HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-12Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
DECEMBER 12, 2012
6:00 P.M., LANE 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. Recognitions:
a. Reaccreditation Certificate – Emergency Communications Center.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9. SP-2012-00011. Four Seasons Learning Center (Signs #88&93). PROPOSAL:
Amend Special Use Permit to expand enrollment of Child Care Facility (increase maximum number
of children in facility from 54 to 60 (6 additional students). No residential units proposed. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development – residential (3-34 units per
acre), mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. SECTION: Chapter 18 Section 20.3.2.1
of the Albemarle County Code, which allows for child care facilities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 - 34 units/acre) and supporting
uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in Neighborhood 1
– Places 29. DEVELOPMENT AREA: Yes. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. AIRPORT IMPACT
AREA: Yes. LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive Charlottesville VA. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061X1-00-00-
00500. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
10. ZMA-2012-00008. Estes Park- Proffer Amendment (Sign #56). PROPOSAL:
Amend proffer #2 of approved ZMA-2010-00011 to now include cash amount for single family
detached/attached residential units. Proposed unit type now includes detached and/or attached
single family, which are allowed in approved ZMA. Number of units remains the same. PROFFERS:
Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential –
residential (6.01 – 34 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: In the southeast
quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossing, approximately 800 feet
south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300,
TMP 03200000003400, 046B4000000500 and TMP 046B40000005A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Rivanna.
11. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
12. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
13. Adjourn to December 13, 2012, 3:30 p.m., Room 241.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/1212/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/2/2020 1:34:35 PM]
Tentative
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Consider Resolution to Dissolve the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and
Families (CCF) Agreement.
8.2 Fiscal Year 2013 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local Government
Agreement.
8.3 SDP-2012-030. Estes Park Site Plan - Variations from ZMA-2010-011.
8.4 Resolution to accept Library Avenue (new Route 867) into the Secondary System of State
Highways.
NEW: CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/1212/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/2/2020 1:34:35 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and
Families (CCF) Agreement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Consider a Resolution to Dissolve the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Commission on Children and Families
Agreement.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott and Davis, and Mses. Tevendale
and Ralston
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 12, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 1997, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville entered into an Agreement creating the Commission on
Children and Families (CCF). CCF is a 28-member planning and advisory body to the County and the City. Citizen,
community agency, local government, education, and university leaders convene through CCF to plan, coordinate, monitor
and evaluate a community wide system of children and fam ily agencies. The intended goal of the Commission was to
improve services to children, youth and families, to be accountable for the efficient use of public/private resources and to
be responsive to the changing needs of the community. Prior to 2010, CCF acted as the Community Policy and
Management Team (CPMT) for both jurisdictions and administered this program on their behalf. Following completion of
comprehensive resource utilization studies by both the County and the City, the responsibility to perform this state-
mandated function was returned to the respective jurisdictions.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community
DISCUSSION:
Over the years, CCF has managed grants which have enhanced services and brought community members and
agencies together to solve community problems and issues, including the Safe Schools/Healthy Children initiative. In
addition, CCF has tracked and monitored key data trends related to the safety, health and welfare of children, youth
and families, and has facilitated and brought together a number of workgroups and teams that have developed
strategies and programs to address identified issues. Finally, CCF led the Agency Budget Review Team process ,
which provided program and funding recommendations to the County and the City governing bodies consistent with
the budgetary procedures and guidelines set by each jurisdiction.
County staff, through its evaluation of Core County functions, determined that while the planning efforts and work of
CCF are important, many of its tasks are being undertaken by other agencies, and that with a reduced workforce, staff
cannot continue to devote the time to serving on workgroups formed by the Commission. Staff is also witnessing the
emergence of other workgroups that are evolving either on their own or through grant-funded initiatives. An example
is the Safe Schools/Healthy Children program, which has brought together a myriad of educators as well as public
safety, social service and community members to address targeted high-risk behavior of school-age children. In
addition, the Health Department has received funding on two occasions to gather and monitor data on the health and
safety of the entire region, overlapping with some CCF efforts. Finally, the City in recent years has undertaken key
strategies to address core social issues within its boundaries. Because of these factors and parallel activities, County
and City staff are recommending to the Board and to City Council that CCF be dissolved effective December 31, 2012,
and that the current CCF employee be transitioned to a City employee to aid in the delivery of services aimed at
specifically addressing the City’s identified social issues. For the County, this recommendation was made as part of
the Board’s Five Year Financial Planning Effort for FY2013-17 conducted in the fall of 2011.
The attached Resolution (Attachment A) to dissolve CCF effective December 31, 2012 has been reviewed and
approved by the County Attorney.
AGENDA TITLE: Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families (CCF) Agreement
December 12, 2012
Page 2
One key role which has not been finalized is how the County and City will address future human service agency
funding requests. While the City has offered to contract with the County to provide this service through the re-
positioned CCF employee, the Office of Management and Budget and County Executive’s Office are not in a position
to recommend to the Board at this time how this function should be addressed. Staff proposes that a recommendation
on this matter be included as part of the County Executive’s FY2014 Proposed Operating Budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Should the Board adopt the attached Resolution, the County will not expend $31,016.00 for the remaining
contributions appropriated to CCF for FY13. At the same time, it will also not receive $23,179.50 in rent from CCF for
space CCF is currently leasing at the County Office Building on 5th Street, reducing net expenditures by $7,836.50 for
FY 13.
If CCF is eliminated, any remaining expenditures and revenues in that fund need to be reconciled by the Finance
Department and one-half of any remaining balance is to be returned to the City because the County and the City both
contribute 50% of CCF’s operating costs. The County’s one-half would be transferred to the County’s General Fund,
where it would fall to fund balance and be treated as part of year end excess revenue/expenditure savings. The
unaudited Fund balance for CCF as of June 30, 2012 was $55,853.68.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) dissolving CCF effective December 31,
2012.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION
DISSOLVING THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (CCF)
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville jointly created the
Commission on Children and Families (CCF) in 1997 for the purpose of improving services to
children, youth and families in the community and meeting the requirements of the Comprehensive
Services Act for at Risk Youth and Families pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2-5200; and
WHEREAS, the County and City subsequently amended the CCF agreement in 2010,
removing the statutory duties set forth under Virginia Code Section 2.2-5200 et seq. and returning
those duties to the respective jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the County, through approval of its FY 13-17 Five Year Financial Plan on
December 14, 2011, indicated that it would no longer financially support CCF as of July 1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, although the Commission has undertaken many noteworthy planning efforts
during the past fifteen years, other agencies are now successfully undertaking those programing
efforts; and
WHEREAS, County and City staff recommend that the Commission be dissolved and that it
cease operations effective December 31, 2012, and that the current employee of CCF be transitioned
to the City’s Department of Humans Services to aid in the delivery of services specifically addressing
identified social issues within the City of Charlottesville; and
WHEREAS, as fiscal agent for the CCF, the County holds the unexpended funds contributed
by the City to fund CCF, which shall be returned to the City; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council, on December 3, 2012, adopted a resolution to
dissolve the CCF effective December 31, 2012, contingent on like action being taken by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors concurrently joins with the City of Charlottesville to dissolve the Commission on
Children and Families effective December 31, 2012, and authorizes the County Executive to execute
any necessary documents required to finalize the dissolution of the Commission on Children and
Families, and to return any unexpended funds contributed by the City of Charlottesville to the City.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of ____ to
____, as recorded below, at a meeting held on December 12, 2012.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Fiscal Year 2013 County of Albemarle & State
Health Department Local Government Agreement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve FY13 Agreement with the State Board of Health
for the provision of public health services through the
Thomas Jefferson Health District (TJHD)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott and Davis
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 12, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 32.1-31 allows local governing bodies to enter into contracts with the State Board of Health for the
operation of local health departments. It also requires that these contracts specify the services to be provided in addition to
those required by law and contain such other provisions as the State Board and the governing body may agree on. The
County’s contract specifies both the scope and costs for the services to be provided locally.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community
DISCUSSION:
The Thomas Jefferson Health District (TJHD), in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Health, is the p rimary
provider of public health services and programs for Albemarle County and surrounding localities. TJHD offers specific
health programs targeted at preventing and controlling infectious diseases as well as initiatives aimed at improving the
health of low income women, children and infants. In addition, the Health District provides an inspection and
monitoring program to ensure the safety of food and private well/septic systems. These services are funded
cooperatively by the State, County and other neighboring jurisdictions. Non-local funding for these TJHD programs is
provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, grants and income from local fees charged to individual clients. The
localities served by TJHD provide matching local funds for the allocations made by the state and allocate resources for
Local-Only Programs such as food safety. The Virginia Department of Health requires that local governments enter
into agreements stipulating the scope of health services to be provided by the TJHD to citizens in their respective
jurisdictions. The FY13 agreement (Attachment A) has been reviewed and approved as to form by the County
Attorney’s Office. Attachment B is an attachment to the Agreement, and sets forth services to be provided by the
TJHD.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County’s FY13 appropriation for the Thomas Jefferson Health District totals $561,771 of which $547,169
represents the County’s required match for Cooperative State and Local Matched Programs. The balance of funds
from the County ($14,602) is allocated to the Local-Only (Unmatched) food inspection program .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the vital nature of the services provided by the TJHD, staff recommends that the Board approve the FY2013
County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local Government Agreement (Attachment A) and that it authorize
the County Executive to execute that Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – FY 13 Local Government Health Department Agreement
B – Attachment to Local Government Health Department Agreement
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ESTES PARK VARIATION
December 12, 2012 BOS
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP2012-030-Estes Park Site Plan–Variations from
ZMA2010-011
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of the following sections of the Zoning
Ordinance:
1. Section 8.5.5.3 Variations From Approved
Plans, Codes, And Standards Of
Developments
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Benish, Ms. Yaniglos
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE: December 12, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Estes Park was rezoned from R1- Residential to PRD- Planned Residential Development on April 11, 2012 (ZMA2010-
011). The proposed development will require three variations from the approved Application Plan. These variations are
necessary before the preliminary site plan can be approved by staff, which is currently under review. In addition to the
variation requests, the Board also has for review a rezoning amendment to allow the cash proffers to be collected for both
single family attached and detached units. The applicant is requesting the following three variations from the approved
rezoning plan:
1. Increase the road width by one (1) foot and allow on street parking on one side of the road only
2. Revise the unit type from attached single family residential to detached single family residential on the application
plan.
3. Shift the location of the connection to Moubry Lane.
DISCUSSION:
1. VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT
The variation requests have been reviewed for Zoning and Planning aspects of the regulations. Section 8.5.5 .3(a)
authorizes the Director of Planning to grant variations from the approved application plat and/ or code of development.
However, due to a recent State Supreme Court decisio n, these variations must now be approved by the Board of
Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Section 31.8.
VARIATION #1:
The applicant submitted the following: Request to increase the road width by one (1) foot and allow on street parking on
one side only. Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
Fire and Rescue requires 20 feet of travelway width for access. With parking on both sides of the street, this
would require a 34 foot road width. The rezoning plan showed a 29 foot road width with parking on both sides of
the road, which cannot accommodate the required width for Fire and Rescue to safely use their vehicles. While
the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan recommend parking on both sides of the street, staff finds
that for Fire and Rescue purposes allowing parking on one side of the street is appropriate in this case.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development.
Density is not increased.
ESTES PARK VARIATION
December 12, 2012 BOS
2
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application by providing on street parking and
allowing for safe access for Fire and Rescue.
VARIATION #1 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variation request #1.
VARIATION #2:
The applicant submitted the following: Request for a variation to revise the unit type from attached single family
residential to detached single family residential. Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives by providing housing located close to employment
centers and shopping areas.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development.
Density is not increased.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
The PRD district allows both attached and detached single family housing. When the property was rezoned, it
showed attached single family units, however the zoning allows for both. Therefore, it is in general accord with the
intent of the rezoning application. The applicant has also submitted a rezoning amendment for the prof fers that
would allow both housing types and associated cash proffers.
VARIATION #2 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variation request #2.
VARIATION #2:
The applicant submitted the following: Request for a variation to shift the location of the connection to Moubry Lane. Staff
analysis of the variation request is provided below:
Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives by providing a pedestrian and emergency connection to
existing neighborhoods.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development.
Density is not increased.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
ESTES PARK VARIATION
December 12, 2012 BOS
3
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
The new location is within the existing parcel reserved for the connection. This shift is within general accord with
the rezoning application by still providing emergency access to the development.
VARIATION #3 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variation request #3.
31.8 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the authority to consider and act upon specia l exceptions as follows:
a. Matters requiring a special exception. Notwithstanding any other section of this chapter:
1. Any request for a waiver, modification, variation or substitution permitted by this chapter shall be
considered and acted upon by the board.
2. Any requirement for a decision by the planning commission required by this chapter shall be considered
and acted upon by the board. For the purposes of this section, a decision by the planning commission
does not include the consideration and action by the commission on a preliminary or final site plan under
section 32 of this chapter or any action provided in section 32 enabled under Virginia Code § 15.2 -
2242(1).
b. Consideration and action. In acting upon a special exception, the board shall consider the factors, standards, criteria,
and findings, however denominated, in the applicable sections of this chapter, provided that the board shall not be
required to make specific findings in support of its decision.
c. Conditions. In approving a special exception, the board may impose reasonable conditions to address any possible
impacts of the special exception.
d. Time for action. A request for a special exception shall be acted on by the board within ninety (90) days after the date
of the request, or concurrently with a zoning map amendment, special use permit, or site plan appeal, whichever is
longer.
e. Request. Each request for a special exception shall be made as provided under the applicable section of this chapter.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of variations #1, #2, and #3.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, in regular meeting on the 12th day of
December, 2012, adopted the following:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Residency Office of the Virginia Department of
Transportation recommends that the street(s) referenced in this Board’s resolution be added to
the secondary system of state highways as a no cost rural addition pursuant to Section 33.1-
229 and Commonwealth Transportation Board policy, because the street(s) meets current
minimum standards, the condition of the existing hard surface is serviceable, the street(s) has
provided continuous public service since its establishment in November, 2012 and currently
serves Crozet Library and eight commercial buildings (or identified, government constructed,
public facility).
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Residency Office of the Virginia Department of
Transportation confirms that no Department funds are required to improve the street(s)
described on the attached additions form AM-4.3 to meet current minimum design or
maintenance standards of the Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached additions form AM-4.3 to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia and the
Rural Addition Policy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board of the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right of
way, as described on the attached form AM-4.3, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills
and drainage, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Library Avenue (State Route 867) from Route 240 east, as shown on
plat recorded the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 3955, pages 19-20, with a 69-foot variable right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.07 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.07
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
September 25, 2012
Barbara or Krzysztof Sliwinski
254 Lakeview Drive
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
RE: SP201200011- Four Seasons Learning Center
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061X1-00-00-00500
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sliwinski:
On September 11, 2012, the Albemarle County Planning Commission, by a vote of 5:2, recommend denial
of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. This recommendation of denial was based on the
following staff recommendations:
• The proposed restriction for six (6) additional students limited to sibling of existing students cannot
be affectively enforced.
• Continued enlargement of the day care enrollment will create a use that is out of scale with this
part of the Four Seasons development.
The two largest impacts from additional students:
- Increased traffic volumes and patterns over an acceptable limit to the neighborhood
- Scale of the use in relation to the residential neighborhood.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on November 14, 2012. It is the Board of Supervisor’s preference that a
public hearing not be advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received
by the County and are available for public review. Therefore, any new or additional information regarding
your application must be submitted to our office at least twenty-three (23) days prior to your scheduled
hearing date, which is October 22, 2012.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
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,
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc: Kalemba-Sliwinski, Barbara or Krzysztof Sliwinski
3516 Doctors Crossing
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
SP 2012-0011
PC September 11, 2012
Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2012-11 Four Seasons
Learning Center
Staff: Christopher P. Perez
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
September 11, 2012
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBD
Owners: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski Applicant: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski
Acreage: 0.35 acres Special Use Permit for: Request for
expansion of child care facility in accordance
with Section 20.3.2.1 of the Zoning ordinance
TMP: 061X1-00-00-00500
Location: At the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive in the Four Seasons development
Conditions: Yes
Existing Zoning and By-right use: PUD -
residential (3 – 34 units per acre), mixed with
commercial and industrial uses. By special use
permit, this facility may have up to 54 students.
Magisterial District: Rio
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Density
Residential – residential (6-34 units/acre) and
supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office and service uses.
DA (Development Area): X
RA (Rural Area):
Factors Favorable:
1. There is a need for child care facilities in
Albemarle County.
2. The six (6) additional students (to be siblings
of existing students) as described by the
applicant will not require any additional
parking than what is already provided nor
cause an increase in traffic.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposed restriction for six (6)
additional students limited to sibling of
existing students cannot be affectively
enforced.
2. Continued enlargement of the day care
enrollment will create a use that is out
of scale with this part of the Four
Seasons development.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial.
SP 2012-0011
PC September 11, 2012
Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Christopher P. Perez
PLANNING COMMISSION: September 11, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
SP2012-11 Four Seasons Learning Center
Applicant's Proposal: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski are requesting an amendment to their
existing special use permit for a day care facility at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive. Their existing special use permit allows 54 children; they would like to have 6
additional children for a total of 60 children. The six (6) additional children will be limited to siblings
of existing students. The applicant has requested an increase in students to help meet the
demand of working families who already have children enrolled in the facility.
Petition:
PROJECT: Four Seasons Learning Center
PROPOSED: Amend special use permit to increase maximum number of children in daycare from
54 to 60. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows
residential (3 - 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses
SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes____No X
LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61 X1, Parcel 5
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Character of the Area: The area surrounding the facility is residential with townhouses,
apartments, single-family detached and single family detached units. A recreational facility
(ACAC) is nearby. The day care center is located at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive. Lakeview Drive is a cul-de-sac approximately 400 feet in length.
Background:
There has been a use in operation at this location since 1974, although the building was
constructed in the late 1960’s. There have been several special use permits and changes in
activities that have taken place since 1974.
• 1969 – Four Seasons Development Approved; building approved for office use
• 1974 SP 412 Day Care approved for 32 children
• SP- 89-023 Amendment to reduce sign setback
• SP-02-06 Amendment to allow for 40 children (Approved)
• SDP-00-72 - Changes to circulation (Approved)
• SP-07- 01 - Amendment for increase to 64 children (Denied)
Aug 2008 – PC Recommends approval of 10 additional children, total of 50
SP 2012-0011
PC September 11, 2012
Page 3
Oct. 2008 – BOS denied request
Oct. 2010 – Neighborhood meeting at COB
• SP-10-33 – Amendment to increase to 64 children (Approved at 54 Children)
Feb. 2011 - Applicant altered request from 64 to 54 children per neighborhood concerns,
PC Recommended approval
Mar. 2011 - BOS approved 14 additional children, a total of 54 children
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Urban Density Residential in
Neighborhood 1. Because no changes are proposed to the site, the project has not been
assessed for conformity with the Neighborhood Model. There are no environmental features on
the site which should be preserved, according to the Open Space Plan.
Details of the Proposal: The applicant has requested an increase in students to help meet the
demand of working families who already have children enrolled in the facility. No building additions
are proposed, the licensing agent with the Virginia Department of Social Services has stated that
physically the facility can accommodate the additional children.
STAFF COMMENT:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding
by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property,
In evaluating whether a use will be a detriment to adjacent properties, the intensity of the use and
other impacts are evaluated. Comments and concerns of neighboring properties are also
considered. One measure of intensity of the use in relation to nearby and adjoining properties is
the traffic impacts of the proposal. A closely related measure of intensity is scale of the use in
relation to the neighborhood the use is located.
As previously vetted in various public hearings between 2008 (SP07-01) and 2010 (SP10-33) for
the numerous proposals to increase the enrollment at this site, the two largest impacts from
additional students are traffic volumes in excess of an acceptable limit as well as traffic patterns
which have an effect on the scale of the use in relation to the residential neighborhood (see
Attachments B - E for the staff report and minutes from the Commission and Board’s most recent
amendment to this use permitting up to 54 students), however, as proposed the addition of 6
children who are limited to siblings of existing students would not create additional traffic impacts
because the family’s of the existing students are already coming to the site. Staff, however,
questions whether such restrictions can effectively be enforced, and the result would be that the
enrollment increase would continue to exacerbate traffic impacts to the site.
VDOT trip generation data depicts 54 students in a daycare generates 240 trips per day, with an
addition of 6 students (not restricted to siblings of existing students), 27 additional trips would be
generated for a total of 267 trips per day. Per VDOT road standards the existing roads in the
neighborhood can accommodate the increased traffic. However, traffic volumes in excess of an
SP 2012-0011
PC September 11, 2012
Page 4
acceptable limit to residents of the neighborhood have an effect on the perceived appropriateness
of the scale of the use.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The Four Seasons development was originally developed in the 1960’s. It has a mixture of uses
and dwelling types. The day care facility acts as a transition between the higher density of the
apartments and the lower density of the detached units on Lakevie w Drive. In 2008 (SP07-01)
and in 2010 (SP10-33) staff concluded that increasing the intensity of the day care use at this
location from 40 to 64 children (24 additional students) would likely affect the character of a
portion of the district, specifically Lakeview Drive as a single-family residential street. As
mentioned above, traffic and scale of the use were cited as the main concerns. In 2008 the Board
of Supervisors denied the proposal for an increase in enrollment for a total of 64 children. In 2010
the Commission believed that 14 additional students would not change the character of the
district. The Board of Supervisors agreed and approved the facility for 54 children.
As currently proposed the addition of 6 children who are limited to siblings of existing students
would not have a foreseeable impact to the district. As noted above, staff is concerned with the
ability to enforce a condition that would impose the restriction on 6 additional children as proposed
by the applicant. Staff remains concerned that enlargement of the day care enrollment will create
a use that is out of scale with this part of the Four Seasons development and may impact the
district.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose and intent of the PUD is to provide for a mixture of uses and housing types.
Commercial uses are intended to be limited to a scale appropriate to the support of the residential
uses within the PUD. However, many institutional uses, including religious institutions draw from
the area beyond the geographic boundaries of the development. A day care use is considered an
appropriate supporting use within a PUD, if appropriately scaled. In this case, the assessment is
whether the scale is appropriate to the district.
As previously noted, staff has consistently expressed concerns with the scale of the operation at
this location. In 2008 the Board of Supervisors denied this proposal. In 2010 the Commission
believed that 14 additional students would not change the character of the district. The Board of
Supervisors agreed and approved the facility for 54 children. As currently proposed the addition of
6 children who are limited to siblings of existing students would not have a foreseeable impact to
the district. As noted above, staff is concerned with the ability to enforce a condition that would
impose the restriction on 6 additional children as proposed by the applicant. Staff remains
concerned that enlargement of the day care enrollment will create a use that is out of scale with
this part of the Four Seasons development and is of the opinion that the use should not be
expanded beyond the existing approved 54 children limit.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Residential uses are the primary uses allowed by-right in the district. Day care facilities are
SP 2012-0011
PC September 11, 2012
Page 5
considered supporting uses to residential uses in all residential districts, and will not be of
substancial detriment if the use is established at a location and scale that does not negatively
impact the neighborhood. As noted in this report and two prior reviews of Special Use Permit
requests for enrollment increases for 60+ children (SP07 -01 and SP10-33), staff is of the opinion
that the scale of this use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Supplementary regulations from Section 5 of the zoning ordinance require conformity with
licensure requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and periodic inspections by
the Fire Official. Because of concerns for the safety of children these types of facilities are
inspected regularly by the Fire Official and Social Services (see attached supplemental
regulations section 5.1.06).
