onto 29 is between 5 and 6. He asked how they can handle
this. He would not suggest that they shorten the time of the green light on 29. They
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
6
can’t do that because they need to have the traffic flow. He can just see Polo Ground s
Road turning into a parking lot.
Mr. DeNunzio replied the one thing they are looking at, which he was not sure it had
been implemented, was similar to the new adaptive technology they have implemented
on Pantops, which was called adaptive technology. It works as a system and he
believes they are implementing it on Route 29 right now. What it does is work as a
whole system and looks at the side streets. It does not just run a total phase but looks
at the side streets and allows the side streets to clear whe never there is a gap in the
traffic coming up. It has worked very well on 250 and he knew they were l ooking at
doing that on 29. He was not sure how much of that had been implemented. However,
it was something he could get back to them on regarding the status of that. It could be
a big help with all intersections.
Ms. Monteith said she understood that he had looked at the turn movements right and
left into the site. Since it seems they were so proximate to the intersection with the
signal on 29 she was curious why they did not look more into the LOX and functioning
of that signal and this use might affect that.
Mr. DeNunzio replied that with their understanding that the problem was in the morning
and this use was such a low generator in the morning they did not consider that as
being a problem.
Ms. Monteith asked if they know what time of day this field will be used.
Mr. DeNunzio replied what they know from past studies is typically the afternoon from 4
to 6 p.m. is the peak generator. That is when most of the traffic is coming in and out of
the site.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out it does look like the entrance is 1500’ from the traffic light.
Mr. Morris said it was just about exactly .2 of a mile.
Mr. Cilimberg noted two of the suggested conditions refer to the time they would begin
their operations. It was 11 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays and not until 4 p.m. on
Monday through Friday
Mr. Clark agreed that was correct.
Ms. Monteith noted that correlates with the peaks at least through the week. She was
not sure that would really help.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. DeNunzio would have to speak to that. He thought he said they
were sensitive to the morning peaks for the left hand turns.
Mr. DeNunzio said it was his understanding that most of the problem now, not
considering this application, is in the morning peak. He normally hits the intersection
in the afternoon and was not sure about the morning peak. From what he has heard
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
7
from the phone calls he sends out the traffic guys and asks them to put more green time
on that side of the street. He hoped it has helped because he has not received many
complaints recently. However, it does not mean that there is not a problem. He asked
if they see a p.m. problem now or is it mostly in the morning.
Mr. Morris said he never hits it in peak traffic. He always gets there and there are
always 3 or 4 cars. He always hits the red light. In talking with the people who live there
they say it can be miserable when they have traffic problems with SOCA.
Mr. DeNunzio said when they let the traffic out at one time it is causing a problem, and
Mr. Morris agreed from what he understands because he did not live on that road.
Mr. DeNunzio apologized that he did not have time to get that data today on the level of
service at that intersection. He will share it with them when he gets that, which he
thinks will address a lot of their concerns regarding when they expect to see the worse
conditions out there. Then they could apply that to the existing conditions.
Mr. Morris said it would help to have that information. There being no further questions
he asked staff to conclude his presentation.
Mr. Clark concluded the presentation.
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. Impacts of the use would be limited by the absence of lighting or amplified sound
systems on the site.
2. As recommended by the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the on-site
impacts of the proposed use can be reversed if the use ends.
3. The use would assist in meeting the demand for soccer fields in the County. In the
email from Bob Crickenberger he said this facility would help get more soccer fields in
the county, which would help reach their goal and take up a portion of the demand for
more soccer fields.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The use will generate additional traffic on Polo Grounds Road, a rural road that
serves both Rural Area and Development Area residents and an existing soccer
facility. However, the site’s proximity to US 29 and the scale of the use will limit the
extent of those impacts.
Another issue is that several adjacent landowners were concerned with noise even if
there was no outside amplification. Some of them have said they hear voices and
shouts from the existing SOCA facilities. Again, MonU Park will be a daytime use
because there would be no lighting and there is a longer distance from the nearest
resident to this site.
Staff recommends approval with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. He noted
the applicant might want to expand the months in which the facility would be used to
include two additional months for practice. During the winter and summer months there
would be no impacts on the area.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
8
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty said the drive in would be paved, but how about the parking lot since he just
said it would be surfaced.
Mr. Clark replied that had not been entirely worked out yet and would be resolved
during the site plan process. Because this use involves a change in the entrance and
the parking it would require a site plan. That discussion would be held in more detail
with the county engineer during that process.
Mr. Loach asked since this property was in the floodplain if they have information on the
degree of flooding it has.
Mr. Clark replied that he did not have information on that.
Mr. Benish noted that the property does flood and the SOCA fields have been flooded.
Mr. Loach pointed out the only problem he saw was the portable toilets if it gets flooded.
Regarding the noise concern he assumed this use would come under the rural noise
levels of 65 decibels.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:22 p.m. and the meeting reconvened
at 7:29 p.m.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning
Commission.
Dan Ivory, Director of Coaching, board member, referee and Coordinator of the
Monticello United Soccer Club (MonU), said he had been coaching soccer in this area
for 34 years and was present on behalf of the applicant. They started MonU with the
goal to provide a more family oriented affordable organization. They are a small youth
only club and plan to stay that way. They have no adult divisions or rec divisions. They
travel and have one-half of their games away and one -half at home. Their players
participate in other community events. They have a very low cost fee and don’t make a
lot of money. They operate as a non-profit.
Mr. Ivory said they are trying to put four soccer fields on this property. Their entrance
would be a quarter of a mile from Route 29. They have a 100’ mandatory deceleration
lane. They simply want to grow grass, put soccer goals on it and let the children play
soccer. The grass exists and there is no need for any type of irrigation. They would like
to keep the land as rural as possible. There would be no buildings, no lights, no
irrigation, no water hook and would pull nothing from the river. There is an e xisting
entrance and a 400’ driveway that they will modify to meet VDOT specifications. They
prefer not to pave the parking lot and will work closely with the county on that.
Over the past 6 years they have averaged 98 members which come out to 2 to 3 games
a weekend in September, October, November and 2 games a weekend in late March,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
9
April and June. They encourage their members to play high school. So the fall system
is the peak and in the spring they have younger kids. There is nothing from
Thanksgiving through January and February. As Mr. Clark said, they would like to
amend the staff report to include the months of July and August since they have training
activities during these months. Regarding the adjoining properties there is a thick
growth of brush and trees and with the elevation and river it helps muffle sounds. There
is no sound system. They have a portable john contract, which removes them from the
property at the end of the season. The property slopes away from the river. He invited
the input and suggestions from the neighbors. He asked for approval of the request.
There being no questions for the applicant, Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Ray Caddell, resident of 334 Dover Road, said it was his understanding that there had
been no formal traffic study done. He had not heard anyone address what happens
when both MonU Park and the SOCA games let out at the same time. He asked how
the people in Montgomery Ridge get up and down Polo Grounds Road and what kind of
traffic issues it is going to make at the intersection of 29. He questioned if it was going
to create a true public recreational area. The very first they have he ard about a public
use of it was just now. He asked how many people were going to be allowed to use the
facilities and what would happen to the porta johns. He could not even imagine how
that is going to work. It is a private organization and serves at the maximum 130
children and not all of the county’s residents. The property is in the rural area and
bounded by the Rivanna River. Today they heard for the first time about fertilizer. That
was a specific question they asked staff when they met with th em. They were told that
was not an issue. To claim that the fertilizer cannot possibly make its way to the
Rivanna is absolutely ridiculous. Those who live in that area see all kinds of things float
by. The 100-year flood occurs every 2, 3 or 4 years. So it is a very fragile eco system
there at the Rivanna. The adjacent nearby property owners were already severely
impacted by traffic and noise. He was concerned with the potential noise impacts. He
asked that they take the request seriously.
Mitch Feldman, resident of 2535 Montgomery Ridge Road, said he was approaching the
Commission this evening from a safety standpoint more than anything else for any type
of emergency vehicle. In March, 2011 he had to take a family member to the hospital
around 6:30 p.m. Usually between 6:30 and 7:00 at night is when the traffic backs up
on Polo Grounds Road. He was able to get his mom to the hospital. However, right
after that he notified VDOT and sent them several inquires through their website. He
did not hear anything. Then he contacted the Albemarle Board of Supervisors. He has
been working with Ann Mallek since March of this year. She has been very influential
as far as getting VDOT to respond to the issues on Polo Grounds Road. She got back
to him last week. About a week ago VDOT did come back by and adjust the timing on
the light. That is good news. However, the individual she dealt with from VDOT said
that he did not know if this was actually a solution and the real solution to the problem is
to widen Polo Grounds Roads. At the current time because of the funding constraints
with VDOT it will probably be added to the six-year plan if that happens.
Mr. Feldman noted from the Albemarle County Land Use Handbook it states that all
county officials have immunity and they are free from liability. However, there are
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
10
several exceptions. One of them is gross negligence. There was a case back in 2005
Green versus Ingram where basically if gross negligence has been defined show as that
degree of negligence which shows indifference to others as it constitutes other
disregard to prudence amounting to a complete neglect of the safety of another. Once
again, they have a safety issue here and until Polo Grounds Road is widened or until
something is done where they can have easy access in and out of their community, the
same for emergency vehicles, then he had no problems with the proposed expansion
area for soccer fields.
Constance Stevens, resident of 3508 Marlboro Road in Carrsbrook, said the noise will
adversely impact them. She is not adjacent to it, but still hears SOCA quite loudly since
sound does travel in the floodplain. She was concerned with the impact on the
Rivanna River, particularly the porta-johns. She asked if somebody is going to be
monitoring the weather. The Monticello United Soccer Club is a corporation. It is a
commercial enterprise not to benefit the public at large. According to their tax returns
some of their directors are compensated. They are being asked to adversely impact
many of the neighbors by the noise, traffic and safety. It will very much endanger the
river for a commercial enterprise. Therefore, many of the neighbors oppose the
request.
Joe Kulbok, President of the Montgomery Ridge Owner’s Association, said Montgomery
Ridge has 60 families. They have a lot of soccer players and they support that. The
only problem is traffic. People are very concerned about it. Montgomery Ridge is .7 of
a mile from the intersection with 29. On occasion there will be traffic there. To put
additional facilities there without making changes to the road will cause absolute
gridlock. He took exception to some of the comments. On a regular basis traffic will
back up way beyond the entrance to the new soccer facility. Those people will not be
able to get out. He asked the Commission to look down the road for consideration of
the growth of soccer. They are not dealing with a small organization. The t raffic
situation will get worse and that is going to affect the safety and quality of life for the
folks who live in Montgomery Ridge and all the people who live along Polo Grounds
Road. It is a very big issue. When they present this to the Board please do not discount
that aspect of it.
Cathy O’Hara, resident of 2507 Montgomery Ridge Road, said she had a daughter that
plays for MouU. She supports the establishment of the MonU Park soccer fields on
Polo Grounds Roads. There is a need for recreational facilities in the county. She has
three children who play sports. Therefore, she travels that road multiple times a day as
a stay at home mom. Recreational facilities in our county are inadequate. The new
fields would give an opportunity for more children to play. So this is a great need. She
has been impacted by the traffic coming out of SOCA. Primarily the try out days tend to
be the worse. She has seen it once or twice backed up to the level of Montgomery
Ridge Road. She did not like it and it was not enjoyable since she wants to get through
there. She has never sat longer than ten minutes to get through. While it has been an
inconvenience she did not believe it has been an emergency situation. She thinks
some working with the lights would help to mitigate that. MonU is a very small
organization with very few games especially comp ared with SOCA. It is a worthy
organization to support and a great need that they have.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
11
Nat Howell, resident of 2248 Polo Grounds Road, spoke as a veteran of the soccer war
concerning the SOCA request. At that time this board strictly limited the number of
fields to four although the request was much larger because of the traffic situation. The
traffic and road has not been improved since that time. He and his neighbors live in the
rural area and chose to be there. There are inconveniences and benefits. When the
county zones a property rural area or industrial it seems that t he citizens should have a
right to believe they can count on that before they make their investments. Regarding
the road they need to be clear that the VDOT representative talked about the capacity
of straight roads. Polo Grounds Road is not straight. It has many twists and turns and is
in fact a very dangerous road particularly during rain or in fog. They have had one
death on that road before the guardrails were installed. There are times when SOCA
traffic backs up to the entrance of Montgomery Ridge. If they get more than six cars
through that light someone is in line for a ticket. That is a problem. He is on the Board
of the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company. Emergenc y vehicles have to come into the
area. In their area they have real problems with emergency vehicles. One message
sent to him was that one must ask how many times we must defend our area from the
kind of inconvenience by persons who by and large live elsewhere. If there is a real
need for more of these kinds of recreational facilities it is time for the county to look for
adding public facilities at schools and public parks. This gentleman is a past Supervisor
of this county.
Jeff Boecker, resident of River Inn Lane in the Steel Meadows neighborhood, said he
lives directly across from the current SOCA field complex. He has absolutely n o
problem with the noise. The noise from his neighbor’s lawnmower is louder. He hoped
the application would be approved since the proposal will be much smaller than the
SOCA facility. He suggested that the four fields will only add incrementally to what is
there and really not the problem associated with noise and traffic. From past
experience with his children playing soccer, he felt it was obviously that the soccer fields
in the county are inadequate. He supported MonU Park’s application and asked that it
be approved.
David Schmitt, resident of 2308 Walnut Ridge Lane and adjacent to the Bentivar
complex, said that he uses Polo Grounds Road for leaving and entering the area.
There are issues of need, safety, and traffic. In addition there is the issue of the safety
and preservation of the Rivanna River, which is a real consideration. The wetlands
need to be considered. Soccer fields played on regularly will need some kind of care.
That is going to include water and fertilizer. Those are going to end up in the Rivanna
River, which has been declared a national treasure and a wetland. It has to be
considered from that point of view. He was sympathetic to the community’s need for
playing fields for kids. Well exercised children are an asset to the community. His
experience with Polo Grounds Road is that it is a curvy exciting road to drive. Any
additional traffic brought by MonU has to be considered in the context of the existing
problem with traffic already produced by SOCA. It is tolerable, but at certain times
unbearable. This is going to be a jump in the traffic on that road. Anyone coming from
the northeast has to cross a one lane bridge coming across the railroad tracks entering
onto Polo Grounds from Profit Road. Anyone coming from the east has to deal with the
severely angled dangerous underpass. He asked for consideration of future growth of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
12
the four soccer fields, which would increase traffic. He was against the approval of the
request and he hoped all of the concerns from the community expressed would be
considered. This particular area is utterly inappropriate.
Jane Williamson, resident of 313 E. Monacan Drive in Carrsbrook, pointed out on the
question of the floods they have seen a half dozen to a dozen 100-year floods. They
have ridden in a motorized boat across their 80 acre field through a swift current. They
have seen the farm crops washed a way in that area. The area has been flooded. They
are talking about a child’s game. The question is whether this game is of sufficient
value to approve a venue in the rural area in a flood plain which will have many negative
effects. She asked the Commission to take into consideration the deterioration of their
quality of life as discussed thus far in perpetuity. She spoke against the approval of the
request due to the noise impacts. If the county values the game so much then the issue
ought to be that they should find some public land to lease or build the fields
themselves.
Lettie Schmitt, resident of Bentivar, spoke against the request due to the traffic
concerns. She has seen the traffic backed up 1.2 miles off of 29 on more than one
occasion. They have not talked about the traffic associated with parents dropping off
their children or on days with back to back games. If they approve this request they
would be doing a disservice to the people who live in the area.
James Dean, resident on Profit Road, spoke in opposition to the request. He asked for
consideration of the traffic issues and other concerns expressed.
Stephen Lavene said he lives in an old farm behind the Bentivar Subdivision. They
have 154.5 acres of floodplain just down from the soccer fields. He has lived there five
years and has paddled the land twice in a canoe. Those are 100-year floods as others
have said. It is clear what the solution is here. The county needs to step up and provide
more soccer fields. He is sympathetic with MonU Park. He played soccer and loved the
sport. It is healthy for the children. The county needs more fields. However, this is the
wrong place for it for all the reasons they have heard.
Fred Gercke, President of the Profit Community Association, said he drives Polo
Grounds Road twice a day. He has driven the road for 28 years. It is a dangerous
road. They are going to force more traffic on the road if they approve the request.
There needs to be two lanes at 29 and Polo Grounds Road. Pe ople going right are
stuck in line because of the beautiful guardrails. He has seen the floods over the years,
which has gotten worse as the area developed. The problem is not with MonU since
they are a good organization. What they want to do is a good thing. However, it is just
in the wrong place. The county needs additional recreational facilities in the northern
end of the county.
Gary Hatter, citizen of Albemarle County, said he was very sympathetic to the need for
recreational field needs in the area. They all agree that fields around public schools
should be better. This is an example of sort of a public/private use where the initiative of
a few will benefit quite a few, but not all citizens. The problems stated are incremental
and not wholesale changes to people’s lifestyles. MonU is truly a nonprofit and not one
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
13
is getting rich off this. It is a good fit for children that are overlooked. His children play
for MonU and he felt it would be wonderful if the county could step forward and provid e
better playing surfaces at the schools. That being unlikely in the current budgetary
situation he encouraged the Commission to support the initiative.
Gerald Long, a Bentivar resident, said he had no trouble with soccer. It is a wonderful
sport. The issue is not whether SOCA or MonU a good organization. He wanted to add
his name to the list of those against the list specifically on traffic. Secondly, he was
concerned about the future of MonU. He would like to keep their area a rural
community.
Jeff Werner, PEC representative and a coach in the city, applauds the situation and
intentions. However, it is a land use decision and requires evaluation. If the special use
permit is approved it will run with the land. The bottom line is they are dealing with rural
land with a rural road. They need to work with the traffic situation at the intersection
with 29. He hated the traffic when his son played soccer. The situation was created
when 150 cars try to leave the parking lot while 150 cars are trying to come in. The
traffic situation needs to be evaluated. The special use permit does not preclude
clearing for any use. There are a lot of questions.
Carol Carter, property owner in Bentivar and real estate agent in area, asked to add her
name to list to ask to vote against this. It is a land use decision and also is in rural area.
There are a lot of safety issues to consider with the blocking of the road particularly with
sitting at the light. It is hard enough to travel the road already and to safely get vehicles
through the area. The wildlife needs to respected in the area.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Morris invited the applicant’s rebuttal.
Pat Reilly, President of Monticello United Soccer Club, provided a rebuttal to the
concerns raised. He noted they were not adding to the traffic problem that may or may
not exist with their four soccer fields. There was screening on all sides of the property.
He did not consider the sound of children playing a noise. The cars and trucks on 29 he
considered a noise. He asked for approval of the request.
Mr. Morris invited questions. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring
the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Morris mentioned that Mr. DeNunzio may have additional information at a future
time. He asked if it was something they want to look at prior to making a decision. He
questioned if they should ask the applicant to defer until they get this information.
The Planning Commission discussed the proposal and whether the outstanding issues
could be addressed by conditions on the special use permit. The following issues and
concerns were discussed:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
14
The use appeared to be appropriate in that location by a majority, but it was a
matter of trying to mitigate those impacts. The two major concerns brought up
specifically were the traffic and noise issues. The largest issue is the traffic
impact issue. It was the matter of trying to understand the data on noise and
traffic and how to mitigate those a little bit better.
To understand the noise impact, noise measurements could be taken from
certain locations of what SOCA’s noise is now. There is no way to predict the
noise on this site very easily without similar activities occurring there. There is
another use close by they could take measurement from.
Further traffic analysis is needed. A suggestion was made to defer until Joel
DeNunzio from VDOT looked at the LOS and provide a traffic analysis and really
looked at understanding what could improve the conditions and what can make it
safer for everybody that lives in this community. They need a better
understanding of the impacts at the intersection of 29 and Polo Grounds Road.
Potentially there could be a traffic management plan as well to help minimize the
impacts.
Fertilizing concern (Mr. Benish pointed out fertilizing is not a requirement, but
subject to stormwater impacts and the residual impacts from runoff.)
Since the special use permit goes with the land a question was raised about
conditioning the special use permit if the MonU Park use vacated from property
so the land use reverts back to its current state. (Suggestion made with direction
from PC that staff can propose a condition potentially about a time limit after the
use vacates the property for the Board. Staff could work with the owner to see if
they would be willing to do an easement in lieu of just a condition recognizing
that an easement was permanent and a condition would be attached just to this
particular use) There was a need for a riparian buffer easement based on the
parking and where the road accessed the parking. There is a need for some kind
of buffer.
Mr. Morris said it is up to the applicant to ask for a deferral. The Planning Commission
could take a look at the additional traffic information and noise measurements in order
to make an informed decision.
After discussion, the Commission suggested that the applicant ask for a deferral until
some data was available from VDOT and then they could go back and work with staff.
Mr. DeNunzio could get the level of service on 29 and any information on the
methodology to improve the overall situation.
Mr. Randolph asked Mr. DeNunzio what the time frame would be for the results of the
study.
Mr. Benish pointed out he was not sure VDOT can do any additional analysis. Staff will
need to sit down and factor what kind of information they have.
Mr. Franco clarified that it would be some additional traffic information and not a full
blown traffic study. It would not be a full blown noise study, but to try to get some
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
15
typical readings from the adjacent use SOCA and maybe understanding how that was
applied to this site.
Mr. DeNunzio said what he would be able to provide is the existing level of service
there. As far as mitigation they don’t usually identify mitigations for impacts from traffic
for this type of special use or a rezoning. It is typically up to the applicant to provide the
analysis that shows what would work. They would have existing data that shows what
the data shows as the existing function of that intersection. They will not necessarily be
able to do the work that proposes and says they need two lanes coming out of Pol o
Grounds Road each with 200’ of storage or additional lanes on Polo Grounds Road.
They are not going to be able to identify that with the information he has.
Mr. Benish pointed out staff would need to assess what that information says and then
go from there as to what additional information was needed.
Mr. DeNunzio noted what he heard tonight was that perhaps a lot of the impacts are
possibly due to another soccer field when they let out. He was not sure of that time. He
was not sure the existing traffic data was going to capture those specific events. They
are looking at normal average conditions. If they have something that occurs five times
in one month for one month out of the year their data available now might not capture
those kinds of things. When he hears was that traffic backs up sometimes to
Montgomery Ridge. He might not be able to capture that with the data they have
available right now because he was not sure when that occurs. He would be able to
provide information if VDOT is in the process of implementing the new light system and
if they are not when they are going to. It is his understanding that they are looking into
implementing that system like they did on Pantops. He should have access to that data
within the next few days.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that it could take a little bit of time to get this figured out. They
don’t have the staff either to do the traffic analysis. That is really an applicant
responsibility.
Ms. Monteith noted that this might need some creative solution. Some kind of a traffic
management plan is a potential creative solution here. They also heard from the
applicant that SOCA patterns are changing. Mr. DeNunzio made a good point it is a
little bit of a moving target that they are working with here.
Mr. Reilly pointed out that the traffic backup occurred only a few times possibly in May
and June, but was not the norm. Unfortunately, that kind of back up is what would stick
in people’s minds. He asked for a deferral pending more information received.
Mr. Morris noted that the deferral would be until they had worked out the issues and
they were ready to come back.
Mr. Kamptner asked that it be deferred to a specific date so that it would not need to be
readvertised.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
16
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the earliest date would be July 31. They can give a safe date
for deferral that would give some time for the work to be done and then see where they
are. That way there would be no additional expense for the applicant.
Mr. Lafferty said what he heard was the traffic analysis that they have is an average and
they probably are not going to get much more specific than that. They are as king the
applicant to defer when whatever analysis it will be will come to the board.
Mr. Loach said they would have a better a nalysis of the level of service on Route 29 at
least at the intersection. That is his understanding.
Mr. Monteith said the idea is for VDOT to look at the facts. Then between the planning
staff and VDOT they will get some options that could be mitigations for the concerns.
Mr. Franco said he thought the other thing that Mr. DeNunzio was pointing out was he
may not have specific data associated with some of these events such as SOCA letting
out. They won’t have that. However, they could collect that by simply having traffic
counts made. It does not have to be with the house across the road. It can be physical
counts to have a better understanding of what is going on. At the same time staff and
the applicant can go out with a noise meter and pick up th e noise information they are
looking for as well. A lot of that information can be collected at little or no cost and help
them make a more informed decision.
Mr. Lafferty noted the traffic counts are impulse when it is really high. All they have to
do is go out at the wrong time and they get 4 or 5 cars per hours. If they go out at the
right time when SOCA is getting out they may get 150 cars. However, the way they
average the count over a month it comes out much less.
Mr. Franco said that is the challenge with traffic. It is all about peaks. It is not really
about volume. The complaints come because of the peaks and traffic backing up.
Mr. Lafferty noted that it was the frequency of the peaks, too.
Mr. Benish said the unique issue here is that it is unlike normal business hours from 9 to
5. This has peaks and volumes by season and by periods of a week. Therefore, it is a
bit harder to get that data.
Mr. Franco said SOCA is in session so to speak at this time. They should be able to
pick a time when they know SOCA is going to have the turn around and pick out that
peak to help understand better what that impact is.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to accept the applicant’s request
for deferral to July 31 in order for the Commission to look at traffic and noise information
in order to make a better informed decision.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Dotson, Smith absent)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 19, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
17
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-00036 MonU Park was deferred to July 31, 2012 as per
the applicant’s request.
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 31, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 31,
2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris ,
Chairman; Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice-Chair; Ed Smith and Bruce Dotson. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner;
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Amelia McCulley,
Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development;
and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Deferred Items
SP-2010-00036 MonU Park (Signs # 49 & 52)
PROPOSED: Creation of an athletic club with 4 soccer fields and 96 parking spaces
(changed from previous description of 7 soccer fields and 168 parking spaces)
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); FH Flood Hazard -
Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding; EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay
to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts
of development along routes of tourist access
SECTIONS:
10.2.2.4 Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5
unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Southeast corner of US 29 and Polo Grounds Road (Route 643).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 46 Parcel 18C
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Scott Clark)
DEFERRED FROM THE JUNE 19, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Morris noted the next item was a deferred item, which was looked at on June 19 of
this year and the Commission had a couple of questions that did not have a sufficient
answer. So the Commission was going to take a look at that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
2
Mr. Clark summarized the proposal in a PowerPoint presentation and discussed what
information staff was able to get in the time since the first hearing.
This is a proposal for the creation of an athletic club with 4 soccer fields and 96 parking
spaces (changed from previous description of 7 soccer fields and 168 parking spaces)
on Polo Grounds Road near its intersection with US 29.
Proposal Outline
• Four grass fields in existing open area of parcel
• Paved entrance drive
• Surfaced parking area for 96 cars
• No lighting
• No structures
• No amplified sound
• The existing entrance road will be used.
At the first public hearing staff recommended approval based on the following factors:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. Impacts of the use would be limited by the absence of lighting or amplified sound
systems on the site.
2. As recommended by the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the on -site
impacts of the proposed use can be reversed if the use ends.
3. The use would assist in meeting the demand for soccer fields in the County.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The use will generate additional traffic on Polo Grounds Road, a rural road that
serves both Rural Area and Development Area residents and an existing soccer
facility. However, the site’s proximity to US 29 and the scale of the use will limit the
extent of those impacts.
The Commission asked staff to get more information on two matters being the traffic
and noise. Unfortunately there was not a lot of information available from VDOT
regarding peak hour traffic on Polo Grounds Road or the level of service at the US
29/Polo Grounds Road intersection. VDOT does not have any data on that to of fer us.
That was unfortunate. The applicant’s traffic-generation estimates are as follows, which
is a little more detail than they had last time.
Traffic projections for games based on:
2 teams of 15 players per team=30 players. Players typically car po ol to average
2 players/car
1 coach and 1 assistant coach per team=4 coaches
3 referees per game
Players/parents=30 trips
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
3
Coaches=8 trips
Referees=6 trips
Miscellaneous=4 trips
Total = 48 trips
I added 4 miscellaneous trips to allow for less than anticip ated car pooling by
players/parents.