During the review of this application staff spoke with the Virginia Department of Social Services,
specifically the inspector/licensing agent for the facility, and ascertained that physically the facility
can accommodate the additional children and that the facility is not at its physical maximum of
allowable space.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
As previously documented in other staff reports for proposed increases in student enrollment,
traffic is the biggest concern that exists for an expansion of this use at the corner of Four Seasons
Drive and Lakeview Drive (traffic volumes in excess of an acceptable limit as well as traffic
patterns). As currently proposed the addition of 6 children who are limited to siblings of existing
students would not have a foreseeable impact to traffic at the site. However, as noted above, staff
is concerned with the ability to enforce a condition that would impose the restriction on 6 additional
children as proposed by the applicant.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. There is a need for child care facilities in Albemarle County.
2. The six (6) additional students (to be siblings of existing students) as described by the
applicant will not require any additional parking than what is already provided nor cause an
increase in traffic.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The proposed restriction for six (6) additional students limited to sibling of existing students
cannot be affectively enforced.
2. Continued enlargement of the day care enrollment will create a use that is out of scale with
this part of the Four Seasons development.
SP 2012-0011
PC September 11, 2012
Page 6
RECOMMENDED ACTION
As previously mentioned throughout this report this facility has the physical capability to
accommodate six (6) additional children without any need to modify the facility. The area of main
concern as noted throughout this staff report is increased traffic (and traffic related impacts) on a
residential street which affects the scale of the use with relation to the residential neighborhood.
While the proposed restrictions placed on the requested enrollment would effectively limit any
new/ additional impacts from traffic, staff is concerned that these restrictions cannot be effectively
enforced and could result in an increase in total daily enrollment which may affect the scale of the
use. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of this request.
Should the Commission choose to recommend approval and condition the enrollment increase to
the description offered by the applicant, (six (6) additional students to be siblings of existing
students), staff offers the following conditions be approved which attempt to best enforce the
intent of the proposal:
1. This permit is approved for an office or nursery school and day-care center. The concurrent
use of the property for a nursery school/day care center and an office use is prohibited;
2. The site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan Amendment dated June 26,
2000 prepared by Aubrey Huffman, approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning
and Community Development and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5,
2000 with the exception that thirteen (13) parking spaces are required and are provided on -
site and on the allowable street frontage of the site. There shall be one (1) business sign
located as shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment which shall not exceed eight (8)
square feet in size;
Conditions #3 – #7 below apply to the nursery school and day-care center:
3. The number of children occupying the nursery school and day care center shall not exceed
fifty-four (54) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is
less, at any time;
On days when any school in Albemarle County or the City of Charlottesville is closed
to pupils, the number of children occupying the nursery school and day care center
shall not exceed sixty (60) or the number approved by the Department of Social
Services, whichever is less, at any time; on all other days the permitted number of
children occupying the nursery school and day care center shall not exceed fifty four
(54) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is
less, at any time;
SP 2012-0011
PC September 11, 2012
Page 7
4. A minimum twenty (20) foot separation between the main building and the property line of
TMP 61X1-AA-8 shall be maintained;
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is
prohibited;
6. All employees of the day care center, including owners and directors, shall park on -site or
in other off-street spaces approved by the Zoning Administrator;
7. The maximum number of employees, including owners and directors, on-site during hours
of operation shall be limited to eight (8);
Conditions #8 - #10 below apply to use of facility as offices:
8. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10);
9. A minimum twenty (20) foot separation between the building and the property line of TMP
61X1-AA-8 shall be maintained;
10. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited;
Condition #11 below applies to any use of the property:
11. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the parking
shall be relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a sufficient distance to
prevent future line-of-sight problems.
---------------
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Location Map/ site plan
Attachment B: SP10-33 Staff Report (January 25, 2011)
Attachment C: SP10-33 PC Minutes (February 8, 2011)
Attachment D: SP10-33 BOS Minutes (March 9, 2011)
Attachment E: SP07-01 Staff Report (June 24, 2008)
Attachment F: Supplemental Regulations
Attachment G: Approval letter for SP2010-33 with 11 conditions
Return to PC actions letter
SP 2012-0011
PC September 11, 2012
Page 8
SP 2012-0011
PC September 11, 2012
Page 8
Attachment A
SP 2012-0011
PC September 11, 2012
Page 9
Attachment B
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2010-33 Four Seasons
Learning Center
Staff: Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 25, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBD
Owners: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski Applicant: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski
Acreage: 0.35 acres Special Use Permit for: Request for
expansion of child care facility in accordance
with Section 20.3.2.1 of the Zoning ordinance
TMP: 061X-00-00-00500
Location: At the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive in the Four Seasons development
Conditions: Yes
Existing Zoning and By-right use: PUD -
residential (3 – 34 units per acre), mixed with
commercial and industrial uses. By special use
permit, this facility may have up to 40 students.
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Density
Residential – residential (6-34 units/acre) and
supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office and service uses.
DA (Development Area): X
RA (Rural Area):
Factors Favorable:
1. There is a need for child care facilities in
Albemarle County.
2. The addition of 24 students and associated
parking requirements can be accommodated
on-site, adjacent to the site, and across the
street.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Additional traffic from the 24 students
will have a negative impact on the
neighborhood due to the increase in
vehicles and opportunities for traffic
conflict at intersections.
2. The enlarged day car enrollment will
create a use that is out of scale with
this part of the Four Seasons
development.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends disapproval.
Attachment B
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
Page 2
STAFF PERSON: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: JANUARY 25, 2011
SP2010-33 Four Seasons Learning Center
Applicant's Proposal: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski are requesting an amendment to their
existing special use permit for a day care facility at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive. Their existing special use permit allows 40 children; they would like to have 24
additional children for a total of 64 children. Attachment A shows their most recently approved site
plan waiver and letter of revision for the facility.
Petition:
PROJECT: Four Seasons Learning Center
PROPOSED: Amend special use permit to increase maximum number of children in daycare from
40 to 64. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows
residential (3 - 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses
SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes____No X
LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive (See Attachment A.)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61 X1, Parcel 5
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Background: An identical special use permit request was made in 2007. The staff reports and
Executive Summaries for those meetings are found in Attachment B and C. The Planning
Commission reviewed the request on August 19, 2008 and recommended approval for 12 extra
students (for a total of 52 students) and not the 24 students requested by the applicants.
On October 8, 2008, the Board of Supervisors denied the application, including the Planning
Commission’s recommendation for 12 fewer students. The Board said that a larger daycare
enrollment would create a use that is out of scale with this part of the Four Seasons development.
Of particular concern was the additional traffic. The minutes from the Board meeting are included
as Attachment D.
On October 7, 2010, the applicant met with the neighbors at the County Office Building to discuss
a possible resubmittal of the application. There were about a dozen residents in attendance
including Rodney Thomas and the applicants. Existing traffic and driver behavior were the major
concerns of the residents. The applicants indicated they have acquired permission to use three
parking spaces at the apartment complex across the street for employees to help take some of the
traffic off of Four Seasons Drive. The neighbors were asked if this would help with the impacts of
additional children in the center. The neighbors said the additional parking wouldn’t be much help.
Attachment B
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
Page 3
They stated that existing traffic volumes on Four Seasons Drive as well as the closeness of the
entrance to the intersection and site distance were problems the applicant couldn’t overcome.
Since there are no changes other than the applicant’s offer to provide off-site parking for three
employees, staff is not repeating the information provided in the prior staff report.
STAFF COMMENT:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding
by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property,
The single largest impact from the additional students will be traffic. Staff viewed the additional
trips from the increase in enrollment would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The
neighbors believe that additional traffic will be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. The
Planning Commission reviewed this issue in 2008 and concluded that the traffic from 12 additional
students, which will be up to 24 vehicle trips in the morning and afternoon, would not be a
detriment. The Board of Supervisors at that time did not agree.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The Four Seasons development was originally developed in the 1960’s. It has a mixture of uses
and dwelling types. The day care facility acts as a transition between the higher density of the
apartments and the lower density of the detached units on Lakeview Drive. In 2008, staff
concluded that increasing the intensity of the day care use at this location by 24 students and
associated traffic would likely affect the character of a portion of the district, specifically Lakeview
Drive as a single-family residential street, although it would not have much effect on the
apartments across the street. The Commission believed that 12 additional students would not
change the character of the district. The Board of Supervisors did not reach the same conclusion.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose and intent of the PUD is to provide for a mixture of uses and housing types.
Commercial uses are intended to be limited to a scale appropriate to the support of the residential
uses within the PUD. However, many institutional uses, including religious institutions draw from
the area beyond the geographic boundaries of the development. In this case, the assessment is
whether the scale is appropriate to the district.
When this day care facility was first permitted, it was limited to 32 children. There were two
employee/owners and the facility was smaller. Over the last 8 years, it has grown to 40 children
and the building has been expanded . When the project was reviewed in 2008, staff said it
believed that the scale of the operation at 40 students was at the upper end of what should be
allowed. The Commission, however, disagreed and said that the scale of the facility with 12
additional students would be appropriate. The Board of Supervisors at that time did not agree.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Residential uses are the primary uses allowed by-right in the district. Day care facilities are
considered supporting uses to residential uses in all residential districts.
Attachment B
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
Page 4
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Supplementary regulations from Section 5 of the zoning ordinance require conformity with
licensure requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and periodic inspections by
the Fire Official. Because of concerns for the safety of children these types of facilities are
inspected regularly by the Fire Official and Social Services.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Traffic is the biggest concern that exists for an expansion of this use at the corner of Four
Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive. With the expansion, staff expects another 120 vehicle trips
per day (maximum amount, inclusive of both staff and parent trips). The amount of additional
traffic is of concern as well as poor sight distance at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive. One resident said this,
“Ingress and egress is so close to the corner that it is treacherous to all vehicles
traveling along Four Seasons Drive and especially to those who turn into Lakeview
Drive from the Commonwealth Drive side. The right turn into Lakeview is “blind” to
those vehicles existing the day care parking lot (and vice-versa) and I have seen
dozens of close calls there.”
In 2008, staff reviewed a traffic study and noted that the sight lines and entrances to the facility
meet VDOT requirements.
In 2010, staff observed traffic at the intersection on the morning of October 7 and on the afternoon
of January 7. There were 276 vehicular trips observed in a 1 ¼ hour morning observation and
810 observed trips in a 2 hour period in the afternoon. The data from the traffic observations
reinforces staff’s conclusions in 2008. Intersection improvements, such as the addition of turn
lanes are not warranted by the traffic volumes.
No traffic conflicts were observed, although neighbors have described a number of near-collisions.
From the detailed observation, staff noted the potential for traffic conflicts from turning movements
from Lakeview onto Four Seasons Drive. For both left and right turns, drivers have to drive well
past the stop sign and white stop bar to see if the intersection is clear before turning. Staff saw a
few speeders during the observations and could see how the combination of speeding traffic on
Four Seasons Drive and turning movements from drivers on Lakeview Drive could be problematic.
Staff believes that high quality day care facilities at convenient locations in the Development Areas
are needed in the community. However, staff continues to have concerns about the safety at the
intersection with additional cars being added.
Attachment B
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
Page 5
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. There is a need for child care facilities in Albemarle County.
2. The addition of 24 students and associated parking requirements can be accommodated
on-site, adjacent to the site, and across the street.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Additional traffic from the 24 students will have a negative impact on the neighborhood due
to the increase in vehicles and opportunities for traffic conflict at intersections.
2. The enlarged day car enrollment will create a use that is out of scale with this part of the
Four Seasons development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends disapproval of the request for 24 additional students. However, if the Planning
Commission wishes to recommend approval, staff recommends the following conditions
1. This permit is approved for an office OR nursery school and day-care center.
2. The site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan Amendment dated June 26,
2000 prepared by Aubrey Huffman, approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning
and Community Development and later approved by Letter of Revision dated Decembe r 5,
2000 with the exception that 13 parking spaces are required and are provided on -site and
on the allowable street frontage of the site.
Conditions 3 – 7 below apply to the nursery school and day-care center:
3. The number of children occupying the nurse ry school and day care center shall not exceed
sixty-four (64) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is
less, at any time.
4. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1 -AA-B.
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is
prohibited.
6. All employees of the day care center, including owners and directors, shall park on -site or
in other off-street spaces approved by the Zoning Administrator.
7. The maximum number of employees, including owners and directors, on-site during hours
of operation shall be limited to seven (7).
Conditions #8 - #10 below apply to the use of the facility as offices:
8. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10).
Attachment B
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
Page 6
9. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1 -AA-B.
10. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited.
Conditions #11 & #12 below apply to any use of the property:
11. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and an office use is
prohibited.
12. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the parking
shall be relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a sufficient distance to
prevent future line-of-sight problems.
---------------
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Staff Report dated June 24, 2008
Attachment C: Executive Summary dated August 19, 2008
Attachment D: Minutes of Board of Supervisors Meeting October 8, 2008
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
14
WHEREAS, it is desired to expand the uses and activities within the Monticello Historic District to
allow certain types of festivals and events, either by right or by special use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to amend County Code § 18-11 and any other regulations of Chapter 18, Zoning, of
the County Code deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on this
resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible
date.
* * * * *
Personal Wireless Service Facilities
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, County Code § 18-3.1 defines “personal wireless service facilities” and the definition
does not include facilities that provide wireless internet broadband access; and
WHEREAS, by declaratory ruling of the Federal Communications Commission, wireless
broadband internet access facilities that are commingled with a provider’s personal wireless service
facilities would be “personal wireless service facilities” under relevant provisions of federal law and
County Code § 18-3.1; and
WHEREAS, under current zoning regulations, facilities that provide wireless internet broadband
access that are not commingled with a provider’s personal wireless service facilities require a special use
permit as “radio-wave transmission towers”; and
WHEREAS, County Code § 18-5.1.40 establishes the regulations for reviewing applications for
personal wireless facilities, and these regulations impose standards designed to protect the public health,
safety and general welfare but also provide for an efficient and economical review of such applications;
and
WHEREAS, the regulations and standards in County Code § 18-5.1.40 were developed from
research and practical experience, and it would be reasonable for those regulations and standards to be
applied to all facilities that provide wireless internet broadband access; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the definition of “personal wireless service facilities” to include
facilities that provide wireless internet broadband access in order to allow applications for those facilities
to be reviewed and acted upon under County Code § 18-5.1.40.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to amend County Code § 18-3.1 and any other regulations of Chapter 18, Zoning, of
the County Code deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board
of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
Deferred Items:
SP-2010-00033 Four Seasons Learning Center
PROPOSED: PROPOSED: Amend special use permit to increase maximum number of children in
daycare from 40 to 64. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows residential (3 -
34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses
SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities
Attachment C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
15
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive, at the corner of Four Seasons Dr. and Lakeview Dr.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061X1-00-00-00500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Elaine Echols)
DEFERRED FROM THE JANUARY 25, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Ms. Echols presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request.
This is a request to increase the number of children at the Four Seasons Learning Center located at
Lakeview Drive and Four Seasons Drive. The increase would be from 40 students to 64 students.
Background
There has been a use in operation at this location since 1974 although the building was constructed in the
late 1960’s. There have been several special use permits and changes in activities that have taken place
since 1974. There was a special use permit request in 2002 to increase from 32 to 40 children. Then
there were some site plan issues that was successfully dealt with. The request to increase to 64 children
was denied by the Board of Supervisors. Two years have come and gone, which is the time period to
wait before being able to present the same request. Before the applicant submitted a request they asked
for a Neighborhood meeting. Staff held a Neighborhood meeting with mostly the adjacent and nearby
neighbors at the County Office Building in October. Right after that the applicant made their request.
• 1969 – Four Seasons Development Approved; building approved for office use
• 1974 SP 412 Day Care approved for 32 children
• SP- 89-023 Amendment to reduce sign setback
• SP-02-06 Amendment to allow for 40 children
• SDP-00-72 -- Changes to circulation approved
• SP-07- 01 – Request for increase to 64 children
• Dec. 2007 – Violations abated and conformity achieved
• Oct. 2008 – BOS denied request
• October 2010 – Neighborhood meeting at COB
Changes since 2008
There have not been a lot of changes taken place since 2008. There appears to be less conflict between
the staff parking on the street and the neighbors. However, the Commission may hear differently from the
neighbors. There were many concerns back in 2008. There seems to be additional on-street parking by
the residents just because of the nature of the activities on the street. However, the applicant has tried to
deal with some of the on-street parking issues that were occurring back in 2008 by securing three (3)
additional parking spaces at the apartments across the street for staff to use.
Issues that Have Not Changed
It is basically the same request and the following issues have not changed since 2008:
• Increase in students will mean an increase in traffic;
• Turns at intersection can be tricky; and
• Driveway into day care center is very close to intersection
Staff has talked to VDOT about whether the stop bar is in the right location. VDOT has gone out,
checked, and said this is the best location. It does meet all of VDOT’s requirements. Everything is in
conformity with what VDOT requires.
Factors Favorable
• There is a need for child care facilities in Albemarle County.
• The addition of 24 students and associated parking requirements can be accommodated on-site,
on-street adjacent to the site, or across Four Seasons Drive. There are no outstanding site plan
issues that need to be resolved.
Attachment C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
16
Factors Unfavorable
• Additional traffic from the 24 students will have a negative impact on the neighborhood due to the
increase in vehicles and opportunities for traffic conflict at intersections.
• The enlarged day car enrollment will create a use that is out of scale with this part of the Four
Seasons development.
The conclusion the Board came to last time and staff also agreed with is that the enlarged daycare
enrollment just creates a scale that is out of proportion with the rest of the neighborhood and where it is
not is the appropriate scale.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the request for the factors unfavorable.
If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval, staff recommends the conditions in the staff
report.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Mr. Smith asked what criteria was used to establish the number that was appropriate.
Ms. Echols replied that the number the daycare started with was 32 students, which was the request in
1974. When it was increased by 8 students up to 40 staff looked at what the site could contain and at the
level of traffic that would generate at the time. This is a subjective activity and not something staff can
say at this number something changes. Last time the Planning Commission thought staff recommended
incorrectly. In the Commission’s opinion there was a threshold that was higher than 40 students that was
appropriate. Staff’s threshold was based on what they saw now and if it appeared to be able to
accommodate it without adding any additional traffic. However, adding more traffic was going to be a
problem.
Mr. Lafferty asked if that is what staff means by scale.
Ms. Echols replied yes, that when they start adding more students and more activity at the site that the
level of activity increases and the scale of that activity the way it is now.
Mr. Lafferty asked if it was like when ACAC took over the swimming pool they had more people coming.
Ms. Echols replied yes.
Mr. Loach said the parking problem they had last time has actually been somewhat improved by
additional parking spaces across the street.
Ms. Echols replied that she did not know if they were using those additional parking spaces yet.
However, her impression is that the issues related to parking in front of the mailboxes has been resolved.
There is still on-street parking by employees, but it is not as much of a problem as it was before.
Mr. Loach asked if 40 children was the number staff is comfortable with or is there some threshold above
that below the 24 that is appropriate.
Ms. Echols replied yes.
Mr. Morris asked what is staff’s opinion of the property itself, excluding the traffic, but including the
building to handle the additional children.
Ms. Echols replied that Social Services evaluated the property and said the physical property or building
can accommodate more children than are there now and the daycare can license up to the 64 children.
There may even be a higher number that they can license to.
Mr. Morris said he was hearing staff saying the daycare facility itself is fully able to handle the additional
children. Therefore, they are only talking about traffic.
Ms. Echols replied yes, that is what staff was told by Social Services.
Attachment C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
17
Ms. Porterfield said if the Commission recommends this request, staff did not include a condition asking
the applicant to maintain the three additional parking spaces across the way.
Ms. Echols replied no, because the applicant can meet the requirements right now and having the other
parking spaces across the street just helps.
Mr. Porterfield suggested that a condition be added because the three additional spaces across the street
would free up three spaces for people who are picking up and dropping off children, which would keep
them from parking on the streets. She asked if that was doable.
Ms. Echols replied that she would ask Ron Higgins of Zoning to come and speak to that since Zoning
would be enforcing the parking.
Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning, confirmed that the parking requirement based on the ordinance is 13 with 7
staff and less than 65 children. The parking across the street would be enforced by marking the spaces,
but it would be a very difficult thing to enforce on a daily basis. They would be requiring staff to park in
three spaces every day across Four Seasons Drive. Therefore, he did not know exactly how it would be
enforced.
Ms. Porterfield noted it would be more of an enforcement issue on their end rather than if they can
maintain them. The applicant can self enforce to just free up some spaces.
Mr. Higgins agreed that would help the applicant to maintain the parking spaces, which would make it
easier. He did not know if staff would be going out there every day and checking license plates.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out she was not expecting staff to do that. She was just trying to see if that could
be a condition of approval because that was not offered the last time, but was an additional good point.
Mr. Lafferty asked what was the general reaction when they had the meeting at the County Office
Building.
Ms. Echols replied that the general reaction was that the residents who were here believed that 40
students was enough. Some people thought 40 students was over the limit of what was acceptable in the
neighborhood. There were no residents present who could support any additional children at the center.
Ms. Porterfield asked on what did they base the 40 students? She asked if it was on the operation of the
daycare or the traffic.
Ms. Echols replied she believed it was on the traffic, but they are in the audience and they will be glad to
provide that information.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff felt it was the traffic and not that the daycare was operating with too many
children.
Ms. Echols replied that was correct.
Mr. Franco noted in the staff report it talks about 120 additional trips are expected from the 24 students.
He asked where the 120 comes from since it seems like a lot of traffic generation. On page 4 of the staff
report, it says staff expects another 120 vehicle trips per day.
Ms. Echols replied that there are 24 trips if they had 24 students and each had a parent, which would be
48 trips each direction. They would come and go in the morning, which are 2 trips, and come and go in
the evening, which are 2 trips. That gets them close to 100 trips. Then there are the employees who
come and go. She questioned if something was missed.
Mr. Franco said it sounds like many trips being generated.
Ms. Porterfield noted it says another 120, which would be in addition to what is already there.
Mr. Franco noted that would put another 22 trips for staff during the day.
Attachment C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
18
Ms. Echols agreed that 32 trips was probably more than should have been attributed to staff. Therefore,
it would be less than 120 trips.
Mr. Franco asked if ITE has a code for this.
Ms. Echols replied that staff went through all of that last time. The applicant also presented a traffic
study, but she did not have that information in front of her. The applicant hired someone to do the traffic
study to ascertain whether any road improvements might be necessary. Mr. Brooks, County Engineer, is
present and can answer other traffic questions.
Mr. Brooks noted that he did not remember the traffic study results.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Barbara Kalemba-Sliwinski, Director of Four Seasons Learning Center and joint owner with her husband
Krzysztof Sliwinski for the last 12 years of the 36 total years of business, made a presentation as noted in
Attachment A. She noted that no new items would be presented since she only wanted to correct a few
items that have been said incorrectly. She requested the Commission approve the request to increase
the maximum number of children in daycare from 40 to 64 because of the reasons stated in Attachment
A.
- SP-2002-006 is not valid. She referred to Attachment A pages 1, 2, and 3. Four Seasons has
SP-412 from 1974 Zoning PUD R-6 with 8 conditions. One of the 8 conditions give Four Season
Learning Center the right to 64 children. In addition, she referred to Attachment B pages 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, On top of this, the Department of Social Services has approved 79 children to
attend FSLC. She explained the parking study and traffic situation. Their parking study by Hurt
and Proffit shows no problems with the amount of spaces on Lakeview Drive and there still are
many extra spaces to share.
- She presented the site plan of the property and explained the parking situation. She pointed out
the parking location for employees and parents parking for student pickup and drop off. Just for
reference the total number of available parking spaces is 13, six (6) for parents one for every 10
children and 7 for employees. The site plan was received on August, 2008. They also have an
agreement with Northwood Apartments for the use of extra parking spaces in case they need
even more. This agreement was given to staff on October 9, 2010. (Attachment G)
- In closing, she asked to make one final statement as noted in Attachment A.