Total trip could also be slightly less than projected due to:
1. More than anticipated car pooling by players
2. Car pooling by coaches
3. Referees that travel to the field and then officiate back to back games, thus
being counted twice while only entering and exiting park once
Traffic projections for practices based on:
15 players/team, with players typically car pooling to average 2 players/car
1 coach and 1 assistant coach
Players/parents=16 trips
Coaches=4 trips
Total = 20 trips
(Note: A trip here is an entrance or an exit. Therefore, it would 24 vehicles for a game.
There would be up to four games at a time on the site depending on the scheduling.)
There is one set of observations Mr. Benish carried out for the eveni ng when there were
two soccer games going on at the existing SOCA facility further down Polo Grounds
Road. It is just a single example and does not really set up a pattern or document the
very large peak events that are known to happen on certain occasion s when SOCA has
try outs and things like that. It does show that there were instances where there was
traffic backing up in the left turn lane to get back out onto Route 29.
See Attachment 2 for the applicant’s observations of traffic for one evening on Polo Grounds Road. Also, staff
observed an evening with two adult-league soccer games at the SOCA facility (one at 5:45 p.m., one at 7:20 p.m.).
The numbers of vehicles in the left-turn lane on Polo Grounds Road at US 29 were as follows:
Traffic Signal Cycle Total # of cars stacked on Polo Grounds at US
29
1 (7:25 p.m.) 3
2 2
3 2
4 3
5 6
6 4
7 (7:40 p.m.) 2
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
4
Given the lack of more detailed information on traffic patterns at this site (such as a traffic study), staff has
insufficient information upon which to base additional recommendations.
On the noise issue unfortunately staff was not able to provide anything new. Neither
staff nor the applicants were able to come up with a way to provide quantifiable data on
noise impacts on the site.
After the hearing one additional issue came up. One supervisor, Mr. Dumler, and a
member of the Historic Preservation Committee raised a concern why they were
recommending approval on this site without consideration for archaeological resources.
When the SOCA facility down the road was approved by the Board there was a
condition applied requiring them to do a phase one archaeological survey and to
mitigate based on them. Staff had originally thought that the impacts in this case
would be fairly minimal given that there is no foundation digging or anything like that
being proposed. However, after talking it over with the members of the Historic
Preservation Committee what staff is recommending is one additional condition, which
would be the same as the one that was applied to the SOCA use. The condition is to
require a phase one archaeological study. If there are significant results found from that
the applicant would need to mitigate the impacts on those resources with the staff
approval of that process.
The revised conditions recommended include a change in condition 2, which was not
discussed at the previous hearing, was just to clarify that practice sessions could
happen during July and August when this organization typically has small practices but
not actual games. Condition 11 added was added about the phase one archaeological
survey. However, there was one more slight change that came up today. It was
pointed out that it was not clear in condition 2 when practice sessions could occur
outside of the July and August period. Staff has made a slight change here in
consultation with the zoning department to make sure that they can clarify that practice
sessions as well as games can happen during the regular season. Staff recommends
approval with those changes added into the conditions.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty noted in condition 2 of the recommended conditions where it says portable
toilets only to be on site during these months. He asked if that is the months when they
can only have practice sessions.
Mr. Clark replied yes that was the intention. So essentially they would only have to be
removed from the site during the winter months when there is no activity there.
Mr. Lafferty said that is appears when they are having games they can’t have toilets
there.
Mr. Clark noted staff could easily clarify that before it goes to the Board.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
5
Ms. Monteith said the text reads that they would have only portable toilets during July
and August when there are only practice sessions. That is a little counter intuitive to the
use.
Mr. Clark pointed out staff can easily fix that before it goes to the Board.
Mr. Lafferty noted there was some talk about a synchronized/smart traffic light at 29.
He asked if there was some way to mitigate the backup of the traffic and if staff has
heard anymore about that.
Mr. Clark replied as far as he knows that is not going to happen. However, he knows the
applicant has discussed that in detail with VDOT and is probably going to discuss that
during his presentation.
Mr. Loach asked on the left turn lane what is the capacity there car wise without traffic
backing up.
Mr. Benish replied there really is not a turn lane there. It just tapers out so that they
have a little bit of a slip after the first or second car is stacked depending on how small
those cars are. So the stacking really is within one travel way. But again if there are
one or two cars stacked usually another car can slip by and make a north turn. So there
really is not any stacking for multiple lanes at that entrance. Just to clarify that day
there were two games but not going at the same time. They were consecutive games.
He looked at the period before the first game ended and as people were leaving for the
first game and maybe arriving for the second game.
Mr. Morris pointed out some additional information. He was invited out to the MonU
soccer fields on Thursday afternoon, July 26. He got there at about 25 minutes after
5:00. There was no traffic other than myself on Polo Grounds Road and it was easy to
turn a left into the fields. He was not sure how many cars showed up with children and
their parent. However, it was around 20 cars. At 5 minutes to 6 he got in his car and
left the area and intermediately turned right onto Polo Ground Road and went to
Montgomery Ridge about .4 of a mile. He went up into the subdivision and parked at
the circle at the end of Monet Hill. Attachment B shows Monet Hill at the southeastern
portion across from that area right up on top of the ridge. He stayed there for 30
minutes. There was a brick breeze moving from the west to the east. This is moving
directly from the soccer fields to the subdivision. For ½ hour standing outside the car he
could not hear any noise from the soccer field. He could not tell if the children were
running or screaming. He did think that they were. The noise was not a factor and the
wind was blowing to Montgomery Ridge and not towards Carrsbrook. This is not a
scientific study, but he thought they ought to hear it.
Mr. Morris pointed out the Commission had the public hearing on the 19th of June.
However, there are certain people in the audience that have signed up and with the
permission of fellow Commissioners he would like to invite them for public c omment.
He opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
6
Pat Reilly, President of Monticello United Soccer Club, noted that he did not want to go
over too much of what Mr. Clark said or what they covered at the last hear ing. He
knows the main issue here is traffic. So that is mostly what he wants to address. He
mentioned at the last meeting there were approximately six or seven times a year where
there is a significant backup on Polo Grounds Road. He has specific dates for those for
the year of 2012 - They were during soccer tryouts on June 11 and 12 and there were
13 or 14 boy and girls. It was on Monday, April 30th, Wednesday, April 2nd,
Wednesday, May 9th, and Friday, May 11th. At 6:30 p.m. several hundred cars let out
on those dates, and again at 8:30 p.m. several hundred cars let out and there was a
significant back up. On Saturday and Sunday June 9th and 10th there was a weekend
tournament. There were 56 games played. There is another tournament coming up
Saturday and Sunday, September 1st and 2nd, Labor Day Weekend, and Saturday and
Sunday, December 1st and 2nd, which should be similar to the June tournament with
approximately 50 games that weekend.
- Typically they don’t schedule any local games or practices on Labor Day
Weekend or anytime in December. They are also willing to do one of two things
on those particular dates of, which there were 7 for this past year, when the
SOCA events take place. One, they will not schedule any events with times that
coincide with SOCA event times. Thus they will not add any additional traffic to
the backups caused by the SOCA event. If MonU does have a absolute need to
schedule an event that coincides with the SOCA event times Mon U will contact
Albemarle County Police Department and submit a special activity request form
to have a police officer work the stop light at Route 29 and Polo Grounds Road
during the time the MonU event is taking place. This will not only manage the
small amount of MonU traffic but it will also help alleviate the traffic generated by
the SOCA event. This is done at churches, schools, farmer markets, and other
similar events that create an unusual amount of traffic on a specific day and time.
- Managing the traffic flow through sensitive schedu ling and events and securing
the assistance of local traffic enforcement professionals should be done by
those creating the majority of the traffic and not only by MonU. However, they
would like to set the example of being a good neighbor and to challenge others to
do the same. They do not favor a condition locking them into the two traffic
alleviation measures as there are several potential traffic solutions that could
occur in the near future. They would be accepting of a condition where they
agree to those measures until at least one of the following is done:
- The installation of new traffic light technology, or
- VDOT secondary road improvements on Polo Grounds Road, such as widening
the intersection.
- He spoke with Joel DeNunzio yesterday and he said their initial engineering
study has decided they are not going to use that specific technology that is being
used at Pantops. It was something about the Route 29 corridor did not mix right.
That does not mean that some new technology won’t come out. But, that
particular technology is not going to be installed at this time.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
7
- They do not feel that there will be any noise impact to the neighboring properties.
The fixed screening, the drastic elevation change from MonU Park to both
Montgomery Ridge and Carrsbrook makes the sound stay there. They had done
a sound test prior to the one Mr. Morris participated in where Dan as at the field
with a Moyer cutting and he was at Carrsbrook. They went to the closet cul-de-
sacs and he could hear nothing except cars a nd trucks on 29. At the test Mr.
Morris was at it was just a normal session with approximately 20 kids and
parents. The kids were doing the normal chatter. They could not hear from the
proposed parking lot. It is such a big piece of property that the noise dissipates
before it goes anywhere.
- Regarding the paving for the driveway and parking lot it is their preference for
gravel. They will only pave if mandated to by the County. The other issue – for
the past five years they have averaged 24 games in the fall and 4 to 8 games in
the spring. They are small and their intent is to stay small.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Dotson asked if they have considered or would it be feasible to stagger the hours of
using the fields.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Tony Iachetta, resident of Polo Grounds Road, said his wife and he had lived on this
road for 55 years. He agreed with the traffic concerns already heard. He would raise
the issue that first they have scale d back from 7 to 4 fields, which reducing the number
of people. Anticipating success with their operation incre mentally they will back again in
the future for additional fields. There is plenty of room down there for additional fields.
There is no sewage available on tha t site. Therefore, waste water treatment would
have to be handled by leech fields. The area floods and he has seen it with water up to
the tassels on the corn many times in the past. He did not think floods and leech fields
combine very well. They also have the question of the quality of the water in the river ,
which will become more of an issue with time. If they add population density in that flat
he was sorry but human beings contaminate one way or other. They will add to the
problem of keeping the water quality. By and large the traffic problem they regard as
quite serious. Whether they can solve the traffic problem is very questionable. The
environmental issues are not insignificant. He did not believe this use should be
permitted there.
Dean Wengor, President of Carrsbrook Homeowner’s Association, said they are the
community directly across the river from this development. They would directly be
affected by this development and made the following comments.
- He asked what has changed since the last time they were here on June 19. It
was deferred for two reasons – noise and traffic. He suggested after reading the
staff report that a few things have and have not changed. He contends that the
impact on traffic simply has not been res olved. Or worse yet the imp act on
traffic has been learned to be worse than was learned on June 19th.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
8
- The applicant has estimated that there will be 48 trips per game per field
potentially. What that means with four fields in 7 operating hours on a typ ical
Saturday that is 1,344 vehicle trips on a Saturday. That is significant and
frightening for Carrsbrook residents. As to not hearing those things in
Carrsbrook he could find neighbors who will be more than happy to tell them that
they hear SOCA today. However, these fields are directly across from
Carrsbrook. He contends that traffic has not been dealt with. There has been no
VDOT traffic study yet. The only study that has been done is one night’s review
of the study of the fields which was during the off season. It was also adult
games and not kids games. So wonder there was not much heard that night.
These were two adult games at night off season. The applicant has requested a
change that will worsen the noise. Before games and practice tim es were limited
to 7 months a year and now practice times have been extended two more
months into July and August. So yet more noise and more traffic is coming. So
he was not sure how noise or traffic has been addressed. Finally there is a real
possibility of disturbing an historic Monacan Indian site.
Ed Howe, resident of Polo Grounds Road, said that he had been to a lot of meetings
over the years along with Mr. Iachetta. He was a little confused and would not take a
lot of time explaining since he had sent a letter outlining his objections. He had not
heard a lot about the quality of the wetlands or studies of the wetlands. There are
people in the state that care about that including people who live in our area. He would
only add that just before he left to come here he got a note from an observation. There
were 46 cars backed up at 29 north at quarter to 5 tonight. It is not just the traffic from
the SOCCA although that will add to it. They have increasing traffic of commuters. It is
a real problem. Somebody is going to get killed and he did not want to see that.
Joe Kulbok, President of Montgomery Ridge, sis there are a c ouple things that came up
that he wanted to share. On his way here on Polo Grounds Road he was the sixth car
in line at the traffic light and he did not get through. The light was yellow. He could
have tried but there was a police officer on the other side. Five or 6 cars is about it. It
has people’s attention. With the weather breaking this past weekend he walked around
the neighborhood. He had one-half a dozen residents approach him about this issue.
That is ten percent of the neighborhood or the homeowners. They are very concerned.
They have had medical emergencies and other things that have happened. They ask
that the Commission really consider it and not gloss over it. They put up with SOCA now
and they exist. Doubling the size of those fields without changing that road will not do
anything beneficial for the people who use Polo Grounds Road on a daily basis .
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Commission.
Ms. Monteith said she was curious why a traffic study was not asked for.
Mr. Clark replied that staff discussed the need for traffic data with the applicant and laid
out what the options were, which included either having an engineered traffic study
done or responding with their own information. They elected to go ahead and have the
hearing tonight rather than doing that. It might be better to ask the applicant. He did
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
9
not know whether or not they feel they are able to do a full engineered traffic study at
this time. However, that would not be a VDOT task but something that an applicant
would normally submit.
Mr. Lafferty asked did VDOT give staff any indication why they were not going to
upgrade the traffic light. The technology for the synchronized lights has gotten much
cheaper.
Mr. Clark replied a lot of the specifics to what he saw from Mr. DeNunzio said that there
are certain intersections that do or don’t work well with this particular system. This one
would not work well. He did not explain it in any more detail than that.
Mr. Benish noted based on some other locations that he knows that the volume on the
side streets has something to do with how that system operates. Staff did not have any
more specifics on this one.
Mr. Lafferty said it monitors the side streets. The implication was that it was not that it
was a problem or was it is not a problem.
Mr. Clark said it was in regards to the lighting system. He did not say that it implied
anything either way about the suitability of this use on the site. It is about the design
standards for this system at this location.
Mr. Loach asked as far as the flooding and the portable toliets and the potential for
contamination is there in fact a spot where these portable toilets can be put that would
be mitigated or eliminated.
Mr. Clark replied the zoning division typically allows portable toilets for accessories to
recreational uses in the floodplain because no structure is permitted. They cannot build
a restroom building. However, there are recreational uses permitted there so they felt
that some sort of facility had to be provides. On this particular site he did not think there
are places that could be assured to be out of a flood. The area just by the entrance has
been due to the changes that the applicant worked on with FEMA has been shown that
the area right around the entrance is not in the 100-year designated floodplain.
However, that does not mean that in a bigger event it might not flood. He did not think
there was any place on this site short of maybe putting the portable toilets right on the
road that they could be assured that they would not be affected by a flood. He
supposed it was possible to have a condition of approval that would require the
applicants to monitor storm events and to have those toilets removed when a certain
level of flood is expected. They have discussed that for other uses that are still under
review. However, he could not say he knew exactly that would be enforced.
Mr. Loach asked if there was any way to quantify what the potential would be if they got
into that situation of a flood and what those impacts would be, such as mild, disastrous
to the water, etc.
Mr. Benish noted that staff could check with the health department.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
10
Mr. Loach said the second question was for Mr. Kamptner. The applicant had talked
about adding on a condition where essentially they would try to mitigate the cumulative
effects on those days when SOCA held events that increased the traffic. He asked if
they could make a condition where those dates change from year to year. Is there a
way to put language in there for that? Secondly, they also a sked if there was some
form of traffic mitigation to have the condition removed. How would that work?
Mr. Kamptner replied first he would think they would probably want to get a list of the
specific SOCA events such as spring and fall try outs and have it triggered by that
rather than specific dates. As to the latter having a condition go away the language
could be crafted in a way that would say this condition shall be deemed satisfied if x, y
and z happened.
Mr. Smith asked how many toilets.
Mr. Clark replied there would be one toilet.
Mr. Smith asked if they can have a requirement that the toilets be anchored even
though no structures are allowed.
Mr. Clark noted the majority of the property is in the floodway rather than the floodway
fringe, which contains standing water. The floodway is what carries the flood water. It
is a very wide floodway and it is immediately downstream of a dam that tends to some
degree regulate floods. But that depends on how water is already in the dam. It is
difficult to quantify.
Mr. Benish asked if someone from the engineering department wanted to speak to this
issue.
Mr. Benish noted the question is do they want to require any toilets at all. He did not
know that they are necessarily required.
Mr. Brooks said it would not solve the contamination problem. It would still be
inundated. The effluent would still m ix with the water.
Mr. Smith noted it would depend on how deep the water is.
Mr. Franco said there is a portion of the site that is outside the 100 year-flood plain. Is
there a large enough area that they could require the toilets to be located there.
Mr. Clark replied that he did not think that would be practical. It is a very narrow area
intermediately by the road. It may technically be out of the 100 -year floodplain. It is
such a fine distinction. He was not sure that they could really say that it would not be
affected by that large of a flood.
Ms. Monteith said following up on the previous question about when the porta potties
would and would not be there. He said that would easily be remediated. But she did
not know what the remedy is. The way she reads it they would be there in July and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
11
August during the practice sessions. She did not know when they would actually be
there based on what they have in the report.
Mr. Clark said the wording of the condition could easily be changed. The intention is the
porta potties would be there during any month that activity is permitted on the site.
Mr. Dotson said he was curious if the applicant would entertain the staggered hour
concept being added as a condition about mitigation. He asked if the applicant would
entertain the staggered hour concept in order to spread the traffic.
Mr. Franco asked if a condition requiring an annual traffic management plan be
submitted that would give them an opportunity to put specific dates in there for that year
and be able to specify how they were coordinate. If it became unnecessary then that is
what it would show
Mr. Randolph said it was unfortunate that they were requiring MonU to do this and they
are not establishing similar expectations with what is another offending party. He would
like to see SOCA provide that on an annual basis similarly if they are going to require it
of Monu. The traffic issue remains the compelling issue. They can’t escape that since
that road serves as a bypass between Route 20 and 29. They should establish for the
purposes of consistency can’t require but request on an annual basis so residents
know. It is reasonable to request that.
Mr. Morris noted it would be in the form of a recommendation to the Board.
Mr. Kamptner said it sounds more like a request directly to SOCA to perhaps work in
cooperation with MonU on their annual traffic management plan.
Mr. Morris said he thought that would be reasonable for the County. He asked if there
was a motion on this matter.
Mr. Cilimberg said it should be noted that SOCA is not an item before the Commission
and there is no actual way to impose any condition on them. So other than just asking
there is not anything else they can do. If they were before the Commission for an
application certainly that is something they could do. It would be unfair to this applicant
to expect them to have SOCA do that. It is not under their control.
Mr. Lafferty said that they are talking about maybe one portable toilet in an 100-year
flood, which he know occurs every 5 years, and looking at that as a pollution factor.
However, they are forgetting the factor that a lot of kids are going to be using this
getting exercise. It is probably, other than farming, the best use of the land. He realized
that traffic is a problem, but traffic is a problem now. If there is no event going on and
only 6 cars get through the intersection that is more human engineering than anything
else. Perhaps by putting the fields in VDOT will say they need to look at this
intersection and improve it. He just feels that they are picking a little bit too much and
not looking at the overall good.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
12
Mr. Loach said he also sees the other side of the coin. The first time that SOCA came
up the community objected to it. As they heard from the community tonight they have
lived with it. However, it does not mean that it has gotten better from what he has
gathered. Traffic has increased not only because of SOCA but because of the
additional development. Now they are adding additional cars to the situation that they
have not put a remedy to and as a matter fact have heard that one potential remedy is
not something that can be put into place. Therefore, he has questions.
Mr. Lafferty said as long as they have the philosophy that our community has to have
growth then they are always going to be faced with this situation of additional traffic and
things like that. As long as they are having new developments, new shopping centers
and things of that nature with more people moving in t hat problem will increase. He did
not know they should be punishing one group because of our desire to keep the
economy growing by growth.
Motion: Mr. Smith moved to recommend approval of SP-2010-00036 MonU Park with
the conditions recommended by staff.
Mr. Loach asked to add the additional condition that would prevent them from
scheduling things that would be conflicting with SOCA at least to mitigate what traffic
impacts they can.
Mr. Smith asked if the Commission can do that.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, that staff would craft the precise language between now and
the Board meeting. There was also a request to clarify condition 2 regarding the months
in which the portable toilets can be on site. One way to deal with that would be simply
to have that sentence read, portable toilets may be on the site March through
November.
Amended Motion: Mr. Smith agreed to add suggested condition to the motion.
Mr. Lafferty seconded the amended motion.
Ms. Monteith noted it should say toilet.
Mr. Smith agreed.
Mr. Morris asked if there was any other discussion.
Mr. Dotson noted he had a question of staff. It had been mentioned to have an annual
traffic plan. He asked if that was something t hat were it a condition that it would be
approved by the Director of Planning. Do they have experience with doing that kind of
thing?
Mr. Benish replied that they have done that for other types of events. Usually they are
more special event types of uses. However, they do have that condition and could do
that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
13
Mr. Dotson said that might be the more inclusive way to address a variety of mitigations.
Mr. Benish said he thought that would have to include what they have asked for in that
condition in terms of management of the SOCA activities.
Mr. Dotson asked if the maker of the motion include an annual traffic management plan
to be approved by the Director of Planning.
Mr. Lafferty said before he amended that he requested to ask a question . Then the
decision if the plan is not approved they don’t have the right to put in soccer fields or
how would that work. Do they shut it down for a season?
Mr. Benish replied that the experience has been it is not a question of whether the use
can be permitted, but it was just coming to an agreeable plan to how to address the
traffic generated by the use.
Mr. Cilimberg said that if that is the route taken that management plan would need to be
approved before they could establish the use. Once approved it is expected to be the
plan that is followed during the operation. Then it becomes more of a zoning
enforcement matter at that point. If the condition were structured in such a way that
leaves some flexibility for staff to figure out what will work best before the Board gets
this. That is the best route to take. He thought what Mr Dotson suggested would allow
us to do that. Essentially the concept is staggering the end times and the best way to
make sure they get that as a condition for the Board’s action they can determine
between now and the Board meeting.
Mr. Morris said this would not be a sophisticated type of traffic management plan. As
he hears what he is saying when are we going to play, what are the hours and when it is
ending so have some idea as to when the traffic is going to be flowing out of this area.
Mr. Kamptner noted it was also avoiding the major SOCA events.
Mr. Benish said that is the purpose for the annual review is to be able to gage
seasonally that schedule each year.
Mr. Lafferty said he assumed this was acceptable to the applicant.
Mr. Reilly replied yes it was acceptable to have a traffic management plan. Just t o be
clear these are the 7 dates he has for this season for SOCA. He would not want to be
locked in if all of a sudden they start having up to 15 years they are doing this next year.
He did not want to be locked into something that they can keep scheduling and all of
sudden those days are out for us. They already know now how many games they will
have this fall. They have 7 teams and know they are going to have 28 games this fall.
They know they will have 8 games this spring.
Mr. Loach asked if they are doing a traffic management plan is it specific to the
applicant or does it have to be adhered to by both the applica nt and SOCA.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
14
Mr. Kamptner replied no, this condition would apply only to MonU.
Mr. Franco said what he heard them say was that they will work around the 6, 7 or 8
days a year that SOCA has the heavy load, that they would use different techniques
such as staggering the ending times of the games, they would be willing to pursue a
police officer out there if they can’t schedule around SOCA on those days, and that
would be flexible on what day specifically it is. They would look at the SOCA schedule
every year and coordinate around that. It would not be a commitment of SOCA to do
anything. It was a commitment to work around their 7 days of the year that are heavy
generators.
Mr. Reilly agreed noting they would be flexible to the dates. When they do these 7
events they will be on different dates during the year. They would be flexible to that, but
not flexible to them increasing the number of dates when they are increasing traffic.
Ms. Monteith said she had a process question. She did not know how the county does
this. If they are asking for a traffic management plan then that is something that is
going to be submitted on an annual basis. If the applicant needs some assistance
would that be from county staff just to understand where peak hour flows are because
that would be an issue also and other issues. Is that assistance available?
Mr. Benish replied he thought in this case staff could assist them based on what they
were hearing now as the expectations for that.
Mr. Loach asked if SOCA is at its capacity or does SOCA have room essentially to
expand from where they are now. They are doing a traffic management plan for the
applicant and the applicant does not want to get locked in to any more dates. But
SOCA can now expand their capacity so there are more dates and there are more
conflicts and there is more traffic.
Mr. Benish pointed out they have built to what has been approved and there is no
expansion capabilities. He could not speak to the intensity that they use the existing
facilities.
Mr. Cilimberg said he did not believe their condition of approval spoke to the intensity of
use or in other words, how many fields can be used and at what times. They have
conditions about the number of fields and their seasons like this application does. The
extent to which they decide to utilize their fields is really their decision. It is not
conditioned. This is going to be in any form not absolute. There is no way because
they have a party potentially tied to this management plan that is free to do whatever
they want to do within the confines of their approval. This applicant can’t know
everything they are going to do in every season. He thinks it needs to be understood
that they will do the best they can.
Staff will do the best we can.
Mr. Reiley asked to address the flooding. This property only floods with hurricane rains.
He has been there after torrential rains and it is actually quite the opposite. There will
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
15
be many puddles down the street. The water goes straight through this property. The
water drains unbelievably here. Other than a hurricane type of rain it does not flood in
the years he has been there. In which case there is warning to remove the toilet. He
did not see how that is really an issue with flooding and the portable toilet.
Mr. Morris asked staff to read back the motion and conditions.
Mr. Benish replied what the Commission has directed staff to do is to draft motions. He
did not think it would be a good idea to draft them on the fly here. It is the conditions
before the Commission on the screen with a condition for a traffic management plan.
Mr. Cilimberg added or other language that would pertain to their schedule as related to
SOCA. It may not end up being a traffic management plan. He thought they need that
flexibility.
Mr. Dotson asked if that was acceptable to the maker of the motion.
Amended Motion: Mr. Smith, as the maker of the motion, agreed to the amendment to
the motion.
Mr. Lafferty seconded the amendment to the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Mr. Morris voted nay.)
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-000036 MonU Park will be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval on a date to be determined with the
following conditions, as amended.
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual
plan entitled “Concept Plan for Special Use Permit Application for MonU
Park” prepared by Meridian Planning Group LLC, and dated 04 -25-12.
a. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the
following central features essential to the design of the
development:
i. Number of fields
ii. Number and location of parking spaces
iii. Absence of structures
b. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the
elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Games and practice sessions shall only be held during the months of
March, April, May, June, September, October, and November. In
addition, during July and August, no games shall be held, but practice
sessions solely for club members are permitted. Portable toilets may only
be on the site during these months. (Staff to work on language regarding
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
16
portable toilets prior to Board meeting to clarify that portable toilets are
permitted on site during all months when soccer activity is permitted.)
3. Hours of operation for events on Saturdays and Sundays shall be no
earlier than 11:00 a.m. and no later than 6:00 p.m.
4. Hours of operation for events Monday through Friday shall be no earlier
than 4:00 p.m. and no later than sunset.
5. No overnight parking shall be permitted on the site. The entrance to the
property shall be closed by a locked gate when the fields are not in use.
6. No outdoor lighting shall be installed for this use.
7. No artificial irrigation shall be used or installed for the soccer fields.
8. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system
permitted for this use.
9. No fill shall be placed within the portion of the property within the Flood
Hazard Overlay District.
10. Upon termination of the soccer-field use, the surfacing of the driveway and
parking area shall be removed and the previously-disturbed land surface
shall be returned to vegetated cover or an unpaved access way.
11. A Phase I archaeological survey shall be completed for areas to be
graded for this use, followed by appropriate mitigation measures as
approved by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a grading permit.
12. Staff to develop (prior to the BoS meeting) a condition that will require an
annual traffic management plan based on the scheduling of even ts on the
site, to be approved by the Planning Director before soccer activity can
begin each year.