“I am a first generation American citizen born in Poland. I have been lucky enough to find
individuals who want to share my passion for the education of children, with the support from our
neighbors and parents. Please see copies of notes from neighbors and parents that could not be
present at the Planning Commission Public Hearing. Today I ask you to please grant me the
ability to pursue my passion with the children. I believe in local businesses and that creating new
jobs it’s critical for us in our county and city. I have spent my full American citizenship in
Albemarle County for the last 21 years. I truly hope that your parents and grandparents who
started their lives in this country at one point in time did not have to endure the things we have
had to for the durance of these proceedings for the last 5 years. I would like you to know that
based on the way we have been treated and today’s staff report, I feel discriminated against.”
(See Attachment A for full presentation and letters of support from parents.)
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield asked of the 40 children currently enrolled, how many have siblings attending the daycare.
Ms. Sliwinski replied that they have a lot of children and most of the time a family has two children and
sometimes even three. Probably around 15 percent have siblings and some have three children. It is a
lot right now and maybe about one-half of the enrollment have two children and a couple have three
children.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. He passed around a list of multiple signatures of parents of students
and neighbors that said they love the school and support the request.
Martha Wood, of 264 Lake View Drive, noted her home is three house lots from Four Seasons Learning
Center a business located at the corner of Lake View Drive and Four Seasons Drive. She asked the
Attachment C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
19
Commission to deny the request now before them for consideration. This is not the first special use
permit request for this business and it sets a poor precedent of granting variances for the zoning plan in
large residential area. The issue is not how good the business is, how great the need since the business
exists, or how much the client values the service delivered. The issue is granting another deviation from
zoning and the impact on the residential neighborhood immediately adjoining. Site lines for exiting Lake
View Drive are short in both directions. Four Seasons Drive is used heavily in the morning and evening.
There are several large townhouse and apartment developments in the area. Others using Four Seasons
Drive as a cut through from Route 29 along with the daycare traffic creates a safety problem for the
residents. Granting additional capacity to this business would add to an already difficult situation. The
exit and entrance to this business are very close to that busy intersection. The narrow street with on
street parking along with the increased number of children would create a safety problem for the
residents. She urged the Commission to follow staff’s recommendation to deny the special use permit
request.
Courtney Watson, parent of three siblings at the Center, said she had never had a problem with parking
at the center and supported the request.
Mr. Sasha Ismailov said he lived across from Four Seasons Learning Center. In the past three years he
has never had a problem with the traffic. He has not seen any accidents at the intersection. He had a
child and would need daycare in the future. He fully supports the request for 65 children at the Center.
Cindy McCormick, President of the Four Seasons Homeowner’s Association, said this issue impacts not
only the residents along Four Seasons Drive but the entire community. When the last increase was
approved for an additional eight students, the impact on their community was substantial. She could not
imagine what 24 additional students would do to the traffic and safety of the neighborhood. She
appreciated the Commission’s consideration of that when they take this under advisement.
Ms. Porterfield asked what specifically she meant by substantial impact.
Ms. McCormick replied that the traffic increase was substantial. She will allow that having the parking off
site has been helpful. The folks are probably on their best behavior so this matter can be approved for
them. It has been helpful and they appreciate them being good neighbors and appreciate the service
provided. However, it is a narrow street and it is difficult to go up and down Forest Lakes Drive now
without seeing the increased traffic. Folks are coming in quickly and dropping off children. The
neighborhood was not built to handle this amount of traffic and the comings and goings she could not
imagine an increase of this magnitude.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the traffic specifically for this applicant has been helped somewhat by having the
additional parking spaces.
Ms. McCormick replied that the parking on the street has improved somewhat. However, it has not had
an impact on the traffic. Additional parking spaces do not improve the traffic situation.
Ms. Porterfield said the fact the parents can actually find a place to get in and stop and drop off children is
helpful.
Mr. Lafferty asked if they took a vote or poll of the homeowners.
Ms. McCormick replied that they put information about this in their newsletter. Their community is aware
of it. They have requested comments and input. The people they hear primarily from are residents of
Lake View Drive, which was about eight households. They have 164 residents in Four Seasons.
Mr. Lafferty asked if she received any positive comments from neighbors.
Ms. McCormick replied she had not heard any positive comments from any of their residents.
Mr. Zobrist invited other public comment.
Mr. Sliwinski, owner of Four Seasons Learning Center, noted his wife and he have decided to change
their request or application from 64 to 54 children in consideration of the neighbors and the traffic.
Attachment C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
20
Lauren Root supported the Four Seasons Learning Center.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield supported expansion of the Learning Center and felt it was good the applicant indicated
they would like to drop the number being requested. Most people who use daycare have more than one
child. Therefore, there was probably less traffic now than when the 40 children were approved. She
suggested that the daycare be allowed to be expanded since there was a great need for childcare and the
closer to home the better. She liked the fact the applicant is willing to take the request down to 54
children.
Mr. Morris said he had heard this a couple of times. He had been in favor of it every time. They have to
take a look at traffic in the same way they did in approving daycare for the church on Route 250 just
beyond 64. At that time, even though he opposed the request, someone stated correctly that if VDOT
says that it is not a problem, then the traffic is not a problem as far as VDOT. VDOT provides their expert
advice. He appreciated they have reduced the request and was in favor of the request.
Mr. Loach noted in the documentation dated February 7, 2011 regarding traffic that the conclusion was
that the 2008 traffic study indicates sight distance is adequate and the addition of 24 students will not
substantially impact it. He asked if that was consistent with staff’s view.
Ms. Echols replied there is a difference between what a street and neighborhood experiences. The traffic
studies were done to determine if there were any traffic improvements needed. There were no traffic
improvements that were deemed necessary, and the County Engineer agreed.
Mr. Loach noted the second point is that Ms. Wood talked about changes. However, there is a letter
dated 11-4-1974 where the condition was 32 children at any time or 35 feet of floor space. Therefore,
would they meet that condition.
Ms. Echols replied that there have been different conditions set since that time and she did not know.
Mr. Zobrist said it was the condition of the original approval.
Mr. Loach supported the request.
Mr. Lafferty asked if bringing it down to 54 would bring it into scale.
Ms. Echols replied staff did not think so, but it was a subjective determination. If the Commission feels 54
children is right, then staff respects that.
Mr. Lafferty supported the request at the reduced level.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of SP-2010-00034, Four Seasons
Learning Center, with the recommended conditions, as amended, in condition #3 at the reduced level
from 64 to 54 children.
Mr. Kamptner noted that would change condition #3.
Ms. Porterfield asked for an amendment to the motion that the applicants will keep and enforce the
agreement for the three additional parking spaces at the Northwood Apartments.
Mr. Morris accepted the amendment to the motion.
Ms. Porterfield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the request would go to the Board of Supervisors at a date to be determined with a
recommendation for approval with the conditions, as amended.
Attachment C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
FINAL MINUTES
21
1. This permit is approved for an office OR nursery school and day-care center.
2. The site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan Amendment dated June 26, 2000
prepared by Aubrey Huffman, approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and
Community Development and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 with
the exception that 13 parking spaces are required and are provided on-site and on the allowable
street frontage of the site.
Conditions 3 – 7 below apply to the nursery school and day-care center:
3. The number of children occupying the nursery school and day care center shall not exceed fifty-
four (54) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less, at any
time.
4. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-B.
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is
prohibited.
6. All employees of the day care center, including owners and directors, shall park on-site or in other
off-street spaces approved by the Zoning Administrator.
7. The maximum number of employees, including owners and directors, on-site during hours of
operation shall be limited to seven (7).
Conditions #8 - #10 below apply to the use of the facility as offices:
8. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10).
9. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-B.
10. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited.
Conditions #11 & #12 below apply to any use of the property:
11. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and an office use is prohibited.
12. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the parking shall be
relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a sufficient distance to prevent future
line-of-sight problems.
13. The applicant shall keep and enforce the agreement for the three additional parking spaces at the
Northwood Apartments.
The Planning Commission took a five minute break at 8:03 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:09 p.m.
SP-2010-00020 CenturyLink Tower
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit amendment to replace three (3) existing Alltel microwave dishes and six
(6) existing Alltel antennas with new antennas and dishes at various heights on an existing 250 foot
tower. The applicant is also requesting use of existing mounting brackets to allow the mounting of up to
twelve (12) antennas within a sectored array(which requires a waiver/modification of section 5.1.40.C.3)
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: [CO], Commercial Office-; [EC] Entrance Corridor overlay,
[AIA] Airport Impact Area.
SECTION: 23.2.2 (15) Special Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the
Commercial Office Zoning District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service in Urban Area 2
LOCATION: Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C: south side of Rio Road East [State Route 631], approximately 1/8
mile east of the intersection with Route 29 North, and near Fashion Square Mall.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
RELATED APPLICATION: SP2008-00012
(Gerald Gatobu)
DEFERRED FROM THE DECEMBER 21, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Gatobu presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request.
Attachment C
March 9, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
5. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide mitigation
according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: SP-2010-00033. Four Seasons Learning Center (Signs
#73&74).
PROPOSED: Amend special use permit to increase maximum number of children in daycare
from 40 to 64. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows
residential (3 - 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses.
SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive, at the corner of Four Seasons Dr. and Lakeview Dr.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061X1-00-00-00500.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 21 and February 28, 2011.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that the location of the center is just south of the intersection of Four Seasons
Drive and Rio Road near ACAC. He stated that the center has a lot of history as a daycare center with a
referenced the current plan approved for the site, and a site plan amendment showing where parking and
fencing and play areas are located. Since 2008 when the Board denied a requested amendment, Mr.
Cilimberg said, the changes observed have been less conflict between staff parking on the street and the
neighbors, and additional on-street parking by residents also seems to be occurring. He stated that the
applicant has secured three offsite, off-street parking spaces at Northwood Apartments across the street,
but issues that have not changed are the effect of increased students on traffic
request started with a little over 60 students then went to 42 students and now is for 54 students. Mr.
Cilimberg reported that the turns at the intersection are tricky due to site distance, and the driveway into
the daycare center is very close to the intersection.
He said that favorable factors include the need for childcare facilities in the County, with Four
Seasons being a well-established and liked center, and the additional 14 students on site and associated
parking requirements can be accommodated on site, on street and in the other spaces across from Four
Seasons Drive. Mr. Cilimberg added that there is potential for increased vehicle traffic and opportunities
for conflict at the intersections, and the larger enrollment is more out of scale with this part of the Four
Seasons development. He said that staff had recommended denial, but the applicant reduced the number
of students to 54 and the Planning Commission did recommend approval with conditions, including an
additional condition requiring the Northwood parking spaces and maintenance of an agreement to do so.
to the
recommended conditions that do not change the intent, but hopefully will make them clearer and easier to
administer. He then summarized the following recommended conditions:
1. This permit is approved for an office OR nursery school and day-care center. The concurrent
use of the property for a nursery school/day care center and an office use is prohibited.
(Incorporates PC recommended condition #12)
2. The site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan Amendment dated June 26, 2000
prepared by Aubrey Huffman, approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and
Community Development and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 with
the exception that 13 parking spaces are required and are provided on-site and on the allowable
street frontage of the site. There shall be one (1) business sign located as shown on the
Minor Site Plan Amendment which shall not exceed eight (8) square feet in size.
Conditions #3 #8 below apply to the nursery school and day-care center:
3. The number of children occupying the nursery school and day care center shall not exceed fifty-
four (54) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less, at any
time.
4. A minimum twenty foot separation between the building and the property line of buffer shall
be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-8 shall be maintained. (Clarification)
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is
prohibited.
6. All employees of the day care center, including owners and directors, shall park on-site or in other
off-street spaces approved by the Zoning Administrator.
7. The maximum number of employees, including owners and directors, on-site during hours of
operation shall be limited to eight (8). (Request of applicant that staff can support.)
8. The applicant shall provide three employee parking spaces at the Northwood Apartments and
keep in force the agreement with the owner of the Northwood Apartments for these parking
spaces. (Generally covered by Condition #6 which gives more flexibility to the Zoning
Administrator.)
Conditions #9 - #11 below apply to use of facility as offices:
9. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10).
Attachment D
March 9, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
10. A minimum twenty foot separation between the building and the property line of buffer shall
be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-8 shall be maintained. (Clarification)
11. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited.
Conditions #12 & #13 below apply to any use of the property:
12. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and an office use is prohibited.
(Incorporated into Condition #1)
13. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the parking shall be
relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a sufficient distance to prevent future
line-of-sight problems.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff would recommend those amended conditions be included should
the Board choose to approve the special permit. He added that there are references in the site plan to
fences that should remain.
Ms. Mallek asked if this could now be a daycare or office use. Mr. Cilimberg said that an office
could operate under this approval instead of a daycare center, but not both simultaneously.
Ms. Mallek asked where the cars would go for arrival and dismissal while the children are
unpacked and walked into school. Mr. Cilimberg responded that there are sufficient spaces onsite and on
the street to allow for the coming and going of parents to drop their kids off.
Mr. Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator, pointed out that the school had a
traffic study done and analysis of arrival and peak hours, which showed there was not a concentrated time
for arrival and departure. They are spaced out during the day. He added that there are nine spaces on
site and room for four along the frontage which County ordinance allows to count towards parking.
Mr. Snow asked if there had been a lot of accidents in that area. Mr. Cilimberg responded that
there is no record of that in the area. He added that Mr. Thomas and Ms. Elaine Echols observed the
morning peak hours arrival and departures.
Mr. Thomas said that the morning peak was spaced out considerably, but perhaps the traffic is
heavier in the afternoon when the road is busier.
Mr. Snow asked how many days per week the daycare operates. Mr. Cilimberg indicated it
operates all five work days of the week. He added that the hours of operation are not stipulated in the
conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg added that staff asked VDOT if the stop bar could be moved, which seemed to be
part of the issue with the intersection, but they indicated it was in an appropriate location and should not
be moved.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that there is a very heavily enforced 25-mph speed limit there, with people
using it as a route to Whole Foods Market.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward.
The applicant, Ms. Barbara Kalemba-Silwinski, Director of Four Seasons Learning Center said
she is a joint owner with her husband, Krzysztor Silwinski for the last 12 years of the 36 total years of
business. Ms. Kalemba-Silwinski thanked the Board and staff for their patience and understanding. She
stated that Mr. Cilimberg has done a good job presenting their application and she does not have anything
further to add. She will respond to any questions. She also presented support letters from neighbors and
from parents of children in the center.
Mr. Thomas asked how many parents are bringing more than one child. Ms. Kalemba-Silwinski
responded that about 47 percent of the families have more than one child in the center.
Mr. Snow asked how many children are local, from the Four Seasons neighborhood. Ms.
Kalemba-Silwinski said she does not know offhand because it changes from month to month.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a waiting list for children for the center. Ms. Kalemba-Silwinski said
one of the other speakers would respond to that question.
Mr. Steven Harris said that he is a resident on Lakeview Drive and serves on the Four Seasons
B operators have done a great job with a center, and he has owned
the house across the street for about six years now. He stated that he objected to the last enrollment
increase and is here to state his opposition to this increase also, as his property value continues to
decrease with about a 20% decrease since 2006. Mr. Harris said that he is a proponent of small business
and does feel that the center is a great addition to the neighborhood, although he has concerns about the
impact of additional children.
Ms. Susie McCormick, a resident of 1448 Monterey Drive, in the Four Seasons neighborhood,
said that she is also President of the Homeowners Association. Ms. McCormick said that they wrote a
letter to the Board on behalf of the HOA requesting denial of this request. In 2008 the Board denied a
request for increased enrollment and very little has changed since then. They appreciate the fact that the
center has sought off-site parking for staff. The HOA wants to be good neighbors and appreciates the
Attachment D
March 9, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
cent
changed since 2008. She stated that the scale of the center is out of line with the neighborhood and any
increase will exacerbate this situation.
Ms. Linda Terry said that the homeowners are requesting that the Board not approve any increase
in children above the current 40. On October 6, Mr. Thomas met with several of the homeowners along
with the daycare owners and County staff. Ms. Terry said that they voiced concern for over an hour and a
half why the increase in enrollment would not be a benefit to the Lakeview Drive homeowners and the
neighborhood. Little has changed in two years ago. She stated that the daycare center is a commercial
business, and this is easily lost in the emotions of wanting to take good care of children and the need for
more daycare centers in the area. Ms. Terry said that the as a commercial business, the center is the
largest building on a residential street that ends in a cul-de-sac. The building, extensive parking lot, and
playgrounds all dominates the corner and even the whole street. She stated that the center generates the
most traffic on the street and increasing enrollment that it will only enhance that dominance. She added
that she would not have purchased a home there five years ago had she known this. Ms. Terry said that
tonight she noticed that parents were not able to get into the parking lot at the center tonight, and she is
very concerned about traffic turning in and out of Lakeview Drive and off of Four Seasons Drive. With
more customers, there will be more traffic in and out all day long along with likely problem of insufficient
parking spaces for pickup. She suggested that the County look at traffic on Tennis Drive, the next street
over, and compare that to Lakeview Drive. She added this is an accident waiting to happen. Ms. Terry
added that she is concerned about noise, noting that she can hear the kids at the daycare center but at
ACAC, which she abuts. She asked that this request not be repeated again in another two years.
Ms. Courtney Watson addressed the Board, stating that she has three siblings at the center and
supports the increase in enrollment. She has never had a problem with parking at the center.
Ms. Lauren Root addressed the Board, stating that she has been employed at the Four Seasons
Learning Center for almost seven years. During this time she has rarely ever seen a parking problem.
She said that she has seen neighbors deliberately park their cars in spots that should be for everyone,
deliberately trying to make a traffic problem. Ms. Root said that the school has wonderful staff members
and works hard to get along with the neighbors. She said that she is at the center from 7:30 a.m. until
4:30 or 5:00 p.m. She supports the request.
Ms. Trishta Kirtley said that she has two children in the center and is expecting a third. She said
that she supports the increased enrollment and has never had a problem with parking onsite.
Ms. Laurie Harris addressed the Board, stating that she supports the center.
Ms. Dena Price said that she supports the center.
Ms. Geraldine Robinson said that she lives directly across from the center so all the cars have to
pass her house to get there. She said that she has lived there 35 years and has seen the difference in
traffic and noise that the center has brought. She does not want to have to continue to come to the Board
for the center to increase its enrollment.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Boyd asked if the 54 enrollment was reduced from 60 because of traffic. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that at the Commission meeting, the applicant reduced the amount from the 64 originally
requested.
Mr. Rooker commented that they are requesting 10 less than they did in 2008.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the Commission had recommended 12 fewer students than the 64
requested, but it was denied by the Board.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would support the application, as he did in 2008. He thinks there is a
need for daycare services in the community.
Mr. Thomas said that he has observed firsthand the traffic flow there and cannot see that the
learning center is making it worse than it is now. He also supports the application.
Mr. Rooker stated that he views it as a local issue as it is a neighborhood issue, and looks to the
Supervisor in the district to see where he stands. He did not support the previous request. He said that it
is a difficult balancing act because of the demand for these services in the urban area and this is a
densely
Mr. Thomas said that the Health Department has authorized the center for 70 children, and stated
that there is a lot of room in the building.
Mr. Rooker noted that the Health Department approval is for 79 children.
Ms. Mallek stated that it is going to have an impact and she supports Mr. Thom
Mr. Thomas commented that there is always an impact, but the question is to what degree and he
does not think the traffic would have that much of an impact.
Attachment D
March 9, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Thomas then moved for approval of SP-2010-033 subject to the eleven conditions as
presented tonight by staff. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if he wanted the condition providing parking at Northwood Apartments to be
included. Mr. Thomas said that he thought that was a done deal.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that Zoning has had concern about the parking agreement expiring, which
would put the applicant in violation of the special permit. Condition #6 allows the Zoning Administrator to
approve different locations gives more flexibility, and that is why condition #8 was not recommended by
staff although the Commission had recommended it.
Mr. Thomas amended his motion to eliminate condition #8. Ms. Mallek agreed to the
amendment as the second. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. This permit is approved for an office or nursery school and day-care center. The concurrent use of
the property for a nursery school/day care center and an office use is prohibited;
2. The site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan Amendment dated June 26, 2000
prepared by Aubrey Huffman, approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and
Community Development and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 with
the exception that thirteen (13) parking spaces are required and are provided on-site and on the
allowable street frontage of the site. There shall be one (1) business sign located as shown on
the Minor Site Plan Amendment which shall not exceed eight (8) square feet in size;
Conditions #3 #7 below apply to the nursery school and day-care center:
3. The number of children occupying the nursery school and day care center shall not exceed fifty-
four (54) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less, at any
time;
4. A minimum twenty (20) foot separation between the building and the property line of TMP 61X1-
AA-8 shall be maintained;
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is
prohibited;
6. All employees of the day care center, including owners and directors, shall park on-site or in other
off-street spaces approved by the Zoning Administrator;
7. The maximum number of employees, including owners and directors, on-site during hours of
operation shall be limited to eight (8);
Conditions #8 - #10 below apply to use of facility as offices:
8. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10);
9. A minimum twenty (20) foot separation between the building and the property line of TMP 61X1-
AA-8 shall be maintained;
10. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited;
Condition #11 below applies to any use of the property:
11. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the parking shall be
relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a sufficient distance to prevent future
line-of-sight problems
__________________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: SP-2010-00048. Music Festival (Sign #75).
PROPOSED: Five year extension of existing Special Use Permit (SP200900016) to continue
allowing an annual special event at the Misty Mountain Camp Resort.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2.50 Special events.
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: 56 Misty Mountain Road, approx. three-quarters of a mile west of 64E junction.
Attachment D
CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 5 SUPPLIMENTAL REGULATIONS
5.1.06 DAY CARE CENTER, FAMILY DAY HOME
Each day care center or family day home shall be subject to the following: (Added 10-3-01)
a. No such use shall operate without the required licensure by the Virginia Department of Social
Services. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning
administrator a copy of the original license. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful
noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter; (Amended 10-3-01)
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his
discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful
noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter; (Amended 10-3-01)
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude
application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services, Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency.
(Amended 10-3-01)
(§ 5.1.0.6, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Attachment F
Attachment G
Attachment G
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - 1
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
SP-2012-00011 FOUR SEASONS LEARNING CENTER
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 11, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, September 11, 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; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Christopher
Perez, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; David
Benish, Chief of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; 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.
SP-2012-00011 Four Seasons Learning Center
PROPOSAL: Amend Special Use Permit to increase maximum enrollment for a Child Care Facility from
54 children to 60 children (6 additional students). No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development – residential (3-34 units per
acre), mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses.
SECTION: Chapter 18 Section 20.3.2.1 of the Albemarle County Code, which allows for child care
facilities.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 - 34
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service
uses in Neighborhood 1 – Places 29.
DEVELOPMENT AREA: Yes
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes
LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive Charlottesville VA
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061X1-00-00-00500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Christopher Perez)
Mr. Perez presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
• The proposal is to amend the special use permit to expand enrollment of the Child Care Facility.
Increase maximum number of children in f acility from 54 to 60. The current proposal is to amend
Conditions of SP-2010-33 to allow for six (6) additional students to be siblings of existing
students.
• The applicant has requested an increase in students to help meet the demand of working families
who already have children enrolled in the facility. No building additions are proposed, the
licensing agent with the Virginia Department of Social Services has stated that physically the
facility can accommodate the additional children.