Return to exec summary
ZMA 201100010
BOS September 12, 2012
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201100010, Albrecht Place
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to approve an application plan on 3.398 acres for
property zoned PDSC, Proposed uses include: 6,000 s.f.
of office; 4,500 s.f. of wholesale (open to the public);
13,000 s.f. of wholesale (storage); and 16,600 s.f. of
indoor recreation. No dwellings proposed. No change in
zoning district proposed.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Cilimberg and Benish; and Ms. Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
September 12, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On July 17, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Albrecht Place rezoning request. The
Commission, by votes of 5:0, recommended approval of ZMA201100010 with the following condition:
• The applicant to provide letter from the traffic consultant reiterating what was said at the July 17, 2012
meeting about the traffic impacts when this moves forward to the Board.
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of special exception for disturbance of critical slope
associated with ZMA201100010 .
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide a letter from the traf fic consultant reiterating
what was said at the July 17, 2012 meeting about the traffic impacts, in order to formalize what the applicant
stated at the meeting. The Commission also agreed that no other additional information for analysis would
need to be provided because they accepted the verbal information provided by the applicant at the meeting
as satisfactorily addressing the concern of transportation and traffic. As requested, the applicant has
provided a letter from the traffic consultant (Segars Engineering) reiterating what was said at the July 17,
2012 meeting about the traffic impacts. (See Attachment II)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the information provided, as described above, staff finds that the applicant has satisfied the
expectations of the Planning Commission and recommends approval of ZMA201100010. As recommended by
the Planning Commission, staff also recommends approval of the special exception for disturbance of critical
slope associated with ZMA201100010.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment I: Planning Commission staff report, dated July 17, 2012 and attachments
Attachment II: Letter to Claudette Grant from David Segars, dated July 31, 2012
Planning Commission minutes
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
July 26, 2012
Sue A. Albrecht
255 Ipswich Place
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
RE: ZMA201100010 Albrecht Place
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061M00012001E0
Dear Ms. Albrecht:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 17, 2012, by a vote of 5:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZMA-2011-00010 Albrecht Place with the following
condition:
The applicant to provide letter from the traffic consultant reiterating what was said at the July 17
meeting about the traffic impacts when this moves forward to the Board.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of special exception for disturbance of critical
slope associated with ZMA-2011-00010.
The requests will go before the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined.
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,
Claudette Grant
Planner
Planning Division
Cc: City of Charlottesville
PO Box 911
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
ATTACHMENT I
1 Albrecht Place
PC Public Hearing 7/17/2012
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 201100010 Albrecht Place Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
July17, 2012
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To Be
Determined
Owners: Anvince Land Trust, Trustee: Sue A.
Albrecht, Co-Trustee: Larry J. McElwain
Applicant: Sue Albrecht
Acreage: Approximately 3.398 acres
Rezone from: No change of zoning is sought.
This application seeks to affirm the current
PDSC zoning by adding a required application
plan.
TMP: Tax Map Parcel(s) 061M0-00-12-001E0
(See Attachments A and B)
Location: 400 feet north west of the
intersection of U.S. Route 29 and Shoppers
World Court, directly behind the Shoppers World
shopping center.
By-right use: The PDSC district allows
shopping centers, retail sales and service uses;
residential by special use permit at a density of
(15 units/acre).
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: No
Proposal: Request to approve an application
plan on 3.398 acres for property zoned PDSC,
Proposed uses include: 6,000 s.f. of office;
4,500 s.f. of wholesale (open to the public);
13,000 s.f. of wholesale (storage); and 16,600
s.f. of indoor recreation. No dwellings proposed.
No change in zoning district proposed. (See
Attachment C)
Requested # of Dwelling Units: – None
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 1in
Places 29
Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Mixed Use (in
Centers) – retail, residential, commercial,
employment, office, institutional, and open
space in Places 29.
Character of Property: The parcel is wooded
and relatively flat. It backs up to a steep slope
that defines the edge of the Berkeley
Neighborhood. The western side of this parcel is
bounded by a storm water channel. The eastern
side is bounded by a service alley associated
with Shoppers World.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Shoppers
World shopping center lies to the east of the
parcel. Berkmar Drive, inclusive of a variety of
commercial uses, such as office and retail is
near its northern boundary and the Berkeley
Neighborhood is adjacent to the parcel on its
western and southern sides.
Factors Favorable:
1. The rezoning request would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The uses are consistent with those
permitted under the existing PDSC
zoning district.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Transportation impacts are
anticipated, but the extent of
impacts have not been studied.
2. Additional requested
transportation information has not
been provided and is needed to
ATTACHMENT I
2 Albrecht Place
PC Public Hearing 7/17/2012
3. This rezoning request would validate the
existing zoning district with an
appropriate application plan.
4. This rezoning request would provide
employment opportunities, additional
services and expand the tax base in the
local community.
determine traffic impacts from the
proposal.
3. No proffers have been submitted
to alleviate potential
transportation impacts.
4. The scale of the building is larger
than recommended for an
office/R&D/flex use, but is
consistent with existing adjacent
buildings.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot recommend approval at this time, as the proposal does not
adequately address the potential transportation impacts. Should the applicant provide additional
traffic information for staff analysis, or at a minimum provide proffers that adequately address the
traffic generated by the development, staff could support the project and the special exception to
allow the disturbance of critical slopes.
ATTACHMENT I
3 Albrecht Place
PC Public Hearing 7/17/2012
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: July 17, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
ZMA 201100010 Albrecht Place
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA201100010\Albrecht Place
PROPOSAL: Request to include a required application plan on 3.398 acres for property zoned PDSC
which allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; residential by special use permit at a
density of (15 units/acre). No dwellings proposed. No change in zoning district proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) – retail, residential, commercial,
employment, office, institutional, and open space in Neighborhood 1 in Places 29.
LOCATION: Directly behind the north section of Shoppers World shopping Center and directly behind
2111 & 2115 Berkmar Drive.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061M00012001E0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
The proposed rezoning will require the disturbance of critical slopes, which may be approved by special
exception under County Code § 18-31.8(a)(1).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The subject site is fairly flat and wooded. The adjacent Berkley neighborhood is located to the south
and west with a steep slope of land between the neighborhood and the western portion of the subject
property. The Shoppers World shopping center is located to the east and provides access for the
subject property. Berkmar Drive is to the north and provides a service drive to the Shoppers World
development and the proposed Albrecht Place. There is a mix of commercial uses located on Berkmar
Drive.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
No change of zoning is sought. The County zoned the property PDSC in 1980 with no application plan.
The applicant is amending the rezoning to include a required application plan. The proposed
development consists of approximately one 48,000 gross square foot (GSF), 32 foot high (1 ½ story)
building inclusive of the following commercial uses: 6,000 square feet of office; 4,500 square feet of
wholesale (open to the public); 13,000 square feet of wholesale (storage); and 16,600 square feet of
indoor recreation. These uses are permitted under the current PD-SC zoning district. Associated
parking will be located on the property. The proposed building is located directly behind the “main” large
structure in the Shoppers World shopping center.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant wishes to remedy a technical deficiency of the 1980 rezoning by supplying a required
application plan. Providing infill development of this existing commercially zoned property located in the
Development Area is a goal of the Places 29 Master Plan.
ATTACHMENT I
4 Albrecht Place
PC Public Hearing 7/17/2012
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
SP197900007 approved mini-warehouses for the subject site.
The County zoned the property PDSC in 1980.
ZMA200600022 – Two work sessions were held with the Planning Commission regarding this rezoning
request. One on February 13, 2007 and the most recent work session held on August 28, 2007. At the
August work session, the Planning Commission made the following comments about The Commons at
Albrecht Place:
1. The Commission would not support the critical slopes waiver or waiver to disturb the 20
foot buffer.
2. The design needs to respect the edges next to the developed residential areas.
3. The orientation of the buildings may need to change and some sort of redesign to better
use the service alley is desired.
4. The applicant should talk to the neighbors about where and how to formalize pedestrian
access since there is already a footpath down to the shopping center.
The Commons at Albrecht Place was withdrawn in 2009.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use Plan:
With the adoption of Places 29, the land use plan now designates the subject property as Urban Mixed
Use (in Centers) in Neighborhood 1. The purpose/intent of the Urban Mixed Use (in Centers)
designation is to provide a range of residential, commercial, office, employment, and institutional uses,
along with open space. The intent is for these uses to be located along major roadways with provisions
for multi-modal transportation networks, such as pedestrian and bicycle access.
The County’s Open Space Plan shows a buffer on this site. The application plan shows a 20 foot buffer
along the southern and western sides of the property, which is consistent with the County’s Open
Space Plan. A retaining wall is also proposed in the vicinity of the buffer, but not in the buffer. It is
possible that disturbance could occur in the buffer as a result of grading and/or installation of the
retaining walls. If this is to occur, a waiver with regards to disturbance in the buffer will be necessary.
The applicant has chosen not to pursue a waiver at this time with the understanding that a waiver might
be needed during the site plan stage.
Staff believes the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site in
terms of the building being an office/R&D/flex type structure. The scale of the building is larger than
recommended in the Master Plan. However, the building’s scale is consistent with the other buildings
on the Shoppers World site. This plan and building are also consistent with the input provided by the
nearby community and prior staff reviews. The proposed building is primarily hidden behind a building
in the Shoppers World shopping center and will barely be seen from the surrounding public streets.
These proposed uses are currently permitted in the PD-SC zoning district.
The character of the surrounding neighborhood provides a variety of mixed uses. A building with
commercial, office, and employment opportunities would not necessarily be out of character in this
location.
The Neighborhood Model: Staff’s analysis below indicates how well the proposed development
meets the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model:
ATTACHMENT I
5 Albrecht Place
PC Public Hearing 7/17/2012
Pedestrian Orientation Sidewalks are proposed to be located on the site and to the
extent possible the applicant shows a cross walk at the
eastern portion of the subject property, leading to the
adjacent property, which is owned by a different entity. The
applicant is willing to provide a pedestrian connection from
the subject parcel to the adjacent Berkley neighborhood;
however, it is not supported by the neighborhood residents,
so the applicant has decided not to pursue this. The applicant
has addressed this principle to the best of her ability. This
principle is addressed.
Neighborhood Friendly
Streets and Paths
The street is not really a street, but a travelway and parking
area. Trees are proposed for the parking lot, and a sidewalk
will be adjacent to the proposed building. The travelway and
sidewalk are a typical design for this type of development.
This principle is not applicable.
Interconnected Streets and
Transportation Networks
This site has two access points with two way traffic
throughout the site. Access is provided through the Shopper’s
World shopping center via Berkmar Drive, Route 29 and
Commonwealth Drive. The applicant has not provided
enough traffic information to determine if the proposed
transportation network is appropriate for this site and proffers
that could alleviate possible traffic impacts have not been
provided. Additional information describing this issue is
provided later in this report. (See Anticipated impact on
public facilities and services) The only other possible street
interconnection would be through Williamsburg Road. This
was unsuccessfully vetted with a previous rezoning request
with no support from adjacent residents. This principle is not
addressed.
Relegated Parking Parking is located at the rear of the site, which is the entrance
to the building. It appears that loading areas are located at
the front of the site as shown. The subject site is located to
the rear of a large building that is located on the adjacent
parcel. The proposed building and its’ parking will not be very
visible from a public road. This principle is addressed.
Parks and Open Space This is a small infill site. This principle is not applicable.
Neighborhood Centers This is part of the existing Shopper’s World development.
There are other shopping centers located in the vicinity with
office/meeting space. This principle is met.
Buildings and Spaces of
Human Scale
Based on the submitted site sections, it appears the
proposed building and spaces are of human scale. This
principle is met.
Mixture of Uses This site is part of a shopping center. The uses within the
shopping center along with the proposed uses are a mixture
of commercial uses. However, with the proximity of additional
commercial and residential uses nearby, staff believes this
principle is met.
Mixture of Housing Types
and Affordability
This is not applicable, given the type of facility proposed.
Redevelopment This principle is not applicable.
ATTACHMENT I
6 Albrecht Place
PC Public Hearing 7/17/2012
Site Planning that Respects
Terrain
Critical slopes that are man-made are located at the rear and
northeastern sides of the property. These critical slopes are
proposed to be disturbed with the installation of retaining
walls and grading for the adjacent parking area. The
applicant has submitted a critical slopes waiver request. The
proposed disturbance appears to be fairly minimal.
Clear Boundaries with the
Rural Areas
This principle is not applicable.
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 proposed Albrecht Place development (office and commercial uses) would support the Plan by
providing additional employment, services and expand commercial tax revenues for the local
community.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district
Planned Development Shopping Center (PD-SC) Districts are intended to provide for the development
of neighborhood, community and regional shopping centers. Developments with a broad range of
commercial and service facilities are encouraged within planned commercial centers with carefully
organized buildings, service, parking, and landscaped areas. The PD-SC district should have direct
access to public streets and be able to accommodate the traffic generated by the development. This
project continues to be consistent with the intent of the PD-SC district as the proposed commercial
uses within this development will provide appropriate services and activities on a neighborhood,
community and regional scale.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Streets:
As identified on the Application Plan, the proposed uses do not appear to be high intensive traffic
generated uses. However, this property is zoned PD-SC, which allows a large variety of possible uses
on the site. Staff has requested that the applicant provide a more detailed traffic analysis or at a
minimum proffer out some of the more intense (traffic generated) uses that are allowed in the PD-SC
district. However, the applicant has not provided the level of traffic analysis that staff has requested nor
has she provided any proffers that could help alleviate the anticipated traffic impacts. In general, staff
has requested that traffic generation figures along with a study examining impacts to the entrances to
the public roads be provided. Although the applicant’s consultant has provided trip generation
information based on the uses described on the Application Plan, this information depicts low traffic
volume being generated from the subject site. The applicant believes these uses are the most intense
possible uses that can be provided on the site due to the amount of available parking. The applicant
has also explained that other possible leasing scenarios could result in lower traffic numbers, but there
is no way to guarantee that this will always be the case. Due to the location of this site, being adjacent
to an existing shopping center where there is parking, staff believes it is possible for additional parking
arrangements to be made in the future that could intensify the proposed uses on this site. The parking
limitation is not necessarily a guaranteed scenario.
ATTACHMENT I
7 Albrecht Place
PC Public Hearing 7/17/2012
VDOT has indicated the main focus should be on access from Route 29; the dual lefts at the signal on
29 North, and depending on how the traffic enters from 29 South, either lefts on Berkmar, or rights into
the shopping center. (See Attachment D)
A plan showing the truck circulation has been requested by staff and while the applicant has recently
provided such a plan, it is unclear what the source is for the truck circulation pattern that was submitted.
For example: Was this part of a study? Is the information anecdotal? Staff is concerned with regards to
whether the truck circulation as shown is truly the way that trucks would circulate within the site. Staff is
also concerned that certain turning movements of large trucks could be difficult to make if there is not
enough turning room for the truck, causing a back up of traffic within the Shoppers World shopping
center and Route 29. One suggested way to alleviate this concern could be to provide a proffer with
specific truck loading/unloading hours that would not conflict with the daily peak hours of traffic inside
and outside the shopping center. (See Attachment E)
The applicant has elected to proceed with this rezoning request without providing a more in-depth traffic
impact analysis. Staff believes additional information regarding traffic is needed in order to determine
the impacts that this proposed development could have on traffic patterns on Route 29 and Berkmar
Drive. However, at a minimum, providing appropriate proffers could help eliminate many of the traffic
concerns noted in this report.
Schools:
No residential units are proposed, so no impacts are expected on the schools.
Fire and Rescue:
The Seminole Fire Station on Berkmar Drive near Fashion Square Mall is the nearest station and is
located within the neighborhood of this site. Fire/Rescue has no objection with this development as
proposed.
Utilities:
The site will be serviced by public water and sewer. No immediate or significant service capacity issues
have been identified by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA). (See Attachment F )
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) comments are attached (See Attachment G)
Anticipated impact on environmental, cultural and historic resources
There is no anticipated impact on cultural or historic resources. There are no significant environmental
features impacted by this development. There are man-made critical slopes located at the rear and
northeastern portion of the site. It is anticipated that some disturbance will occur as retaining walls and
parking areas are proposed in the vicinity of the critical slopes. A critical slopes waiver request has
been submitted, which staff does not see as problematic. There are also some minor concerns
regarding drainage being picked up from adjacent properties before it flows over the proposed retaining
walls, however, staff believes these issues can be resolved during the site plan stage.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
No major anticipated impact is expected on nearby and surrounding properties with this rezoning
request. The applicant has worked with the Berkley neighborhood over the last several years to
develop a project that would be an appropriate neighbor for this existing residential community. The
applicant has outreached to the Berkley neighborhood through letters, phone calls and meetings. The
applicant recently held a meeting for the Berkley residents on June 27, in which one neighbor attended.
Residents from the Berkley community have contacted the County staff regarding general information
ATTACHMENT I
8 Albrecht Place
PC Public Hearing 7/17/2012
of the intent of this rezoning, but in general the neighbors have not expressed concern regarding this
proposal. Although this proposal will add additional traffic to the area, the applicant anticipates that the
amount of additional traffic will be minimal in scope.
Public need and justification for the change
The proposed addition of a commercial building within the vicinity of an existing shopping center in this
portion of the County would be beneficial as it would provide employment opportunities, additional
services and expand the tax base. The property is already zoned for this use. This rezoning request
validates the existing zoning district with an application plan.
PROFFERS
The applicant has not provided proffers. The following impact needs to be addressed:
Transportation impact - proffering out permitted uses that are large traffic generators
would provide a level of commitment to lowering potential traffic impacts.
- proffering loading/unloading hours could also provide resolution to potential truck
circulation concerns, which will impact traffic, previously mentioned in this report.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DISTURB CRITICAL SLOPES
(See Attachment H)
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The rezoning request would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The uses are consistent with those permitted under the existing PDSC zoning
district.
3. This rezoning request would validate the existing zoning district with an
appropriate application plan.
4. This rezoning request would provide employment opportunities, additional
services and expand the tax base in the local community.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Transportation impacts are anticipated, but the extent of impacts have not been
studied.
2. Additional requested transportation information has not been provided and is
needed to determine traffic impacts from the proposal.
3. No proffers have been submitted to alleviate potential transportation impacts.
4. The scale of the building is larger than recommended for an office/R&D/flex use,
but is consistent with existing adjacent buildings.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff cannot recommend approval at this time, as the proposal does not adequately address
the potential transportation impacts. Should the applicant provide additional traffic information
for staff analysis, or at a minimum provide proffers that adequately address the traffic
generated by the development, staff could support the project and the special exception to
allow the disturbance of critical slopes.
ATTACHMENT I
9 Albrecht Place
PC Public Hearing 7/17/2012
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A – Tax Map
ATTACHMENT B – Vicinity Map
ATTACHMENT C – Application Plan
ATTACHMENT D – Truck Circulation, dated June 5, 2012
ATTACHMENT E – Electronic Mail from Joel DeNunzio, dated June 13, 2012
ATTACHMENT F – Electronic Mail from Victoria Fort, dated December 29, 2011
ATTACHMENT G – Electronic Mail from Alex Morrison, dated May 30, 2012
ATTACHMENT H – Special Exception to Disturb Critical Slopes
ATTACHMENT I – Letter from Woodson D. Parrish, dated May 7, 2012
Return to PC actions letter
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. If the ZMA is recommended for approval: Move to recommend approval of ZMA201100010 with
reasons for approval.
B. If the ZMA is recommended for denial: Move to recommend denial of ZMA201100010 based on the
recommendation of staff.
C. If the critical slopes special exception is approved: Move to approve the special exception to allow
the disturbance of critical slopes.
D. If the critical slopes special exception is denied: Move to deny the special exception to allow the
disturbance of critical slopes with reasons for denial.
ATTACHMENT II
ATTACHMENT II
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 17, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SUBMIT TO BOS
ZMA-2011-00010 ALBRECHT PLACE
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 17, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 17,
2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris
and Russell (Mac) Lafferty. Commission members absent were Ed Smith and Bruce
Dotson. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia
was absent.
Staff present was Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Christopher Perez, Senior Planner;
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mark
Graham, Director of Community Development; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County
Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
ZMA-2011-00010 Albrecht Place (Sign #101)
PROPOSAL: Request to include a required application plan on 3.398 acres for property
zoned PDSC which allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; residential
by special use permit at a density of (15 units/acre). No dwellings pro posed. No change
in zoning district proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) – retail, residential,
commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space in Neighborhood 1 in
Places 29.
LOCATION: Directly behind the north section of Shoppers World shopping Center and
directly behind 2111 & 2115 Berkmar Drive.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061M00012001E0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (Claudette Grant)
Claudette Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of an application plan on 3.398 acres
for property zoned PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center zoning district. The
proposed uses include 6,000 square feet of office, 4,500 sq uare feet of wholesale that
would be open to the public, 13,000 square feet of wholesale that would be for storage
use, and 16,600 square feet of indoor recreation. No dwellings are proposed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 17, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SUBMIT TO BOS
ZMA-2011-00010 ALBRECHT PLACE
2
Staff reviewed the proposed application plan, proposed buildings, renderings and
photographs of the existing area and access to the site.
Factors Favorable
• The rezoning request would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
• The uses are consistent with those permitted under the existing PD-SC zoning
district.
• This rezoning request would validate the existing zoning district with an
appropriate application plan.
• This rezoning request would provide employment opportunities, additional
services and expand the tax base in the local community.
Factors Unfavorable
• Transportation impacts are anticipated, but the extent of impacts have not been
studied.
• Additional requested transportation information has not been provided and is
needed to determine traffic impacts from the proposal.
• No proffers have been submitted to alleviate potential transportation impacts.
• The scale of the building is larger than recommended for an office/R&D/flex use,
but is consistent with existing adjacent buildings.
The unfavorable factors really point to the main issue of concern with this par ticular
rezoning request. It really has to do with transportation. The site is a planned
development designation. This requires that it meet Section 8.5 of the zoning ordinance.
The applicant has met all the requirements of this section with the excepti on of Section
8.5.1.d which requires a traffic impact statement. The staff report gets into some of the
details of this.
Joel DeNunzio has said around the beginning of the year that this site does not meet
the threshold for traffic to require a Chapter 527 Traffic Impact Study. But the site will
generate a volume of traffic that will impact surrounding intersections on Route 29 and
other side roads. Mr. DeNunzio went on to say that the county should require some
type of traffic impact analysis for this proposed use. The county agreed with VDOT and
requested that this traffic impact analysis be completed by the applicant and submitted
in lieu of the 527. Submission of traffic impact analysis will provide necessary
information that will help us determine what impacts if any this development could have
on the surrounding roads. Staff wanted to give a little bit of background before focusing
on the factors that are unfavorable.
The transportation impacts are anticipated. However, the extent of impacts has not
been studied. Additional requested transportation information has not been provided
and is needed to determine the traffic impacts from the proposal. No proffers have been
submitted to alleviate potential transportation impacts. The scale of the b uilding is
larger than recommended for an office or a research and development flex use. But it is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 17, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SUBMIT TO BOS
ZMA-2011-00010 ALBRECHT PLACE
3
consistent with the existing adjacent buildings. With that it is located directly behind a
very large building.
Recommendation
Staff cannot recommend approval at this time, as the proposal does not adequately
address the potential transportation impacts. Should the applicant provide additional
traffic information for staff analysis, or at a minimum provide proffers that adequately
address the traffic generated by the development, staff could support the project and
the special exception to allow the disturbance of critical slopes.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty said that this building is a little bit smaller than a football field to put it in
perspective.
Ms. Grant agreed.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out there are f ive roads that potentially serve this with two that go
out onto Route 29 north, one that goes out to Rio Road, and then one that goes by the
old Whole foods and connects. However, all of the roads are very small and only one
road would allow one to go north on Route 29 directly.
Ms. Grant agreed.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and
invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Woody Parrish, architect on the project, represented Susan Albrecht who was present.
He presented a visual aid which would be helpful in visualizing this project. He thanked
Sharon Taylor and IT folks for loading the appropriate software for Google Earth on the
computer so they could make this presentation.
- The proposal was on about 3.5 acres right behind Shopper’s World, also behind
two buildings on Berkmar Drive, and abutting seven (7) residential lots in the
Berkley Subdivision from which they are separated by a 20’ buffer. This land
was cleared and graded back when Shopper’s World was built. However, very
little has happened with it since then. Trees and brush have moved back in. The
more recent history of this – this project has been in development in some form
or other for the past 16 years. He has been involved off and on since 2006. The
Planning Commission has seen two previous versions of this project. Mr. Morris
is the only Commissioner here when they did that in 2007.
- The first one was a fairly ambitious project based on the Neighborhood Model
and the Places29 Study. It comprised this parcel and four additional parcels. It
included a sizeable residential component and considerably more commercial
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 17, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SUBMIT TO BOS
ZMA-2011-00010 ALBRECHT PLACE
4
square footage than what they are now proposing. It also had a vehicular
connection down to Dominion Drive. The Planning Commission felt the proposal
was too much development for the site. The application was withdrawn. A
scaled back version was reviewed at a work session about six months later. The
staff report addresses that. The current application fully implements those
recommendations with the exception that they are still requesting a critical slopes
waiver. That is also adequately addressed in the staff report.
- The other little issue is a recommendation that they see what the neighbors
thought about the existing footpath that connects the end of W illiamsburg Road
and runs down through the site. They have not been successful in getting a lot of
input from the neighbors. But what they have heard both at this time and at the
time of their previous application lead them to conclude that pedestrian
connection is not desired. They are not inclined strongly one way or the other on
it in deference to what they believe are the wishes of the neighbors they have not
shown any formalized pedestrian connection there.
- He disagreed with the staff’s recommendations. However, he would like to say
staff has been very patience with us in dealing with issues on this application
generally and with the traffic issues in particular. The staff report does
acknowledge that this is expected to have fairly light traffic impacts. There is
some underlying concern that those might somehow increase in the future. He
was thinking that was a very unlikely event. What they have brought is the most
traffic intensive thing they could come up with, but with the exception of a multi-
story building or structured parking. He had o nly been able to get 183 parking
spaces. If they do the math the ordinance actually severely limits the types of
uses they can put in this building. Although they have not formerly proffered out
any uses the available parking effectively eliminates any of the high traffic uses
that would be by right in PD-SC. The actual number is not entirely accurate so
they have not studied this tract.
- They have had a traffic consultant look at this. They have come up with
estimated trip generation. That number turns out to be less than one percent of
the traffic that is currently using this section of US 29. It is considerably lower
than if this were occupied for a typical shopping center use. There was also a
concern that perhaps excess parking on Shoppers World could be leveraged in
the future sometime to support more intense use on our parcel. He has counted
the parking spaces and they are maxed out. So short of some kind of
redevelopment of this site or unless the county decides to rewrite the ordinance
they are stuck at their level of trip generation that they have estimated.
- The other question had to do with truck circulation on the site. They have a
diagram of that in the packets. There was a question about the source of that
information. He followed a truck one afternoon that was making a delivery to
Staples. He has also spoken with the inventory manager at Staples who is in
charge of deliveries and he seemed to have a detailed knowledge of how that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 17, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SUBMIT TO BOS
ZMA-2011-00010 ALBRECHT PLACE
5
works. He confirmed that entering trucks do come in off Berkmar and they do not
use the main Shoppers W orld entrance off 29. So north bound trucks would go
up to Rio Road and turn at the light and come around Berkmar and enter the site.
Trucks serving the former W hole Foods will come around and exist. One thing
that he did not get in the packets but have since known is that the Staples trucks
are more likely to leave their loading dock and maneuver back in the corner so
that they are then able to make a U turn and exit the way they came in on
Berkmar Drive. That option would obviously be available to Albrecht Place trucks
as well. He was not sure there was anything else he could say about truck
traffic. Their trucks will do the same as other trucks have been doing there for
years.
- They are submitting this information in lieu of the more intensive study staff has
asked us for not out of stubbornness but having spent well in excess of $100,000
to get to this point and still not being at preliminary site plan stage. Recognizing
too that this property is already zoned PD-SC they are just having a hard time
spending another $15,000 to basically quantify information that he thinks they
understand well enough to affirm an existing zoning designation for an infill
parcel in the development area that is very consistent with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Lafferty said the traffic consultant that he had would he be willing to write a letter or
put his name to it.
Mr. Parrish replied certainly. They were negotiating with him to do a more extensive
study and in the end sort of balked at the price. Certainly the information that the traffic
consultant furnished he was sure he would put in a letter.
Mr. Lafferty noted that this seemed to be the major holdup in the project.
Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Parrish to explain the 16,600 square feet of indoor recreation.
Mr. Parrish replied that this was a little speculative because they really don’t know how
this place is going to lease out. The typical tenant they expect will be a business very
much like Design Environs, which Ms. Albrecht owns. That is more in keeping with the
wholesale with a little bit of showroom and office. They have had some discussion with
a gym who thought they might take some space in here. So that was what they were
regarding as their parking maximum traffic scenario if they were able to attract that
tenant or someone similar. It is actually likely that they would end up with four tenants
in here more similar to Design Environs in which case the traffic impacts would be even
lower than they are currently reporting.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 17, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SUBMIT TO BOS
ZMA-2011-00010 ALBRECHT PLACE
6
Mr. Lafferty said he was curious as to why the driveway on the western end appears to
direct the traffic behind the building instead of going out to Berkmar Drive or the
curvature of that.
Mr. Parrish replied that it is to give a little more turning radius for a left turn here. It is
located where it is because of the bio-filter. There may be some details that get refined
at site plan.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed
and the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Franco asked staff to explain this. This is really just an application plan. So it is a
rezoning to add an application plan that was not with the original zoning.
Mr. Kamptner replied what the Planned Development regulations provide for is that
before a site plan or subdivision plat can be approved for a lot with Planned
Development zoning on it that was approved without an application plan they have to
get approval of an application plan and approval of all the other documents that are
required to be submitted from Section 8.5. Ms. Grant has already gone through that
what the applicant has submitted so far satisfies everything but the requirement under
Section 8.5.1.d, which is the traffic impact statement that satisfies state law. The uses
have already been approved by the Board in 1980 when the original Planned
Development zoning was established and then again when the 1980 Zoning Ordinance
was adopted it was given this particular zoning district designation. So the uses have
already been established. For these types of projects that are in this condition this is
the second step. It is the approval of the application plan and the other documents that
are required. So the traffic impact statement is the sole thing that is still in need of
resolution at this point.
Mr. Franco said despite the fact that the land uses have been determined or set they
have the ability to go back and access the impacts for existing zoning because of the
lack of the application plan.
Mr. Kamptner replied in some applications. This one only the uses were established.
There was no prior site plan or anything else that established the intensity of the use.
So that has not yet been resolved. This one is a little bit different from some of the
others they have had in the past.
Mr. Morris asked would the letter from the traffic consultant suffice, as Mr. Lafferty
brought up.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it might. Zoning would need to determine whether or not that
satisfies and probably in consultant with VDOT, Joel DeNunzio, as to whether or not the
information that was provided was sufficient to satisfy that provision.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 17, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SUBMIT TO BOS
ZMA-2011-00010 ALBRECHT PLACE
7
Mr. Cilimberg noted that they would have to see what that letter included and the
information.
Mr. Loach asked if he had seen the data that was presented tonight and if he disagrees
with those numbers presented tonight or was it not extensive enough a study regardless
of what numbers they presented.
Ms. Grant replied without Mr. Brooks present it is safe to say the information that was
shared with the Commission from the consultant that Mr. Brooks feels that he needs
additional information.
Mr. Randolph added that they have the letter from Joel DeNunzio where he says his
main concern is the north bound left turns onto Route 29. Mr. Lafferty has already
raised that point and they don’t have that information. They have everything else. He
did not have any issue whatever with critical slopes in here given the historical nature of
how those critical slopes were developed in the past. His difficulties are the lack of
thorough transportation information in here. It is unfortunate that they don’t have that at
this point. With that information he would feel very positive towards this application.
Mr. Franco asked if they have any discretion here anyway if it is a requirement that
information be submitted do they have the ability to act on this anyway.
Mr. Kamptner said the Commission is making a recommendation to the Board. They
determined several years ago that this particular process is legislative in nature. So
there is some discretion ultimately with the Board as to whether to approve or not
approve the application plan and the other documents.
Mr. Morris asked if that could be made a part of a condition or a stipulation.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it could be a recommendation from the Commission that
issues a) and b) be addressed before this goes to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Morris said then it could be moved up anyway.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes. The other thing is that it is possible some of these issues
such as whether or not VDOT will grant an entrance permit that VDOT may need this
information anyway.
Mr. Cilimberg noted the entrances exist. So the question would be in a site plan
process would be VDOT might require for improvements at the entrances to the site.
Mr. Kamptner agreed. So at site plan stage the entrance issues and also the i nternal
circulation issues would have to be addressed anyway.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 17, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SUBMIT TO BOS
ZMA-2011-00010 ALBRECHT PLACE
8
Mr. Cilimberg noted what would not be addressable at a site plan stage would be
anything related to use or impacts off site that may be alleviated through some proffers.
Proffers are the only way to really address that. They c an’t do that in a site plan of
course without the traffic information. They don’t know if those proffers are necessary.
Mr. Loach said the practicality of this is if there is difficulty in getting out Route 29, but
they actually are not going to use 29 and go out the other route as pointed out by the
applicant as the preferred route.
Mr. Franco said he was torn because if the 527 Study is not required because it does
not meet the threshold then he tends to buy into the information the applicant supplied
us tonight as being satisfactory. He was just concerned if they move it forward that
engineering may not accept that.
Mr. Loach noted that it would go to the Board. They would see the same thing from
engineering. He asked if there would be enough time for VDOT to make a
determination.
Mr. Morris said the visit to the Board is to be determined
Mr. Cilimberg said that there is not a date set. Staff would not set a date until whatever
the Commission has included in their action has been addressed or the applicant says
that he is not going to do it and he wants to go to hearing with the Board. It is the
applicant’s choice.
Mr. Morris said they could as Mr. Kamptner said these must be addressed and it could
be addressed with the applicant, Ms. Grant and Joel DeNunzio.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that a deferral is at the discretion of the applicant. The
applicant can request you take action tonight and send it on and go from there with the
Board.
Mr. Franco said he was comfortable that the site plan process will address the
intermediate adjacent impacts. It may not address the left turns onto 29 or some of the
other 29 related impacts. That is where he leans back to the 527 Study requirements .
If it is not meeting that threshold he was not sure if he was that concerned about it,
especially given the fact that it has the zoning now and it is really just the application
plan. His tendency would be to move it forward without conditions. He thinks the
explanation that they have supplied the 1 percent or what they heard earlier about what
the traffic impacts would be.
Mr. Loach said they would move it forward with the letter as part of the packet going
forward to the Board from the applicant.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 17, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SUBMIT TO BOS
ZMA-2011-00010 ALBRECHT PLACE
9
Mr. Franco agreed that letter formalizes what was said here tonight and not to provide
additional information.
Motion on ZMA-2011-00010
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-
2011-00010 Albrecht Place with the following condition:
1. The applicant to provide letter from the traffic consultant reiterating what was said
at the July 17 meeting about the traffic impacts when this moves forward to the
Board.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Smith, Dotson absent)
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2011-00010 Albrecht Place would be forwarded to the Board
of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval with conditions at a time to be
determined.
Motion on Special Exception/Critical Slopes
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of the
special exception to allow disturbance of critical slopes associated with ZMA-2011-
00010.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Smith, Dotson absent)
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2011-00010 Albrecht Place would be forwarded to the Board
of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
Mr. Cilimberg noted for staff in getting that to the Board they will take the action tonight
to mean that they accept what was provided verbally tonight as satisfactorily addressing
the concern of transportation and traffic and that their letter is just to document that.
Mr. Morris and Mr. Franco agreed that was correct.
Mr. Lafferty noted it was a letter from the traffic consultant.
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2011-00010 Albrecht Place and the special exception for the
disturbance of critical slopes would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation for approval on a date to be determined.
Return to exec summary
ZMA 200900001 and SP201000003
BOS September 12, 2012
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA200900001 and SP201000003 5th Street-Avon
Center Amendment and Parking Structure
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to amend the proffers, application
plan, and development framework of approved
rezoning ZMA200600009. A special use permit
is proposed under Section 25.2.2 (3) of Zoning
Ordinance for Parking Structure. No dwellings
proposed.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
September 12, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On July 31, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the 5th Street-Avon Center rezoning and
special use permit requests. The Planning Commission, by votes of 7:0, recommended approval of ZMA200900001
based on the recommendations of staff, as amended, that the following outstanding issues related to the rezoning
are addressed prior to the Board approval:
1. The outstanding technical issues with proffers are fixed.
2. Stormwater/BMP facilities that are shown in the floodplain on the application plan are removed from the
floodplain.
3. Development Framework is revised to not include items that are already applicable per the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. Landfill remediation commitment is made as recommended by Zoning staff.
5. Additional funding is committed to adequately cover the anticipated cost of the Willoughby pedestrian bridge
and trail.
The applicant requested an amendment to change the proffer amount to $100,000 for the connection to
Willoughby with staff working out the proffer language.
The Planning Commission by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of SP201000003 with the following condition:
1. The special use permit approval shall not expire but shall remain in effect so long as the approval of ZMA
200900001 remains in effect.
The Planning Commission by a vote of 5:2 also recommended approval of the special exception for a critical slopes
waiver.
DISCUSSION:
The following describes how the applicant has addressed each outstanding issue:
1) The applicant and staff have worked to revise the proffers so that the outstanding technical issues are
addressed and the proffers are now legally acceptable per the Commission’s request. The applicant has
specifically worked with the City of Charlottesville to provide a more detailed example of improvements to
the 5th Street and Bent Creek Road intersection. As a result revisions to Exhibit IA and Proffer 1.A. are now
ZMA 200900001 and SP201000003
BOS September 12, 2012
Executive Summary Page 2
reflective of more recent traffic modeling completed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District for the
subject intersection. The applicant has also worked with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. to
satisfactorily provide new language to proffer 10 D. regarding the Owners commitment to specific roof
material in order to protect the view from Mont Alto. Neither staff nor the Commission requested this proffer
revision which was offered by the applicant to address concerns raised by the Foundation regarding the
viewshed from Mont Alto. (See Attachment II for revised proffers)
2) The stormwater/BMP facilities are still shown in the floodplain on the application plan; however, the
applicant has stated that they plan to request the floodplain boundary lines be adjusted, so that the
stormwater/BMP facilities will no longer be located in the floodplain. Staff would prefer that the application
plan not show improvements located within the floodplain until either the flood plain boundaries are
adjusted or a special use permit is submitted for wo rk in the floodplain. However, as long as it is recognized
that the Board’s action does not constitute any approval of activities in the flood plain, this issue would be
considered addressed. (See Attachment III for revised Application Plan)
3) The Development Framework has been revised to no longer include items that are already applicable per
the Zoning Ordinance. (See Attachment III)
4) The applicant and staff have agreed to revised proffer 8. B. which addresses the landfill remediation
commitment as recommended by Zoning staff.
5) The applicant has provided a revised proffer 4 that increases the proffer amount from $25,000 to
$100,000 for the connection to the Willoughby neighborhood. (See Attachment II)
Attachment IV includes staff review and comments regarding the critical slope waiver request, noting that
staff supports this general waiver request without conditions.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes all the outstanding issues identified by the Planning Commission have been addressed , provided
that the Board makes clear in its action that the application plan showing stormwater/BMP facilities in the flood
plain is not an implicit approval of the location for these facilities. Therefore staff recommends approval of
ZMA200900001.
Staff finds the special use permit request for a parking structure consistent with the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of SP201000003 with the following
condition:
1. The special use permit approval shall not expire bu t shall remain in effect so long as the approval of ZMA
200900001 remains in effect.
The special exception for a critical slopes waiver is also recommended for approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment I: Planning Commission staff report, dated July 31, 2012
Attachment II: Revised Proffers, dated September 4, 2012
Attachment III: Revised Application Plan, dated August 31, 2012
Attachment IV: Memorandum from Glenn Brooks, dated August 29, 2012
Planning Commission minutes
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
August 9, 2012
Valerie W. Long C/O Williams Mullen
321 E. Main Street, Suite 400
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
RE: ZMA200900001 Avon Center
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76/M1-2A, 76/M1-2B, 76/M1-4A, 77/11E
SP201000003 5th Street – Avon Center – Parking Structure
Tax Map 76M1, Parcels 2A, 2B, 4A
Dear Ms. Long:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 31, 2012, took the following actions
and recommended the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors.
Regarding ZMA200900001
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission recommends approval of ZMA-2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon
Center based on the recommendation of staff, as amended, that the following outstanding issues related
to the rezoning are addressed prior to the Board approval.
1. The outstanding technical issues with proffers are fixed.
2. Stormwater/BMP facilities that are shown in the floodplain on the application plan are removed from
the floodplain.
3. Development Framework is revised to not include items that are already applicable per the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. Landfill remediation commitment is made as recommended by Zoning staff.
5. Additional funding is committed to adequately cover the anticipated cost of the Willoughby pedestrian
bridge and trail.
Note: With the amendment made by the applicant to change the proffer amount to $100,000 for the
connection to Willoughby with staff working out the proffer language. It is recognized that staff’s
recommendations will also trigger revisions in the proffers.
Regarding SP201000003
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission finds the special use permit request (SP-2010-00003, 5th Street –
Avon Center – Parking Structure consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of SP-2010-00003 with the following condition:
1. The special use permit approval shall not expire but shall remain in effect so long as the approval of
ZMA 200900001 remains in effect.
In addition the Commission recommends approval, by a vote of 5:2, of the special exception for a critical
slopes waiver.
View staff report and attachments
Return to exec summary
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on September 12, 2012.
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,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon Center, SP 2010-00003, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 31, 2012
Staff Report, Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 200900001, 5th St.-Avon
Center Amendment and SP 201000003, 5th St.-
Avon Center Parking Structure
Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
July 31, 2012
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To be Determined
Owner(s): New Era Properties, LLC and Avon
Holdings, LLC
Applicant: New Era Properties, LLC and Avon
Holdings, LLC with Valerie Long of Williams Mullen as
the contact.
Acreage: 81.94 acres Rezone from: PD-SC, Planned Development
Shopping Center with proffers to PD-SC with
amended proffers, amended plan and amended
development framework. A special use permit is
proposed under Section 25.2.2(3) of zoning ordinance
for a parking structure.
TMP: 076M10000002A0, 076M10000002B0,
076M10000004A and 0770000000011E0
Location: Northeast quadrant of Interstate 64 and
Fifth Street Extended (Route 631) interchange,
bounded on the east by Avon Street Extended.
Access is via Bent Creek Road. (Attachments A and
B)
By-right use: The PD-SC district allows shopping
centers, retail sales and service uses; residential by
special use permit at a density of (15 units/acre).
Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers: Yes
Proposal: To amend the proffers, application plan,
and development framework of approved rezoning
ZMA200600009. A special use permit is proposed
under Section 25.2.2(3) of Zoning Ordinance for
Parking Structure. No dwellings proposed.
(Attachment C)
Requested # of Dwelling Units: None
DA (Development Area): Neighborhoods 4 and 5.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Community
Service/Mixed Use-community-scale retail wholesale,
business and medical offices, mixed use core
communities and/or employment services, and
residential (6.01-34 units/acre)
Character of Property: The majority of the site is
undeveloped with woodlands. An access road and
the former Grand Piano warehouse building are
both located on this property. An old landfill was
located on the eastern portion of the site.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Commercial uses
such as fast food restaurants are located adjacent in
the City. Industrial and commercial uses are located
adjacent to the site along Avon Street. The Willoughby
residential subdivision is located nearby as well as
Interstate-64.
Factors Favorable:
1. Bent Creek Parkway (Connector Road) will be
extended to connect 5th St. and Avon St.
2. Development of the property as a shopping
center is consistent with the land use
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Funding towards construction of greenway and
provision of transit service as recommended in
the Comprehensive Plan is provided.
4. Provides shopping and service alternatives for
the residents in this portion of the County and
City.
5. W ill provide employment opportunities and tax
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposed application plan does not provide
sufficient detail regarding proposed buildings
location and architecture to assure consistency
with the form recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the
currently approved plan for the development of
this property also does not meet all expectations
of the Comprehensive Plan regarding form,
although it does provide more specificity as to
architecture, building locations and building scale
in particular areas.
2. Commitments are substantially decreased from
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon Center, SP 2010-00003, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 31, 2012
Staff Report, Page 2
revenues to the County.
the prior rezoning with revised proffers for the
Willoughby pedestrian bridge and trail and transit
(either due to offers of cash instead of
construction or a reduction in the total amount of
funding offered for certain impacts).
3. The proffers are in need of technical revisions.
4. While a work plan with DEQ for the remediation of
the former City landfill is proffered, there remain
outstanding issues regarding the proffer
commitment.
5. Stormwater facilities are shown in the floodplain.
6. Special use permit for fill in the floodplain is still
needed for stream crossings to assure the
development can take place.
7. Development Framework needs technical
revision.
RECOMMENDATION: There remain several outstanding issues related to this rezoning, but staff can
recommend approval if the following are addressed:
1. The outstanding technical issues with proffers are fixed.
2. Stormwater/BMP facilities that are shown in the floodplain on the application plan are removed from
the floodplain.
3. Development Framework is revised to not include items that are already applicable per the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. Landfill remediation commitment is made as recommended by Zoning staff.
5. Additional funding is committed to adequately cover the anticipated cost of the Willoughby pedestrian
bridge and trail.
1.
2. Staff finds the special use permit request for a parking structure consistent with the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of SP201000003 without conditions.
3.
4. Staff recommends deferral of the critical slopes decision to be determined during the site plan process when
specific details regarding the development will be available.
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon Center, SP 2010-00003, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 31, 2012
Staff Report, Page 3
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: July 31, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th St. - Avon Center
SP 2010-00003, 5th St. - Avon Center Parking Structure
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA 2009-01/5th Street-Avon Center
PROPOSAL: To amend the proffers, application plan and development framework of approved
rezoning ZMA2006-00009, (changed to include application plan and development framework) which
rezoned 81.94 acres. PD-SC - Planned Development Shopping Center zoning district allows
shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; and residential by special use permit (15
units/acre). Approx. 470,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses proposed.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service/Mixed Use-
community-scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities
and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) Neighborhoods 4 & 5
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Northeast intersection of Interstate 64 and Fifth Street Extended (Rt 631), bounded on
the east by Avon Street Extended. Access is Bent Creek Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP076M10000002A0, 076M10000002B0, 076M10000004A, and
0770000000011E0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
PROJECT: SP2010-000003/5th Street - Avon Center - Parking Structure
PROPOSED: Parking Structure
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center -
shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/
acre)
SECTION: 25.2.2(3) Parking Structure
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service/Mixed Use-community-scale
retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment
services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) Neighborhoods 4 & 5
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Northeast intersection of Interstate 64 and Fifth Street Extended (Rt 631), bounded on
the east by Avon Street Extended. Access is Bent Creek Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP076M10000002A0, 076M10000002B0, and 076M10000004A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The property is located at the Northeast corner of the intersection of Interstate 64 and Fifth Street
Extended (Route 631). It is located in the Development Area and surrounded by a significant
amount of development. The property has an existing warehouse building on it, but is otherwise
undeveloped with woods and the Moore’s Creek. Uses adjacent to the site include commercial uses
such as fast food restaurants and gas stations. The Willoughby residential subdivision is also
located nearby as well as Interstate-64.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to amend the proffers, application plan, and development framework that
were approved with ZMA200600009 on May 12, 2008. The proffers, application plan and
development framework have been revised in order to make development of this project more cost
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon Center, SP 2010-00003, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 31, 2012
Staff Report, Page 4
effective and viable to construct. The result of this change would be to provide greater flexibility for
the location of buildings, associated parking and structures than previously provided with the
approved zoning. The connector road commitment remains as proposed with ZMA200600009,
providing an inter-connection between Fifth Street Extended (Route 631) and Avon Street Extended
(Route 742). The maximum square footage of gross floor area (sfgfa) for all uses in the total project
area remains unchanged at 470,000 sfgfa. The zoning district remains PD-SC. The development
framework is now incorporated into the Application Plan and describes the expected uses, design
elements and other additional details for the development. The proposed framework is similar to the
approved one, but now lacks expected design characteristics and provides less specificity regarding
the final location of uses and buildings within sections of the development. The framework also
includes items that are already covered by the Zoning Ordinance.
A special use permit has been concurrently submitted with the rezoning amendment requesting to
allow a parking structure within this development. (See Attachment C: Application Plan)
Staff comments regarding this proposal that are also addressed in this report are more specifically
detailed in Attachment D. The applicant has requested the Planning Commission public hearing in
lieu of receiving these comments and responding prior to a public hearing.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant has explained that the approved proffers are too restrictive for this site and require
the owner/perspective tenants to make financial and other commitments that will be difficult, if not
impossible, for them to implement. The applicant has acknowledged a lease commitment from a
large tenant for this development, but indicates there has been difficulty getting potential tenants to
commit to the specific buildings and locations within the site as required under the current zoning.
As a result, the application plan has been revised to provide more flexibility in how the site gets
developed and is not as definitive in terms of building locations in order to allow flexibility of site
development for tenants. The applicant believes these changes will make the site more marketable
to prospective tenants.
The applicant believes they will provide the following benefits to the Albemarle County community:
The construction and interconnection of Bent Creek Parkway (Connector Road).
The implementation of the DEQ approved work plan for the former City landfill and
remediation of this landfill.
Build a commercial development that will generate substantial revenue, and provide
shopping opportunities and alternatives for residents in the southern portion of the County,
thus alleviating some traffic issues in other portions of the County.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
The western portion of the property is part of the original Willoughby farm, and in the 1960’s and
1970’s it was designated for a major shopping center. From 1975-85 it was part of the Willoughby
Planned Unit Development. In 1985, ZMA 85-15 was approved with proffers, rezoning 49.377 acres
to LI. In 1989, ZMA 89-14 was approved with proffers, adding 4.516 acres to the LI district.
During the 1995-96 review and update of the Land Use Plan, the recommendation for Industrial
Service remained unchanged. In 1997 a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was requested from
Industrial Service to Regional Service (the Brass, Inc. proposal, CPA 97-05). After a series of public
meetings and joint sessions with the City of Charlottesville, the Planning Commission
recommended to the Board of Supervisors a designation of Community Service/Mixed Use. The
Board subsequently further refined the recommended Comprehensive Plan language, and was
prepared to adopt it at its September 15, 1999 meeting. Prior to the meeting, the applicant withdrew
the project and the recommended language was never adopted.
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon Center, SP 2010-00003, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 31, 2012
Staff Report, Page 5
On July 8, 2003, a revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 03-02) was submitted and the
Planning Commission held the first of three worksessions regarding the request. The revised
request included the Avon Street and Grand Piano property, which expanded the project area by
30.48 acres. The Avon Street property was formerly the City landfill. At its meeting on September
8, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted Comprehensive plan language to be added to the
Neighborhood 4 Profile. This property is currently designated Community Service/Mixed Use in the
Comprehensive Plan.
After a series of worksessions and public hearings, the Board of Supervisors approved
ZMA200600009, 5th Street-Avon Center and SP200700004, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking
Structure on March 12, 2008. This rezoning allowed a regional scale shopping center to be
developed.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan designates the project area as Community Service/Mixed
Use. The intent of this designation is to fulfill a “town center” role by providing a commercial and
employment focal point within Neighborhoods 4 and 5. There are some commercial uses to the
immediate west in the City and existing residential neighborhoods nearby. Neighborhoods 4 and 5
do not have a “commercial center.” While the primary intent for this area is to provide retail and
employment opportunities, a diversity of other uses such as industrial/light industrial, residential,
and public amenities could also be considered as appropriate for this site. Maintaining this area’s
compatibility with the scale and character of the adjacent and nearby City and County
neighborhoods is important. The Comprehensive Plan also explains that because of the location of
this property between three entrance corridors and at the confluence of Biscuit Run and Moore’s
Creek, this site is of high aesthetic and environmental sensitivity and importance.
Open Space Plan:
The Open Space Plan identifies major and locally important stream valleys and adjacent critical
slopes as significant environmental resources located on this site. There are also floodplains,
wooded areas and sensitive soils located on the property as well. The plan shows a stream valley
trail/greenway adjacent to Moore’s Creek. The trail is located around the border or outer edges of
the site and wraps around the west and north sides of the site. Protection of these environmental
resources is an important element of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Neighborhood Model:
Because there are specific recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan regarding this area,
amended into the Plan in 2004, the principles of the Neighborhood model are not fully applicable to
this development. Principles that are generally provided for include some pedestrian
accommodations, interconnected streets and transportation networks, parks and open space, and
neighborhood centers.
Attachment E compares how the approved and proposed rezoning requests conform to the
Comprehensive Plan recommendations relevant to this proposal.
Summary: In general, staff believes the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
recommendations for this site regarding proposed land uses and “public” improvements, specifically
the construction of the connector road, greenway, open space and wooded buffers (along EC
Corridors),and provision of transit (although the funding commitment to transit has been significantly
reduced) . The new proposal provides less detail as to expected form of development which
reduces the assurance that the desired form will be provided (relegation of parking from street,
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon Center, SP 2010-00003, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 31, 2012
Staff Report, Page 6
building orientation to streets, and a site design that fosters a higher level of pedestrian orientation
within the overall site than would occur under a conventional form of commercial development). In
addition, the lack of specific detail regarding site development and building/ parking locations
makes it difficult at this time to determine the ultimate impact of site development to the Entrance
Corridors. It should be noted that the currently approved plan for the development of this property
also does not meet all expectations of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the form of development.
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 proposed 5th Street - Avon Center (shopping center) would support the Plan by providing
additional employment, retail, office, and service uses for the residents who live in this portion of the
County.
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:
Planned Development Shopping Center (PD-SC) Districts are intended to provide for the
development of neighborhood, community and regional shopping centers. Developments
with a broad range of commercial and service facilities are encouraged within planned
commercial centers with carefully organized buildings, service, parking, and landscaped
areas. The PD-SC district should have direct access to public streets and be able to
accommodate the traffic generated by the development.
This project is consistent with the intent of the PD-SC district as the proposed commercial uses
within this development will provide appropriate services and activities on a neighborhood,
community and regional scale and provides through access to both 5th St. and Avon St.
A special use permit under Section 24.2.2(3) of zoning ordinance for a parking structure is needed
for the shopping center facility. Staff opinion is that the use of a structure is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance, and is an appropriate use for this site.
Staff believes this proposal meets the intent of the PD-SC.
Public need and justification for the change:
The County’s Comprehensive Plan supports development in the designated development areas
that is consistent with use, density, and form recommended in the Plan. The addition of a shopping
center in this portion of the County would be beneficial for residents who live in this portion of the
County by providing shopping opportunities not currently available.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources:
The applicant has provided proffers that address many of the environmental and historic impacts.
However, the following environmental issues remain a concern:
The critical slopes waiver request that was submitted is based on a different application plan
than what is now a part of this proposal. The important elements for evaluation of a critical
slopes waiver are not specifically shown, leaving insufficient information for the engineering
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon Center, SP 2010-00003, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 31, 2012
Staff Report, Page 7
staff to review the waiver request. Engineering and Planning staff believe the critical slopes
waiver request will be best reviewed when specific details of the plan are provided during
the site plan review process. (See Attachment I)
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is very clear with regard to the need for protecting, to
the extent possible, the floodplains, streams and wooded areas located on this site. Proffers
have been provided regarding a commitment to build the connector road from Fifth Street to
Avon Street. The Bent Creek connector road crosses the 100 year floodplain in at least one
location, including the crossing of Moores Creek. A special use permit will be needed for fill
in the floodplain, as an upgrade to the existing bridge over Moore’s Creek will be needed,
and potentially for a second stream/floodplain crossing. The applicant has not submitted a
special use permit application for this work. It is preferable to review special permits which
are needed to develop in conjunction with the associated rezoning request; however this is
not a requirement of the County. Staff notes that any approval of the rezoning does not
assure approval of the special use permit for work in the floodplain.
Stormwater facilities are shown within the floodplain. Staff does not believe stormwater
facilities should be located in the floodplain and the application plan should be revised to not
show stormwater facilities in the floodplain.