• 1974 - SP-412 Day Care approved for 32 children
• SP-02-06 - Amendment to allow for 40 children (Approved)
• SP-07- 01 - Amendment for increase to 64 children (Denied)
Aug 2008 – PC Recommends approval of 10 additional children, total of 50
Oct. 2008 – BOS denied request
• SP-10-33 – Amendment to increase to 64 children
(Approved at 54 Children)
Feb. 2011 - Applicant altered request from 64 to 54 children per
neighborhood concerns, PC Recommended approval
Mar. 2011 - BOS approved 14 additional children, a total of 54 children
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - 2
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
SP-2012-00011 FOUR SEASONS LEARNING CENTER
Brief history of the facility:
* In 1974 the daycare was approved for 32 children
* In 2002 the daycare was approved for 40 children (increase of 8)
* In 2007 the daycare applied for 64 children (increase of 24)
The proposal was denied.
* In 2010 the daycare re-applied for 24 additional children a total of 64, but during public hearing revised
the request for 54 addition children instead. The board approved the 14 child increase, for a total of 54
children.
_______________
Throughout the last two requests to allow for 64 children, staff has consistently had concerns with
increasing enrollment at the facility due to issues with traffic (traffic volumes in excess of an acceptable
limit on a residential street, as well as traffic patterns) in addition to a use that is out of scale with the
neighborhood.
Proposal:
• Amend Special Use Permit to expand enrollment of Child Care Facility. Increase max imum
number of children in facility from 54 to 60.
(6 additional children to be siblings of existing students).
As proposed staff questions whether such restrictions on sibling connection can effectively be enforced,
thus it is essentially a Zoning enforcement issue and thus staff must consider the impacts of 6 additional
children and how it affects the neighborhood.
Staff Concerns:
The two largest impacts from additional students are:
• Traffic volumes and patterns in excess of an acceptable limit
• Scale of the use in relation to the residential neighborhood
During the last two SP applications to increase enrollment at this facility, neighborhood members have
spoken in concern of increased traffic on the residential street as well as traffic patterns.
During the review of this proposal staff considered the 6 criteria outlined in section 31.6.1 of the
ordinance, which the board must consider when approving special use permits.
As described in the staff report, staff is concerned that the increase from the additional students will have
an effect on 5 of the 6 criteria that the board must considerer.
Also please note that during the last two SP applications to increase enrollment at th is facility, numerous
neighborhood members have spoken out in concern of increased enrollment and the affect it will have on
traffic on the residential street as well as traffic patterns.
Chapter 18 Section 31.6.1…Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will:
• not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
• that the character of the district will not be changed thereby
• and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
• with the uses permitted by right in the district,
• with additional regulations provided in section 5,
• and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - 3
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
SP-2012-00011 FOUR SEASONS LEARNING CENTER
1. There is a need for child care facilities in Albemarle County.
2. The six (6) additional students (to be siblings of existing students) as described by the applicant
will not require any additional parking than what is already provided nor cause an increase in
traffic.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The proposed restriction for six (6) additional students limited to sibling of existing students
cannot be affectively enforced.
2. Continued enlargement of the day care enrollment will create a use that is out of scale with this
part of the Four Seasons development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
As previously mentioned throughout this report this facility has the physical capability t o accommodate six
(6) additional children without any need to modify the facility. The area of main concern as noted
throughout this staff report is increased traffic (and traffic related impacts) on a residential street which
affects the scale of the use with relation to the residential neighborhood.
While the proposed restrictions placed on the requested enrollment would effectively limit any new/
additional impacts from traffic, staff is concerned that these restrictions cannot be effectively enforced a nd
could result in an increase in total daily enrollment which may affect the scale of the use. Therefore, staff
recommends denial of the request.
Should the Commission choose to recommend approval and condition the enrollment increase to the
description offered by the applicant, (six (6) additional students to be siblings of existing students), staff
offers the following conditions be approved which attempt to best address the intent of the proposal:
1. This permit is approved for an office or nursery school and day-care center. The concurrent use of the
property for a nursery school/day care center and an office use is prohibited;
2. The site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan Amendment dated June 26, 2000
prepared by Aubrey Huffman, approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community
Development and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 with the exception that
thirteen (13) parking spaces are required and are provided on-site and on the allowable street frontage of
the site. There shall be one (1) business sign located as shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment
which shall not exceed eight (8) square feet in size;
Conditions #3 – #7 below apply to the nursery school and day-care center:
3. The number of children occupying the nursery school and day care center shall not exceed fifty-four
(54) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less, at any time;
3. On days when any school in Albemarle County or the City of Charlottesville is closed to pupils,
the number of children occupying the nursery school and day care center shall not exceed sixty
(60) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less, at any time;
on all other days the permitted number of children occupying the nursery school and day care
center shall not exceed fifty four (54) or the number approved by the Department of Social
Services, whichever is less, at any time;
4. A minimum twenty (20) foot separation bet ween the main building and the property line of TMP 61X1-
AA-8 shall be maintained;
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is prohibited;
6. All employees of the day care center, including owners and directors, shall park on-site or in other off-
street spaces approved by the Zoning Administrator;
7. The maximum number of employees, including owners and directors, on-site during hours of operation
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
SP-2012-00011 FOUR SEASONS LEARNING CENTER
shall be limited to eight (8);
Conditions #8 - #10 below apply to use of facility as offices:
8. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10);
9. A minimum twenty (20) foot separation between the main building and the property line of TMP 61X1-
AA-8 shall be maintained;
10. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited;
Condition #11 below applies to any use of the property:
11. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the parking shall be
relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a sufficient distance to prevent future line-of-
sight problems.
Mr. Perez noted the conditions exist on the current special use permit. He blanked out some of the
changes to try to address this proposal with specific attention to #3, which is proposed. The applicant
has also spoken to him since the staff report went out wish ing to correct the restriction of the schools
being closed in Albemarle County as well as the City of Charlottesville. Their current student population
comes from outside areas of those two to include Nelson County as well as other surrounding counties.
That is an issue that has been brought up and condition #3 depending on which way the Commission
goes may need to be addressed differently. In addition, after speaking with the zoning Department he
has been informed that condition #11 has already been addressed. It was a carryover from previous
conditions. That tree has been removed so is no longer an applicable condition.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach noted that staff indicated the county attorney’s office and zoning had worked on condition
language. He asked if they were satisfied as far as enforcement that they could do this not based on
capacity but now on siblings. He asked how they are going to do that.
Mr. Perez replied if they note the language in #3 as proposed there is no mention to a sibling connection
as that seemed to be the linchpin of being able to enforce it or not. This has been crafted to kind of help
enforce the general proposal as in helping parents that have kids in this facility already have their
brothers and sisters there when school is not in service.
Mr. Morris said he was a little confused with the wording on the daycare center shall not exceed 54 or the
number approved by the Department of Social Service whichever is less at any time. He asked how they
shift from 60 to 50 back down to 54.
Mr. Perez replied if they look at the proposal at the portion at the top where it is separated and they speak
to 60 students they are distinguishing based on when school is closed. That is where they are getting the
6 additional students siblings of those existing students as in trying to accompany that. When they drop
down to the 54 they are going back to this is not a permanent increase of 6. That is why the difference is
there. It is so that this is not just a blanket increase of 6.
Mr. Morris said they are assuming that the 6 siblings are already in a public or private school.
Mr. Benish agreed that they were in another school system. He pointed out that a representative from
zoning was present. There is a difficulty in enforcing any conditions since they are complaint driven. This
is a rather precise condition that just causes greater conflict in trying to enforce over time . He thought
zoning would say that it would be more difficult to enforce, but it is theoretically the way written the most
enforceable language they could come up with.
Mr. Randolph thought everyone was having difficulty with the language because it is e xpressed in
negative rather than affirmatives. What #3 is actually saying is in normal operating days of the school it
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
SP-2012-00011 FOUR SEASONS LEARNING CENTER
shall have more than 54 and if and when any school in Albemarle County or the City of Charlottesville is
closed to pupils, then those da ys and those days alone the nursery school/day care center shall not have
more than 60. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Perez replied that sounds correct.
Mr. Randolph noted that the way it was written made it very difficult to understand what he wa s trying to
say. What is presented to us is really a very marginal increase under extraordinary circumstances of
when Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville close. In recent history not going back to 2009
when they had the snow storm what they are saying is under normal operating conditions it is status quo
and only under unique weather related or emergency situations when the surrounding counties are closed
to pupils will this facility be permitted to accommodate 6 more students reaching the ca p threshold of 60
students.
Mr. Benish noted that it would be all closings.
Mr. Loach said essentially it would seem that they just say that they could go to 60 as long as the number
of vehicle trips does not exceed the current number.
Mr. Benish pointed out the Commission has a fundamental decision if they are comfortable with an
increase by 6. The cleanest way is to change the total enrollment by 6 to 60 students. Staff was
uncomfortable with that. This is a condition that tried to meet the intent of that.
Mr. Loach said the caveat would be that the number of vehicle trips. That would let them know that the
number of vehicle trips is per day and that is going to be watched.
Mr. Benish said that would be just as difficult to enforce.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out they were talking about when school is closed. This also includes the summer.
He believed that the applicant was also interested in being able to increase during the summer time.
time. So it is not just when it is weather related. It is for all closings where they would be allowed to
increase to 60 because they are trying to accomplish parent’s interest. The vehicle trip type of condition
limitation is not enforceable. There is not going to be anybody able to count trips to see if they are
increasing. Therefore, they really have to tag it to a number and decide whether they want to make it only
during those specific times when the city and county schools are closed or just make it a general increase
Ms. Monteith said she was just curious what the applicant’s response to that would be because as she
read the application that was not what they were asking for.
Mr. Randolph noted he was struggling with this because for a parent looking to put a child in daycare they
could put the child in this facility and they would arrive in the county at the end of May they would have
space available and then they would be told as of the end of August or start of September that the child
could no longer be there because the cap is in operation. It puts the institution at a competitive
disadvantage. It certainly puts the parents in a position of saying at the outset do they want a space for
my child for 3 months because both parents are working and they have to find child care and this facility
would not work for them. They are making it very difficult for the applicant to run a business under those
circumstances. He would also like to hear from the applicant, but would like to flush this out among all of
the Commissioners so they were really clear ahead of time what the implications are for this . It was his
understanding from previous school experience that schools have to file something annually either with
the county or state in terms of the number of students that are enrolled in a facility and potentially even a
list of students in some states. So he would be interested in the applicants letting us know whether they
are filing any information. Four times through this report what stood out is a statement that the enrollment
increase could not be effectively enforced or verified. He wanted to see if in fact there is a way in which
the applicant currently provides information to some authority where a number is p rovided on annual
basis.
Mr. Morris said that was an excellent point. He commends staff for at least seeing is it enforceable
because they have asked time and time again if it is going to require some enforcement that they talk
about it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - 6
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
SP-2012-00011 FOUR SEASONS LEARNING CENTER
Mr. Loach asked if zoning has had any complaints since the last increase in capacity that they issued.
Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning, replied no.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing to the applicant and the public. He invited the applicant to address
the Commission.
Barbara Kalemba-Sliwinski said she was the Director and owner of Four Seasons Learning Center with
her husband Krzysztof Sliwinski for the last 14 years. Both my husband and I have been Albemarle
County residents and taxpayers for the 23 years. She made the following comments.
- The county staff has presented the 14 year history of Four Seasons Learning Center. She was
here today with this petition to expand for an additional 6 children/siblings because Four Seasons
Learning Center parents have asked for this.
- Actually last summer they had a very difficult situation because Four Seasons Learning Center
was full. They very successfully have 54 children. A lot of parents already have children in the
school and they know that the school is licensed from 6 weeks to 12 years old an d they would like
to bring in the second child because the price, location and the gas price so to make one trip to
bring their children. It is hard to tell the parents that they are sorry and don’t have a place for their
child.
- She has had requests from some parents about what they are going to do next summer. They
would like to just continue to bring in the children. The requests from the parents pushed her into
making the application to help the parents in Albemarle County. There is no impact on th e
neighbors because they will not crease any additional traffic because it would be the same
number of cars that are coming today.
- She would like to thank the staff and everyone involved for the time that has been spent on this
matter. They are looking for positive results. Next time they would like to have the staff report
material for the Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting a bit sooner.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant. He asked the applicant to address the question that was
raised about the reporting of students and if they have to make reports
Ms. Kalemba-Sliwinski replied that they have to report to the state.
Krzysztof Sliwinski said he would answer the question. The day care is licensed from the Virginia
Department of Social Services. They have routine visitation from an inspector from Social Services once
a month and every 6 months depending on how she feels. A report has to be made and th e license
renewed every 2 years. The inspector comes and checks all of the requirements and papers and makes
a recommendation.
Ms. Monteith asked as part of that process do they actually report to her the number of students they
have when she comes and visits.
Mr. Sliwinski replied yes.
Ms. Monteith said in that case if there were siblings presumably but not always they would have the same
last name.
Mr. Sliwinski noted that this is a problem. In their file they have to keep every child’s birth certificate and
all information required by the state such as the name of the parent and relationship to children of sibling.
They have that information in their file, which is required by the state.
Mr. Lafferty asked of the 54 students that they presently have how many of them live in Four Seasons.
Ms. Kalemba-Sliwinski replied right it was about ten families because most families have two children.
Mr. Loach noted what they really are asking for is to allow an additional 6 students greater than 5 year
olds. That means they are in the kindergarten and up category.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - 7
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
SP-2012-00011 FOUR SEASONS LEARNING CENTER
Ms. Kalemba-Sliwinski replied yes.
Mr. Sliwinski pointed out right now the rules are changing in Albemarle. The children from 3 years old go
to the school from 8 a.m. to noon and sometimes from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. The parents of two children with
one baby and one 4 year old they want to bring both children when the school is closed to the daycare.
Mr. Randolph asked if they get a copy of the report from the Virginia Department of Social Services.
Ms. Kalemba-Sliwinski replied yes. The report is available on the website, too.
Mr. Randolph asked if the report verifies that they have met the approved standards in terms of the
number of students. Therefore, if they approve the request h ypothetically for 60 children year round, then
the Department of Social Services will be evaluating the school for 60 students. In essence for a concern
about the Community Development Department that they not exceed 60 students if they annually
provided a copy of that report, then the county would know that they are meeting the standard under
which they would hypothetically permit them to move from 54 to 60. He asked if they would be able to do
that.
Ms. Kalemba-Sliwinski replied yes.
Ms. Monteith noted that they were missing the point, which was it would need to be a sibling. It is not just
60 students.
Ms. Kalemba-Sliwinski replied yes that is what she would like.
Mr. Morris noted that point was well taken. He invited public comment.
Martha W ood, resident of 264 Lakeview Drive, said she was coming before the Commission again to
request that they uphold the staff’s recommendation and deny any additional children coming to this
business in our residential community. Mostly she opposes increasing the number because the size of
the building and the fact that they keep putting more and more children in the same size. They have a
situation with potential problems with class size, which is very near and dear to her heart. Also she was
opposed to the principle, as noted on pages 2 and 3 and from the history presented by Mr. Perez, of
continually returning to the various boards requesting increases in the number of children. In the case of
an earlier one, which she was involved soon after she moved into the community, the Board of Zoning
Appeals changed the number in the middle of the discussion, once the public hearing was closed. It
made it a little bit difficult to respond to on behalf of the public. It has been a consistent pattern. She
was concerned about the increased traffic in the community. They h ave limited parking on our street by
the residents and homeowners. So that becomes a problem if the persons who are using the daycare
center don’t comply with using their parking spaces. She reiterated once again that she hoped they
would pay close attention to the careful work of staff and uphold their recommendation for denial.
Mr. Randolph asked Ms. Wood if she was a former teacher since she had raised a concern about the
class size. He asked when she moved into 264 Lakeview Drive.
Ms. Wood replied that she was a former Albemarle County teacher. She moved to 264 Lakeview Drive in
late 2007. This request came in soon after she came in. She had previous information from the owner
from whom she bought the property and also from some of her neighbors about what had transpired
before and what was happening again. She also lived in Albemarle County from 1979 to 1986. She has
been a resident and a taxpayer in the county for some time. Even though she did not always live in the
county she has always had an interest in the proceedings and the work of the county. She was a middle
school teacher at Walton.
Mr. Randolph said on February 8, 2011 she had expressed concerns similar to those she shared today
She brought up the issue of traffic, yet what is under discussion here would effectively not produce any
net increase of traffic because these would be siblings assuming they would traffic in the same vehicle.
He asked if she would still have that concern about traffic if in fact they are going to be in the same
vehicles that are currently going to this facility.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - 8
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
SP-2012-00011 FOUR SEASONS LEARNING CENTER
Ms. Wood replied listening to the discussion which has transpired here this evening, she would have
some concerns because some of those siblings the 3, 4, 5 and older are in school part of the day in public
schools. When their part of the school day closes then they would be brought to the learning daycare
center in another trip somehow. However that is arranged is another issue that she did not think they
could deal with here. It is probably not germane to the request. However, there could be an increase in
traffic. It seems that the principle is involved here more than the actual numbers, which is they keep
increasing the size of the student body at this business without an increase in the size of the property.
Mr. Randolph asked if in her vision for the community she would be happier if there was no daycare
center there. He asked if she would like it to be an office building.
Ms. Wood replied that she would prefer that.
Courtney Watson said she had been a parent at Four Seasons Learning Center for three years.
Currently she has two children enrolled and one in public school that started this year. She supports the
Four Seasons Learning Center gaining 6 additional children. Having these spaces will allow her to bring
her public school child to the same center on school holidays, closings and vacations. She hoped this
proposal is approved today to help her and other parents with similar situations. Other parents have
chosen her to speak to the Commission today and present their petition with their signatures. Thank you
for your consideration and time. (Attachment 2: Letters of Support of Four Seasons Learning
Center’s Application to expand from ten individuals.)
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris asked invited the applicant to make a five minute
rebuttal.
Barbara Kalemba-Sliwinski thanked the Commission for coming today. There were two things she would
like to clarify. First, Social Services measured how many square feet is allowed per child, which actually
allows Four Seasons Learning Center to have more children. Social Services approved 79 children for
the building.
Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Randolph said he was struggling because he finds some of the same issues that they dealt with
earlier on Polo Grounds Road where they are judging the application. The merits of that application,
which was an athletic social mission, initially was judged based on qualitative traffic issues where the
applicant really had nothing to do with those issues. They are historical and hereditary. They inherited
them with the site. He thinks he hears echoes of the same thing. It courses through the traffic issues
that were raised by staff and also by Ms. Wood. He also wonders should traffic issues such as stop signs
and site lines, which he would refer to as the qualitative traffic issues , be separated from the quantitative
issue which is traffic volume. They keep talking about flow, but really the issues that seem to be most
potentially of concern are functional qualitative traffic issues of stop signs and site lines. He thinks those
two items need to be separated out.
Mr. Lafferty said his main concern is the impact on the community. They are only serving 20 percent of
their classes come from Four Seasons. They have heard this time and the time before that there are a
number of people that feel like this is getting too big for the community it is serving. He did not think
people would complain if they were in a business location. But, it is in the middle of a residential
community. He agreed that it was unenforceable. However, that does not bother him as much as the
impact on the community.
Mr. Morris noted that one thing they need to keep in mind that is just down the street is the old ACAC
facility with a large parking lot and lots of traffic.
Mr. Franco disagreed with Mr. Randolph’s analysis earlier regarding the comparison to the Polo Grounds
Road. He thinks this is different. That one had an issue of traffic for sure and sort of what the road could
and not handle. He thinks this is an issue of scale, which Mr. Lafferty was referring to. He did not know
that they had a lot of standards or measuring tools here. If they look at the traffic that can be generate d
by the daycare they are talking about 267 trips. He thinks counting the number of residents that are on
that street he believes there are 17. They are talking about 170 trips. So for what they are looking at it is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - 9
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
SP-2012-00011 FOUR SEASONS LEARNING CENTER
now scaled at least traffic generation wise bigger than the cul-de-sac it is on. That gives him concern. It
gave him concern last time. He did not have another tool to measure scale with or that he could think of.
But it seems that it is becoming more of a neighborhood for the daycare tha n it is a neighborhood for the
residents. That gives him great concern.
Ms. Monteith said she wondered whether they are talking about what the staff report recommended or
that it would be 60 but that it would only be allowed to be 60 when school are otherwise closed. She was
trying to understand whoever makes the motion what they would be making a motion for.
Mr. Lafferty said he believed the staff report recommends denial. They crafted the response so that it
would fit into the legal terminology. But, the recommendation is for denial.
Mr. Perez said that is correct.
Mr. Benish said the alternative condition was just trying to address the concept of the sibling issue to
minimize that traffic impact. They are not necessarily recommending that they approve that condition. It
was provided as an alternative if they wanted to try to achieve that. This was staff’s best shot at doing
that.
Mr. Loach noted the problem that he sees is that they all understand the situation. As parents most of us
have been through it. He agreed with Mrs. Brooks on the 3 and 4 year olds. Actually it would be two
additional trips. That is why he was saying before if they changed the wording to allow up to 6 full time
students during those off school hours it might suffice. That said he was not sure if they are not trying to
craft a solution for the neighborhood, which is already up in arms, for a very small number of students
meaning a very small circumstance at this time meaning the 6 siblings and children, that number will
always be a moving target depending on the demographics of their classes are. He was not sure that
they can answer the long term problem in the language that they would have to craft. That is his proble m
with this.
Mr. Morris asked if he was hearing him correctly that his problem is really taking a look at condition #3.
Mr. Loach said what he saying is he understands the problem. He understands that they are talking
about siblings. But, they are also talking about 6 at this time and place in their business and that is going
to shift and change depending on what the demographics of the rest of those students are and the
number of siblings that they have in those school age years. He understands the problem, but was just
not sure that they should craft a solution for 6 students.
Mr. Franco said it seems like it may lead to right now they are at 54 students. He asked why not say 54
families because that would be the same number of trips and they could h ave as many students as they
wanted. He thinks that it starts to lead down a lot of different alternatives. Again, it is placing the scale of
the use that is just out of place for that neighborhood. He was thinking of the neighborhood with a cul -de-
sac there. He thinks that Four Seasons does have some other locations that are business locations.
There is a pool and ACAC. If this entered out onto the main road he would have a different feeling.
However, it is coming out into the neighborhood road. He finds it hard to support anything that would
increase traffic or the size of the use there.
Mr. Randolph said if in fact the Board backs this up then what the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors would be saying is they can’t grow at this sit e. He would be interested in hearing from the
applicants if they have had a discussion as a couple about the fact that they can’t grow at this site what
they will do. He did not want to see a situation where they lose them from Albemarle County and they
move to Fluvanna or Green County and open up a daycare. What is this going to mean to the applicants
if they in fact say that today the cap is this and what are they going to do for the future?
Mr. Morris noted that is beyond what they are looking at now. If they look at the history of this they have
been fairly consistent on what their goal is for quite some time. They are growing and the Commission is
looking at the request for 6 additional students that would be siblings of current students.
Mr. Dotson said that Mr. Franco’s metric is probably as good as they can do. He thinks it makes the point
about scale maybe better than describing it in words. He thinks the other thing is that there was actually
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - 10
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
SP-2012-00011 FOUR SEASONS LEARNING CENTER
a phrase in the staff report at this particular site it is an unusual site. It is sort of a tip of a peninsula.
There is not a lot of area where parents can pick up and drop off. He was not out there at the pick up or
drop off time and would be very surprised if all of the cars could get on the site that would want to be
there at any given point in time. So he would assume that the problem is a lot of confusion, potential path
crossings and conflicts and therefore safety issues. It is not so much traffic volume by the houses
because this is a cul-de-ac. It could be that people drive on down the cul-de-sac and stop at the curb and
walk back with their kids. That should have good impacts. He probably is not going to vote favorably, but
he thinks the applicants have a point that there is a terrible need in the community. They saw this when
the schools last week closed with very short notice. What do parents do? He a ppreciates the problem
and therefore the business opportunity. Maybe between now and the Board somebody can f igure out
how to make this work. But he thought there was a real problem and an opportunity because parents do
have multiple kids, have jobs, and what do you do when the schools are closed.
Mr. Loach noted the answer may be the school bus. However, he was not sure. The neighbors have
said this is about traffic for them and maybe there is a way to cut down the traffic if the school could
provide its own transportation. That is the biggest thing. He was looking for ways around it so they could
start to meet these needs. Again, he goes back and agrees with what Mr. Dotson said that there is not
the need for this. They can understand the situation. He was just not sure they could craft the language
or should craft the language for only 6 students. He looks for the applicant to co me back with long term
solutions to the capacity problems.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend denial of SP-2012-00011 Four
Seasons Learning Center based on the Commission’s discussion and the findings of the staff report.
Mr. Lafferty voted yes to recommend denial because he believed that it was inappropriate for the
neighborhood; that it is over a ten percent increase in their student population; and it would be awfully
hard to enforce.
The motion for denial passed by a vote of 5:2. (Morris and Randolph voted nay.)
Mr. Morris noted a recommendation for denial of SP-2012-00011, Four Seasons Learning Center will be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to a date to be determined.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - 11
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
SP-2012-00011 FOUR SEASONS LEARNING CENTER
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - 12
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
SP-2012-00011 FOUR SEASONS LEARNING CENTER
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - 13
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
SP-2012-00011 FOUR SEASONS LEARNING CENTER
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE
ZMA2012-008 Estes Park- Proffer Amendment
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to amend proffers of approved
ZMA201000011 to now include cash amount for
single family detached/attached residential units.
Proposed unit type now includes detached and/or
attached single family, which are allowed in
approved ZMA. Number of units remains the same.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Yaniglos
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
December 12, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On November 13th, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application for the proposed changes to
the proffers for Estes Park. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning amendment. During the
meeting there was discussion concerning the types of trees being planted for screening to alleviate an adjacent owner’s
concerns.
DISCUSSION:
During the discussion and recommendation of approval of the ZMA the commission believed that it would be desirable
to have a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees planted to help alleviate an adjacent owner’s concerns. The applicant
offered to revise the application plan to show additional deciduous trees. The applicant has since revised the plan to
show this change, which is included as an attachment in the staff report.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve ZMA2012-008 Estes Park- Proffer Amendment
View Proffers
View PC actions letter
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes: November 13, March 6, January 24, 2012; and August 23, 2011
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 November 28, 2012
Scott Collins, PE - Collins Engineering
200 Garrett St. Suite K
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
RE: ZMA201200008 Estes Park Amendment
Tax Map Parcel 03200000003300, 03200000003400, 046B4000000500, 046B40000005A0
SDP201200030 Estes Park – Preliminary Site Plan
Tax Map Parcel 03200000003300, 03200000003400
Dear Mr. Collins:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 13, 2012, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval re: ZMA201200008 to the Board of Supervisors and, by a vote of 7:0, approved
SDP201200030.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
REGARDING ZMA201200008
By a vote of 7:0 the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZMA-2012-00008 subject to the proffers
dated October 2012 updated to reflect the correct amounts as recommended by staff.
Original Proffer
Cash Proffer for Capital Improvement Projects.
“The cash contributions shall be $13,000 cash for each attached dwelling unit, other than a constructed
affordable dwelling unit within the Project qualifying as such under Proffer 3. The Owner’s total cash
contribution to Albemarle County to address impacts upon the identified public facilities may be up to $754,000
(58 dwelling units x $13,000).”
Portion revised to: “The cash contributions shall be $19,200 cash for each single family detached dwelling
unit, other than a constructed affordable dwelling unit within the Project qualifying as such under Proffer 3. The
Owner’s total cash contribution to Albemarle County to address impacts upon the identified public facilities
may be up to $1,113,600 if all dwelling units are single family detached (58 dwelling units x $19,200). The
cash contributions shall be $13,000 cash for each single family attached dwelling unit, other than a
constructed affordable dwelling unit within the Project qualifying as such under Proffer 3.”
*NOTE: The cash proffer amount shown in the staff report will need to be updated before the Board
meeting to reflect the correct amounts- $19,753.68 for SFD and $13,432.49 for SFA.
REGARDING SDP201200030
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 7:0, approved SDP-2012-30 Estes Park Preliminary Site Plan subject
to the conditions recommended by staff listed in the staff report, as follows:
Planning approval to include:
Meet all the requirements in Chapter 18 Section 32 for final site plans, including landscape plans,
and lighting plans.
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of final plans.
Approval of variations and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA2012-008) by the Board of Supervisors
Engineering approval to include:
Applicant to provide documentation and agreements for the use of offsite stormwater
management at Forest Lakes Pond. If no documentation or agreement can be given, and
approved the satisfaction of the County Attorney’s Office, all stormwater management must be
contained on site.
The plan must meet all engineering requirements of the Water Protection, Subdivision, and
Zoning Ordinances in addition to all engineering standards detailed in the County’s Design
Manual.
Virginia Department of Transportation approval to include:
Show sight distances and sight line profiles at the proposed street connection to Worth Crossing.
The minimum intersection sight distance for a 35 mph design speed is 390 feet.
Include road profiles and traffic projections.
The minimum spacing of tangent curb between entrances is 50 feet.
The entrance off of Worth Crossing needs to meet VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix F
standards.
The minimum width of entrance on a local road is 24 feet between curbs for a minimum throat
length of 35 feet or more.
Albemarle County Service Authority approval to include:
Final water and sewer construction plans will be required for review for
final site plan.
Fire & Rescue approval to include:
Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field
inspection and verification.
Hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet per travelway
Streets less than 32 ft in width shall be marked on one side "Fire lane No Parking" per Albemarle
County Code.
Turning radii need to be marked on the final site plan.
E911 approval to include:
The applicant should contact the property owners of TMP 046B4-00-00-00500 and TMP 046B4-
00-00-005A to discuss the road labeled as ‘Public Road D’. As the adjacent property owners that
are currently addressed off of Worth Crossing will need to be re-addressed to reflect the new
proposed road. A letter signed by both owners confirming a road name has been agreend upon
will need to be submitted from all property owners that will be affected by the new road.
The applicant will need to contact this office with a list of three (3) potential road names for
approval. The following road names are listed: ‘Road A’, ‘Road B’, ‘Road C’
Note for Site Plan: The applicant agreed to change the tree plantings along the fence to a mixture of
evergreen and deciduous trees. In addition, the applicant agreed to change the note behind lots 32 and
33 as they definitely plan to put up a fence and trees.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review ZMA201200008 and
receive public comment at their meeting on December 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.
Return to exec summary
Sincerely,
Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc: Alan Taylor
321 E. Main St., Suite 500
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
Fox, Clifford H Jr
2280 Barrackside Farm
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
Estes Park LLC
Po Box 1457
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
1 ZMA2012-008 Estes Park
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 201200008 Estes Park - Proffer
Amendment Staff: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 13, 2012
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To Be
Determined
Owners: Estes Park, LLC
Applicant: Alan Taylor- Estes Park, LLC
Acreage: 12.75 acres
Rezone from: PRD, Planned Residential
Development with proffers to PRD with
amended proffers
TMP: TMPs 032000000003300 and
03200000003400
Location: In the southwestern quadrant of Proffit
Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossing/Leake Lane,
approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the
Community of Hollymead. (Attachment A)
By-right use: Urban Density Residential –
residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting
uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses.
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Amend proffer #2 of approved
ZMA201000011 to now include cash amount for
single family detached/attached residential units.
Proposed unit type now includes detached and/or
attached single family, which are an allowed use in
approved ZMA. No additional dwellings or change in
residential density proposed.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 68
DA (Development Area): Hollymead Community
Places29 Master Plan Designation: Urban
Density Residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in the
Hollymead Development Area.
Character of Property: The property currently has
one older residence and outbuildings on it. The
gently rolling terrain includes a stream with steep
slopes running from the northwest to the southeast
across both parcels.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The property
to the north is residential with two churches and
a daycare facility, property to the east is the
Forest Ridge duplex residential neighborhood,
property to the west is the Worth Crossing
townhouses, and the property to the south is the
Dominion Power substation.
Factors Favorable:
1. The amendment updates the proffer to
more accurately reflect the cash proffer
amount based on the unit types being
constructed.
2. This rezoning request will not change the
site layout or intent of the original rezoning.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None identified.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA201200008 inclusive of revised proffers.
2 ZMA2012-008 Estes Park
STAFF PERSON: Megan Yaniglos
PLANNING COMMISSION: November 13, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
ZMA 201200008 Estes Park
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA 201200008, Estes Park- Proffer Amendment
PROPOSAL: Amend proffer #2 of approved ZMA201000011 to now include cash amount for single
family detached/attached residential units. Proposed unit type now includes detached and/or attached
single family, which are allowed in approved ZMA. Number of units remains the same.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential
(6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: In the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossing,
approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP 03200000003400, 046B4000000500 and TMP
046B40000005A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The two subject parcels are located in the southeastern quadrant of Proffit Road and Worth Crossing/
Leake Lane [Attachment A]. The property does not have frontage on any of the major streets in the
area (i.e., Worth Crossing, Proffit Road). The property currently has a residence and several
outbuildings on TMP 33-34. The property is bounded to the north by several parcels zoned R-1,
Residential and occupied by a single residence (TMP 32-35), two churches (TMP 32-36G/32-36E and
TMP 32-29D), a daycare facility (TMP 46B4-5), and a metal storage building (TMP 46B4-5A). The
property to the west is zoned R-15, Residential and is the location of the Worth Crossing townhouses.
The property to the south is owned by Dominion Virginia Power and is the site of a substation. The
neighborhood to the east, Forest Ridge, is zoned R-10, Residential and consists of 44 duplex
residential units.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting a minor change to Proffer #2- Cash Proffer for Capital Improvement
Projects, as well as revising the application plan to show detached single family units which are a by
right use in the PRD zoning district [Attachments C and D].
The approved proffer for the capital improvement project impacts called for the per unit cash
contribution to be based on single family attached units only; however, the PRD zoning does allow
single family detached by right. This request is to clarify that the per unit cash contribution for capital
improvement project impacts would be based on either single family attached and detached residential
units. Use of either or both unit types in the development does not significantly change the form,
character or any major elements of the plan approved as part of the rezoning. Both units are permitted
under the approved rezoning and associated application plan.
3 ZMA2012-008 Estes Park
Along with the changes to the rezoning the applicant is also requesting a variation with the site plan to
make the following changes [Attachment E]:
1. Increase the road width by one foot from 28 feet from face of curb to face of curb to 29
feet from face of curb to face of curb.
2. Modify note on application plan to allow parking on one side of the street
3. Revise the unit type from attached single family to detached single family (an allowed
use within the Planned Residential Development zoning)
4. Slightly shift the location of the connection to Moubry Lane, but will remain in the
designated right of way area.
Variations need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors per Section 18-31.8 Special Exceptions of
the Zoning Ordinance. Staff is recommending approval of these variations, and providing this to the
Planning Commission for informational purposes only. These variations will be on the consent agenda
for the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant would like the flexibility for having different types of residential units within the plan and
the associated proffers. Revising the proffer to provide cash for both detached and attached single
family units will allow the applicant to build different types of units which are allowable by right within the
zoning district.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
ZMA2010-011 Estes Park- On April 11, 2012 the Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning from R-1
to PRD with proffers.
SDP2012-030 Estes Park- Preliminary Site Plan- currently under review.
DISCUSSION
This proposal does not propose to change land uses previously approved for Estes Park, but allow for
cash to be contributed for single family attached units, as well as, attached units within the
development.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district
Planned Residential Development districts are intended to provide flexibility and variety of development
for residential purposes and uses ancillary thereto. This project continues to be consistent with the
intent of the PRD district, allowing for flexibility of developing different types of units within the
development. The proposed proffer amendment does not violate the intent of the Planned Residential
Development Districts.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
The additional cash contribution for single family detached units will allow for additional services to be
provided by the County. The change from single family attached to detached units does not add any
additional impact to public facilities and services. The number of units is remaining the same within the
development.
Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources
None anticipated with this proffer amendment.
4 ZMA2012-008 Estes Park
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
None anticipated with this proffer amendment.
Public need and justification for the change
The proffer change will allow flexibility in the types of units built on the property, and will offer the public
another type of housing type based upon market demand. Allowing for additional cash contributions for
capital improvement projects will offset the fiscal impacts of the development on the County’s public
facilities and infrastructure.
PROFFERS
See Attachment D for the revised proffers. The following is an analysis of the proposed proffer
amendments. The portion of the original proffer subject to change is highlighted below.
Analysis of Amended Proffers
Original Proffer [Attachment B] Requested Amendment
2. Cash Proffer for Capital Improvement
Projects.
The Owner shall contribute cash on a per
“market-rate” dwelling unit basis for the
purposes of addressing the fiscal impacts of
development on the County’s public facilities
and infrastructure, i.e., schools, public safety,
libraries, parks and transportation. A “market
rate” unit is any unit in the subdivision that is
not considered an Affordable Unit as
described in Proffer 3. The cash contributions
shall be $13,000 cash for each attached
dwelling unit, other than a constructed
affordable dwelling unit within the Project
qualifying as such under Proffer 3. The
Owner’s total cash contribution to Albemarle
County to address impacts upon the identified
public facilities may be up to $754,000 (58
dwelling units x $13,000). The cash
contribution shall be paid at the time of the
issuance of the building permit for each new
unit, unless the timing of the payment is
otherwise specified by state law.
Portion revised to: “The cash contributions
shall be $19,200 cash for each single family
detached dwelling unit, other than a
constructed affordable dwelling unit within the
Project qualifying as such under Proffer 3. The
Owner’s total cash contribution to Albemarle
County to address impacts upon the identified
public facilities may be up to $1, 113,600 if all
dwelling units are single family detached (58
dwelling units x $19,200). The cash
contributions shall be $13,000 cash for each
single family attached dwelling unit, other than
a constructed affordable dwelling unit within
the Project qualifying as such under Proffer 3.”
The effect of this change is to provide enough
flexibility to allow for both single family
detached units and single family attached units
while assuring that the property cash amount
is paid and contributed for Capital
Improvements for each unit type.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The amendment updates the proffer to more accurately reflect the cash proffer amount
based on the unit types being constructed.
2. This rezoning request will not change the site layout or intent of the original rezoning.
5 ZMA2012-008 Estes Park
Staff has identified no unfavorable factors for this request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of ZMA201200008 inclusive of revised proffers [Attachment D]
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A – Vicinity Map
ATTACHMENT B – Original Proffers dated April 9, 2012
ATTACHMENT C – Revised plan showing detached units
ATTACHMENT D – Revised Proffers dated October 2012
ATTACHMENT E- Variation Request
Return to exec summary
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this ZMA:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA201100008 subject to the proffers dated October, 2012 as
recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this ZMA:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA201200008. Should a commissioner motion to recommend
denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources July 9, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
200 ft
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment E
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2012-00008 ESTES PARK AMENDMENT &
SDP-2012-00030 ESTES PARK – PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 13, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 13, 2012, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco,
Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chairman; and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land
Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; Christopher
Perez, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner, David Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; Ron Higgins, Chief of
Zoning; 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.
The Planning Commission took a break at 9:48 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:58 p.m.
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-2012-00008, Estes Park- Proffer Amendment
PROPOSAL: Amend proffer #2 of approved ZMA201000011 to now include cash amount for single
family detached/attached residential units. Proposed unit type now includes detached and/or attached
single family, which is allowed in approved ZMA. Number of units remains the same.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential
(6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: In the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossi ng,
approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP 03200000003400, 046B4000000500 and TMP
046B40000005A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Megan Yaniglos)
AND
SDP-2012-00030 Estes Park – Preliminary Site Plan
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of preliminary site plan for 68 single family attached units on 12.75
acres.
PROFFERS: Yes
ZONING: PRD- Planned Residential Development- residential (3-34 units/acre) with limited commercial
uses per ZMA2010-011
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential
(6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: In the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossing,
approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300; TMP 03200000003400
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Megan Yaniglos)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2012-00008 ESTES PARK AMENDMENT &
SDP-2012-00030 ESTES PARK – PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
2
Ms. Yaniglos presented a PowerPoint Presentation and summarized the staff report.
Proposal:
Request to amend proffer #2 of approved ZMA-2010-011 to now include cash amount for single
family detached and attached units.
Revise the application plan to show single family detached units.
The updated plan was included in the staff report.
Proffer Language Changes
The effect of this change is to provide enough flexibility to allow for both single family detached units and
single family attached units while assuring that the property cash amount is paid and contributed for
Capital Improvements for each unit type.
Original Proffer
Cash Proffer for Capital Improvement Projects.
“The cash contributions shall be $13,000 cash for each attached dwelling unit, other than a constructed
affordable dwelling unit within the Project qualifying as such under Proffer 3. The Owner’s total cash
contribution to Albemarle County to address impacts upon the identified public facilities may be up to
$754,000 (58 dwelling units x $13,000).”
Portion revised to: “The cash contributions shall be $19,200 cash for each single family detached
dwelling unit, other than a constructed affordable dwelling unit within the Project qualifying as such under
Proffer 3. The Owner’s total cash contribution to Albemarle County to address impacts upon the identified
public facilities may be up to $1, 113,600 if all dwelling units are single family detached (58 dwelling units
x $19,200). The cash contributions shall be $13,000 cash for each single family attached dwelling unit,
other than a constructed affordable dwelling unit within the Project qualifying as such under Proffer 3.”
*NOTE: The cash proffer amount shown in the staff report will need to be updated before the
Board meeting to reflect the correct amounts- $19,753.68 for SFD and $13,432.49 for SFA.
The applicant has been made aware of this change.
Favorable:
1. The amendment updates the proffer to more accurately reflect the cash proffer amount based on
the unit types being constructed.
2. This rezoning request will not change the site layout or the intent of the original rezoning.
Unfavorable:
None Identified.
Staff recommends approval.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph asked has permission been secured from the adjacent property owners to build the public
access road to the development for Bright Beginnings.
Mr. Yaniglos replied they did not secure that easement with the original property owner and they have the
rights to have that access that they did not need the additional property owners’ permission.
Mr. Randolph noted that he wanted to double check because previously there was a question about that.
On the proffers on page 4 the language is missing from the requested amendment, which is t he last
sentence of the original proffer. It stated that the cash contribution be paid at the issuance of the building
permit for each new unit and what is the timing of the payment as otherwise specified by state laws. He
asked if there is any reason wh y that language did not roll over into the requested amendment and
thereby be included in that.
Mr. Kamptner replied it is in the proffer statement on page 9.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2012-00008 ESTES PARK AMENDMENT &
SDP-2012-00030 ESTES PARK – PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
3
Ms. Yaniglos noted that it was just a summary.
Mr. Franco pointed out that the only the changes were noted in yellow.
Ms. Yaniglos noted on page 18 in Attachment D is the full language of the revised language. The other
was just showing the differences of the portions changed.
Mr. Lafferty asked if this affects the affordable housing aspect, and Ms. Yaniglos replied no.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing to the applicant and public comment. He invited the applicant to
address the Commission.
Scott Collins, representative for the applicant on this project, said there was no change to this project. It
was just because of some changes in market demand. Instead of all of the single -families being attached
they are all detached. Because of that change it has changed the proffer because the original proffers did
not allow that distinction. It changed the proffer and actually it is more cash proffers because of the
single-family detached aspect of it. It is pretty much as simple as that.
Mr. Randolph asked if they still are planning on two phases one west and one east.
Mr. Collins replied that is correct.
Mr. Randolph asked if they are looking at putting the s ame type of housing in each phase.
Mr. Collins replied yes, the same type of housing will be in both phases.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Jill Mulligan spoke on behalf of her mother who is an adjacent property owner. As she has sat here
tonight watching and listening she noted as a taxpayer of Albemarle County she was very appreciative of
all the work they do. She could not do this job just because the decisions to be made were too hard. She
understands since her mother did not join in the various community zoning applications that pretty much
what they have here with Estes Park is a done deal. However, her particular lot is not only adjacent to
the cul-de-sac but also to the boundary where units 24 and 25 come to the end there. There is sort of a
small triangle of land which right now is a mini forest. It is hardwoods, Beeches, Oaks and Pine Trees,
which were very tall and about 50’. It provides a little mini forest around her home on the one side. It is
really regrettable that there is no way that the developer can keep from eliminating all of that. She
understands that legally that there is nothing that they can say, do or mandate that they do put up a fence
and perhaps some Leyland Cyprus. As a forester’s daughter she had to say that she was really sorry that
they could not preserve those trees, particularly not just for her mother’s privacy in her old age, but
because it seems that from selling the homes it would have been even more of a sales pitch to be able to
say there are these lovely trees. Moubry Lane was not known for Forest Ridge for nothing. As they
develop more and more it seems that they have fewer and fewer of these lovely shade provoking autumn
colors. She hoped in their future dealings with others they will be asking as people come to the
Commission with their plans about tree mitigation and the keeping of the privacy that the trees afford.
There being no further public comment Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Dotson asked if the applicant would like to respond to the last comment.
Scott Collins said they were concerned about providing as much of a landscape buffer that they can. In
order to do that they have taken measures to install a privacy fence along that boundary line. They have
actually inlaid the privacy fence onto their property to plant a number of trees betw een that 6’ property line
boundary and the fence. In essence they are almost giving up 6 extra feet as a buffer as protection to the
adjacent property owners along that area in an effort to help mitigate and buffer our project from their
project as well to do what they can to preserve the characteristics of the existing trees right there.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2012-00008 ESTES PARK AMENDMENT &
SDP-2012-00030 ESTES PARK – PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
4
Mr. Smith asked if that is only on that one lot or the ones on the other side of the cul-de-sac also.
Mr. Collins replied that it was up and down the entire property line.
Mr. Randolph asked if those trees are a mix of coniferous as well as deciduous.
Mr. Collins replied yes, what they will do is actually have a landscape architect come in and put together a
good sizeable buffer with a mixture of the trees.
Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-2012-008 subject
to the proffers dated October 2012 updated to reflect the correct amounts as recommended by staff.
Original Proffer
Cash Proffer for Capital Improvement Projects.
“The cash contributions shall be $13,000 cash for each attached dwel ling unit, other than a constructed
affordable dwelling unit within the Project qualifying as such under Proffer 3. The Owner’s total cash
contribution to Albemarle County to address impacts upon the identified public facilities may be up to
$754,000 (58 dwelling units x $13,000).”
Portion revised to: “The cash contributions shall be $19,200 cash for each single family detached
dwelling unit, other than a constructed affordable dwelling unit within the Project qualifying as such under
Proffer 3. The Owner’s total cash contribution to Albemarle County to address impacts upon the identified
public facilities may be up to $1, 113,600 if all dwelling units are single family detached (58 dwelling units
x $19,200). The cash contributions shall be $13,000 cash for each single family attached dwelling unit,
other than a constructed affordable dwelling unit within the Project qualifying as such under Proffer 3.”
*NOTE: The cash proffer amount shown in the staff report will need to be updated before the
Board meeting to reflect the correct amounts- $19,753.68 for SFD and $13,432.49 for SFA.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted they would go on to review SDP-2012-00030 Estes Park – Preliminary Site Plan.
Ms. Yaniglos presented a PowerPoint Presentation and summarized the staff report.
Proposal:
This is a request for approval of a preliminary site plan approval for 68 single family detached
units.
Location:
In the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road and Worth Crossing, approximately
800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead.