The proffers specifically describe the need for a work plan with DEQ inclusive of a landfill
remediation plan. Although the work plan is not needed in conjunction with this rezoning
amendment request, it is still in need of resolution as explained on page four (4) in
Attachment D.
There are no impacts on cultural resources.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets:
The primary impact will be on Fifth Street and Bent Creek Road in the City of Charlottesville and
Avon Street. The applicant has provided proffers intended to address the impacts to these streets.
These generally address impacts that need to be addressed with this rezoning. It should be noted
that there are road design matters that will need to be addressed with site development.
See Attachment D for City comment and Attachment F for VDOT comment.
Schools:
No residential units are proposed, so no impacts are expected on the schools.
Fire and Rescue:
A portion of the site (eastern boundary) is covered by the Monticello Fire/Rescue Station off Mill
Creek Drive, and the majority of the site will be covered by the City Fire/Rescue station.
Utilities:
The site will be serviced by public water and sewer. The following comments have been identified
by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA):
Section 7 of the proffers (Moores Creek Erosion and Buffer Projects) for the above project
describes work which would include stream bank restoration and stream channel
stabilization. This work would likely have significant impact on the existing RWSA
Interceptor, which is located along the north bank of Moores Creek. The proffers mention an
“Exhibit A” prepared by CH2MHill in 2004, which shows the areas within the Property on the
City side of Moore’s Creek which would be impacted by the erosion and buffer projects.
RWSA understands that a scope and schedule will be submitted with the first final site plan
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon Center, SP 2010-00003, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 31, 2012
Staff Report, Page 8
submission. RWSA would like to have as much information about this project as soon as
possible so that RWSA can resolve any conflicts early in the site plan review process.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) comments are attached (Attachment G).
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
Surrounding properties are already experiencing a change in character with new development that
has occurred in this area. The existing Willoughby subdivision located to the north of the Fifth
Street-Avon Center project will experience the changes of this site’s wooded character with
development under the prior approved rezoning as well as this proposal.
This amendment to the zoning does not substantially change the overall development envelope or
the open space features provided between the Willoughby subdivision and the developed portions
of the site from that approved with the prior rezoning. Because of the lack of specificity regarding
building locations, it is possible that some buildings may be constructed somewhat closer to the
Bent Creek connector road, but the same open space and greenway areas are still provided on the
proposed plan as were shown on the previously approved plan.
This portion of the County will experience more traffic with the proposed 5th Street-Avon Center
development. However, anticipated proffers, proximity to Interstate 64, an additional interconnected
road with other transportation systems/networks, such as bike/ped options, will help alleviate major
transportation impacts.
PROFFERS
The applicant has provided revised proffers. (See Attachment H) Many of the proffer revisions have
been provided for clarification and technical fixes. The following describes major changes to the
proffers:
Proffer 1. C. Bent Creek Parkway from Bent Creek Road to Avon Street (Excluding the
Landfill Segment): This proffer continues to describe that the Owner intends to construct the
Parkway to be a rural section in design without curb and gutter. Revisions to this proffer provide that
the Owner will construct the Parkway as an urban cross section with curb and gutter if VDOT does
not approve the Parkway as a the rural section without curb and gutter or if the County Board of
Supervisors does not grant any waiver allowing the Parkway to be a rural section without curb and
gutter. This proffer is also revised to say once the owner completes the portion of Bent Creek
Parkway which excludes the landfill segment the Owner shall dedicate this portion of the Parkway
as a public road within sixty days after the written request of the County. The approved proffer
dedicated the same section of Bent Creek Parkway with the approval of the initial final site plan for
the Property.
Proffer 1. D. 6. Remediation and reopening in the event of closure: Language has been added
to allow the businesses to continue operating in the event the Landfill Segment of Bent Creek
Parkway is temporarily closed.
Proffer 1. F. 3. Transportation Proffers Compliance: The City of Charlottesville expressed
concern that the approved proffer said that the Owner is not required to acquire right-of-way or
otherwise pay for right-of-way in the City for improvements. The proffer is revised to say that the
owner will reimburse the City of its costs if the City acquires right-of-way in the City for
improvements.
Proffer 2. Greenway Dedication: Instead of the Owner constructing and dedicating the Greenway
trail as shown on the Application Plan to the County, this proffer has been revised to permit
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon Center, SP 2010-00003, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 31, 2012
Staff Report, Page 9
construction of the trail by the County with funds proffered to the County. Parks and Recreation staff
have commented that this change is acceptable.
Proffer 3. Dedication for Greenway Park; Cash Contribution for Greenway Trail, Greenway
Park and Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan: Instead of the Owner submitting a master plan for and
constructing a Greenway Park and Bike/Ped system, this proffer has been revised to describe the
Owner providing a cash contribution to the County in the amount of $250,000 for funding the
construction of the Greenway Trail, master plan for the development and construction of the
Greenway Park and a Bike/Pedestrian system. Parks and Recreation staff have commented that
this change is acceptable.
Proffer 4. Cash Contribution for Pedestrian Link to Willoughby Subdivision: Instead of the
owner constructing the “Willoughby Link”, this proffer has been revised to commit the owner to
provide a cash contribution to the County in the amount of $25,000 for construction by the County
of a pedestrian path or trail connecting the development to the Willoughby Subdivision. This is a
concern for staff as the cost of such a connection is estimated to be approximately $100,000.
Proffer 5. Tree Conservation Areas: The approved proffer stated that the Owner would replace
trees that must be removed in the areas shown on the plan as Conservation Areas that lie within
the Greenway Park. At one time prior to the rezoning approval, there was a plan that showed the
Greenway Park located in the Conservation Area. The Greenway Park was relocated prior to the
rezoning approval to the location shown on the application plan out of the conservation area. The
applicant and staff realized that this proffer language was no longer applicable and the proffer has
been revised accordingly.
Proffer 6. LEED Standards: for Core & Shell Development: Generally, this proffer language has
been revised to be appropriately updated with changes in the industry.
Proffer 8. Former Landfill Site; Work Plan; Department of Environmental Quality: This proffer
has not been changed. However, staff has recommended that the applicant revise this proffer to
include County Engineer review and approval of the landfill work plan. DEQ has explained that the
landfill area is an unregulated landfill and is not subject to full regulation under the landfill closure
standards. The County is requesting the applicant to treat the landfill area according to the
requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance (Section 5.1.28(a) (4)) standards, which is normal
County procedure for projects of this type. (See page four (4) of Attachment D for additional details)
Proffer 10. B. and C. Stormwater Quality Management and Revegetation: This proffer has been
revised to be in accordance with the County’s Water Protection Ordinance and the revised
Application Plan. The concern with this proffer is that the stormwater/BMP facility is shown in the
floodplain which is not supported by staff.
Proffer 10. D. Rainfall Harvesting and Roof Design: This proffer has been revised to replace the
requirement for at least 25% of the roofs within the Project to employ extensive green roofs with a
requirement for rainfall harvesting elements and the use of energy efficient roofing materials for all
buildings within the Project. This revision will be easier for the applicant to fulfill.
Proffer 11. Architectural Guidelines: This proffer has been eliminated in lieu of the ARB
guidelines, which cover the major elements described in the proffer.
Proffer 12. Transit Funding: The approved proffer described the Owner making a cash contribution
to the County after the provision of public transit service to the Property. The funding for this proffer
was to be made through assessments administered by the Owner based on twenty cents ($.20) per
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon Center, SP 2010-00003, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 31, 2012
Staff Report, Page 10
square foot of net rentable commercial space per year and adjusted annually which would help fund
on-going service. The revised proffer describes the Owner contributing a one-time $100,000 cash
contribution to the County prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the
Project which will not pay for on-going service. The applicant justifies this change as being
equivalent to commitments for public transit made to the County with other projects. This amount is
consistent with the Albemarle Place/Stonefield proffer. Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) has not
otherwise commented regarding this reduction.
Proffer 13. Phasing of Development: This proffer has been eliminated since the development was
not proposed to be phased.
Proffer 13. Architectural Consistency: This proffer replaces the previous proffer 13 and describes
that buildings within the Project will have a consistent architectural theme.
One additional proffer request that has not been provided regards the Monticello viewshed. The
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. (The Foundation) has requested the applicant consider
following the Monticello viewshed Guidelines as this site would be most visible from Montalto. The
County has previously requested applicants to consider proffers regarding the Monticello viewshed
Guidelines for projects located in the Pantops area of the County and visible from Monticello.
Because this site is not visible from Monticello, staff has not noted that this proffer is necessary.
(See Attachment D, pages 5-6)
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. Bent Creek Parkway (Connector Road) will be extended to connect 5th St. and Avon St.
2. Development of the property as a shopping center is consistent with the land use
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Funding towards construction of greenway and provision of transit service as recommended
in the Comprehensive Plan is provided.
4. Provides shopping and service alternatives for the residents in this portion of the County and
City.
5. Will provide employment opportunities and tax revenues to the County.
Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning:
1. The proposed application plan does not provide sufficient detail regarding proposed
buildings location and architecture to assure consistency with the form recommended in t he
Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the currently approved plan for the
development of this property also does not meet all expectations of the Comprehensive Plan
regarding form, although it does provide more specificity as to architecture, building
locations and building scale in particular areas.
2. Commitments are substantially decreased from the prior rezoning with revised proffers for
Willoughby pedestrian bridge and trail, and transit (either due to offers of cash instead of
construction or a reduction in the total amount of funding offered for certain impacts).
3. The proffers are in need of technical revisions.
4. While a work plan with DEQ for the remediation of the former City landfill is proffered, there
remain outstanding issues regarding the proffer commitment.
5. Stormwater facilities are shown in the floodplain.
6. Special use permit for fill in the floodplain is still needed for stream crossings to assure the
development can take place.
7. Development Framework needs technical revision.
RECOMMENDATION
There remain several outstanding issues related to this rezoning, but staff can recommend approval if the
following are addressed:
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon Center, SP 2010-00003, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 31, 2012
Staff Report, Page 11
1. The outstanding technical issues with proffers are fixed.
2. Stormwater/BMP facilities that are shown in the floodplain on the application plan are
removed from the floodplain.
3. Development Framework is revised to not include items that are already applicable per the
Zoning Ordinance.
4. Landfill remediation commitment is made as recommended by Zoning staff.
5. Additional funding is committed to adequately cover the anticipated cost of the Willoughby
pedestrian bridge and trail.
Staff finds the special use permit request for a parking structure consistent with the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of SP201000003 without conditions.
Staff recommends deferral of the critical slopes decision to be determined during the site plan process when
specific details regarding the development will be available.
Staff Comment on SP 201000003-Request for Parking Structure Use in the PD-SC
Planned Development Shopping Center District
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The proposed parking structure use is not expected to have extreme impacts on the adjacent
properties. The exact location of the parking structure is not known but will be within the buildable
areas. The parking structure use may create some elevated noise when in use, but probably not
any more than the adjacent highway.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
A parking structure use in a shopping center is not believed to change the character of the PD-SC
zoning district. The use of a parking structure in many ways is a complimentary use for a shopping
center. It is somewhat minimal in nature and can alleviate the sea of parking created from a large
surface parking lot.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
The PD-SC district has characteristics that tend to be large scale commercial in nature. A
parking structure use is in keeping with a shopping center. The proposed parking structure
use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
This area contains a wide mix of existing uses; some small to medium scale strip
commercial development and some residential uses. The parking structure use seems
appropriate with the permitted by right uses in the district.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance?
Section 5.1.41 Parking Lots and Parking Structures is applicable to the proposed use and the
regulation is states the following: “A site plan shall be required for each parking lot and parking
structure, unless the requirement is waived as provided in section 32.2.2.” A waiver has not been
requested. A site plan will be expected.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is
approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the
special use permit process which assures that the proposed use is appropriate in the
location requested. There are no safety concerns with the proposed parking structure use.
SUMMARY
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon Center, SP 2010-00003, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 31, 2012
Staff Report, Page 12
Staff has identified the following factor favorable to this request:
1. The use of a parking structure will provide an alternative to the “sea” of parking that
could otherwise result from surface parking.
Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff finds that this request generally complies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan, and recommends approval of SP201000003 without conditions.
Staff recommends deferral of the special exception to disturb critical slopes to be determined during
the site plan process when more detailed information is submitted regarding the proposed
development.
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 2009-00001, 5th St.-Avon Center based on the
recommendation of staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2009-00001, 5th St.-Avon Center. Should a commissioner
motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Special Use Permit:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2010-00003, 5th St.-Avon Center – Parking Structure.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP 201000003, 5th St.-Avon Center – Parking Structure
Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for
recommending denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Special Critical Slopes:
Move to recommend deferral of the special exception to disturb critical slopes as
recommended by staff.
ATTACHMENT A: Tax Map
ATTACHMENT B: Location Map
ATTACHMENT C: Application Plan, dated June 6, 2012
ATTACHMENT D: Outstanding staff comments
ATTACHMENT E: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Comparison Table
ATTACHMENT F: Electronic Mail from Joel DeNunzio, dated June 22, 2012
ZMA 2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon Center, SP 2010-00003, 5th Street-Avon Center Parking Structure
Planning Commission Public Hearing, July 31, 2012
Staff Report, Page 13
ATTACHMENT G: Electronic Mail from Alexander Morrison, dated June 21, 2012
ATTACHMENT H: Revised/Blackline proffers dated June 6, 2012
ATTACHMENT I: Special Exception to Disturb Critical Slopes
ATTACHMENT J: Critical Slopes Waiver Request from Valerie Long, dated February 16, 2010
Return to exec summary
I-64 E
I-64 W HARRIS RDAVON STREET EXTROYER DR5TH STQUINCE LNF I E L D I N G DR
FOXVALE LN
LANDIN CIR
FOXCHASE RDGSHALE PLCHANDLER CTR OL LING VALLEY
C
T
OLTON PL
PEPPER PL TOWLER PLPEREGORY LN
HARRI S RDAVON STREET EXT¡742¡631
§¨¦64
76M1-2B
77-11E76M1-4A
7
6
M
1-2
A
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, July 2012.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2011 0 400 800200Feet
4' Contours
Roads
Buildings
Driveways
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcels of Interest$
ZMA 2009-001 / SP 2010-0035th Street - Avon Center
City ofCharlottesville
AVON STREET EXTFOXVALE LN
FOXCHASE RDGROLLING VALLEY C
T
PEREGORY LN
IVY RD
RICHMOND RD
SCOTTSVILLE RDMONACAN TRAIL R D
TH
O
M
AS JEFFERSON PKWY
OLD LYNCHBURG RDSTONY POINT RD5 T H ST¡702
¡729
¡601
¡762
}ÿ53}ÿ20
£¤250
§¨¦64
§¨¦64
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, July 2012.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2011 0 4,000 8,0002,000 Feet
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcels of Interest$
ZMA 2009-001 / SP 2010-0035th Street - Avon Center
City ofCharlottesville
ATTACHMENT E
Abbreviated
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA)
Approved Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
Proposed Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
Neighborhood Four
Profile
It is intended to fulfill a
“town center” role by
providing a commercial
and employment focal
point within
Neighborhoods 4 and 5.
Provides primarily retail
and employment, also
provides professional
office, open space,
greenway trail and
parkland, public
amenities. Does not
provide industrial, light
industrial, residential,
live/work.
Provides primarily retail
and employment, also
provides professional
office and open space.
Proffer of cash towards
greenway trail/parkland
development. Does not
provide public
amenities, industrial,
light industrial,
residential, live/work.
Environmental
Protection
A. Preserve existing
vegetation, especially
exemplary specimen or
old growth trees, rock
formations sloping
down to the existing
roads, natural features
as a visual buffer.
A. Some preservation of
existing vegetation, old
growth trees and
natural features as a
visual buffer will be
done. Rock formation is
preserved.
A. Some preservation of
existing vegetation, old
growth trees and
natural features as a
visual buffer will be
done. Rock formation
not preserved.
B. Protect bluffs and
riparian forest along
existing access
road/Moore’s Creek
corridor.
B. Bluffs and riparian
forest appear to be
protected. Grading
along access road could
make this protection
difficult.
B. Bluffs and riparian
forest appear to be
protected. Grading
along access road could
make this protection
difficult.
C. Retain streams and
stream buffers.
C. A stream crossing will
be needed for Bent
Creek Parkway. Special
Use Permit is needed
for this activity.
C. A stream crossing will
be needed for Bent
Creek Parkway. Special
Use Permit is needed
for this activity.
D. Greenway along
Biscuit Run and Moore’s
Creek.
D. Greenway trails are
proposed for areas
along Biscuit Run and
Moore’s Creek.
Applicant proffers to
construct the trail.
D. Greenway trails are
proposed for areas
along Biscuit Run and
Moore’s Creek. A cash
contribution toward
construction has been
proffered. County has
to construct the trail
and pay any additional
ATTACHMENT E
Abbreviated
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA)
Approved Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
Proposed Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
costs above and beyond
the contribution.
E. Preserve and
enhance the existing
vegetated buffer
adjacent to I-64
corridor.
E. Plan shows
enhancement of the
buffer adjacent to I-64
corridor.
E. Plan shows
enhancement of the
buffer adjacent to I-64
corridor.
F. Floodplain area
northeast of Biscuit Run
and Moore’s Creek
should become public
open space.
F. Passive open space
and trailhead park is
shown to be built by
applicant on the plan
east of the Biscuit Run
and Moore’s Creek
confluence.
F. Passive open space
and trailhead park is
shown east of the
Biscuit Run and Moore’s
Creek confluence. Park
will not be built by
applicant. Cash
contribution provided.
SWM/BMP Facility is
shown in the floodplain
area.
G. Should incorporate
principles of low impact
development and
sustainable design.
G. Proffers provided to
address low impact
development and
sustainable design.
G. Proffers provided to
address low impact
development and
sustainable design.
Transportation
H. Collaboration
between government
agencies, and neighbors
to develop an
integrated
transportation system.
H. Integrated
transportation system
has been achieved
through proffers.
H. Integrated
transportation system
has been achieved
through proffers.
I. Integrated
transportation system
should include:
roadway
improvements,
pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and site design
to accommodated mass
transportation.
I. A proffer is provided
for roadway
improvements and
dedication for the
greenway park, trail,
and bike/pedestrian
Master Plan. Proffer is
also provided for
continuous transit
funding.
I. A proffer is provided
for roadway
improvements and
dedication for the
greenway park, trail,
and bike/pedestrian
Master Plan. Proffer for
transit funding is
reduced to one time
contribution of
$100,000.
ATTACHMENT E
Abbreviated
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA)
Approved Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
Proposed Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
J. As the site is
developed a connection
from Fifth Street
Extended to Avon
Street Extended via the
Bent Creek Bridge
should be constructed.
J. Proffers are provided
that commit to the
development of this
connection.
J. Proffers are provided
that commit to the
development of this
connection.
K. The existing road
should become a
parkway along Moore’s
Creek.
K. The existing road is
proffered to be a rural
section in order to
protect the stream
buffer.
K. The existing road is
proffered to be a rural
section in order to
protect the stream
buffer.
L. There should be a
new road designed as a
main commercial street
traversing the town
center. The road should
have design elements
pertinent to the
Neighborhood Model.
There should be second
road for service traffic
at the southern portion
of the site.
L. Two commercial
streets traversing the
town center with
elements of the
Neighborhood Model
are shown on the
conceptual plan. A third
road is shown at the
southern portion of the
site.
L. A commercial street
traversing the town
center with elements of
the Neighborhood
Model is shown on the
plan. A second road is
shown at the southern
portion of the site.
M. The intersection of
existing and new roads
with Bent Creek Bridge
should be designed to
avoid or minimize
disturbance to the 100
year flood plain, stream
buffer and the
preserved areas located
above and to the east of
it.
M. The intersection of
the existing and new
roads with Bent Creek
Bridge is designed with
A traffic circle and the
preservation of the rock
outcropping.
M. The intersection of
the existing and new
roads with Bent Creek
Bridge is designed as a
T-intersection.
N. Pedestrian bridge to
be constructed
between the south side
of Moore’s Creek and
the Willoughby
neighborhood.
N. A proffer is provided
with commitment to
construction of the
Willoughby Pedestrian
link if the Owner can
obtain right-of-way.
N. Applicant has revised
proffer to provide a
$25,000 cash
contribution for
pedestrian link to
Willoughby Subdivision.
ATTACHMENT E
Abbreviated
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA)
Approved Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
Proposed Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
Land Use
O. Development should
achieve moderate to
high levels of density.
Employment
opportunities via light
industrial uses and/or
flex space are
encouraged.
O. This proposal is for a
regional shopping
center. Light Industrial
uses, nor flex space
appear to be intended
for this development.
O. This proposal is for a
regional shopping
center. Light Industrial
uses, nor flex space
appear to be intended
for this development.
P. Development on the
site may balance retail
with employment-
based uses and other
land uses.
P. This is difficult to
determine since we do
not know the entire
tenant base.
P. This is difficult to
determine since we do
not know the entire
tenant base.
Q. Residential,
live/work and/or small
professional office uses
are recommended
along the northern edge
of the town center.
Q. The proposal does
not provide for
residential, or live/work
opportunities.
Q. The proposal does
not provide for
residential, or live/work
opportunities.
R. Western commercial
area is to be a compact,
high density area which
mixes retail businesses,
services, public facilities
and civic spaces.
Buildings should be
oriented to major
roads; designed, sized
and massed with
consideration for
adjacent and nearby
smaller uses in the
Center and on the
larger site; and parking
should be relegated to
the greatest extent
possible.
R. The approved plan
showed buildings and
building zones. The
approved Development
Framework identified
planned uses for the
various sections shown
on the plan. Buildings
have an internal
orientation as opposed
to an orientation to
Bent Creek Parkway.
The Development
Framework provided
some information that
gave a sense of design,
size and mass of
proposed buildings.
Parking is not relegated
from Bent Creek
Parkway. The plan and
development
R. It is difficult to
determine the mix of
uses, not knowing what
uses will end up in the
development. It is also
difficult to determine if
buildings are oriented
to major roads;
designed, sized and
massed with
consideration of other
nearby uses because we
do not know the
specific location of
buildings and parking.
We have envelopes, so
we have general
information of location,
but is parking
relegated?
ATTACHMENT E
Abbreviated
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA)
Approved Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
Proposed Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
framework provide a
general sense of where
the parking structure is
to be located.
S. Description of
architecture, urban
design and landscape
treatment of the
Property should be
integrated to ensure
visual interest, massing,
scale and organization
of the development.
Maximum building
footprints (excluding
garden centers, outside
sales and display,
awnings, storage areas
and grocery stores), the
largest single big box
footprint should not
exceed 150,000 s.f. A
grocery store is not
considered a big box.
S. Proffers, the
Application Plan and
the Development
Framework provide
guidance regarding
architecture, urban
design and landscape
treatment.
S. The submitted plan
does not provide
enough information to
determine if this
Comprehensive Plan
description is met.
T. Maximum total s.f. of
big box structures
defined as those having
a greater than 75,000
s.f. (exclude garden
centers, outside sales
and display, awnings,
storage areas, and
grocery stores) is
300,000 s.f. A grocery
store is not considered
a big box. If the big box
is developed in a two-
story or greater
configuration, this
limitation may be
T. The Development
Framework describes
the maximum square
footage of gross floor
area (sfgfa) for all uses
in the total project area
to be 470,000 sfgfa.
T. The Development
Framework describes
the maximum square
footage of gross floor
area (sfgfa) for all uses
in the total project area
to be 470,000 sfgfa.
This remains unchanged
from the approved
rezoning.
ATTACHMENT E
Abbreviated
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA)
Approved Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
Proposed Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
adjusted upward.
U. Preference will be
given to proposals that
maximize the range and
mixture of uses, along
with a phasing plan that
assures a mixture of
uses and addresses all
parts of the site during
the development of the
project.
U. The approved
rezoning did not
maximize the range and
mixture of uses. It does
include a phasing plan.
U. The approved
rezoning did not
maximize the range and
mixture of uses. There
is no longer a phasing
plan. Staff suggested
the applicant eliminate
the phasing plan that
was proposed because
it did not phase any of
the development.
Public Space and Public
Facilities/Amenities
V. Provision should be
made on the site for
transit service and a
park and ride facility.
V. The proffers and
application plan
provided transit service
and a park and ride
facility.
V. The proffers now
provide a decrease in
funding for transit
service. The applicant is
proffering a one-time
$100,000 contribution.
A park and ride facility
is still proposed for the
site.
W. At least ten percent
of the gross site acreage
should be devoted to
amenities and 15
percent should be
preserved or created as
green space. Public
amenities can be paved
areas, such as plazas,
courtyards or patios,
landscaped areas such
as parks or water
features and/or natural
areas left largely in their
undisturbed state.
Preserved areas should
count toward both
W. At least ten percent
of the gross site acreage
is devoted to amenities
and at least 15 percent
is preserved or created
as green space. Public
amenities are also
provided within the
development.
W. At least ten percent
of the gross site acreage
is devoted to amenities
and at least 15 percent
is preserved or created
as green space. It is
difficult to determine if
public amenities are
provided due to the lack
of detail on plan,
proffers, and
development
framework.
ATTACHMENT E
Abbreviated
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA)
Approved Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
Proposed Rezoning
Compared with CPA
(Items in red are not
consistent with
CPA/outstanding
issues)
amenity and green
space percentages.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Date: 29 Aug 2012
Subject: 5th Street - Avon Center (ZMA2009-1) critical slope waiver request
The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
This is a large site with critical slopes along Moores Creek, Route 64, and internal to the site. Please refer
to the exhibit supplied by the applicant, and included below.
Areas Acres (numbers supplied by
applicant)
Total site 77.4 (parcels 76-2B, 76-4A,
and 77-11E)
Critical slopes 21.8 28% of site
Critical slopes disturbed 13.6 62% of critical slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable
alternative locations:
Some of the disturbances, such as the connector road, would be exempt, were it possible to separate out
these disturbances. However, the entire plan will go to public hearing as part of a concept plan for a
rezoning.
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18-4.2:
“movement of soil and rock”
Proper slope construction, control of drainage and vegetative stabilization may prevent movement of
soil. It is not known whether improvements could be made to the grading plan or erosion and
sediment control plans in this regard, as this is only a concept plan at this time.
“excessive stormwater runoff”
Stormwater runoff is proposed to be controlled by stormwater management on the concept plan. It is
not yet known if any of the development or roads may be impractical to capture, or if improvements
could be made to plans to reduce runoff further. It has been noted that facilities proposed in the
floodplain of Moore’s Creek may be prone to flood damage, and placement in the floodplain is not
recommended. It is also noteworthy that detention may be impractical due to timing with the flood
peaks along Moores Creek.
“siltation”
Inspection and bonding by the County will help with siltation control during construction. Proper
stabilization and maintenance may ensure long term stability. The work in close proximity to Moores
Creek and in the floodplain will be a risk for siltation during construction should flooding occur. The
grading plan and erosion and sediment control plan will detail how siltation is to be controlled.
“loss of aesthetic resource”
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
This area is visible from 5th Street, Avon Street, Route 64, and Willoughby. Much of it has been
graded in the past.
“septic effluent”
This area is serviced by public sewer.
Based on the review above, this is a very general plan allowing all disturbances within the envelope of the
development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the critical slopes waiver as necessary
for the zoning plan. Following the Planning Commission’s recommendation, it is recommended that an
approval be general.
The lines shown on the exhibit are general, and it will not be possible to physically locate them on the
ground, or on final plans. Actual limits of disturbance required under the erosion and sediment control
regulations may differ. Final plans and construction may go outside concept lines in areas, and this should
be understood in the approval.