Discussion:
The application has been called up for review by Ms. Mulligan, an adjacent property owner. Some
of the concerns include loss of privacy, tree cover and vegetative buffer, and prope rty resale
value.
The applicant has proposed to add fencing and additional landscaping along the boundary of the
development, which is above and beyond the requirements of the ordinance. The ordinance does
not require a buffer between residential uses.
The preliminary site plan was reviewed by all members of the Site Review Committee and found
that the plan meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and approved Zoning Map
Amendment in regards to the landscaping and buffer of the site from adjacent par cels.
Additional Buffer Proposed:
Proposed 8 foot wooden fence to be installed along rear property line of the lots along the
boundary line of the Forest Ridge neighborhood. Between the fence and the property line, a
staggered row of Leyland cypress will be installed 6 to 8 feet in height at planting.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2012-00008 ESTES PARK AMENDMENT &
SDP-2012-00030 ESTES PARK – PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
5
Factors Favorable and Unfavorable
Favorable:
1. Site Plan matches the approved rezoning application plan.
2. Submittal meets the preliminary site plan requirements.
3. No conditions were required during the rezoning for additional landscaping.
4. No ordinance requirement for screening between residential uses; applicant is providing some
screening along adjacent residential area.
Unfavorable:
None Identified.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval with conditions listed in report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty questioned who the owner of the property was since on the proffer it lists the owner as Estes
Park LLC, but on the preliminary it lists Cliff Fox.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that she would let Scott Collins answer that question since that is how the
applications came in.
Scott Collins pointed out there was a change in ownership between the original rezoning and now through
the site plan process. They will clean that up.
Ms. Yaniglos noted that the site plan came in four months ago and the rezoning application just came in.
Mr. Collins pointed out regarding the note about the tree plantings they will change from it from being all
just Leyland Cyprus to what they talked about kind of a mixture. That is not a problem.
Mr. Franco pointed out the note that is sitting behind lots 32 and 33 talks about leaving a 10’ buffer or
establishing. So that note needs to be cleaned up as well. The applicant was saying they were definitely
putting up a fence and trees. Therefore, he needs to eliminate the 10’ buffer alternative.
Mr. Collins agreed.
Mr. Randolph pointed out the reason he brought that up was Ms. Mulligan’s reference to trying to have
colors preserved for her mother. Therefore, he was looking for a variety of both deciduous and
coniferous.
Mr. Collins agreed to do that.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Scott Collins, applicant, noted he had nothing to add.
There being no public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to approve SDP -2012-30 Estes Park Preliminary
Site Plan subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Planning approval to include:
Meet all the requirements in Chapter 18 Section 32 for final site plans, including landscape plans,
and lighting plans.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2012-00008 ESTES PARK AMENDMENT &
SDP-2012-00030 ESTES PARK – PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
6
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of final plans.
Approval of variations and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA2012-008) by the Board of Supervisors
Engineering approval to include:
Applicant to provide documentation and agreements for the use of offsite stormwater
management at Forest Lakes Pond. If no documentation or agreement can be give n, and
approved the satisfaction of the County Attorney’s Office, all stormwater management must be
contained on site.
The plan must meet all engineering requirements of the Water Protection, Subdivision, and
Zoning Ordinances in addition to all engineering standards detailed in the County’s Design
Manual.
Virginia Department of Transportation approval to include:
Show sight distances and sight line profiles at the proposed street connection to Worth Crossing.
The minimum intersection sight distance for a 35 mph design speed is 390 feet.
Include road profiles and traffic projections.
The minimum spacing of tangent curb between entrances is 50 feet.
The entrance off of Worth Crossing needs to meet VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix F
standards.
The minimum width of entrance on a local road is 24 feet between curbs for a minimum throat
length of 35 feet or more.
Albemarle County Service Authority approval to include:
Final water and sewer construction plans will be required for review for
final site plan.
Fire & Rescue approval to include:
Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field
inspection and verification.
Hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet per travelway
Streets less than 32 ft in width shall be marked on one side "Fire lane No Parking" per Albemarle
County Code.
Turning radii need to be marked on the final site plan.
E911 approval to include:
The applicant should contact the property owners of TMP 046B4 -00-00-00500 and TMP 046B4-
00-00-005A to discuss the road labeled as ‘Public Road D’. As the adjacent property owners that
are currently addressed off of Worth Crossing will need to be re-addressed to reflect the new
proposed road. A letter signed by both owners confirming a road name has been agreed upon will
need to be submitted from all property owners that will be affected by the new road.
The applicant will need to contact this office with a list of three (3) potential road names for
approval. The following road names are listed: ‘Road A’, ‘Road B’, ‘Road C’
Note for Site Plan: The applicant agreed to change the tree plantings along the fence to a mixture of
evergreen and deciduous trees. In addition, the applicant agreed to change the note behind lots 32
and 33 as they definitely plan to put up a fence and trees.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2012-00008 ESTES PARK AMENDMENT &
SDP-2012-00030 ESTES PARK – PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
7
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted ZMA-2012-8 Estes Park – Proffer Amendment will be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval at a date to be determined. The site plan does not need
Board approval.
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 6, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 6, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the
County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, V irginia.
Members attending were Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, and Calvin
Morris, Chairman. Absent was Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner
for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chairman, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park (Sign # 88 & 89)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.75 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 03200000003300 and TMP 03200000003400 from R -1,
Residential zoning district which allows 1 unit/acre to PRD, Planned Residential Development zoning district which
allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses and to rezone 0.56 acres on Tax Map/Parcel
046B4000000500 from R-1 Residential zoning district to R-1 Residential zoning district and rezone 1.8910 on Tax
Map 046B40000005A0 from R-1 Residential zoning district to R-1 Residential zoning district with proffers.
Proposed number of units is 68 for a density of 5.33 units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 – 34
units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: in the southeast quadrant of the intersection o f Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossing,
approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP 03200000003400, 046B4000000500 and TMP
046B40000005A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(David Benish)
DEFERRED FROM THE JANUARY 24, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Benish presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report. This proposal is to construct a
development consisting of 68 single-family attached units, in a pedestrian-friendly layout, with a street network, with
access to Worth Crossing, and with 25% open space that includes the stream on the property.
The Planning Commission initially heard this request on August 23, 2011. The applicant at that time requested
deferral to address issues that were identified by the Commission, which he would briefly go over. There was also an
issue with an adjacent property owner that provided at the time a proposed second point of access to Worth Crossing.
That applicant withdrew his willingness to participate in providing for that access. Over the intervening period from
August to now the applicant had to work towards that issue as well, which contributed to some of the delays.
The Planning Commission issues that were identified at the August 23, 2012 meeting were:
1. Inadequate commitment to affordable housing. There was general consensus from the Commission that the
cash proffer amount for affordable housing should be based on the total number of dwelling units
consistent with the County’s cash proffer policy. It was based on the additional units above the by right
number.
2. The applicant should insure that there is adequate protection of downstream properties, including Arbor
Lake, from erosion and sedimentation issues during development.
3. Provide for a tot lot or another recreational amenity in the 25% open space.
4. Improve temporary and long-term protection of the historic cemetery on-site during construction and after
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
2
completion of the project.
5. One of the main issues was to provide adequate road widths to accommodate parking on both sides of all
roads. The initial road plan only allowed for parking on one side.
6. The biggest issue was that access was to be provided to Moubry Lane with a second access to Worth
Crossing. The applicant should evaluate options for another point of vehicular access instead of the
Moubry Lane interconnection. It was the general consensus of the Commission not to make a vehicular
connection to Moubry Lane. The applicant was asked to pursue an alternative connection and to seek a
second means of access.
The applicant has responded to the Commission’s concerns through changes to both the proposed application plan
and proffers. The revised plan essentially addresse s all of the major conditions at least in concept. Major changes to
the application plan since the version reviewed in August are:
The unit type has been changed from single-family detached homes to single-family attached homes.
A pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access only connection has be en provided to Moubry Lane.
The configuration for the roads have changed somewhat. However, the areas of development are
essentially the same. The sole access to the site is now through a proposed public road to Worth Crossing
through adjacent parcels on the north side of the site. No second means of access to the site is feasible at
this time (except from Moubry Lane). Three road stub-outs to adjacent properties have been provided for
on the application plan as possible future interconnections.
Most of the issues have been addressed. In terms of the status of the project the proposed plan is generally
consistent with our Comprehensive Plan, except for the interconnectivity with existing public streets, Moubry Lane.
However, this proposal is consistent with the direction that the Planning Commission had provided and does not
provide for that connection. There is no second means of access to a public road because there is not another option
for that given this development location. However, the appl icant has provided for three other stub-outs to adjacent
properties, which would allow for future connections but for the development over the long term.
The applicant in the revised proffers is requesting flexibility to address the affordable housing policy to provide
either affordable units or cash in lieu of units or some combination. The prior request had been to provide simple
cash in lieu. Staff believes this is acceptable. It has been done in other development proposals in concept to allow
the option to do either/or or some combination.
Outstanding issues:
Public road access located on two separate parcels. Property owners not party to this application have not
yet provided a written agreement to provide access. The development as proposed will n ot have access to a
public road and will not be developable without this agreement. However, staff has had letters from both
property owners and they are in negotiations with the applicant. They are working towards that and they
have expressed a willingness to allow this roadway. However, they have not put this in writing as yet.
They are positively working towards that agreement, but staff cannot say it is in place at this time.
Proposed cash proffer amount for Capital Improvements are not based on the total market units that might
be built in this development proposal as per Cash Proffer Policy (Proffer 1). Now that the applicant is
requesting flexibility to provide for in kind constructed affordable units or cash in lieu the way that the
proffers are currently structured creates an issue because the total cash proffer amount is based on ten
affordable housing units being provided. There is a credit that is typically provided for affordable units that
reduces the cash proffer amount to 58. However, with the flexibility that they are requesting there may
actually be more market units built than 58. Staff has suggested that the cash proffer amount should be
based on the total number of market rate units that are ultimately built. Staff believes that the number of
market units can be tracked and corrections to the affordable housing proffer can be made. He believed the
applicant is basically offering a cash proffer amount based on 58 units.
Modifications are needed to the Erosion/Sediment Control Proffer to reflect the applicant’s proposal/memo
(Proffer 4). The applicant has provided a memo outlining the enhanced measures that they would provide
to address erosion and sedimentation in an enhanced way with the development of this site. The County
Engineer has reviewed that memo and is generally agreeable to those methods. However, the proffer at this
point in time does not specifically reference the memo and it does not reference who makes the decision on
which improvements need to be made. There is some clean up to that proffer that needs to be worked out.
There are also other technical corrections to the form of the proffer document that need to be addressed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
3
Those are the primary issues with this development proposal. Otherwise, staff feels t hat it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and is generally a good proposal. Staff cannot recommend approval at this time due to the
outstanding issues. However, if the Commission is comfortable and decides to recommend approval to the Board of
Supervisors staff would recommend that approval be conditioned on addressing these issues prior to Board approval
as identified.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Ms. Monteith said as she understands phasing one and two in this project is not typically how they handle phasing.
In other words, phase one is 2012 and phase two is 2014. I t has more to do with the way that the site is going to get
built out. She noticed there is only a storm water facility in the phase two areas. She had two questions. One, what
is the time lag between phase one and two. There is an existing wetland and stream to remain that is in phase one.
She just wondered what the buffering was on that.
Mr. Benish suggested the questions be left to the applicant to respond.
Mr. Randolph requested since several Commissioners were not here on August 23 an explanation of the thinking of
the Commission at that point as to why Moubry Lane would not be a viable second means of egress and ingress to
this proposed development.
Mr. Morris offered to answer the question since both lots are in his area. If you go out to Moubry Lane you can see
that it was planned that there would be a connection if another unit of Estes Park was ever built. However, due to
the way that community has gelled that c ul-de-sac has become the community area where people get together to
talk, children learn how to ride bikes, etc. It has really turned into a community meeting place. As he recalled the
residents requested very respectfully that they not take that away from them. Having gone out to the site and seen
the way that neighborhood gels out there he was very much in favor of leaving it the way it was. However, he
favored putting in a bicycle/pedestrian emergency area to connect the two. The county has allowed that in other
areas such as Cascadia.
Mr. Dotson asked if the concern was with creating through traffic in either direction, or that street was a community
adopted space.
Mr. Morris said that was an excellent point because that was a major factor also. If that was a secondary way of
getting out it would lead right to Profit Road. It would be very advantageous to a lot of people and would probably
greatly increase the traffic on that particular road.
Mr. Franco pointed out he was torn because the Comp Plan calls for interconnectivity. However, the traffic and the
cul-de-sac were the two big issues. At the meeting the public spoke strongly about the interconnection. With the
Chair’s lead he basically followed along. Since this is one of the last pieces up there that he could see continuing to
develop it with cul-de-sacs and not having that interconnection. However, he was still torn because it was
something in the Comp Plan.
Mr. Morris pointed out that stretch of road from the cul-de-sac to Profit Road is the greatest straight away that they
have coming out of Estes Park. They could just see the 25 mile an hour speed limit going by the wayside.
Mr. Randolph asked if recreation space is the community concern would it be possible where lots 28 and 27 are
currently located which is directly southwest of Moubry Lane, to designate those areas as a recreational space. If
Moubry Lane is taking on a social recreational function he was thinking about the objective of trying to ensure that
there is twin access into this new phase of Estes Park. He suggested that perhaps lots 28 and 27 could be designated
as a recreational area. He was struck by the amount of development in the space and the lack of recreational space .
He would love to hear from members of the community how they would feel about that with 27 and 28 or perhaps
lots 29 and 28. There should be some way that an exit to the east side of Estes Park could be made into more of a
recreational area to meet the objective of the residents and thereb y ensure that the traffic would be coming through.
If both communities are using the space it is not an either/or proposition and it becomes a collective proposition
where the people in Estes Park and on Moubry Lane have a stake in ensuring that the speed limits are observed.
Anyone speeding could be kindly informed that they need to slow down in the future by a member of the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
4
homeowner association. He would like to see some deliberation on that. He was concerned about only having one
way into this community. Given the level of development and the number of people in there he was struck by the
fact that there is only one road.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Scott Collins, representative for the applicant, Riverbend Management, on this project, said Mr. Benish did a great
job of summarizing where they are at this point and where they have been coming from the August meeting to now.
He would touch on a couple of items, as follows. He had no formal presentation because he thought it has been well
done.
Regarding the access agreement by Worth Crossing and the property owners, they are wrapping up
negotiations with both of those parcel owners that will be secured before the Board of Supervisors meeting.
It will probably be secured by the end of this week. That is all going very well. They understand that
mechanism needs to be in place in order for the rezoning to go forth. That will all be taken care of.
The same goes as far as the erosion and sediment control proffer that they have been working on with
Forest Lakes to ensure protection of Arbor Lake. That has all been worked out with the support of Forest
Lakes to date and with the county. It is just a matter of making the adjustments to the actual proffer
language, which they could not do before this meeting. However, that will all be finalized between now
and the Board of Supervisors meeting to incorporate the couple of sentences that will link the memo to the
proffer. They are all in agreement on that at this time. That should be taken care of as well.
Regarding the affordability proffer, the way everything is written there is some ambiguity to how that
proffer is actually implemented. That is what they have been faced with as early as Friday of last week.
Up until that point they were with the understanding that this project achieved the 15 percent affordability
rate by them proffering ten affordable units. That is achieved either by building those units and selling them
at the affordable rate or making a contribution into the Affordability Housing fund so they can help with
the down payments or help with future affordable housing needs. With that contribution that should count
against what they were providing. Therefore, in the way the y look at it they don’t really consider that point
as a market rate based on that contribution to achieve affordable housing. The way everything is written it
is a little bit unclear as to how that is interpreted. He knew the Commission was going to be talking a little
more this month about the affordable housing policy. He was sure that would come up as well.
In addition, he wanted to touch base on the cash proffers and the ability to get credit on the cash proffers
when they are not increasing the density in a rezoning much more than they could already do on the
existing zoning. This property is R -1 zoning. They could actually do 18 lots by right. They are increasing
that to 68 units. The Comp Plan for this area calls for the density to be betwee n 6 units an acres up to 34
units an acre. They are developing at a density of 5.3 units an acre, which is far less than what they could
actually achieve. If they tie all that in together they can see that is somewhat fair not to have to pay the
proffers on these additional 10 units. In addition, the fact that on the 18 units they can achieve by right,
they have been paying taxes for county services for almost 25 to 30 years because it has been zoned land
for that long. He hoped the Commission could take all of that into account in their recommendation tonight
as to whether the cash proffer for market rate should be based on 58 units and not the 68 units.
Regarding the comments about the phasing, the storm management pond is shown in phase two. Howeve r,
for phase one development there will be a sediment basin and storm management pond that will function .
Where they currently show lots 18, 19 and 20 the erosion and sediment control plan will show a basin that
will be functional and operational in the area where all of phase one will go in drainage to that facility. It
will be piped over from that facility over to the new storm water management facility once they start phase
two. This will be over protected. The basin will be oversized 50 percent for the wet volume and 50 percent
for dry volume to ensure adequate erosion controls. There will be d ifferent compartments in that basin as
well to help with the sedimentation of soils in the water and help address their additional erosion control
measures. In phase one, they will have a basin protecting the downstream lake and streams. As far as the
stream, they will keep the stream buffer around the existing stream through the property. They will have
trees on the back sides of those lots to help protect that stream corridor as well.
Regarding the access question over to Moubry Lane between their developments, they worked on that
many months since the last meeting in August. It seems based on the Planning Commission comment that
connection is better suited as pedestrian access and emergency connection. There are a couple of bollards
that can be lifted. If the access is blocked up on Worth Crossing, there is the access there. There is also
additional access to the property from the north coming down Profit Road that goes right between the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
5
existing church property and the existing commercial property. That access will still remain to that
commercial property. There is a third access point that could be used for emergency access if Worth
Crossing is blocked.
As far as the recreational aspect of the cul-de-sac on Moubry Lane to Estes, they took the cul-de-sac and
said that was the recreational space for Forest Ridge. Then they planned their recreational space at the
intersection where they showed the tot lot and recreational facility. They connected them with the
pedestrian pathway, which ties the two recreational spaces together. That creates continuity between the
two neighborhoods and the recreational facility. They hope that these two neighborhood s will overlap with
their community programming and amenities and have activities together that incorporate both
developments in the end. That was the reasoning for adjusting the design of the development and having
some recreational space right there at that intersection with the access connection between the two
recreational spaces.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Ms. Monteith asked as a follow up what is the time frame between phase one and phase two. The applicant said
they are going to be retaining the buffers around the existing wetland, but they don’t know what those are. She
asked what the buffers are.
Mr. Collins replied that it was the existing trees right now.
Ms. Monteith noted that it was not a typical stream buffer. It is not 50’ on either side of the midsection of the
stream.
Mr. Collins replied no, it was not.
Mr. Monteith asked if his definition of buffer is trees that happen to exist.
Mr. Collins replied that is correct.
Ms. Monteith asked what the time frame is between the t wo phases.
Mr. Collins replied right now the timing was going to be market driven. First they are going to develop phase one.
Another reason for developing the project in two phases is again addressing concerns of erosion and sediment
control. Obviously, this is not a 200 acre development that would be undisturbed for two or three years at a time. It
is good to phase projects in order to complete one phase before going on to the next. If they did this all at one time
it would be 12 acres of disturbed area open at one time. They have proffered in their erosion and sediment control
additional implementation of sediment control measures, which is to develop in phases down to 6 to 8 acres at one
time to help cut down on the amount of disturbed area. The timing will probably be in a manner of a couple years or
18 months.
Ms. Monteith pointed out she saw that in the storm water proffers. She asked for a clearer definition of what is in
phase one and two. She asked if he could give unit numbers.
Mr. Collins replied that everything west of the creek is basically phase one and everything to the east is phase two.
The creek splits the two phases. Phase one is basically lots 1 through 13, 61-68, and 56-60. Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19 and 20 would be in phase two because that would be the temporary storm water management facility location for
phase one.
Mr. Randolph asked what the estimated value or range would be for these units.
Mr. Collins referred the question to the developer, Alan Taylor.
Alan Taylor, with Riverbend Management, said they were the developer of the property and would develop the lots
and sell the lots to a home builder. He can’t speak to the terms of what the overall value of the home is going to be.
He would anticipate in the $3 00,000 range, but probably starting in the high $200,000 range.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
6
Mr. Randolph asked if it would be condominiums or town homes.
Mr. Taylor replied that they would be fee simple attached units or technically a duplex. Regarding the market rate
versus affordable rate proffers, he questioned if the policy has been changed. In the developments he has been
involved with historically the way they have done it there was 85 percent of the units at market rate and 15 percent
of the units at the affordable rate. Therefore, they would pay market rate proffer on the market rate units and then an
affordability proffer on the affordable units. As Mr. Collins was saying, what has happened in the last week or so is
that there was a market rate proffer on all the units and then an affordability proffer on 15 percent of the units.
Essentially, there would be cash proffers on 115 percent of the units. He was i nterested in knowing if there was a
new policy in affordable housing.
Mr. Morris noted the Commission would bring that back for discussion and ask the staff.
Mr. Taylor said to further expand on the access issue, he noted it was an issue they had been dealing with for months
and hope to have a signed agreement this week. The final draft was circulated today.
Mr. Morris said one of the items brought to the Commission in the August meeting was an agreement with the
Forest Lakes residents.
Mr. Taylor replied that they had been meeting with the Forest Lakes residents, which was where the erosion and
sediment memo circulated by Glenn Brooks had come from. Mr. Collins met with Mr. Brooks a number of times to
implement above and beyond measures to make sure that the siltation events that have happened to Forest Lakes
historically don’t happen with this development.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Peter Walpole, resident of Moubry Lane for 11 years, said he was here at the August meeting and wanted to thank
the Commission. He brought his son, Max, who spoke at that meeting. They all understood about the pre-existing
idea of there being an access road through Moubry Lane. Moubry Lane has evolved into a very special place. The
cul-de-sac has very little traffic and the residents use that area as a recreational and meeting plac e. Therefore, the
residents would like to preserve that area. They were very positive to the possibility of the mel ding of the
communities over time. They were very open to the emergency access for the vehicles. The idea of losing the cul -
de-sac and having cars running up and down the road makes him very sad. That is why they came to the August
meeting and why they were here tonight to try to protect what is a very special place for the community. He
renewed their plea from August to save Moubry Lane the way it is.
Ms. Mappi, on the Board of Directors for the Forest Ridge Homeowner Association, agreed with Mr. Walpole about
how they all feel about Moubry Lane. When developed it really was not developed properly for connectivity. They
have no sidewalks, which they have been back and forth on. The problem is the children walk to the school bus at
Profit and Moubry and there are no sidewalks. People try to cut through and don’t pay attention to the 25 mile per
hour speed limit. Therefore, she worries about the safety of the children if they change Moubry Lane since it would
destroy the area. She asked that they keep Moubry Lane as it is.
Stenala Preston, resident of Moubry Lane, agreed with the previous speakers and asked that Moubry Lane be left as
it is. A direct connection would jeopardize the community by the danger of the cars coming through. She
supported having the emergency access and merging the communities together. Having direct drive through would
jeopardize lives at Moubry Lane.
Jim Frye, retired CEO for Worrall, said in August during their discussion they came up with a wonderful idea that
protected the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac has become the center of the community. He compliments the Commission
and Estes Park in coming up with a wonderful solution that saved and protected their community and the ability of
America to live and the people to grow.
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said they have no position on the project. However, they are
concerned with some of the questions that have come up in recent weeks from the Commission. It seems that they
are looking at a plan for land use and questions of pricing and timing beyond the questions that have been proffered
with regard to phase one and two. These are market decisions. They are looking at a land use plan. The cost and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
7
timing of the units beyond the affordable units are not in the Commission’s purview. Those are the very few things
that government does not control in the development process.