Return to agenda
file: E1_csw_GEB_5thStreetAvon.doc
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 31, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 31,
2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris ,
Chairman; Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice-Chair; Ed Smith and Bruce Dotson. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner;
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Amelia McCulley,
Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development;
and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
ZMA-2009-00001 5th Street-Avon Center (Signs # 2, 3 & 5)
PROPOSAL: To amend the proffers, application plan and development framework of
approved rezoning ZMA-2006-00009, (changed to include application plan and
development framework) which rezoned 81.94 acres. PD -SC - Planned Development
Shopping Center zoning district allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses;
and residential by special use permit (15 units/acre). Approx. 470,000 sq. ft. of
commercial uses proposed.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service/Mixed
Use-community-scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core
communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01 -34 units/acre)
Neighborhoods 4 & 5
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Northeast intersection of Interstate 64 and Fifth Street Extended (Rt 631),
bounded on the east by Avon Street Extended. Access is Bent Creek Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP076M10000002A0, 076M10000002B0, 076M10000004A, and
0770000000011E0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Claudette Grant)
AND
SP-2010-000003 5th Street - Avon Center - Parking Structure (Signs # 2, 3 & 5)
PROPOSED: Parking Structure
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PD-SC Planned Development Shopping
Center - shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; and residential by special use
permit (15 units/ acre)
SECTION: 25.2.2(3) Parking Structure
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service/Mixed Use-
community-scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
2
communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01 -34 units/acre)
Neighborhoods 4 & 5
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Northeast intersection of Interstate 64 and Fifth Street Extended (Rt 631),
bounded on the east by Avon Street Extended. Access is Bent Creek Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP076M10000002A0, 076M10000002B0, and 076M10000004A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Claudette Grant)
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-000003 and ZMA-2009-00001 would be heard together
but need separate actions.
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized staff report. Staff
pointed out the photo is the existing warehouse building on the site.
Proposal: The applicant is requesting to amend the proffers, application plan and
development framework of the approved rezoning. A special use permit is also
proposed for a parking structure.
The application plan shows the proposed building s and building envelope areas with
flexibility in mind regarding how the site is actually developed. The connector road
remains an unchanged commitment providing interconnection between 5th Street
Extended and Avon Street. The maximum square footage of gross floor area for all
uses in the total project area remains unchanged at 470,000 square feet. The zoning
district remains Planned Development – Shopping Center or PD-SC. With the approved
rezoning the development framework was a separate document desc ribing the
expected uses, design elements and other details for the development. The proposed
framework is now incorporated into the application plan and is in many ways similar to
the approved one, but now lacks expected design characteristics and provid es less
specificity regarding the final location of uses and buildings within sections of the
development.
The proffers and requested changes are described in the staff report. The applicant has
recently requested a condition for this special use permit request so that it would not
have an expiration date. This is a similar condition that was done for the Martha
Jefferson Hospital. The reason for this request is that the applicant is not sure when the
parking structure will need to be built. This is a new request and it was not captured in
the staff report. Staff is fine with this request and has included a proposed condition for
the Commission’s review in a later slide.
Staff also wants to bring to their attention that one of the public comments tha t were
recently sent to the Commission requested that the parking structure be located away
from the adjacent Willoughby neighborhood. At this point they do not know where the
parking structure would be located.
Staff reviewed the actual approved application plan and the proposed plan and noted
the similarities and things that were not quite as similar. The approved plan seems to be
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
3
somewhat similar to a plan that staff has just seen and the Commission has just
received from the applicant.
Factors Favorable:
• Bent Creek Parkway (Connector Road) will be extended to connect 5 th St. and
Avon St.
• Development of the property as a shopping center is consistent with the land use
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. It is consistent with the approved
plan as well.
• Funding towards construction of greenway and provision of transit service as
recommended in the Comprehensive Plan is provided. Although the level of
commitment has changed.
• Provides shopping and service alternatives for the residents in this po rtion of the
County and City.
• Will provide employment opportunities and tax revenues to the County.
In many emails recently received there appears to be a lot of support for additional
shopping opportunities in this portion of the county.
Factors Unfavorable:
• The proposed application plan does not provide sufficient detail regarding
proposed buildings location and architecture to assure consistency with the form
recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the currently
approved plan for the development of this property also does not meet all
expectations of the Comprehensive Plan regarding form, although it does provide
more specificity as to architecture, building locations and building scale in
particular areas. (As noted before the plan that the applicant is now showing that
staff has just received yesterday is showing a little more detail than they had to
review.)
• Commitments are substantially decreased from the prior rezoning with revised
proffers for the Willoughby pedestrian bridge and trail and transit (either due to
offers of cash instead of construction or a reduction in the total amount of funding
offered for certain impacts).
• (Staff noted in regards to the pedestrian connection to Willoughby they have
received public comment both in favor and not in favor for this connection.)
• The proffers are in need of technical revisions. (It is more detailed in the staff
report.)
• While a work plan with DEQ for the remediation of the former City landfill is
proffered, there remain outstanding issues regarding the proffer commitment.
(As detailed in the staff report. There are staff present that can speak in more
detail to this if there are questions specifically regarding the landfill.)
• Stormwater facilities are shown in the floodplain. (That is something not
supported by staff.)
• Special use permit for fill in the floodplain is still needed for stream crossings to
assure the development can take place.
• Development Framework needs technical revision.
Staff Recommendation:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
4
There remain several outstanding issues related to this rezoning, but staff can
recommend approval if the following are addressed:
• The outstanding technical issues with proffers are fixed.
• Stormwater/BMP facilities that are shown in the floodplain on the applicatio n plan
are removed from the floodplain.
• Development Framework is revised to not include items that are already
applicable per the Zoning Ordinance.
• Landfill remediation commitment is made as recommended by Zoning staff.
• Additional funding is committed to adequately cover the anticipated cost of the
Willoughby pedestrian bridge and trail. (The applicant has proposed $25,000
Staff has gone out and done an estimate, which is about $100,000)
• Staff finds the special use permit request for a parking structure consistent with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and
recommends approval of SP-2010-00003 with the following condition: The
special use permit approval shall not expire but shall remain in effect so long as
the approval of ZMA-2009-00001 remains in effect.
• Staff recommends deferral of the critical slopes decision to be determined during
the site plan process when specific details regarding the development will be
available. (The applicant did apply for a critical slopes wa iver. It was related to
one of their earlier versions of the plan. The plan staff has now is very different
from the plan. Therefore, staff feels it is best for the applicant to submit this
request when they have more detail.)
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach asked to clarify some wording. On the report at the fourth page conformity to
the Comprehensive Plan it says the Comp Plan designates the project area as
community service mixed use. He asked is that still the designation for this property.
Mr. Grant replied yes.
Mr. Loach pointed out staff used the verbiage shopping center. He asked if that was a
use versus a zoning type of plan.
Ms. Grant replied yes. When she said shopping center she was referring to the zoning
district.
Mr. Benish noted that the Comp Plan designation is consistent as mentioned. The
amendments that were approved earlier assumed that there would be a shopping
center built here. The mix of uses that were identified as the possibilities in the Comp
Plan were possibilities and not requirements of that mixed use.
Mr. Loach said this goes on to say other uses such as industrial, light industrial,
residential and public amenities could also be considered appropriate for that site.
Mr. Benish noted that could is the operative word. It was not expected that they had to
be there, but could be in terms of the recommendation in the Comp Plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
5
Mr. Lafferty said in the presentation staff said that it d id not necessarily have the form in
the Comp Plan. He asked what staff meant by form.
Ms. Grant replied staff was referring to certain expectations described in the Comp Plan
amendment that is specific to this particular location. There are certain things that sort
of give a sense of an idea of the type of building, how those buildings should be laid out
on the site, and buildings should be close to the street. Some of the elements she
would consider to be similar to what they looked for in the Neighborhood Model. She
did not know if she totally answered the question of form.
Mr. Benish noted that it included relegation of parking to the streets and general
pedestrian orientation of the development were the types of form issues that are
identified in that amendment to the Comprehensive Plan approved earlier in the 2000’s.
It should be noted that the prior plan that was approved also did not meet all of those
provisions either. It met more of them in the plan that was approved, which was more
predictable in the form, whereas this is more flexible in terms of this other form. So it is
really a question of whether they are going to get all of those components or not.
Mr. Lafferty assumed from the proposal that the applicant has a one anchor store at
least and they are trying to fill in and looking for a little bit more flexibility.
Ms. Grant pointed out that was correct.
Mr. Lafferty said he did not have a problem with that.
Mr. Randolph noted as a follow up to Mr. Loach’s question he noted that staff indicated
in the report that the principles of the Neighborhood Model are not fully applicable to this
development. However, that suggests that there are some principles that are
applicable in this development. He certainly wants to have discussion this evening
about interconnectivity from a standpoint of not only of pedestrian access north and
south to this project but interconnectivity in terms of bicycle access here. He sees this
as a significant model project within the southern end of the county. He wanted to see it
be a showcase project. His goal will be in the discussions forthcoming is to try to make
that as good a project as possible for the residents in the south both from a recreational
standpoint as well as from a shopping standpoint. Another question relates to
Monticello and to the issue as to whether this project can be consistent with assuring
that there is a reduction of a visual impact from Mount Alto. He asked for a little bit of
the history as to the reaction to the proposal that there be some sensitivity to Monticello
on Mount Alto with this project in terms of architectural design and colors, roof design,
etc.
Ms. Grant replied that the background is that the Monticello Foundation requested of the
applicant that they provide a proffer that provides the details that they normally like to
see in proffers. They have done some in the past in the Pantops area for developments
that are part of the Monticello viewshed. Monticello Foundation did make this request of
the applicant. The applicant did not make any response to the request. There h as
been some discussion between the Monticello Foundation and the applicant. The
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
6
reason they see it in the report is that staff was also copied on that request. Staff felt it
was important to acknowledge that this request had been made.
Mr. Lafferty asked for a point of clarification regarding the Monticello viewshed. Since
the Foundation bought Carter’s Mountain does the viewshed extend all the way up
Carter’s Mountain? He did not think they could see this property from Monticello itself.
However, they probably can see it from the top of Carter’s Mountain.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that historically in discussions of viewshed regarding the visibility it
has been from Monticello the house. They have had some conversation with the
Foundation very recently about incorporating into the Comprehensive Plan some
viewshed language and possibly a map. Certainly the consideration of what is the
appropriate viewshed can be made as part of the Comprehensive Plan work staff will be
bringing forward to the Commission. It is not specified anywhere right now in terms of
anything other than what is viewed from Monticello. The question whether Mount Alto is
considered to be also a point from which the viewshed is determined is really one that
they have not discussed other than the potential of that being incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan or not. It may be decided that is not appropriate. They will
certainly talk about that during the Comprehensive Plan update.
Mr. Lafferty asked as far as this discussion goes they can eliminate that from
consideration.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that is the Commission’s decision to make.
Mr. Morris pointed out that is open for discussion and that is something the Commission
has to decide when they go forward on this.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and
invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Valerie Long, representative for the applicant and the owners of the property, presented
a PowerPoint presentation to explain the proposal and the present condition of the
property. She said that tonight several representatives of both S.J. Collins and
Riverbend Management, the co-developers on the project, are present. They also
have several of their civil engineers present to address any questions.
- The conceptual site plan is similar to the materials and exactly the same to the
materials they provided earlier today. As Ms. Grant indicated the property was
approved for a shopping center in 2008 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
It is the Planned District-Shopping Center zoning. So the shopping center is
permitted. The zoning district was found to be compatible with that
Comprehensive Plan designation. They are proposing not to change the zoning
district or change any of the uses or add to the amount of the square footage of
the project, but merely to update the proffers to permit the project to be
developable and to permit the anchor tenant that they have secured, which is the
Waguman Grocery Store. The revisions to the application plan will permit that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
7
flexibility. The existing application plan that was approved in 2008 does not
provide that.
- The layout does not work for the projects currently nor is it flexible enough to
address the current market conditions they are working with. So this is a
conceptual site plan. Many versions of this have been seen. It continues to
evolve. However, this is how they hope that the project will develop. It will
probably continue to evolve. However, Waguman is the majo r anchor tenant.
She pointed out the application plan and the conceptual site plan with the
application plan building envelopes overlaid so they can see the relation between
the two. The application plan still provides the flexibility that they need as they
continue to work with tenants and those tenant mixes evolve depending on who
they are talking to. As their building needs, sizes and layouts evolve they would
have the flexibility to work with all of them and hopefully achieve the best tenant
mix for the project.
- The next slide provided a close up to give a better understanding of how the
building envelopes work and the relation of those buildings to the connector road.
The proposed location of the pedestrian connection to the Willoughby
Subdivision was highlighted. To address one of the suggestions in the staff
report to increase the funding level she noted that they were happy to do that.
They are proposing to modify the proffer so it would read when the significant
right-of-way is obtained that the right-of-way would have to be obtained, but once
it is obtained thus making the path actually buildable to one of the neighborhood
streets within Willoughby that they would be willing to increase the proffer
amount from $25,000 to $100,000. The way it is written right now the cash would
just be provided to the county immediately before the first store opens. If the
issue is having sufficient cost for the county to build the trail they are happy to
increase the amount once the right-of-way is acquired. They are happy to work
with staff on that issue.
- She pointed out some of the pedestrian connections to be included between the
two major north and south zones of the property to demonstrate and address the
questions about pedestrian connectivity. One way they have improved the
project is to add a sidewalk along the entire span of the connector road. The
original 2008 rezoning does not include a sidewalk. It did include the trails, which
were intended or envisioned to create the pedestrian connections on site. Staff
has determined in their opinion that won’t provide sufficient pedestrian
connections. Therefore, they have added a sidewalk to the plans.
- They have heard from some of the Commissioners who are biking experts about
the need to provide some bike lanes in some capacity. There are a couple of
different slides to review. They are not exactly sure how this is going to
eventually come together. They have two options for how they can provide it.
The dimensions are approximate since they have to work out the road design
and dimensions with VDOT. There are some engineering challenges involved
given the proximity of the floodplain and so forth. One option is to increase the
width of the sidewalk from 5’ to 10’ and treat it as a shared use path so that
pedestrians and bikers could use that together. It will probably be made of
asphalt. Then the shoulders on the road travel way would be less wide. An
alternate option is to maintain the sidewalk at 5’ and widen the shoulders of the
travel way of the road so that bikers could use the shoulder as a bike lane in
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
8
essence. That is one option and they are not sure how that will come together.
However, they wanted to demonstrate their commitment to continuing to work on
that issue and demonstrate they know they can achieve that objective. The
sidewalk and bike path would extend all the way from Avon to 5th Street.
- She addressed the five issues that were included in the staff report as the
conditions.
o Two of them are very easy since it is technical revisions to the proffers
and the development framework. Those were for the most part mostly
technical and they were fine with essentially all of them. They did address
the sidewalk or pedestrian path to Willoughby. They will increase that
amount to $100,000 once the right-of-way is obtained.
o One of the issues had to do with the proposed storm water management
facility being located in the floodplain. There are a number of elements of
the property that are located in what is currently floodplain. That kn own,
as staff indicated, they have to work with the county and obtain a special
use permit for fill in the floodplain. Then they have to go work with FEMA
to amend the floodplain limit maps. So there are portions of the
connector road, for instance, that lie in what is currently floodplain. Once
they work with FEMA the maps of the floodplain limits will actually be
modified and updated so that neither the road nor any portions of the
project or the storm water management facilities will. At the end of the
day they will not be in the floodplain. They are hopeful that the
Commission can agree that is a reasonable solution to that issue.
o The last issue was the landfill work plan. Unfortunately, they are just
going to disagree with the staff on that issue. They continue to feel pretty
strongly that they are most comfortable having DEQ be the sole decision
maker on that issue since they are the state agency with sole jurisdiction
and really the expertise to determine how the landfill should be
remediated. They are not proposing any substantive changes to the
proffers regarding the work plan. They have suggested and been working
with DEQ for many months to update it so they can improve it a little bit.
But it was the staff that came to us and asked us to kind of change how
that work plan is approved. They feel strongly that they would like for that
to continue to be DEQ’s sole role.
o Regarding the Monticello view shed guidelines; they have actually been
having conversations with the Monticello representat ives. They have a
representative present tonight. They have pledged to continue to work
with the Foundation on addressing their view shed guidelines. They did
not think it was in the Monticello view shed at first. However, they found
out that maybe it will one day. Depending on the vegetation and what it
looks they are happy to do that. Once of the challenges they ran in initially
was the proffers provide that they will use highly reflective roofs. That is
an improvement to the project, which is esse ntially a white roof. It is the
same roof that was installed at the Whole Foods in the city and actually
enables you to obtain points on the LEED certification checklist. Of
course, a white roof is not as consistent with the view shed guidelines for
Monticello, which specifically say no white roof. Through the good works
of the engineers and architects on the project they have been able to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
9
identify a product that is essentially has the same environmental
characteristics in terms of reflectivity as a white roof, but it is actually an
earthtone color – a tan or something like that. They are going to work with
Monticello and try to get the actual material samples to them for review.
They are happy to work with them on the side and make sure their
concerns are addressed. She would be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Loach noted that he wanted to make sure that the regional anchors and the mini -
major tenants are essentially going to be commercial retail structures.
Ms. Long replied that primarily that is what they envision at this time. However, they do
have the flexibility through the zoning designation, which again is Planned District
Shopping Center. There are other non-retail uses that are permitted in a PD-SC zoning
district. One use, for instance, that they are interested in attracting if there is a market
for it, is a hotel. It depends on whether they consider that a retail use. She would say
that it is not. However, that is allowed by right in the PD -SC zoning district. There are a
handful of other similar uses.
Mr. Loach asked if they have any contemplation of any of the other designations in the
community service such as industrial, light industrial or residential.
Ms. Long replied that she would have to check the zoning ordinance, but was not sure if
any of those uses are permitted in the Planned District – Shopping Center District.
Ms. Monteith noted that previous it was 25 percent green roof and now they were
talking about another material. W ill it be a mixture of another material and green roofs?
What is the combination?
Ms. Long replied actually it would be in lieu of the proffer to have 25 percent of the roofs
be green or vegetative roofs. They have replaced that with a proffer that says 100
percent of the roofs within the project will be highly reflective roofs meaning a certain
reflectivity standard. It is essentially the same standard as the roof material that they
intend to use.
Ms. Monteith pointed out that the LEED goal is not just about the reflectivity. It is also
about storm water management. So it does not do the same thing.
Ms. Long said certainly and they acknowledge that. So there are other measures that
will have to be considered during the design in order to satisfy the proffer, which says
they will design the building to meet LEED certification and build the building to LEED
standards. So they know they are going to have to make up for it in other ways. Most
likely it will be through rain fall harvesting measures or other storm water management
facilities. It addresses certain things just as she noted.
Mr. Dotson asked that she explain proffer 12 on transit funding.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
10
Ms. Long replied the proffers as approved in 2008 were very unusual. She has worked
on rezoning on a number of large projects in the county over the last 15 years. T hat
one had a proffer for transit that is unlike any other that was ever approved. It requires
that 20 cents per square foot of rentable square feet within the property be proffered to
the county in cash every year in perpetuity and that it would be subject to essentially a
CPI increase. That equates to just about $100,000 per year in perpetuity. That is what
makes the project as currently approved undeveloped. There was a discussion about it
at the Board level. The thought was that charge could be passed on to the tenants in
the form of a common area maintenance expense. The tenants would not notice it and
would not object to it. It was not really a true cost to the developer be cause it could be
passed on. The reality is that is just not the case. Tenants are very focused on their
expenses these days far more than ever and those costs just could not be borne by the
project year in and year out. She looked at other large projects that had proffered cash
for transit and tried to get a feel in how they all handled it. None of the others had a
provision like that. Most projects had either a cash proffer at the beginning of the project
or a certain amount of cash that was proffered over a term of years. North Point
proffered $25,000 a year over ten years. Stone Field/Albemarle Place proffered around
$100,000. Hollymead Town Center proffered $150,000. They looked at the differences
in the size and scale of the projects and tried to come up with a number that they felt
was equivalent for this square footage in this project. Instead of the $100,000 a year
over a term in perpetuity they are proposing to contribute $100,000 cash up front so that
it would be given or dedicated to the county before the first store can be opened. That
is how they got there. The staff report stated that they agree that the amount was
appropriate for this size project or it was consistent with similar projects.
Mr. Dotson asked staff if that was the case.
Ms. Grant replied that it is consistent with other similar projects. She looked specifically
at Stonefield.
Ms. Long added that it was a matter of just trying to keep the project on an even playing
field, too, with other projects of a similar scale in terms of proffer expenses and
contributions.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Doug Arrington, of 1836 Fiddlerstick Lanes, noted once again he was concerned with
infrastructure. When this project was originally approved Biscuit Run was a going
concern. Since then that is devoid and the Southwood Connector is not a concern. The
Southern Parkway has been withdrawn from the 20 -year plan. Also, in the proffers for
Biscuit Run there was going to be a turn lane from 5 th Street North to 64 east added and
the double up of 64 East to 5th Street. There was going to be a turn lane added at 5th
Street South to 64 West. The on ramp from 64 West to 5th Street was going to be
doubled. He has a serious concern with traffic flow on the 5 th Street Bridge. The
bridge is going to have to be widened. The solution as expressed by a staff member
was a double turn lane left from 5th Street South to 64 east. There is not enough room
for a double ramp to merge and then to merge onto 64 before coming to the Biscuit Run
Bridge over 64. There are access problems that he sees there. He wondered about the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
11
width of Bent Creek Parkway as to possible future expansion. Should it be considered
possible in the future to expand it to four lanes? It is going to be by default to t he cross
over. He questioned the road design proposed and where the traffic is going to go
when it gets to the 5th Street Bridge.
Nancy Carpenter, resident of Albemarle County, noted what brought her here tonight
was the inclusion in the staff summary of several proffers that the developers want to
amend regarding trails and public transit. Even though the staff may find some of these
amendments acceptable she does not as a resident of that area. She did not know if
any of the developers and lawyers att ended any of the meetings with the Neighborhood
4 and 5 groups when they started talking about the Planning Office updating the plan in
that area. But, she did. The message was loud and clear from all of the residents of
the two meetings that there was a strong desire for bike/pedestrian infrastructure. It
was a consistent request that people were looking ahead and trying to figure out ways
of moving people because there are a lot of bikers in that area. Moving people from the
southern development area up through a retail area, Willoughby, 5th Street and on into
Downtown and West Main Street is important. What she sees now is a desire to use
green backs, cash, in lieu of actual construction to subrogate what the residents in that
area said they wanted to see as part of the vision for this area. It is one of the big areas
left in the County left with the ability to do the development right. Don’t make the past
mistakes of Hollymead or Route 29 area in this area. They should start with some right
tools. The greenways, trails and public transit will make our environment more
sustainable with less carbon emissions from cars. It also revitalizes neighborhoods
because bike trails, bike paths and pedestrian walkways increase home value. It also
increases neighborhood interaction and decreases social isolation in this area. The
Commission has stewardship over this issue and she asks that they acknowledge what
the residents in this area want and not let this center be built without that infrastructure
along with it.
Morgan Butler, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, noted that they were
very active in the review of this proposal when it came before the county a few
years ago. Because this would bring new regional scale commercial uses to a
new part of the county they recognized then and recognize now how critical it is
that this project improves significantly upon the car oriented sprawling shopping
centers that line much of Route 29 in which it contributed disproportionally to
traffic and pollution problems along that corridor. It is not just SELC that recognizes the
importance of creating a better form of development at this site. The Comprehensive
Plan does, too. Specifically it calls for a compact pedestrian oriented an
environmentally sensitive development that will serve as a vibrant town center for the
southern urban area. The application plan and proffers that were ultimately approved in
2008 contain a number of important commitments to that effect. They are disappointed
the applicant is now asking to reduce substantially several of those commitments. He
would like to highlight a few of the items that they think are essential to creating the type
of development at this location that the Comprehensive Plan envisions.
- First, transit to help ensure this development would serve more than just cars.
The existing proffers provide for a substantial annual contribution to help fund
transit service to the site as Ms. Long just explained. The amended proffer
however would simply offer a one -time $100,000 contribution in an amount that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
12
would do little to provide ongoing service. While this may be the same amount of
Stonefield’s transit proffer, that seems like an apples to oranges comparison. It
will cost more to bring effective transit service to this site than to Stonefield
because no service currently extends this far south on Avon Street. There is no
evening service that extends this far south onto Fifth Street. A stronger funding
commitment to transit is needed.
- Like transit, pedestrian orientation is also critical at this site. A shopping center
dominated by massive big boxes is a far cry from a town center. The
Comprehensive Plan states that the footprint for any single big box store on this
site should not exceed 150,000 square feet. It also states that the aggregate
square footage of all big box stores on this site should not exceed 300,000
square feet. But the language of the applicant’s new application plan would allow
both of those caps to be exceeded. The application plan and proffers should be
amended to either incorporate these caps or to clearly demonstrate compliance
with the factors that are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan that if met allow
those caps to be exceeded.
- Similarly they share staff’s concern with the lack of detail regarding the location
of buildings and parking lots. This makes it impossible to ensure that this
development will achieve the form the Comprehensive Plan envisions. Surely
some additional detail could be provided while still providing some of the
flexibility the applicant desires. The conceptual site plan the applicant offered
today or yesterday does not become part of the enforceable application plan that
would apply to this site.
- Finally, they support staff’s recommendation regarding additional commitments
needed towards landfill remediation. In closing as they deliberate the proposed
changes tonight please keep in mind that the form this development takes will
have an impact far beyond the boundaries of this particular property. Thank you
for the chance to provide input.
Natasha Sienitsky, with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, pointed out they own and
operate Monticello and 2,600 of Jefferson’s original 5,000 acres. As a preservation
organization they ask that the Commission and Board carefully consider the impact of
this development on 3 Entrance Corridors and the views form Monticello’s property.
The Foundation has recently updated its analysis of the views from Monticello, which
indicates that this property is visible from points of importance on original Jefferson
lands. She wanted to address specifically the question of whether it is in view from
Monticello, the house. As a Foundation increases its effort s to preserve the house and
plantation they are increasingly focused on the landscape. They know that the
landscape as it appears at Monticello today is not as Jefferson once saw it. Specifically
much of what is forested now would have been in cultivation which really opens up the
views to the east and west. She submits that it is for their consideration because as
they stand at Monticello now this property is not visible. However, as the Foundation
continues its preservation and restoration efforts of the landscape it may be visible in
the future. They are delighted that the applicant has expressed a willingness to work
with Monticello to use earth tone colors on the roof. They think the most appropriate
expression of this commitment would be in the form of a proffer. They are very open
and willing to negotiate with the app licant. They have a working relationship with them.
They hope to continue those conversations as they approach the Board .
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
13
Julienne Mineshell, resident of Willoughby, said she was very active in her
neighborhood. It has roughly 230 units. In regards to this development they have not
been asked to have a pedestrian right-of-way. They own common area and felt that
would be required. That would be something they would need to ask first before
deciding about how much money to ask the developer to put fort h. Very likely the
Willoughby residents will not want it. They have had local police come and talk to them
about safety and how that would impact our neighborhood. They are a dead end
subdivision. They get people that come in off of their private trail along Moore’s Creek.
They are easily coming and going on that trail. The police say this likely would only
encourage more easy access for the car thefts and things like that which they have had
happen in their neighborhood. First it would be nice if they were asked. Then it would
be a moot point for the Commission to come up with a dollar amount. She was
concerned about the landfill and hoped they would allow Albemarle County to work with
DEQ only because they are here local. They are able to physically be present more
easily than DEQ. It would be really nice to include them in part of the monitoring of the
landfill. She hoped they have seen the erosion that her daughter video from the landfill
into Moore’s Creek in the devastation with all the developments. She would be happy
to provide copies of the video by email.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the
matter before the Planning Commission for discussion. He invited the applicant to have
the five minute rebuttal.
Ms. Long asked to clarify one point. One of the speakers mentioned that the Bent
Creek Parkway should be a four lane road or at least have sufficient right -of-way. That
is actually covered in the proffers. So it would be a two -lane road initially but it would
have sufficient right-of-way to be expanded to four lanes in the future if it is ever
deemed to be necessary.
Mr. Randolph asked given what she had heard from Ms. Sienitsky would she be open to
actually offering a formal proffer that formalizes her commitment to ensuring that
visibility is minimal from Monticello held properties.
Ms. Long replied they were not opposed to it in theory. The challenge is the
implementation of actual proffer language. She has struggled with this on other
projects. To have the level of specificity and precision that is necessary for the county
to enforce proffers and know when proffers are actually satisfied or not requires such a
level of detail that it is far more than any of us are ready to com mit to in terms of exactly
what they are willing and able to do. They have not designed all of those things yet.