Mr. Morris closed the public comment to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion.
Ms. Monteith noted in response to Mr. Williamson’s comment that the question she asked was a land use question.
She asked about the phasing specifically as it related to storm water. She questioned when that is not a land use
issue.
Mr. Franco asked that the Commission get an answer from staff regarding the confusion about the affordable proffer
and how it overlaps with the cash proffer. It has been his experience in the past that there were two separate proffers
that have been applied at 85 percent and 15 percent. He asked if this is a change in the policy
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was actually not. To be clear on the distinction, only market rate units are under the
policy to be covered by the cash proffer policy application. Where that has been differentiated is when the
affordable unit is not being constructed but instead cash is being given in lieu of the affordable units. The only
application of the cash proffer policy is to market rate units. If they build 15 percent affordable units those would
not be subject to the cash proffer policy the way the policy has worked. However, i f they don’t build and instead
give cash then those units will be market rate units and would be subject to the cash proffer policy the way the
process has worked.
Mr. Franco said he did not think it has worked that way in the past.
Mr. Cilimberg said that he believed that it has. He remembered this coming up with the Rivanna Village at
Glenmore. That was discussed because there was some question of whether or not there was going to be units
produced or cash in lieu of units. That has been his recollection as to how the policy has worked. However, when
the units are being built as affordable they don’t apply the cash proffer policy.
Mr. Franco said that his memory has been the opposite. It seems like it is a change in policy. He was a little
confused on how it would work if they take that approach. One of his complain ts about the affordable housing
policy is the 90-day buy out since he thought they were losing opportunities. If the builder/developer builds a unit
and puts it out there and they can’t fill it after 90 days would they be released from the $21,000, but then be subject
to the other proffer. He asked how that would work.
Mr. Cilimberg said it was based on the intent to sell the unit as an affordable unit.
Mr. Franco said their intent was to sell it so they put it up there and so it would not be subject to it.
Mr. Cilimberg said they made the unit available. As he understands the way that policy has worked it would not be
subject to that.
Mr. Morris said there is an element of confusion. However, hopefully they can address it when they talk with Ron
White.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Ron White is not really in that part of the policy. He has made the choice in some proffers
whether or not they get the cash or have units produced. That has been an option that has been built in to proffers
previously.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out the cash proffer policy was adopted by the Board in October, 2007. It lays out what
dwelling units are to be counted when determining the cash proffers that are designed to address the county wide
impacts to schools, to public safety, and to parks and recreation. It provides that dwelling units qualifying as
affordable housing under the county’s definition of affordable housing are e xcluded from that totally. It does not
reference cash in lieu of affordable units. At that time in 2007, the Board had approved a number of rezonings
where the applicant had proffered cash in lieu of or the option of either building or the cash in lieu of. So he thinks
if this particular policy for excluding built affordable units had intended to inclu de cash in lieu the Board would
have used that language in the policy. But, it did not. It refers to the units themselves.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
8
Mr. Cilimberg noted that was the clarity he hopes to also provide. He thought Mr. Kamptner did a good job of
describing it. However, that is the way they have used the cash proffer policies application since it was adopted.
They have to remember that actually a relatively small number of projects have been through the process under the
cash proffer policy. Many of the projects that were reviewed during the 2000’s were before the cash proffer policy
was put into place when there was not a specific policy as to how to deal with the amount of cash per unit. Back
then there were some affordable housing provisions made as well. Wha t Mr. Kamptner read was what they
understand the application has been. If they produce the unit they are not subject to the cash proffer policy.
Otherwise, if there is cash in lieu of the unit, then that unit was not produced. So it is going to be a market unit and
will be subject to it.
Mr. Morris asked if they have that policy in writing so that the applicant can look at.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the Board can decide to vary from that policy.
Mr. Kamptner agreed since this is a policy and not an ordinance. Ultimately, the Board can decide whether or not
they want to strictly adhere to that policy or vary from it. The Commission is free to make a recommendation on
that particular question as part of their action.
Mr. Cilimberg asked to also note that Ron White is not involved in the policy aspect. He is involved in the receipt
of the benefits from the policy and how they actually are used.
Mr. Morris said he understands, but would think that he would be keenly aware of exactly what the policy is .
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that he is.
Mr. Benish said just to be clear in terms of meeting the affordable housing policy, they have. Their proffer is very
consistent in concept and they are providing 15 percent. They are offering to do that in kind or through the cash in
lieu. What they see as the deficiency to the policy is just a measurement of what was the cash amount based on
market rate units, which they feel can be easily adjusted. It just depends on the total amount that the Commission
and the Board wish for in this case.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out they are actually covered by two separate policy areas. It is two separate proffers. The
affordable housing and how that is provided is one proffer. The cash proffer for capital improvement needs is
another proffer. They are addressing two separate needs identified by the county.
Mr. Randolph said if they just say theoretically these units were to sell for $300,000 what would be the affordable
housing costs of these units. He asked if there is a for mula that it would be two -thirds or three quarters. He was
trying to get a handle here of what affordable means if hypothetically they were looking at units of $300,000.
Mr. Morris said that as he understands it is based upon the average wage and is not on the cost of the house itself.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a purchase price that qualifies as affordable , which was previously $180,000.
Mr. Kamptner agreed. However, he was probably rusty on what that exact dollar amount is right now. In 2007 or
2008 it was in the low 200’s. However, as Mr. Cilimberg said it is probably lower than that now. It is probably
around $190,000.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is one thing they confirm with Mr. White on as the units are coming on the market to be
actually produced. Ultimately, it is as the applicant mentioned they may be two years out in some form of the
development. So the affordable rate at the time that they would produce a unit might be different than today.
Mr. Randolph said therefore if again hypothetica lly these units were to be sold for $300,000 and for affordable
purposes they would be $190,000, then they are talking about a significant incentive for somebody who is a county
employee or whatever they are profiled to if they are eligible for affordable housing to be in these units. They are
getting a new unit at a very good competitive market rate compared to what the rest of the units within the
community will be going for. That is all he was trying to work out in his own mind. That is one of the rea sons why
he was requesting just a hypothetical figure as to what the units will cost because they needed to talk about
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
9
affordable housing. He was also interested in contrasting what the value of these units were compared to the
existing units in Mourbry Lane. He wanted to find out if there was a differential in terms of the housing value
between the two. He did not see a differential at all. That was the basis of his earlier question just to go on the
record.
Mr. Dotson asked staff what the status was concerning something he heard several years ago about VDOT requiring
two points of access if streets were to be public.
Mr. Benish said the state policy right now has softened from where it previously was to require that all adjacent
properties be provided with potential connections in the future. In VDOT’s review of this alternative plan there are
stub outs that provide access to multiple locations. So VDOT has determined this is consistent enough with their
current policies.
Ms. Monteith said the other issue is they are providing a secondary emergency access route, which is usually a
major driver of these kinds of issues.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was an interconnectivity index he believed that VDOT has developed and was putting into
place. That has been scaled back basically and has been modified to no longer be applied.
Mr. Dotson requested to ask a question of the developer.
Mr. Morris asked Scott Collins to come forward.
Mr. Dotson asked about the little cemetery in the corner where the proposal is to put some fencing, he was curious
what kind of fencing, how tall and whether it would have a locked gate.
Scott Collins replied that basically they were talking about a wrought iron fence around it about 4’ in height. It is
more of an amenity to the development as opposed to locking it away and protecting it from anybody. There is a
cemetery in Old Trail where he lives. Every weekend his children want to ride bikes and the first thing they want to
do is stop at the cemetery and walk around the cemetery. It is a little bigger than this one and is enclosed by a 3’
stone wall. Cemeteries can be an amenity. There will be a little walking path over to the facility. There will be a
gate.
Mr. Dotson said he was trying to figure out how the cemetery plays out in the future and if there are members of the
Estes family still living locally. In reading the staff report there is talk of an access easement. In Shenandoah
National Park, for instance, there are cemeteries where families are allowed to go back and visit. He asked if that is
what is in mind here.
Mr. Collins replied certainly. This is an open space and will be maintained by the HOA. There is an access
easement that provides access to the cemetery for the public. Anybody could essentially go down the public street
and get on the public access to go visit the cemetery.
Mr. Dotson said in looking at the site the cemetery looked like it was pretty well grown over. It did not look like a
mowed cemetery. It looked like a forest that probably had some fallen over stones and maybe some other places of
missing stones.
Mr. Collins replied that is correct. That is one of the things that will be done when the fence is put around the
cemetery and it is maintained by the HOA. It will be cleaned up and taken care of with the landscape contract for
the development.
Mr. Dotson said his concern is with vandals. Is there any thought about making certain that the homeowners on
adjacent properties are notified through their deed or some other mechanism that this is a cemetery.
Mr. Collins replied that it was not part of their property and it would show up on the subdivision plat for the entire
development. Since this is an open space, it is deeded and owned by the HOA. There won’t be any confusion that
the homeowners adjacent to the cemetery would think the cemetery is their property and would push anything over
to that area.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
10
Mr. Dotson said he was a little torn about the amenity versus the attractive nuisance and vandalism aspects of this.
Mr. Collins suggested that he check out the cemetery at Old Trail.
Mr. Smith said that by definition it now is a grave yard. It will become a cemetery when it is maintained
Mr. Morris noted that was the request by a person who is on the historical society that they were hoping that this
would be taken under the wing of the developer and the developer agreed to it. It was not part of the plan originally.
The developer has agreed to take that on.
Mr. Randolph asked how the perimeter of the grave yard has been established. He asked how they know where
graveyard ends.
Mr. Collins replied that the cemetery has been field surveyed. They went out there with county staff. They all met
one day and established the limits of the cemetery. Everybody put stakes in around there. Then they came back and
surveyed it. They also had some tests performed to make sure there were no graveyards outside of that location.
That has all been confirmed.
Mr. Loach said as far as the affordable housing goes his policy is 15 percent. He was glad to hear the developer say
he was committed to building the affordable units. It sounded like last time that the county was saying that they did
not want the units, but they wanted the money. He felt that is not the way the county sho uld be acting. They have
the 15 percent to increase the number of affordable housing units. If in fact they have reached that threshold, then
there should be no other need especially to ask the developers to pay for 15 percent if in fact that is what the county
is saying. Again, he was glad to hear that commitment tonight. As far as the road he agreed with Mr. Franco that it
was touch and go as far as the connectivity. He could live with what has been agreed to. When this gets to the
Board it might be more problematic if it is anything like the high end apartment up on Rio where the walking path
was to connect to that one other subdivision. That got into a fairly heated discussion with the Board of Supervisors
on the connectivity. Now it is just a walking path. He congratulated the developer on committing to the units.
Mr. Kamptner noted that was Arden Place.
Ms. Monteith said she was impressed that the neighbors have come out for a second time.
Mr. Randolph suggested that this should be remanded back to staff. He was struck by the fact that the drainage
issues remain on 18, 19 and 20. They need to be finalized and be in writing so that they see what has been finalized.
He thought there should be a recreational space for both Forest Ridge and Estes Park. He asked if there was some
way of incorporating that with Moubry Lane that it would be wonderful. The right way is not finalized. It is not a
done deal. He was very uncomfortable going ahead with an application where it remains not finalized. Along with
what Mr. Loach said the affordable housing issue units are not optional, but are a necessity. If the county keeps
taking money in lieu of affordable housing the total availability of affordable housing will continue to decline. Unit
68 needs to be moved and repositioned so instead of facing the street it needs to be at a creative angle. That was an
issue earlier that staff brought up in terms of lot 68’s proximity to the stream. He just f eels that there are still a lot of
nuts and bolts issues, or mechanical issues that need to be worked out. He was not comfortable voting on this
application at this point until they are. That does not mean that he is prejudiced against the application. He thinks
the developer has shown a real commitment to reworking it. He appreciates the community for coming out in
number and having eloquent presentations about their concern for the cul -de-sac. He has learned from that and
therefore certainly will withdraw his feeling that a second point of access should be through Moubry Lane. He
remains concerned, however, that there is only one means of access at this time into this project. He worries about
the precedent of that and how that could come back to haunt us in the future. At this point he cannot really vote to
move this application forward.
Mr. Morris asked if he had looked at the conditions and if a lot of his concerns were covered in the conditions.
Mr. Loach asked staff if after hearing from the developer and the Commission tonight if his recommendation was
still for denial.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
11
Mr. Benish replied that in essence either action will give staff proper direction. If the Commission could cite the
specific issues they have that are concerns to the Board of Supervisors, then they can engage with the applicant to
address those issues. He thought ideally they would like to have those issues as straight as possible with the
Commission’s recommendation to the Board. Given the time it has taken to get this project to this point he thought
conditions giving clear direction on what the expectations the Commission has for what goes to the Board is a
reasonable approach.
Mr. Morris said that was his primary concern.
Mr. Loach noted that they could add additional conditions if they wanted to.
Mr. Franco said he would like to react to one of the comments about the recreational space. It is important to note
that these are two different developments and they are not talking about public parks. So the idea of requiring the
applicant to build recreational spaces to serve adjacent communities while laudable may not be practical from that
sense. If the county were willing to take it over and maintain it, then that would be another story. However, if they
are asking a group of the private citizens to maintain a public park for the rest of the community he did not think that
was fair.
Mr. Dotson commented back to Mr. Franco. They also have public land that is being used essentially as private
recreation, the cul-de-sac. So it is both ways. The issue that primarily concerns him is if not here, when, where will
they require interconnectivity. They are potentially adding this Estes Park development with three stub outs. So
what does that stub out into? It is going into some vacant land that somebody is going to develop. They will
attempt to connect to those stubs. Then the residents of Estes Park will come to us. He thought it was one of those
situations where if he lived on Moubry Lane he would not like it if the connection was contemplated or was going to
be made. Then in the next breath he would think he would say well there is a reason for it and it is not necessarily
his preference, but there is a reason for it. Therefore, he needs to accept it. He comes back again to the question of
if not here, where. They are not talking about a large number of units. Quite frankly, in driving and looking at the
area it seems that the people on Moubry Lane would use the streets of Estes Park more likely than the people of
Estes Park would use Mobry Lane because he did not t hink that area of Profit is very much a destination. He did not
know what they would be going to. Instead, he thought what they would do is go up to the major street behind the
shopping center if they wanted to get up to the medical facilities on Profit. He did not think they would go back
down Moubry Lane. He did not see the traffic going back down that way. He sees the traffic going up through
Estes Park. That is a concern.
Mr. Morris said that he thought interconnectivity has been a problem ever since they really started looking at the
Comprehensive Plan and putting in interconnections. Mr. Dotson was absolutely right that they were looking at
Estes Park and needed to focus on it for a moderate amount of housing. When they were faced with the same thing
with another subdivision that had 365 units it was eventually approved with a stub out leading into another place. It
has been a contentious issue right from the start. Mr. Dotson was absolutely right and his question was well put - If
not here, where, when because there is always going to be a fight.
Mr. Loach said if in fact the land itself had not been designed with the infrastructure to support that , then it would
have felt more comfortable saying well the design was there for the connectivity so if and when traffic did increase
there was the infrastructure of sidewalks to take care of it. However, that was not the case.
Mr. Franco said that he remained torn. In the original proposal the applicant did propose to provide sidewalks along
Moubry. But the thing that pushed him over the edge to say let’s no t have the connection was that not at the cul-de-
sac but one-half way between the cul-de-sac and Profit Road it is a fairly straight road. The sidewalk was going to
have to cross there and short of putting in speed bumps or something like that, which they don’t want on public
roads. Therefore, maintaining slower speeds through there was going to be difficult. If there had been other
interconnections or something that gave it that grid fe eling he probably would have been more adamant. However,
he agreed that they have this policy and they bend it constantly. At what point do they say that they are going to live
with it.
Mr. Smith said that it is a cul-de-sac and it is not designed for stubbing. He agreed with Mr. Franco that he would
hate to see the traffic go through the straight stretch. They would possibly double the number of houses that way.
In thinking green they could ask the people on Moubry Lane if they would want to ride the ir bicycle.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 06, 2012
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
12
Ms. Monteith noted she did pay some attention to the storm water issues on this development. The memo, which is
attachment C, is fairly lengthy in terms of what type of improvements they are looking at. One of the things she
paid attention to was there was quite a few things that they were tracking through the construction. However, there
are also quite a few things that are built into the long term improvements of this site. Both of those are important to
mitigate. However, she thought they have gotten more detail on some of the storm water issues and watershed
issues here than they do in some other cases.
Mr. Franco agreed that they have an applicant that has gone well above what is required of them to meet the
adjacent neighbors concerns.
Motion for ZMA:
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of ZMA -2010-00011, Estes Park,
based on the findings in the staff report with the conditions identified by staff in the presentation being addressed
prior to approval by the Board of Supervisors.
1. Right of access has been secured from the adjacent parcels TMP 46B4 -5 and TMP46B4-5A for the
construction (and right of way dedication) of a public road on these properties to serve the proposed
Estes Park development.
2. The Cash Proffer for Capital Improvements (#1) is changed so that the total cash proffer amount is
based on the total number of market value units built.
3. Revision to the Affordable Housing Proffer (#2) is to the satisfaction of the Housing Director, and the
Erosion and Sediment Control Proffer (#5) to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5:1. (Mr. Randolph voted nay.)
Mr. Morris noted that a recommendation for approval of ZMA-2010-00011 would be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors to a date to be determined.
Mr. Dotson asked to restate the obvious. The concerns expressed by various members will be reflected in the
minutes that go forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Morris replied absolutely in a verbatim format.
Mr. Kamptner noted there was also an action needed on a critical slopes waiver, which would be recommended for
approval or disapproval as a special exception to the Board.
Action on Critical Slopes Waiver
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Dotson seconded to recommend approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver for
ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park, as recommended by staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that the Critical Slopes Waiver for ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park would be forwarded to the Board
of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval.
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 24, 2012
FINAL MINUTES –PARTIAL ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 24, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris and
Russell (Mac) Lafferty. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was
present.
Other officials present were Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Ron
Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Scott Clark, Senior Planner, Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Cilimberg, serving as temporary chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and
established a quorum.
Items Requesting Deferral:
ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.75 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 03200000003300 and TMP 03200000003400 fro m
R-1, Residential zoning district which allows 1 unit/acre to PRD, Planned Residential Development zoning
district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses and to rezone 0.56 acres
on Tax Map/Parcel 046B4000000500 from R-1 Residential zoning district to R-1 Residential zoning
district with proffers. Proposed number of units is 66 for a density of 5.33 units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential
(6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road
(Rt 649) and Worth Crossing, approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of
Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP 03200000003400, and TMP 046B4000000500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (David Benish)
DEFERRED FROM THE DECEMBER 13, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
APPLICANT REQUESTING INDEFINITE DEFERRAL.
Mr. Morris noted the applicant requests indefinite deferral of ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to approve the applicant’s request for indefinite
deferral of ZMA-2010-00011 Estes Park.
The motion was passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park was indefinitely deferred.
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 1
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 23, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 23, 2011, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco
and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Members absent were Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia (UVA Architect – Ex-officio).
Other officials present were Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Eryn
Brennan, Senior Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; David Benish, Chief of Planning; and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chairman, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.75 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 03200000003300 and TMP 03200000003400 from
R-1, Residential zoning district which allows 1 unit/acre to PRD, Planned Residential Development
zoning district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses and to rezone
0.56 acres on Tax Map/Parcel 046B4000000500 from R-1 Residential zoning district to R-1 Residential
zoning district with proffers. Proposed number of units is 68 for a density of 5.33 units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density
Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossing,
approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP 03200000003400, and TMP 046B4000000500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Judy Wiegand)
Ms. Wiegand presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a zoning map amendment to rezone two parcels that are currently zoned R-1, Residential to
Planned Residential Development (PRD) in order to permit the development of a new neighborhood with
68 single-family detached homes, a street network, an inter-parcel connection to Moubry Lane and 25
percent open space.
The future Land Use Map from Places29 Master Plan designates this area as Urban Density Residential.
The Neighborhood Density Residential generally expects a density range of 6.01 units to 34 units per
acre. This particular project has a density of 5.3 units per acre. It is a little under the minimum. However,
staff believes that this is compatible with the land use designation because they are single-family detached
homes and a 12.75 acre parcel.
A neighborhood of 68 single-family dwellings will fit in well with surrounding townhouses, duplexes,
and (further away) other single-family dwellings. The proposed development is in compliance with the
Master Plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 2
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
Two parcels—and several of the surrounding ones—are zoned R-1, Residential. With a density bonus,
the result would be a maximum of 18 units that could be built on this site under the current zoning.
Rezoning to a Planned Residential Development district allows the 68 units, along with a road network,
and 25% open space.
The application plan: focus first on two parcels—
Road network—The main entrance from Worth Crossing into the proposed Estes Park development goes
across the property now owned by Bright Beginning’s daycare. They have jointly used the entrance.
Bright Beginnings has submitted a special use permit to expand the daycare and have shown the same
entrance road on that application plan with the special use permit. The main entrance with Bright
Beginnings daycare property is being worked out —Proffer #1.
There is a stream on the property, which starts north of the property and flows diagonally through the
property. The applicant by making good use of the proposed 25 percent open space has ma naged to keep
the main segment of the stream as an amenity in the open space. There will be some piping of it and
some impacts to the critical slopes that are on the sides of it where the road crosses the stream.
Road network through rest of proposed development -
Inter-parcel connection proposed to Moubry Lane, which serves the Forest Ridge neighborhood of 44
duplex units. Forest Ridge was originally planned and built in the mid-1990s. The opportunity for this
connection (cul-de-sac) was set up at that time so that the connection could be made. The applicant at the
County’s request included that as a second entrance to the development. Most of the traffic is expected to
come in from the main entrance from Worth Crossing. The applicant has worked with the County and
VDOT staff to discourage a “speedway” where traffic would race through either neighborhood
• because of the way the roads intersect—right or left turns, stop signs,
• Estes Park streets will be narrow, and
• Moubry Lane will be narrowed for a sidewalk and planting strip on the east side. (Proffer #2)
The posted speed will be 25 miles per hour on all new streets and continue on Moubry Lane.
Moubry Lane right now from curve to curve is 38’ wide. The applicant has proposed to put in a sidewalk
and planting strip along the eastern side of Moubry Lane as part of both traffic calming and to make a
safer place for Moubry Lane residents to walk. It would narrow the street to about 30’, which would still
allow parking on both sides and help with making the street look a little narrower to make it less
encouraging for people to go zooming through there. Staff and VDOT feel that the people using this road
system once it is completed are going to be the residents of Forest Ridge and the proposed Estes Par k.
After looking at the area road network they don’t believe this is going to be an encouragement to cut
through traffic. It will be the residents of the two areas, guests, visitors and the occasional delivery truck.
An important aspect of the proposed development is that it will provide residents of Forest Ridge an
alternative route to Worth Crossing that doesn’t involve turning out onto Proffit Road. Instead, they will
be able to drive through Estes Park and out onto Worth Crossing—to the stores just across the street or
elsewhere. This will actually provide a benefit to them.
Neighborhood Concerns:
The applicant has met several times with the neighbors, in particular the Forest Ridge residents. Staff has
attended one neighborhood meeting and met with neighborhood representatives several times to discuss
concerns. The following are the most important concerns that have been raised.
1. Cut-through traffic speeding through Forest Ridge—lack of a safe place to walk along Moubry
Lane; residents now walk in the street; children play in cul-de-sac area, which is used as a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 3
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
gathering place. The cul-de-sac would be removed as part of the connection to the street, which
is a requirement of VDOT that the rest of the cul-de-sac be taken out.