But they are definitely willing to commit to continuing to work with the Foundation and
use the earth tone roof materials and work with them on the materials that they provide
to them and so forth. They would prefer to have it be a side agreement with the
Foundation so they could work directly with them and not have the county be part of
that. When that came up before the language has gotten very detailed and they have
never been able to get what worked. She feels very confident that they can work with
the Foundation because they don’t need that same level of definitiveness because they
are not enforcing a proffer like the county is.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
14
Mr. Randolph said it was his understanding that was why they hired lawyers because of
their ability to work with details.
Ms. Long agreed, but noted again it is a difference of perspective. In order for the
county to be comfortable the level of proffers are very detailed. The county attorney’s
proffers are incredibly precise details and are sort of the final round of comments to the
proffers. That is the level of detail they have to proffer. She app reciates and
understands why it has to be done that way. That way they can know on the front end
can they agree to this and comply with it. With the view shed guidelines they are not
quite there yet. They are confident they can work very well with the Monticello
Foundation and work those out. However, they are happy to discuss with them
between now and the Board hearing as well.
Mr. Randolph suggested she contact Jim Haden at Martha Jefferson Hospital because
they did not seem to encounter any difficulty and that was a rather small development
project with a minimal visual impact in the county. They seemed to be able to work it
out.
Ms. Long pointed out that was the exact approach in that they entered into a side
agreement to work together to work out the issues about the view shed guideline that
were important and relevant for that project. All the county had to do was check in with
the Monticello Foundation and confirm that was addressed. That is one of the
approaches they have been discussing with them.
Mr. Lafferty said he had a problem with expanding the view shed without a separate
discussion. If they had done that in the past and they already owned Carter Mountain
the Piedmont Community College would not have been built. There would have been a
lot of things that would not have been built. It is good that they are working with the
Foundation to minimize the visual impact is good. However, he did not think they
should make it a requirement because it is still an issue that is up in the air. On a
different topic he was against mixing pedestrians and bicycles even on a 10’ walkway.
They just don’t mix. A bicycle can be doing 20, 25 or 30 miles per hour and the
pedestrians are doing 4 miles per hour. On the roadway if they wanted to put bike trails
in the standard is a 5’ bike lane. If they can get it off the road that would certainly be
better. As far as the connectivity to the neighborhoods they have tried to emphasize
that in connecting neighborhoods. It would be appropriate if they could work it out to
connect to Willoughby. However, he understands if they don’t own the land they can’t
do that.
Ms. Long acknowledged that they can’t build the connection to the Willoughby
neighborhood through anybody’s land whether it is privately owned by individuals or by
the Homeowner’s Association certainly without their consent and agreement. That is
why the proffer is structured the way it is. It has always been structured to be
essentially conditioned on being able to obtain that right-of-way way or easements as
necessary. That is why originally when they started amending the proffers they knew
there was disagreement in the neighborhood about whether the connection was positive
or not. Some feel very strongly it is a good thing. However, some feel very strongly that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
15
it may not be a good thing. So th ey thought the best thing was to get out of it and give
the county some cash on the front end to start those discussions or start the design.
Based on some feedback received from some of the neighbors they thought maybe
even a better solution is it would still be conditioned on somebody getting the right -of-
way and if it is obtained they will at least contribute the full amount of money that the
staff has estimated it would cost. Hopefully, they can obviously provide the money if it
works out. If the Homeowner’s Association decides that they don’t want it as a
community certainly they would not force it on them.
Ms. Monteith agreed with the comment about mixing bikes and pedestrians. Also, in the
bike version where they put the bike lanes on the road they also have two directions of
bikes. When they put them all on one path and they only allow for one direction they
will have a situation where they have two bikes and pedestrians and that can’t happen
within ten feet.
Mr. Morris noted that he could never recall the question about expanding the view shed
be brought up or even considering that as part of the Monticello view shed. He thought
this was expansion without reason from his point of view.
Mr. Franco said he was not sure it was expansion without reason. He thinks there is a
reason, but was not sure that was strong enough to be a proffer. The applicant’s
willingness to work with Monticello is enough to satisfy that concern. If they are going
to cut down trees at Monticello to replace open fields, that is going to make things more
visible. He starts to think then don’t cut down the trees and it won’t be more visible.
Mr. Morris agreed as long as the applicant was willing to work with the Foundation fine,
but there is nothing that says the view from Mount Alto is sacred.
Ms. Monteith requested to ask staff a question. She was trying to understand the
concerns around the landfill. She can’t really tell in regard to timing or if they are in
regard to process or what the concerns are.
Ms. Amelia McCulley asked Glenn Brooks to tag team with her because he has much
more technical expertise in this area. She explained the issue:
- She wanted to make sure the Commission has one of the attachments that is not
in the paper copy but goes into the full comment that describes why they are
suggesting this. That would be attachment D page 4 and going over into page 5
where it actually has the performance standards being suggested.
- Based on their discussions with DEQ this is not a regulated landfill under their
solid waste authority. It is subject to o pen dump criteria. Those are some basic
criteria. They have to prevent wash out of waste to the stream and so forth. I t is
not subject to regulation as a landfill. It has very little to no cover over some
existing solid waste in places. If it were subject to the full blown regulations they
would have a liner or a cap monitoring well cells and so forth. They don’t and
won’t. What staff suggested initially was that the county engineer be inserted
into the review of the work plan. That is primarily because our standards are
higher than the more minimal standards that DEQ expects that they can impose
for the work plan. When that did not work they stopped and thought what
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
16
another way to achieve this is and came up with these performance standards
that are in the report. Glenn Brooks is going to explain what is relevant in those
standards and how it really is a universally applied standard.
Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, said basically they took these out of the general
provisions of the zoning ordinance, section 5.1.28, not all of which are applicable. But,
they are just asking for a basic cover like they would apply to any other material or
waste at a particular site. If they dumped a load of concrete or a sphalt in a certain area
one of our erosion control and stability requirements is just to put a layer of clean fill
over it before you leave it or plant it. That is the same thing they are asking here. It
was a surprise when they met with DEQ about what remediation measures were being
discussed. When they had first gone through this application many years ago they had
talked about different remediation that would happen in any areas that were near for
instance near the trails, roads, storm water facilities or anything the public could get to.
What they learned is that they were not going to do any of those things. Those were up
to the county. What they would get is people walking through the site and picking up
any trash on the surface. If areas of the landfill were too exposed and considered
dangerous they would fence it off with a chain link fence. That is just not what they
were expecting. So they tried to negotiate something, but the applicant was unwilling to
let the county get involved with that. DEQ was unwilling to make any more stringent
requirements. They were asking the county to do it. They were saying that they could
not take a regulatory stance with this. They actually have some grant money they are
trying to push to the project. They don’t want to cite them with a violation because that
would make them ineligible for the grant money. It is complicated on their end.
However, they are having a very light approach. All they are asking for is the same
standard they would apply to any other waste area in the county.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Lafferty said when they granted the Charlottesville Police Department access to the
Keene Landfill did they require the same thing.
Mr. Brooks replied that Mr. Kamptner could go into that in to more detail. He has been
involved with that. So there are some conditions that they are still working out with the
Keene Landfill about how they install a road on the property. They have to fill on top of it
rather than penetrate the surface and e xpose any landfill that is there now. It opens you
up to a liability if they expose any parts of it or if they puncture the surface and create
any sort of leech problem or changes in the ground water. He would say they are
doing it very carefully and trying to do it all on the surface.
Mr. Lafferty noted Keene was an open cell landfill.
Mr. Brooks replied it was the same.
Mr. Lafferty asked if there were any kind of conditions they could put on this project.
For example, put a layer of field on top.
Mr. Brooks noted those were staff’s suggested conditions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
17
Mr. Lafferty said that it should not be so open-ended. Going over a landfill seems like
going over a cash pit and they could just toss enough money into it.
Mr. Brooks said that he did not know what he meant by open ended because it was a
limited site. There is a difficult situation along Moore’s Creek. But, when they talk about
road improvements, the storm water improvements, the crossings and then the trails –
all these improvements that are going to be in the buffer area and then the county is
going to have ordinance requirements for mitigation and what can they do to mitigate
the disturbances to the buffer. They are going to be talking about all kinds of fringe
improvements and plantings. It just seems sort of silly that on the same stream on the
same property they have this glaring problem of landfill waste in the stream bank and
they are saying that is okay they are going to do their mitigation elsewhere. It just
seems so silly.
Mr. Franco asked if they are able to do the mitigation by improvements to that area
versus plantings and some of the other things he just talked bout.
Mr. Brooks replied that they certainly can talk about them since nothing has been
proffered. They should take down the pretty picture because none of that has been
proffered and put up the picture that they are actually proposing. So they don’t know
what the mitigation might be. They don’t know what the impacts are. Most of the things
on the plan that have been proffered say potential areas or possible areas. None of it is
concrete it is all still moving.
Mr. Smith asked if he has investigated enough with the topography and the proximity to
the stream. Can they do what he is thinking about doing physical ly?
Mr. Brooks said they have talked about a filtrexx product which is a stabilization product
that can be put on the stream bank. A lot of things are possible but expensive. It is a
big trade off.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris invited discussion.
Ms. Monteith said in regard to the landfill what they heard from staff there seems to be a
difference between having DEQ being the final approving agent in this case and having
the county actively involved in the process. She thought that ought to be addressed in
some way.
Mr. Kamptner noted the county and DEQ approach this particular issue from different
perspectives. He noted the following:
DEQ is a regulatory agency. This case because it is an open dump is a little bit
beyond their direct regulation. County staff is looking at this from the zoning
standpoint in addressing impacts and looking at considering the factors that the
county is obligated to consider when they are evaluating a request to rezone
property. One of the factors is the suitability of the property for particular
purposes. Here they have a PD-SC development pretty intense in use and they
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
18
have this existing landfill with some materials that are exposed that is also part of
the property. That is the direction from whi ch staff is coming. They are trying to
address the impacts and trying to assure that this particular consideration is
addressed in the process.
They also received some documents around 5:00 p.m. today that may or may not
be responding or addressing the issue. It may be that whoever is out of county
staff that has been able to review those documents the most if they can share.
However, that may help move this discussion along.
Mr. Brooks said DEQ sent staff the document at 5:00 p.m. today. It makes some
amendments to the work plan that they had previously. There are five or six surveyed
areas where they have gone out and identified that trash is exposed or there are areas
to be corrected on a slope or something like that. They have offered some solutions to
that and the filtrexx product is mentioned and some other things. As far as he knows
DEQ has not reviewed it and there are not hard commitments at this point. The
applicant can probably speak to that also. They have an incomplete document that
refers to a lot of appendixes that they did not get. It had plans and locations and things
like that. It is unfortunate because this plan has been in since 2009 and they have been
asking for things like this such as the bike paths, the road conditions and the landfill
areas. They have been frustrated with not receiving that. They have probably been still
working on a lot of it. Obviously, it was just given at 5:00 p.m. today. They just d on’t
have a lot of those answers.
Mr. Lafferty asked if there have been core samples of the landfill so they know how
deep it is and stuff like that.
Mr. Brooks said he thought the applicant should speak to those specifics. The report
does indicate that there have been surveys and soil borings to see the extent of it. Th ey
would know more.
Mr. Lafferty said if they do nothing right now the erosion and the exposure to the landfill
will continue.
Mr. Brooks said they will have to qualify that. It is not a runaway erosion problem. It is
like Mr. Kamptner said, there is some exposed waste. A stream is a living thing. It
moves around and could have major flood events. It could move it further. It has been
sitting there for 30 or 40 years. There is some debris in the stream as the Willoughby
residents will tell them it does not look very nice. It has grown up a lot since the 80’s
and 70’s when it was more exposed. They could say it is being stabilized further by
vegetation, but when a hurricane knocks the vegetation down it could be exposed
again. It is a continually evolving area.
Mr. Morris said that seems, however, that this is the most problematic area on this
entire plan. He can see it on both points. As was said it could be an absolute cash pit.
Of course, they have the road going across it. He asked if the a pplicant wants to
address with their engineers on this.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
19
Ms. Long noted she was not an expert on the landfill issue, but offered the following
information.
- She explained they have hired consultants who have been working on this issue
for many years. Mr. Brooks is correct that they have been working on this for
many years. They had a work plan that was submitted to DEQ in 2007. They
have been reviewing it and they asked them to do additional samples of some of
the water they found coming out of the base of it to test it. It was tested and
found to not be a threat to human health and the environment. So it was in
somewhat of a holding pattern because the landfill work plan obviously requires
funding to be implemented. It is an extremely expensive remedi ation plan even
as it is proposed now. The project will provide the revenue to help implement the
remediation plan. Once they obtained the Waugman’s commitment to the project
they had the ability to confidently move forward with the implementation of the
plan. They are working very hard to be able to do that. It is so dense the
consultants literally can’t get in there right now because the paths and roadways
are obscured by the vegetation. This winter as soon as all of the dense
vegetation dies back they will work on it.
- They did ask DEQ to let them amend the plan to improve it to add this filtrexx
product that Mr. Brooks mentioned. They think it is a better solution to addressing
and providing a natural cover material in a couple of places where the exposure
is very severe and it is along a very steep area of the creek bed where really
other options don’t address the problem very effectively either from a health and
human safety standard or from an aesthetic standard. The filtrexx they call it
compost socks. It is essentially applying some compose in a long mess bag and
they apply it and stack it up against the side of the creek and hydro spray it.
Eventually it turns into a living wall. It has a triple benefit of stabilizing the slope
further, covering up the exposed waste, and looking very natural once it grows in.
That is an incredibly expensive measure. So they are asking DEQ to let us use
that in the areas where the exposure is the most significant.
- There are other areas where it simply does not warrant such an expensive
measure where DEQ has said don’t pull the waste material out where it is
exposed because they will just destabilize the area. But, they don’t want people
to be able to climb on it and get hurt either. So put a fence there. The staff had
concerns about a f ence being located in the floodplain. They have confirmed
they can implement the fencing requirement that DEQ suggested in areas that
are beyond the floodplain limits. So those are the kinds of examples of where
they are. DEQ as far as they know has been comfortable with our suggestions.
They have just recently submitted the revised work plan to them because they
have continued to work on it as they said they would. They n eed to get them to
review it so they can hopefully approve it in time so that they can actually start
the implementation of that work plan in the early winter.
- The proffers as they are written now require that the plan be completed before
the first CO is issued or the first store is opened. So they are committed to doing
that. There is a lot of site work to be done and this is an important part of it. But
they need to have the plan be economically viable in order for it to be put in
place. One correction, Mr. Brooks mentioned that there was grant money – but
there is not actually grant funding for this but there is a low interest loan program
that DEQ is working with them on. It is not a grant.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
20
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Lafferty said one of the problems seems to be the applicant’s willingness to work
with the county on this. County staff has the county interest at heart. W hat are the
problems with working with the county instead of only the DEQ?
Ms. Long replied that it really was just the matter of the DEQ staff are the ones who
have the experts in hydrology, landfill design and engineering, environmental
investigation and remediation, and geology. It may be that some of the county staff has
that same expertise, but they know that DEQ has that expertise.
Mr. Lafferty said they are going to have to work with the DEQ regardless. What are the
problems in working with the county?
Ms. Long replied that the challenges of having the county’s standards be added to the
DEQ standards are essentially it could create a conflict situation just as they have
described in the two examples she mentioned. It is where DEQ is saying we want you
to do this and do not pull those exposed materials out of that steep slope because it will
destabilize it. They suggested fencing it off and let the natural vegetatio n grow back
and obscure it. The county memo says well they think that all of those areas of
exposed waste should be pulled out and removed. Our consultants say that would be
the worst thing to do. So they can’t be in a situation where they have conflic ting
directions with guidelines saying do one thing and DEQ regulations or an approved
work plan that says do something else. They have been working in good faith with DEQ
for many years on this and as far as they know her understanding is that they have
been agreeable to the solutions they have proposed. The only real change is the
addition of the filtrexx material, which everyone agrees is a positive. That is the main
concern. Their memo made reference to our community’s s tandards for how the landfill
should be fixed. They feel that is a regulatory issue that the state DEQ experts should
have the say in and the concept of community standards and expectations about how a
landfill should be remediated gets to his point about it that the cost would be unending.
That is our concern.
Mr. Lafferty said as she had mentioned this project is pretty old. It has been going on
for a number of years. It seems that they could have some kind of agreement between
the county, yourself and the DEQ as to what would go o n. He trusts the county staff
more than he does the DEQ to help keep my environment when I live here clean. Their
concerns are my concerns, too. He thinks from what has been said tonight the DEQ
and the county are looking at it from totally a different perspective. He understands the
open ended nature of it and would hope there could be some way they could work with
the county on this.
Ms. Long asked to clarify or correct her prior statement. It is not that they don’t want to
work with the county obviously. They appreciate and respect the county’s concerns and
the county’s desire to look out for its interest and those of the community and general
public. They have concerns with how they get there. Even the proposed performance
standards they were optimistic when she understood the goal of the performance
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
21
standards was to instead of having the county have to approve the work plan here is
some standards that they would like them to agree to. She thought at first that was a
good approach and sent them to their consultants and colleagues who are
environmental experts and asked for their input. One of the suggestions in the
performance standards was that at every area have a minimum of 2’ of fill. What the
consultants are saying is that they would have to spend probably about a million dollar
surveying the entire area to establish kind of a grid system and measure what is the fill
level in each quadrant of the grid to know whether it needs more fill or not and then go
back and add it where it is needed. Then how does that get enforced and how do they
always endure that it always 2’ of fill that is always in place. Those of the kind of things
that at first she thought it seemed logical and asked if this is okay. They pointed out the
challenges of how that would be implemented. So those are the types of things that are
not a desired. They want to cover up the waste, too, again especially in the areas
where it is very steep and that is the best solution. But in other areas where even DEQ
has said that does not make sense or do it a different way - they want to have the ability
to follow DEQ’s direction and not have to be subject to undefined community
expectations and what someone might think is appropriate when they are not experts.
Mr. Lafferty said he thought the project has been going on long enough that these
should not be undefined. He thinks the county has shown a willingness to be flexible in
this whole project. They are willing to accept a form that is really not defined. So he
thinks the county has been trying to work with you.
Ms. Long said they would be happy to continue to try in perhaps d efine the standards
differently. It is kind of the same issue she talked about a little earlier with the proffers.
It is often challenging to get proffer language standards precise enough that everybody
can know whether they have been satisfied or not, but yet provide flexibility to be able to
know you can implement them. They can’t agree to a standard until they know with
certainty that they can comply with it. So they know they can comply with what they
have proposed at DEQ and what they have already approved. Really they have already
approved it. The only new change was to ask their permission to add the filtrexx in a
few locations. That is why they are a little perplexed because the plan was approved
and the project was approved already with the same standard or the same language in
place in essence that said DEQ has to approve the work plan. They are not asking to
change that. This is just all of a sudden came up in the last three or four months or not
even that long that the county wanted to have a say in how the work plan was prepared
or how it was approved. They have not had a whole lot of time to react to it because
they have just been working with DEQ all these years.
Mr. Franco said he had a question of staff at this point. He asked staff if they h ave seen
the DEQ plan and where are the differences at this point. Both sides are making logical
arguments. He was a little torn trying to understand it.
Mr. Brooks said he received it at 5:00 p.m. today. It is not even the complete plan. They
met with DEQ. Ms. McCulley has done a great job communicating with them. They did
not have the same plans that the county staff had when they m et. This was a couple of
months ago. They have not seen that plan. He could promise that they would not be in
conflict with DEQ. They could make that a condition. The proffer can be written as long
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
22
as the county is not in conflict with DEQ. They have written up their concerns in a list,
which says they want cover and that is all.
Mr. Franco said he was just trying to figure out what their concerns are that DEQ is not
going to cover.
Mr. Brooks noted that DEQ is not going to cover the landfill. T hey are going to put up
chain link fences around areas.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that was part of the concern. Up until late this afternoon our
understanding from DEQ was that they were going to require the chain link fence at the
top of the stream bank.
Mr. Brooks noted it was still in the plan and it was still there.
Mr. Kamptner said but that was the extent of it and the concern that staff had.
Mr. Franco said he was trying to understand it. If they were not going to be in conflict
with DEQ, but if they say that is a better solution but is not what staff wants , then aren’t
they in conflict.
Mr. Brooks said that they are not offering solutions. It is a voluntary thing right now with
them. It is not a landfill site, it is a dump site. They are not cited with any sort of
violations. They are working with the applicant to do what they can. Is fencing
something off improving it? He did not know. How long is a fence going to last?
Mr. Kamptner noted that the applicant is committing to do what the work plan requires.
So it is getting that work plan to be acceptable.
Mr. Brooks said that he did not know. Does the county know that? Can the work plan
change at any time. It is not up to us.
Mr. Lafferty noted the project seems like it has a lot of pluses for the county. He can’t
quite understand why they are hung up on this point except the economics of it. He can
understand the developer’s perspective there. He can’t imagine they would want to
have one of their exits from their project going over a bunch of tin cans laying around
and rotting garbage. But, they always have to consider the worse case sitting up here.
If they don’t require something then they may in fact get the worse case and they will
say well that is all you required of us.
Mr. Franco said that he was not sure, again if that is the worst case. Some of this is the
aesthetics. Driving past the tin can that he just described and walking the green way
trail as staff described earlier and not wanting to see this - that is an aesthetic issue. If
DEQ is saying that is the safest way to deal with it versus pulling this stuff out and
opening up even more of the landfill he was torn as to whether that is the better solution
or not.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
23
Ms. Monteith said she can’t agree that when one has a riparian adjacency that is just
aesthetics.
Mr. Brooks clarified that nobody has said tear anything out. All they have said is cover.
They have never said remove. He heard that mentioned a couple of times.
Mr. Smith asked steep is the slope. How steep is the slope normally from the bottom of
the creek bank to the top of the dump.
Mr. Brooks replied it was 30 to 40 feet.
Mr. Smith said if they put dirt on it how are they going to get the dirt on it and have it
compacted on a slope which is probably a 1 to 1 slope.
Mr. Brooks replied that would be the area they are talking about using a different
product on the slope or the face itself. It could be a number of things.
Mr. Smith said he knew that they could not put dirt on a slope like that and have it stay
there without it going into the creek.
Mr. Brooks agreed and that it was in the creek now.
Mr. Smith said that it is not just tin cans but everything from refrigerators to washing
machines.
Mr. Brooks said that is right. It is not just an aesthetic issue to staff. It is public safety
and welfare. If they have to fence it off it is a danger to people. The other is the
environmental concern. There have been some studies of the leeches coming out.
DEQ said that it was only tested for organics and nothing else. So there was not a
broad spectrum of tests and they don’t know what is in there.
Mr. Loach noted that tonight sounds more like a work session. The more he heard from
staff and the public the more questions he had at least i n the proffer language. He
certainly did not think tonight was the place to try to make let’s make a deal over the
proffers. The question he had was on the recommendation they should have to move
for approval of the rezoning is there a way to do that. A s Mr. Lafferty said in certain
respects there are all these benefits, but it seems like they are a long way from a
resolution of the problems to get at those benefits. The question goes back to in
making the approval what is he approving and what would be lost if he did not approve
it or did approve it and could not get back to because they have approved it. He did not
want to make a recommendation for approval of something that is going to come back
to bite them later on because they did not resolve all the problems that were associated
with the application.
Mr. Benish pointed out what staff is recommending are the issues that they feel needs
to be addressed. If the Commission agrees with those recommendations the Board
should take under considerations before they act on the proposal before them. So there
is sort of a leap of faith the Commission is taking if they agree with these conditions that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
24
those will be addressed with the Board in the future. If the Commission feels they want
to see this information before they make a recommendation, then that is their
prerogative to consider. That is the type of recommendation before them now. They
have done that before. It is not the normal practice, but these are the issues staff feels
need to be addressed for our recommendation. Some of those are technical issues.
The landfill is more of a substantive issue.
Mr. Loach said he feels uncomfortable with a vote when the engineer for the county
comes in and says the solution to this came in at 5:00 p.m. and he does not feel it is a
complete solution. For the Planning Commission what level of comfort do they have in
forwarding this to the Board in the condition it is in?
Mr. Franco pointed out his answer to that is staff has four issues or conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that was not all of them. There was another one.
Mr. Franco said that there are five concerns listed in the staff report. It sounds if they
follow the conditions of staff that the concerns Mr. Loach was talking about would be
addressed because staff would have the ability to say yea or nay to the landfill plan. He
was comfortable if they move it forward with these conditions. He was not sure if he
was comfortable with all of the conditions.
- He goes back to some of the discussions th at were made on bullet one – the
outstanding technical issues. It does not seem to be an issue on either side. So
he was comfortable with that. It sounds like staff and the applicant is comfortable
with that.
- Number 2 is the BMP facilities. Having heard the applicant’s explanation of it he
clearly understands what they are saying there. As long as it is a condition in the
proffers that says that the BMP’s will not be located in the future floodplain, then
that seems to be something that would satisfy staff’s concern.
- Number 3 is the framework. That does not seem to be a debate to staff or the
applicant.
- Number 4 is the landfill. They have been talking about that.
- Number 5 is the funding for Willoughby. The applicant offered to provide the
additional funding if the right-of-way has been acquired.
- Therefore, it really boils down to item 5 regarding the landfill and whether they
are comfortable with staff’s recommendation for including them as one of the
entities on the review and approval of that plan.
Mr. Benish pointed out that they could not condition the rezoning. What they are
identifying are those issues that need to be resolved through the proffers or plan of
development.
Mr. Loach added that there were pertinent issues raised by the public tonight that were
in the context of these issues which included the infrastructure and the funding. The
funding will now be a single funding, which should be taken into consideration as well.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission needs in their action to decide what expectations
they have. If that is one they decide to add, then that needs to be included in the action.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
25
Staff identified what they identified as the points that should be addressed before the
Board would take its action.
Mr. Morris agreed with what he was saying.
Mr. Franco said that it was a tough balance to figure out view shed versus LEED credits
and things like that. He was not saying they were exclusive. However, it is a tough
balance at times. He would be comfortable moving this forward tonight, but would
prefer to eliminate issue 4 landfill and trust with DEQ that they know best.
Mr. Randolph asked does DEQ have the capability to do the verification on site that is
necessary for the application.
Mr. Franco said that is not what they are talking about. They are talking about the plan
and whether it should be fenced or not fenced.
Ms. Monteith said apparently they don’t know what the plan is.
Mr. Loach said that he had heard suggestions on ways that staff and the applicant may
come together, but certainly at this point he would not say there is a conclusion.
Mr. Franco agreed that he did not know what the plan is either. However, the plan will
have to be approved by DEQ.
Mr. Kamptner recalled that the current proffers provide that the work plan be approved.
They did not know what the work plan would be when the original proffer was accepted.
It was anticipated that DEQ would approve some work plan that at that time the county
was comfortable accepting and going with. He thinks county staff decided that they
wanted to step in because they did not see the work plan accomplishing what had been
anticipated. What came in at 5:00 p.m. today they don’t know. Staff needs to evaluate
that.
Mr. Morris said that will be known if this goes before the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it would certainly be known before this goes to the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Franco pointed out what would be known is what come in tonight and not
necessarily the final plan. That does not have to be implemented until before the final
CO.
Mr. Morris said that at least Mr. Brooks will be able to see the plan and if there is a
difference iron those differences out.
Mr. Franco said that is where he gets confused in what is being said. He understands
what Mr. Brooks said earlier that the water was not tested for anything but organics. He
asked if the county would then require that it be tested for metals or other things.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
26
Mr. Brooks replied that they have no standing so there won’t be any agreement. They
have no standing in the process. They will handle it with DEQ and they tell us there is a
work plan with DEQ, then the proffer is satisfied.
Mr. Loach said that is a problem that he worries about is that DEQ is the expert but also
the lowest common denominator.
Mr. Brooks noted that it is true that they don’t have the expertise and won’t know what
tests to ask for in the water. DEQ is better at that.
Mr. Franco noted that part of it goes back to the balance. Nothing is happening now.
They have an existing environmental problem now that may not be the ultimate fix that
is occurring towards some of the details that staff is looking for. However, it has to be
better than what they have got now and they have had for the last few years.
Ms. Monteith asked Mr. Brooks if they have a precedent for this. Is there a way he can
work with DEQ to get this resolved?
Mr. Brooks replied that he did not think they have a precedent. He asked Ms. McCulley
since she works more with waste areas and dumps.
Ms. McCulley said she thought it was all a matter of whether they can impose higher
standards in places such as the area that would be chain link fence exposed waste or
whether they go with the most minimal standard that DEQ would apply, which is the
open dump standard. They have said they have to accept it. They have not said that
this is really what they would want in their best professional practice. This is what they
have to accept because that is the limit of their authority.
Mr. Dotson commented that Commissioner Franco said he was comfortable with the
rezoning going forward without item #4. He was comfortable with it going forward with
item 4.
Mr. Lafferty agreed. It is probably a very time sensitive proposal anyway because of
Waugman’s and the whole project is being sold on its beauty in bringing in a high end
tenant. So he would hope they could work this out. But, he thinks item 4 should be
included. He was comfortable with moving it forward in a positive manner.
Mr. Morris asked if he was making that as a motion with conditions as stated.
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved to recommend approval of ZMA 2009-00001, 5th St.-Avon
Center based on the recommendation of staff
Mr. Kamptner added with the five (5) recommendations of staff plus the proffers as
addressed as recommended by staff.
Mr. Lafferty agreed adding the amendment of $100,000 offered by the applicant.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
27
Mr. Kamptner said it was recognizing that staff’s recommendations will also trigger
revisions in the proffers.
Mr. Benish noted that the minutes will note that they have already committed to that.
Motion: Mr. Lafferty so moved as amended.
Second: Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Mr. Franco asked to hear f rom the applicant one last time since they were putting
additional conditions on it.
Ms. Long said it would help her because she was not quite sure she understands how
the landfill condition or proffer would be handled.
Mr. Franco replied what they were saying was between now and when they go to the
Board they would have to increase the landfill remediation commitment to the
satisfaction of the zoning staff and the county engineer.
Ms. Long said that they were happy to continue to work on that. She asked to provide
some clarification to correct some things that were stated regarding the landfill plan.
Our consultants sent the plan to DEQ. They did not unload that on the staff at 5:00 p.m.
today just for clarification. They submitted that to DEQ because they have asked us to
resubmit it. The plan was first developed in 2007. It is not a new plan. There are small
elements of it that are proposed to be updated. Those were to improve it and use this
filtrexx product. She wanted to make it clear that it was not that they have been doing
things at the last minute or not working with DEQ. They have been working with DEQ
literally since 2007. The plan was in place in terms of it was submitted to DEQ in 2007.
The project was approved in March of 2008. So it was approved with that plan. All they
are asking is the ability to update it to improve it. Certainly now she personally was
regretting that decision. Second, the areas where DEQ has suggested the chain link
fencing would be appropriate are those areas where the waste may be slightly exposed
in some areas more. But there is no ongoing threat to human health in the
environment. That is the one thing that the consultants have stated very, very
stringently to her. The testing determined that there is no ongoing threat to human
health or the environment. DEQ’s concern was keeping individuals off of it so that
literally they would not cut their feet on the exposed waste. So their suggestion was a
chain link fence. They are agreeable to that. Those are the concerns. She just wanted
to be clear because she felt like it was misrepresented or there were some of the
Commissioners who felt they had dropped this off on the staff at the last minute and that
was not the case.
Mr. Morris noted there was a motion and second. He asked if there was any further
discussion.
Mr. Lafferty said his motion was made on the feeling that they will be installing a quality
product. It certainly will be a safety product as far as things go, but it will also have the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
28
aesthetic value. They need to work out the details with DEQ and the county. That is
the nature of the motion he was making.
Mr. Morris noted that they already have a motion on the table.
Mr. Lafferty agreed and that it had been seconded.
Mr. Loach said the motion is that this is going to the Board for further review. There is
nothing written in stone now except these issues have to be resolved.
Mr. Benish said the Commission is recommending that these issues be resolved for the
Board to approve this.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2009-00001 5th Street-Avon Center will be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors with the following recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of ZMA -2009-00001, 5th Street-Avon
Center based on the recommendation of staff , as amended, that the following
outstanding issues related to the rezoning are addressed prior to the Board approval.
1. The outstanding technical issues with proffers are fixed.
2. Storm water/BMP facilities that are shown in the floodplain on the application
plan are removed from the floodplain.
3. Development Framework is revised to not include items that are already
applicable per the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Landfill remediation commitment is made as recommended by zoning staff.
5. Additional funding is committed to adequately cover the anticipated cost of the
Willoughby pedestrian bridge and trail.
Note: With the amendment made by the applicant to change the proffer amount
to $100,000 for the connection to Willoughby with staff working out the proffer
language. It is recognized that staff’s recommendations will also trigger revisions
in the proffers.
Mr. Kamptner said it was recognizing that staff’s recommendations will also trigger
revisions in the proffers. He pointed out that the Commission needed to take an action
on the special use permit, SP-2010-00003.
Action on SP-2010-00003
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Dotson seconded to recommend approval of SP-
2010-00003, 5th St.-Avon Center – Parking Structure with the condition recommended
by staff.
1. The special use permit approval shall not expire but shall remain in effect so long
as the approval of ZMA 200900001 remains in effect.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
29
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-00003 would also be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors to a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
Critical Slopes waiver Request
Mr. Cilimberg noted that with this project there was also the critical slopes waiver
request that staff had suggested deferring to the site plan.
Mr. Morris asked if staff wanted a motion on that.
Mr. Franco asked if the applicant was comfortable with that recommendation since they
had not talked about it. He suggested hearing from the applicant.
Ms. Long said they would actually ask the Commission consider approving the cr itical
slopes waiver. They submitted the waiver two years ago. The plan has evolved during
that time. The limits of disturbance, however, have not changed. They are exactly the
same. Some of the critical slope areas are man-made. She has a slide that shows the
critical slopes if anyone wants to see them. The waiver was o riginally recommended for
approval by staff in early 2010, but they could not get to the Commission for action to be
taken on that. So they would ask if the Commission is inclined to take action on that
tonight so that they know they have that in place and can move forward without having
to wonder about that.
Mr. Morris asked what the pleasure was of the Commission. He asked Ms. Grant if she
agreed with the recommendation.
Ms. Grant replied that staff does not agree with that recommendation.
Mr. Benish said they can defer to Mr. Brooks for specifics. But again, the plan that was
originally submitted was based on a different plan. Staff feels that it would be better to
look at details at the site plan level for the critical slopes waiver since there is less
specificity to the current plan.
Mr. Morris said based on the staff report he felt this is something they would be looking
at later.
Mr. Lafferty asked if this would be delaying the project.
Mr. Franco noted his concern is if they deal with it at site plan it is an unknown until it is
actually granted. Depending on where these slopes are, for instance in the middle of
the site, he would want some kind of assurance before he started to spend the big
design dollars to know that he could disturb those slopes. If the limits of clearing and
grading have not increased and they were willing to support before simply not having
the information now does not bother him as long as those limits are consistent.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
30
Mr. Brooks said they don’t have the limits of clearing and grading at this point. They
have a concept plan with a rezoning and a lot of moveable parts.
Mr. Franco asked how they know which slopes they are asking to be disturbed.
Mr. Brooks replied they can look at the general areas on the concept plan they have
shown development on and give them a blank slate if that is what the Commission
wants to do.
Mr. Kamptner noted in Attachment I on pages 82 and 83 are the considerations for the
Commission. However, staff was unable to provide the Commission with that
information. It does not look like they have the information unless it can be pr esented
here verbally to make a well informed recommendation. But that is all the Comm ission
would be doing is making a recommendation. The other thing the Commission has to
recall is that like a special use permit the Commission has 90 days to act and he would
assume that they were up against the 90 day period. Perhaps at least the Commission
should make a recommendation tonight recognizing that when this does go to the Board
staff has to have the information upon which to make an informed recommendation.
Mr. Franco asked if the Commission could see the graphic that shows where the slopes
are.
Mr. Morris asked Ms. Long if she had that graphic.
Ms. Long replied they submitted a critical slopes waiver exhibit as recently as April of
this year as part of their resubmittal in April. They then resubmitted the actual
application plan again. They did not get any comments from the staff to the April critical
slopes waiver. She did not believe it was in their packet either. There is an exhibit that
shows the limits of disturbance. They also have their civil engineer present who
prepared that exhibit, the application plan and assisted her with the original waiver
application. She noted he can provide additional guidance on that.
Mr. Kamptner said he did not know if Ms. Long was referring to Attachment J, which is
her letter from February 16 or maybe something more recent than that.
Ms. Long said it may be February of 2010 that was from when they originally submitted
the application. There was an exhibit that went with that waiver application. Once they
amended the plan, and again it evolved, they resubmitted an updated exhibit to
accompany the critical slopes waiver application. That was submitted to the staff with
the other proffer revisions in April. Therefore, staff does have that information. She
was trying to find her hard copy in her file. She probably only has one copy, but can dig
it out.
Mr. Franco asked if the Commission has that in their packet.
Mr. Morris replied no.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
31
Mr. Randolph asked for help with this disconnect and if staff can explain the history of
the missing critical slopes information.
Mr. Brooks replied the Commission has a very vague plan. Anything that is shown on
the plans now can change pretty significantly in the future. Therefore, he was not
comfortable giving his approval to something that he really did not know how much it
would move.
Mr. Randolph questioned whether it was definitive.
Mr. Brooks agreed that was correct. He did not think they were going to get that before
the Board meeting because the plan is not going to get any more concrete before then.
He learned today they wanted to move the floodplain to accommodate the storm water
facility.
Mr. Randolph said in light of the hour it is 9:30 p.m. and they were finding they were
dealing with quick sand. There is no definition here. One of the best things they can
do is defer making a decision on critical slopes because they don’t have the information.
He was not comfortable saying they are going to pass it on to the Board of Supervisors
and waive their responsibility here to make this decision.
Mr. Loach said the discomfort comes because Mr. Brooks says it won’t be ready by the
time it goes to the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Monteith noted that staff does make a recommendation in the report.
Mr. Lafferty noted staff recommended the decision be deferred.
Mr. Franco said the applicant also submitted the information and it did not get passed
on to us.
Mr. Morris said he thought they granted the critical slopes waiver when they use to have
that authority. Really they saw it if they look at the site where is it going to go. He
thought that was exactly what he was saying.
Mr. Franco agreed. He understands without the graphic it is hard to really respond to
some of the comments. However, if it is disturbance that is required to execute the plan
that they have seen he would support it because they are supporting the plan. So he
would be comfortable since they are just making a recommendation to say that graphic
would have to be provided again or included in the packet to the Board that those are
the limits and that as long as they stay within that box it should be granted.
Mr. Morris said the development site is the same as it was in 2007 and 2008. He was
comfortable with the recommendation going forward.
Mr. Franco asked do they have the application number for this request.
Mr. Randolph replied that it was not in the packet.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
32
Mr. Franco moved for a recommendation of approval of the critical slopes waiver
request.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Loach asked if they heard enough from the applicant that there would be adequate
data on the critical slopes for the Board of Supervisors to make a decision. Otherwise ,
they are going to be as blind as the Commission.
Mr. Brooks pointed out this was similar to the special use permits for the fill in the
floodplain. Those can move around, too, and they are not approving them with the
rezoning. They will have to come in later. If they are in the box they will probably
approve them, but it is not guaranteed. Typically, when he looks at these he would lay
out what the disturbances are in his opinion and it is never the same as what they claim.
There is always erosion control disturbances in other areas that they will need to go and
carry it down the slope for instance and things like that. He will make some
recommendations on that. He thinks the storm water management facility should be
moved over and as long as they meet those conditions he will recommend approval of
the critical slopes waiver. However, he just can ’t do that here. There is just not enough
to the plan. He thinks Ms. Grant and his recommendation is to save the request until
later is one approach. If they want to give them a clean slate like Mr. Franco is
suggesting then that is fine.
Mr. Franco said he was not necessarily trying to give them a clean slate. However, he
would like to give them some assurance that they could execute the plan that came
before us today. He asked if there was anything that prevents us from some point in the
future if they are at the site plan level coming back and saying no for some reason they
have decided they can’t disturb the middle of the site where the parking lot is.
Mr. Brooks added or they can’t disturb the floodplain for instance in this location or that
location and now the whole layout has to change or they have to put everything
underground like Stonefield did. When Stonefield came up for approval they told them
those storm water facilities are not going to work. They said don’t worry about it since it
is just a fringe detail. Then the whole thing changed when it came to the site plan. He
suspects that the same thing might happen here. Especially if they come to the
Commission and say that it is not their usual practice to put up dams in the floodplain to
move the floodplain so they can allow storm water management facilities. That is not a
good practice and he recommends against it. If they end up not approving it that way,
then it has to move and they have to provide storm water facilities somewhere else on
the site or underground. Lots could change. Critical slopes are just one piece of it.
They still have to get a waiver to use a rural section for the connector road for instance.
Our ordinance currently requires a curb and gutter section. They have discussed that
so they have proffers that allow either/or. However, he noticed that all the documents
that have been submitted to DEQ require a rural road section. They have to get special
approval to do that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
33
Mr. Franco pointed out that rural roads are a bit different and that is not a go or no go.
Mr. Brooks said that it was just another detail that is not finished. Therefore, it did not
seem like a big deal to leave that one too.
Mr. Franco said if he put it in the context of this being a re zoning he did not expect to
have all that level of detail at this point in time.
Mr. Morris said they have a motion on the table. He asked for a second.
Mr. Kamptner noted the motion was to recommend approval.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:2. (Randolph and Loach voted nay)
Mr. Morris noted that the special exception for the critical slopes waiver will be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval on a date to
be determined.
Mr. Kamptner noted a minor procedural note was the Commission did need to act
tonight, but it was because it they had already acted on the rezoning and the special
use permit. The special exception regulations provide that the special exception should
be acted upon at the same time as the rezoning so everything goes to the Board at
once. That was just to correct that.
Mr. Franco questioned if that included the rural section roads.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA-2012-00011 Highway Commercial Wall Signs
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing to consider adoption of ZTA 2012-00011
to amend Sec. 4.15.12, Regulations Applicable in the C-
1, CO and HC Zoning Districts, to correct the maximum
wall sign size permitted in the HC, Highway Commercial
zoning district.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Ron Higgins
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
September 12, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors adopted ZTA 2010-05 on March 14, 2012, which amended a number of sign regulations,
including those for wall signs in conventional and planned commercial districts. Under the prior regulations, signs in the
Highway Commercial (“HC”) district were subject to the same standards as those for two planned commercial districts,
and wall signs in those districts were allowed to be up to 200 square feet in area. In ZTA 2010-05, the HC district became
subject to the same standards as those for two other commercial districts; Commercial Office (“CO”) and Conventional
Commercial (“C-1”). Wall signs in those districts are allowed to be up to 100 square feet in area.
The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution of Intent to correct this issue (Attachment A). The attached
proposed Zoning Text Amendment (Attachment B) will correct that inadvertent change.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
DISCUSSION:
The regulations adopted in ZTA 2010-05 reduced the maximum wall signage area permitted in the HC district from 200
square feet to 100 square feet. This was an inadvertent change and one that was not discussed during the ZTA process.
The intent of ZTA 2010-05 was to allow for a change in the wall sign area calculation for the CO and C-1 districts from 1
square foot of sign area per linear foot to 1.5 square foot of sign area per linear foot of establishment structure frontage.
That change was made so that the basis of the wall area sign calculation would be consistent with the HC district. It was
not intended to reduce the allowable wall sign area in the HC district from 200 square feet to 100 square feet. The
attached amendment would correct that inadvertent error in the HC district and would not affect the 100 square foot
maximum in C-1 and CO districts.
At its August 21, 2012 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
attached Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA 2012-00011).
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact is expected.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Zoning Text Amendment (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution of Intent adopted by PC July 31, 2012
B – Proposed Ordinance
PC minutes: July 31 and August 21, 2012
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 12-18(2), adopted March 14, 2012, amended the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance to, among other things, have signs in the Highway Commercial zoning
district subject to the regulations in County Code § 18-4.15.12, which also pertains to signs in the
Commercial and Commercial Office zoning districts, instead of County Code § 18-4.15.13, which also
pertains to signs in the Planned Development Shopping Center and Planned Development Mixed
Commercial zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, County Code § 18-4.15.13 allows wall signs of up to 200 square feet in area and
County Code § 18-4.15.12 allows wall signs of up to 100 square feet in area; and
WHEREAS, it may be desirable to allow wall signs in the Highway Commercial zoning
district to have wall signs of up to 200 square feet in area, as was previously allowed when signs in the
Highway Commercial zoning district were subject to County Code § 18-4.15.13.
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 County Code § 18-4.15.12, Regulations
Applicable to Signs in the C-1, CO and HC Zoning Districts, to allow wall signs in the Highway
Commercial zoning district of up to 200 square feet in area, and amending 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.
Return to exec summary
Draft: 07/31/12
ATTACHMENT B
1
ORDINANCE NO. 12-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, 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 18, Zoning,
Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1, CO and HC zoning districts
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1, CO and HC zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required wi thin the
Commercial (C-1), Commercial Office (CO) and Highway Commercial (HC) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
32 square feet, aggregated,
plus bonus tenant panels as
provided in section
4.15.16(b); if more than 1
sign at an entrance, no
single sign shall exceed 16
square feet
12 feet 5 feet
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet
30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
Not applicable
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 32 square feet
12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 30 feet if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
In the C-1 and CO zoning
districts,1.5 square feet per
1 linear foot of
establishment structure
frontage, not to exceed 100
square feet; in the HC
zoning district, 1.5 square
feet per 1 linear foot of
establishment structure
frontage, not to exceed 200
square feet
Not to exceed the
cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign. If the establishment has both such signs,
the allowed sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign (which may not
exceed thirty-two (32) square feet).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.5; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 12-18(2), 3-14-12)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Draft: 07/31/12
ATTACHMENT B
2
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
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 31, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 31,
2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris ,
Chairman; Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice-Chair; Ed Smith and Bruce Dotson. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner;
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Amelia McCulley,
Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development;
and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
New Business
Resolution of Intent: Highway Commercial Wall Signs
Rebecca Ragsdale
PROPOSAL: Amendment to correct the maximum wall sign size perm itted in the HC
Highway Commercial zoning districts.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that if the Commission does not have any questions, they can go
ahead and act on the resolution of intent for Highway Commercial Wall Signs because it
is simply a resolution of intent. The Commission will be getting the actual matter as a
public hearing item next month.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach for approval of the resolution of intent for
Highway Wall Signs.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted the Planning Commission adopted the resolution of intent for Highway
Commercial Wall Signs as follows. Staff will set the public hearing for the Planning
Commission as soon as possible.
Adopted Resolution of Intent – Highway Commercial Wall Signs
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 12-18(2), adopted March 14, 2012, amended the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance to, among other things, have signs in the Highway
Commercial zoning district subject to the regulations in County Code § 18 -4.15.12,
which also pertains to signs in the Commercial and Commercial Office zoning districts,
instead of County Code § 18-4.15.13, which also pertains to signs in the Planned
Development Shopping Center and Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning
districts; and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 31, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
2
WHEREAS, County Code § 18-4.15.13 allows wall signs of up to 200 square feet in
area and County Code § 18-4.15.12 allows wall signs of up to 100 square feet in area;
and
WHEREAS, it may be desirable to allow wall signs in the Highway Commercial zoning
district to have wall signs of up to 200 square feet in area, as was previously allowed
when signs in the Highway Commercial zoning district were subject to County Code §
18-4.15.13.
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 County
Code § 18-4.15.12, Regulations Applicable to Signs in the C -1, CO and HC Zoning
Districts, to allow wall signs in the Highway Commercial zoning district of up to 200
square feet in area, and amending 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.
Mr. Kamptner handed out information requested by the Commission pertaining to how
to deal with disruptions at public meeting
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 21, 2012 PAGE 1
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-12-11 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL SIGNS
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 21, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, and meeting on Tuesday, August 21,
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 Joanne Tu Purtsezova, Planner; Christopher Perez, Senior Planner; Ron
Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Francis MacCall, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning;
Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards; David Benish, Chief of Planner; Mark
Graham, Director of Community Development; 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.
ZTA-2012-00011 Highway Commercial Wall Signs – Amend Sec. 4.15.12, Regulations applicable in
the C-1, CO and HC zoning districts, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This
ordinance would amend Sec. 4.15.12 to increase the maximum area allowed for wall signs in the
Highway Commercial zoning district from 100 square feet to 200 square feet, which was the maximum
area allowed for such signs prior to a recent text amendment. The full text of the ordinance is available for
examination by the public in the offices of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of
Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Amelia
McCulley)
Ron Higgins presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the executive summary.
Proposal/Request/Subject: Amendment to Sec. 4.15.12, Regulations applicable in the C-1, CO and HC
zoning districts to correct the maximum wall sign size permitted in the HC, Highway Commercial zoning
district.
This is kind of a repeat of a little piece of something the Commission was dealing with last year. They did
a lot of sign ordinance amendments. The Board of Supervisors adopted ZTA 2010 -05 on March 14, 2012.
This Sign Ordinance ZTA amended a number of sign regulations including those for Planned
Developments and shopping centers, freestanding and monument sign setbacks, temporary sign
regulations, window sign regulations, and wall signs in commercial districts. Throughout that whole
process one of things they dealt with was to make consistent the sign area allowance in commercial
districts of 1.5 square feet per linear foot of building wall. Virtually all the districts except C -1 and CO,
which were more concentrated smaller scale commercial districts, t hey allow that figure except with a cap
of 200 square feet on a wall sign on a much larger wall. In C -1 and CO it is 100 square feet. In staff’s
movement of things around from one chart to another they actually put HC in the chart with C -1 and CO
and simply inadvertently limited the maximum in HC to 100 square feet. Staff did not intend that. None of
the Roundtables, proposals or discussions anticipated that. Therefore, staff is correcting th e inadvertent
change that resulted in reduced maximum wall sign area permitted in the HC, Highway Commercial
District (Code § 18-4.15.12). The Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to correct this.
The proposed zoning text amendment will correct that change in the HC district maximum wall sign area.
Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to the Board of Supervisors as shown in
Attachment A of the executive summary. It is scheduled for public hearing with the Board on September
12th.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Morris 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.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 21, 2012 PAGE 2
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-12-11 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL SIGNS
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of ZTA -2012-00011
Highway Commercial Wall Signs as recommended by staff and shown in Attachment A of the staff report.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that ZTA-2012-00011 Highway Commercial Signs would be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval as outlined by staff and shown in Attachment A of the
staff report, as follows.
(Attachment A in staff report)
ORDINANCE NO. 12-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, 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 18,
Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1, CO and HC zoning districts
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1, CO and HC zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign
area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required
within the Commercial (C-1), Commercial Office (CO) and Highway Commercial (HC) zoning districts:
Sign Type
Number of Signs Allowed
Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign
Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment, 24 square feet, 6 feet 5 feet
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 21, 2012 PAGE 3
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-12-11 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL SIGNS
as authorized by zoning
administrator
aggregated
Freestandin
g
1 per street frontage, or 2 per
entrance, per lot with 100 or more
feet of continuous street frontage
plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater
than 4 acres and has more than 1
approved entrance on its frontage
32 square feet,
aggregated, plus
bonus tenant
panels as provided
in section
4.15.16(b); if more
than 1 sign at an
entrance, no single
sign shall exceed
16 square feet
12 feet 5 feet
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet
30 feet, but not
to exceed the
top of the fascia
or mansard
Not
applicable
Temporary
1 per street
frontage per establishment
32 square feet
12 feet, if
freestanding
sign; 30 feet if
wall sign, but not
to exceed the
cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated pursuant to section
4.15.20
In the C-1 and CO
zoning districts,1.5
square feet per 1
linear foot of
establishment
structure frontage,
not to exceed 100
square feet; in the
HC zoning district,
1.5 square feet per
1 linear foot of
establishment
structure frontage,
not to exceed 200
square feet
Not to exceed
the cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign. If the establishment has both such
signs, the allowed sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign
(which may not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.5; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 12-18(2), 3-14-12)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 21, 2012 PAGE 4
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-12-11 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL SIGNS
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 _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Return to exec summary
Resolution in Support of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Constitutional Amendment on Eminent Domain
Whereas, this country was founded on the principal of private property rights and
this has become an important aspect of the American dream; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court of the United States has indicated that the use of
eminent domain laws are a States’ rights issue; and
Whereas, the government taking of privately owned property shoul d be limited to
the need for public use projects only; and
Whereas, citizens should be adequately compensated when their property is
taken for government use including loss of use and/or income; and
Whereas, both the House of Delegates and the Senate of the Commonwealth of
Virginia has twice passed an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia regarding
eminent domain; and
Whereas, the constitutional amendment will be on the November 6, 2012 ballot
for approval by a majority of voters in Virginia.
Now , Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors does hereby support this constitutional amendment restricting the use of
eminent domain in the Commonwealth and encourages its citizens to vote yes on the
ballot in November.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct
copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a
vote of ______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on
_________________________.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Constitutional Amendment on Eminent Domain
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution in Support of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Constitutional Amendment on Eminent Domain
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley and Davis
PRESENTER (S): None
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 12, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
A Board member requested that the attached Resolution in Support of the Commonwealth of Virginia Constitutional
Amendment on Eminent Domain (Attachment A) be placed on the September 12, 2012 agenda for the Board’s
consideration.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has assembled background material regarding the proposed Constitutional Amendment for the Board’s
information. (See Attachments B – F)
In addition, information and analysis regarding the proposed Constitutional Amendment are available at the
following websites:
http://valocalitylaw.com/2012/02/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment-on-eminent-domain-cons-and-pros/
(Attachment G)
and
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Virginia_Eminent_Domain_Amendment,_Question_1_(2012)
(Attachment H)
RECOMMENDATION:
The Resolution in Support of the Commonwealth of Virginia Constitutional Amendment on Eminent Domain is
attached (Attachment A) for the Board’s consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution in Support of the Commonwealth of Virginia Constitutional Amendment on Eminent Domain
B – 2012 Eminent Domain Referendum Question to appear on November 6, 2012 ballot
C – Constitutional Amendment Legislation (HJ 3 and SJ 3)
D – Code of Virginia amendment (SB 437) effective January 1, 2013 contingent upon the adoption of the
Constitutional Amendment
E – VACO background materials on proposed Constitutional Amendment
F – Attorney General Opinion regarding proposed Constitutional Amendment
G – Published analysis of the proposed Constitutional Amendment by Andrew McRoberts, a member of the
Government Group of Sands Anderson, PC.
H – Information regarding the proposed Constitutional Amendment from Ballotpedia website
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
Resolution in Support of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Constitutional Amendment on Eminent Domain
Whereas, this country was founded on the principal of private property rights and
this has become an important aspect of the American dream; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court of the United States has indicated that the use of
eminent domain laws are a States’ rights issue; and
Whereas, the government taking of privately owned property shoul d be limited to
the need for public use projects only; and
Whereas, citizens should be adequately compensated when their property is
taken for government use including loss of use and/or income; and
Whereas, both the House of Delegates and the Senate of the Commonwealth of
Virginia has twice passed an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia regarding
eminent domain; and
Whereas, the constitutional amendment will be on the November 6, 2012 ballot
for approval by a majority of voters in Virginia.
Now , Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors does hereby support this constitutional amendment restricting the use of
eminent domain in the Commonwealth and encourages its citizens to vote yes on the
ballot in November.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct
copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a
vote of ______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on
_________________________.
Return to exec summary
Attachment B
Question: Shall Section 11 of Article I (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be
amended to eliminate the General Assembly’s authority to define a public use for which
private property may be taken or damaged and to provide that no private property shall
be taken or damaged for a public use without just compensation to the property owner
and that only so much of the property as is necessary to achieve the public use is taken
or damaged?”
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT H
ATTACHMENT H
ATTACHMENT H