2. Moubry Lane becoming the main entrance into Estes Park
3. Cul-de-sac as gathering place and play area
4. Removal of trees and habitat on Estes property
5. Views of Estes Park from adjacent property; buffers?
The applicant has tried to address concern #1 by proffering a sidewalk. The applicant has tried to
reassure the residents by rewriting proffer #1 so that this development will not be constructed unless that
entrance over the Bright Beginning’s property is built. There is a small pedestrian type access that goes
down to a multiple acre part of Forest Ridge. There is a stream running through there. It is
topographically challenged. There could be some place back there to put a possible play area if they
chose to do so. There is a homeowner association that could try to address that as a way of replacing the
cul-de-sac should they chose to do so.
The applicant currently is showing some narrow buffer areas between their development and the adjacent
development. The zoning ordinance does not require buffers between one residential area and another.
Since these lots might be narrow there might be lots backing up to the edge of the property, which is
permitted under the current zoning ordinance. These will be single-family homes with landscaping. Staff
does not think there should be a problem for one home to look at another one.
Traffic Distribution & Turn Lane Analysis
The proposed 68 units are expected to generate approximately 729 trips per day
Trips during AM peak: 57 (in + out)
Trips during PM peak: 74 (in + out)
Turn lane analysis for Proffit Road/Moubry Lane
No left turn lane required at this time
A right turn taper is nearly required on both Proffit Road and Worth Crossing .
Proffit Road: 5,700 vehicles per day (some improvements are planned, but not funded at this time)
Worth Crossing: 1,800 vehicles per day
Moubry Lane: 280 vehicles per day
The other part of the traffic study done was a turn lane analysis for that entrance between Proffit Road
and Moubry Lane. Basically, after looking at all the figures the traffic analysis said that no additional left
turn lane was required from Proffit Road onto Moubry Lane. The turn lane and right turn taper are not
warranted at this time. As noted in the staff report, it is not expected to cause adverse impacts at this
time. If the background traffic increases or additional development takes place in the area, Proffit Road
improvements, including the turn lane and right turn taper will be necessary. Staff would like to point out
that traffic on Moubry Lane and Estes Park streets will be from those two neighborhoods; we do not
expect cut-through traffic because of the design of the road network.
Staff reviewed the applicant’s six (6) draft proffers, which are included in the staff report.
Proffer 1: Worth Crossing Connection
The Owner shall complete construction and make improvements to the portion of “Road B” that provides
a vehicular connection from the northern boundary of the Project to Worth Crossing, as shown on the
Application Plan, to the standards contained in Sections 14-410H and 14-422 of the County Code and as
shown as [“Typical Street Section (’52 Public R/W)” on sheet 3 of the Application Plan entitled “Site
Plan” (the “Worth Crossing Connection”)]. The Owner shall not submit the final subdivision plat or final
site plan for the Project for approval by the County unless it includes the Worth Crossing Connection.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 4
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
The Worth Crossing Connection shall be constructed to Virginia Department of Transportation standards
and that all necessary lands determined by VDOT will be dedicated to public use as part of that first
subdivision plat or in conjunction with the first site plan. The Worth Crossing Connection shall be used
for construction access and completed prior to issuance of a building permit for any dwelling units within
the Project. For the purposes of this paragraph, construction of the Worth Crossing Connection shall be
deemed complete when it is constructed in conformance with the plans approved by VDOT and the
County Engineer has determined it is safe and convenient for vehicular travel.
Proffer #1 makes four important points:
1. The proffer requires completion of the primary entrance road over property owned by the owners of
the Bright Beginnings day care center. The applicants have been negotiating with Bright Beginning’s
owners and, once the rezoning has been approved, will go ahead with dedication and construction.
2. The final subdivision plat or final site plan may not be submitted for County approval unless the
connection is included.
3. The connection will be dedicated to public use as part of the first subdivision plat or in conjunction
with the first site plan.
4. The connection shall be used for construction access and completed prior to issuance of a building
permit for any dwelling units within the Project. In other words, the developer will not begin construction
of the rest of the project until the Worth Crossing Connection is constructed.
Staff supports this proffer. Unless the terms of it are fulfilled and the Worth Crossing Connection
completed, the rest of the development will not begin. This addresses staff’s and the neighbors’ concern
that Moubry Lane would end up being used as the primary entrance for Estes Park.
The County Attorney is still reviewing this language—staff received this revised language about two
weeks ago. Minor changes for form may need to be made between this public hearing and the Board’s
public hearing, but staff expects the content of this proffer to remain the same.
Proffer 2: Moubry Lane Sidewalk
The Owner shall construct a sidewalk, utility strip, and associated drainage facilities within the existing
public right-of-way on one side of Moubry Lane from the point where Road A connects to Moubry Lane
to the point where Moubry Lane connects to Proffit Road, to the standards and in the location shown on
the Application Plan (the “Moubry Lane Sidewalk”). The aggregate cost of the Moubry Lane Sidewalk
and drainage improvements are referred to as the “Sidewalk Expense.” In the event that the Fores t Ridge
Home Owners’ Association is opposed to having this improvement installed, upon giving written notice
to the Owner and Albemarle County, the Sidewalk Expense credit will be removed from the Cash
Proffers referenced in Proffer #3.
Proffer #2 promises the construction of a sidewalk, utility strip, and drainage facilities along the eastern
edge of Moubry Lane. This sidewalk will provide a safer place for Forest Ridge residents and others to
walk. Right now there is no sidewalk; Forest Ridge was built before the County required sidewalks and
street trees on neighborhood streets. This proffer grew out of Forest Ridge residents’ concern that there
would be no place for them to walk safely once the interparcel connection was made and the cul -de-sac
removed. The proffer will have a second benefit in addition to the sidewalk: narrowing the right-of-way
on Moubry Lane will act as a traffic-calming facility. When residents and visitors park their cars on
Moubry Lane, then that would further “calm” traffic. The proffer also provides that the expense for this
sidewalk and related facilities will be a credit against the cash proffer for capital improvements. Staff
believes this is an excellent way to deal with the increase of traffic on Moubry Lane to give t he residents a
place to walk. The mailboxes will be moved to the utility strip. Staff supports having an expense credit
against the capital improvements because if the applicant was not building this the county would probably
need to look at doing it because they do need a sidewalk on that street.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 5
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
Proffer 3: Cash for Capital Improvement Projects
This is the first of the two proffers where the staff does not believe that the applicant has followed the
direction that was given by the Board of Supervisors in the Cash Proffer Policy. As explained in the staff
report the Proffer Policy says that one should pay the cash proffer amount on all of the units being put in.
The applicant has asked that they only do it on the 50 units that they are adding that would not be
permitted there by right. This is something that relates to the Board’s policy. Therefore, the Board is
going to make a decision. Staff wanted to raise this issue with the Commission since it will be going on
to the Board. The two blanks will be filled in before the request goes to the Board for the total amount of
dollars and the amount for each unit as well as the sidewalk expense.
Proffer 4: Affordable Housing
This is the 15% of the rezoning units. Again, there is a difference of opinion as to what 15% of what
amount. The Affordable Housing Policy says it should be 15% of all of the units provided that are going
to be built. The applicant has done it on the 50 rezoning units. This is an issue the Board will need to
address. Staff did not put all of the for sale unit language in that deals with actual provision of units. It is
staff’s understanding the applicant has worked with the Chief of Housing, Ron White, and is expecting to
proffer to give cash in lieu of units. In addition, the County Attorney has informed staff that the language
related to the units themselves may need to be changed. A revision to it is being worked on. The
applicant has addressed the affordable housing in this manner. The language issue will be resolved before
the proffers are presented to the Board.
Proffer 5: Moubry Lane Interconnection
To minimize impacts of constructing the connection between Road A and Moubry Lane as shown on the
Application Plan (the “Moubry Lane Interconnection”) on the residents of Forest Ridge, the following
terms and conditions shall apply to the construction of the Moubry Lane Interconnection:
a. The Owner shall not commence construction of the Moubry Lane Interconnection until
construction of all other roads and infrastructure within the Project is nearing completion, such that the
Moubry Lane Interconnection is the last road segment within the Project for which construction will be
commenced.
b. The Moubry Lane Interconnection shall not be used for construction access associated with the
Project, except as necessary for construction of the Moubry Lane Interconnection itself, and except
further for construction of the Moubry Lane Sidewalk and associated drainage facilities.
c. The Owner shall remove the cul-de-sac at Moubry Lane at the time of construction of the
Moubry Lane Interconnection. This area will be planted and improvements installed in accordance with
the Application Plan.
Proffer 6 – Erosion & Sediment Control
a. Erosion and Sediment Control. The Owner shall, to the maximum extent practicable as
determined by the County’s Program Authority, provide additional erosion and sediment controls
to achieve a sediment removal rate of eighty percent (80%) for the Property. (As a reference,
current regulatory structural measures achieve a 60% optimal removal rate.)
b. Revegetation. Within nine (9) months after the start of grading under any erosion and sediment
control permit, permanent vegetation shall be installed on all denuded areas, except for areas the
Program Authority determines are otherwise permanently stabilized or are under construction
with an approved building permit. A three (3) month extension for installation of permanent
vegetation may be granted by the Program Authority due to special circumstances including but
not limited to weather conditions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 6
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
Staff would note that the part about revegetation is something that is now covered in the ordinance.
Therefore, the applicant may be asked to take that out since they don’t normally include in the proffe rs
things that are required by the ordinance.
Critical Slopes Waiver
The applicant has applied for a critical slopes waiver to deal with the little pieces where the road goes
over the stream. The total site is 12.75 acres. The critical slopes are about 2% of that site. Staff
recommends approval of that.
Factors Favorable:
1. The project would result in a neighborhood of 68 residences close to major employers expected to
add jobs in the future and within walking distance of retail and services.
2. The new development will be single-family detached homes at a density and scale compatible
with surrounding residential neighborhoods that adds another type of housing to the mix of
duplexes and townhouses now available in the immediate area.
3. The project’s road network has been designed to interconnect with roads on other nearby
properties as they develop, as well as to create a road network that will serve the larger Proffit
Road/Worth Crossing area.
4. The applicant proposes to create a second entrance by completing the interparcel connection set
up when the Forest Ridge neighborhood was developed in the 1990s. The existing cul -de-sac at
the end of Moubry Lane will be removed, the grade will be improved, and affected driveways
along Moubry Lane extended to meet the reconstructed road.
5. The applicant has proffered to construct a sidewalk and planting strip on one side of Moubry
Lane to provide a safer place for Forest Ridge residents to walk once Moubry Lane becomes a
through street. By narrowing the street, the sidewalk/parking strip will also serve as a form of
traffic calming for the Forest Ridge neighborhood.
6. The project’s design preserves the main section of the stream, an environmental feature that flows
diagonally through the center of the two parcels. The stream will become an amenity in the open
space area.
7. Approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver will enable the developer to make the most efficient use
of the property while preserving the main section of the stream.
Unfavorable Factors
1. The method used by the applicant to calculate the number of units on which the number of
affordable housing units will be provided and the number of units on which the cash proffer for
capital improvements will be paid does not follow the method stipulated in the Affordable
Housing Policy or the Cash Proffer Policy of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The width of the streets in the proposed development will allow parking on only one side of the
street; VDOT will require that the other side be posted with “No Parking” signs, which may lead
to parking conflicts when the site is fully developed.
3. A tot lot or other type of recreational amenity has not been provided within the 25% open space.
4. Additional minor technical changes need to be made in the wording of the proffers and on the
application plan, as listed under Recommendation at the end of the staff report.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this rezoning provided certain changes are made in the application plan
and proffers, as listed below:
1. The applicant meets the policies for affordable housing and cash proffers:
a. Affordable Housing Policy: 68 units * 15% = 10.2 units. 10.2 units * $21,125/unit =
$215,475.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 7
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
b. Cash Proffer Policy: 68 units * $19,100 per unit = $1,298,800, minus the Sidewalk
Expense.
2. The applicant increases the width of the streets to permit parking on both sides of the streets in
the neighborhood.
3. A tot lot or other recreational amenity is added within the open space shown on the application
plan.
4. The following technical changes need to be made on the application plan:
a. Lot-to-lot drainage along roads D and A will need to be addressed, per the County
Engineer.
b. The sidewalk on the north side of Road C needs to be extended to intersect with Road A.
c. The Phasing information now included in Scott Collins’ letter dated June 20, 2011 needs
to be added to the phasing information now included on the cover sheet of the application
plan.
Staff recommends approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Mr. Morris asked when talking to the applicant and VDOT was there any thought given to putting in any
traffic calming type of material such as speed bumps on both sides of the current cul-de-sac.
Ms. Wiegand replied yes, they talked with VDOT about speed bumps. VDOT does not want s peed
bumps and does not permit on a public road like this. They talked about other possible things such as
bulb outs. However, because the street will be narrowed, they are not sure it will be needed. They are
also talking about increasing the curves, which will help slow things down. They are continuing the
discussion of possible traffic calming measures.
Mr. Benish pointed out speed bumps are typically permitted when there is an issue with a defined
speeding or cut through issue. That does not exist at this point in time. The ones in Ashcroft were done
after an analysis of traffic conditions. That is what warrants the ability to put them in.
Mr. Morris agreed with everything he was saying. However, he also knows it is hard to get speed bumps
after the road has been put in. He believed that 75 percent of the residents have to agree to it. It would be
good if it could be done earlier.
Mr. Franco said in some of the past proposals in this area closer to Profit Road there had been expressed a
desire by staff to have a public road connecting Profit Road to this project. He asked if there was still an
intent of creating a mid block connection.
Ms. Wiegand replied this is the area where they had been trying to work on connections. With the
connection with Bright Beginnings, the connection would come in with a stub connected to this property
so that they could have a road that would go through this area. This does set up the beginning for a road
network in this area. One of the issues they have with it is that VDOT has been very clear they can’t use
this particular area as a road to go up through this area. They have to be able to work with one of the
other properties in order to get the road connected to Profit. It is being considered. However, since they
don’t have a rezoning proposal for this area they are waiting to see what happens.
Mr. Benish noted the issue in question was spacing for a public road. When a rezoning proposal would
come in, when and if on that property, they could evaluate its feasibility. However, it is less feasible
along that frontage because of the proximity to the Worth Crossing intersection. It is seen as a less
feasible public road access.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 8
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
Mr. Franco noted from three years ago they were not pushing that as they were before.
Mr. Benish replied yes, he thought there was some issues about the number of public accesses and the
feasibility of those working properly, particularly with the possibility of a traffic circle being established
at Worth Crossing.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the right-of-way was already there as far as the two connections by the daycare
and to Moubry Lane.
Ms. Wiegand replied that the right-of-way for Moubry was already platted on the Forest Ridge plat. The
right-of-way for Bright Beginnings was under discussion and negotiation between Estes Park and the
owners of the Bright Beginning parcel. Normally with a rezoning, they would ask that the Bright
Beginning parcel either be included in the rezoning or that this particular stretch of right -of-way would be
dedicated or recorded prior to a public hearing. However, the Estes Park developer was going to have to
purchase this and they did not want to spend the money on it before knowing the rezoning was approved.
They have gone to the other alternative to proffer the road, which would be constructed before they
developed the property.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they are responsible for getting the right-of-way.
Ms. Wiegand replied that was correct.
Mr. Loach asked if there was anything on the site that would prevent them from incorporating the 15
percent affordable housing.
Ms. Wiegand replied not to her knowledge.
Mr. Loach asked with regard to the building of the sidewalks in the proffer arrangements was the
applicant saying he would build that sidewalk up to Moubry Lane, but would want to subtract that from
the cash proffer amount that he would have to put forth. That money would not be available to go back to
the County into the funds that would pay for capital improvements that are waiting for funding, but be
used immediately.
Ms. Wiegand replied that was correct.
Mr. Benish pointed out to give credits for those types of improvements was an acceptable part of their
cash proffer policy.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Representatives for the request included Ashley Cooper, with Cooper Planning, Scott Collins, with
Collins Engineering, and Alan Taylor of Riverbend Management.
Ms. Cooper presented a Power-Point presentation to explain the rezoning proposal, as follows.
Over the past year it has been quite an evolution for this project. She emphasized that they have
been working on Estes Park for about a year. They consider this project to be an infill project.
They are becoming part of this overall jig saw puzzle that is the neighborhood. They have been
working with the neighboring properties specifically Forest Ridge Neighborhood Association, the
Forest Lakes Neighborhood Association, and Bright Beginnings as well as staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 9
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
When they first came in they had the entire stream piped for the property. It was a major change
when they decided that should be an amenity and that natural drainage should be preserved. It
was an unusual design in they really preserve almost the entire stream. When they began
working with Moubry Lane they knew it would be a concern that Forest Ridge’s cul-de-sac was
going to now be connected with another neighborhood. On previous proposals they did have
speed bumps. However, speed bumps were vetoed by VDOT. They did have more of a radius or
turn in the road to slow cars down. That was also vetoed by VDOT. The proposal reflects those
direct comments from staff and VDOT.
They feel this design will be a good connection for the two because with the actual intersection
someone will have to stop to make that right hand turn. Nobody will be going all the way down
the stretch of road to get around the neighborhood because they will have to stop to make that
right hand turn. They feel that aspect is good. They support the narrow road. They see that street
and pedestrian connection as a great asset to this area. They are working with the neighborhood
to make these changes.
They are meeting all of VDOT’s requirements for this type of road in the nei ghborhood. They
feel will be perfectly adequate for the parking needs. The narrow street sections will be a true
asset. They will get a sidewalk and a planting strip. They will still have room for parking on both
sides with a nice narrow street.
They have been working with the Forest Lakes Neighborhood Association to make sure they go
above and beyond in all the erosion and sediment control measures. It is important that Arbor
Lake be protected throughout this process since they are directly adjacent. They are working with
them on a specific agreement should anything happen. They were hoping to have that settled by
this meeting. All of that will be worked out by the Board meeting. They hope to potentially join
their Neighborhood Association in the future. They have been working with Bright Beginnings
on the Worth Crossing to make a wonderful entrance to the neighborhood.
The proffer policy is the big piece of the puzzle. There is a credit for rezoning applications where
there is a minimal increase in density. They can give that credit for what is allowed by right.
This property allows for up to 34 units per acre, which would give an overall unit count of 433
units on this property. What they are showing is a residential property R-1 nearly staying a
residential property. They do consider that is a very minimal increase from what they can
actually do. They have calculated that by right allowance to be 18 units on this site.
Staff determines the cost of public facilities… by relying on the assumption that any revenue
derived from growth (residential real estate taxes), will pay the normal operating costs for
services to residents of new developments.
Credits are authorized for the following:
In rezoning applications where there is a minimal increase in density, a credit may be given for
the number of residential units allowed under the existing zoning and the cash proffer amount
will be based only on the estimated density increase resulting from the rezoning.
Places 29/ Comp Plan designation of Urban Density
Urban Density anticipates a maximum density of 34 units per acre or 433 units.
Estes Park proposes only a
minimal increase in density from what is allowed by-right.
Impact is minimal compared to what was anticipated by the County.
Proffer Credit Calculations
- The Estes and Fox property have paid real estate taxes to Albemarle County for R-1 land to cover
the services for 18 by-right units for the past 31 years.
- Current Zoning:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 10
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
- R-1 allows for 1.45 units per acre (cluster development)
Project Size:
12.75 acres
1.45 units per acre * 12.75 =
18 units allowed by-right
Estes Park offers the following:
$821,300 cash proffer
$147,875 towards affordable housing
$969,175 in total contributions
Summary:
1. Working with the neighborhood.
2. Staff recommendation for approval.
3. Street design meets all VDOT standards and is appropriate for the creation of a safe
neighborhood.
4. Cash Proffer and Affordable Housing Proffer reflect a credit only for units that are allowed and
buildable on the property by-right.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Loach asked Ms. Cooper why they did not incorporate the 15 percent affordable housing in the
development.
Ms. Cooper replied they were just showing that basically anything in the by-right could go on the site and
that would not include affordable housing. They were just showing it for the additional units.
Mr. Loach asked if by right was R-1.
Ms. Cooper replied yes the by right is R-1, which was 18 units.
Mr. Loach asked why they were not showing 15 percent of affordable housing for the 68 units.
Ms. Cooper replied that was something they were open to discussing, but they did not include it in their
initial proffer.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:18 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:28 p.m.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Scott Eliff, a member of the Board of Directors of the Forest Lakes Community Association, noted that he
was not here to discuss Moubry Lane. He pointed out Arbor Lake was owned by the Forest Lakes
Community Association. The townhouses at Worth Crossing are also part of Forest Lakes. They
reviewed the general concept and the site plan with the developer and are pleased with the vegetative
buffer that they will put along Worth Crossing. They don’t have any issue, per say, with the rezoning for
68 houses. They have a big issue association with the potential siltation of Arbor Lake.
- The source of Arbor Lake is that property 32-33 and 32-34 and the stream they are protecting is
down the middle of that property. The last time there was a big development it was Hollymead
Town Center. Their Lake Hollymead got tremendously damaged by siltation that occurred by the
developer and the lack of adequate siltation controls. They had to result in filing suit against the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 11
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
developers to get compensated for that. That is going to be ongoing. They have resolved as a
board to never let this happen again. It is inappropriate for their lake or amenity, which is an
aesthetic value, recreational value, and a source of homeowner value to be damaged by anybody
doing development.
- They have been very pleased with working with the developers of the Estes property who are
working on an agreement with them. However, that is not in place at the moment. They are very
concerned about the potential for siltation here. They had asked before this meeting that the
Commission defer consideration of this tonight so that they have a little longer to work out the
agreement with the applicant. It would compensate the Association and help reserve all of their
rights against potential siltation. Their Association has the financial and management
responsibility to maintain the lake, including dredging it. That would be a substantial cost which
they would save for over time in their reserve study. However, if there is siltation in the lake it
accelerates it and they have to dredge it sooner or more extensively, it would cost them a lot of
money. That is basically the issue with Lake Hollymead.
- One of the issues they have come up with recently and found through the discovery in their law
suit is that there are a lot of soils in this area where the Department of Natural Resources has
indicated that traditional measures of siltation control through erosion bonds and so forth are
unlikely to work. A traditional approach of silt fences and erosion control ponds and so forth will
probably end up silting their lake and result in a major impact to the Association. They hope they
can put in place this agreement or whatever. In the absence of having an agreement in place they
would ask that the development either be postponed or denied so they are able to work it out.
Notwithstanding that, again, they like working with the applicant and think they will be able to
come to something, but want to protect their rights for their property.
Scott Mappi, member of Board of Directors of Forest Ridge Homeowners Association, said that they hear
very regularly that Albemarle County is trying to create not just residential areas but communities where
the residents can interact with one another. They the members of Forest Ridge, a homeowner’s
association of 44 families on Moubry Lane think this is the right thing for the county to do. They would
even suggest that they have already achieved the county’s goal. Moubry Lane currently ends in a little
circle of asphalt that they call a cul-de-sac, which they call their community center. It is where the young
children try out their peddle trucks, tricycles and toys. It is where the older children learn to ride their
bikes and where there is usually an active chalk hopscotch grid, where residents walk their dogs and
discuss everything with their neighbors. It is where their annual Fourth of July annual picnic parade ends.
They should see the video. The other night at about 7:30 p.m. she went out to water her flowers. There
were at least 12 to 15 people in the cul-de-sac including parents supervising children at play, dog walkers,
children at play, and everyone talking to other people. It is something they need more of these days. The
cul-de-sac of Mouby Lane is their public square and town hall. There is no building, but it is the heart of
Moubry lane. They ask them not to take it away.
Ms. Mappi continued noting that most of the residents of Forest Ridge do not object to the proposed
development of Estes Park adjacent to us. What they object to is the plan eliminates the cul -de-sac and
makes Moubry Lane a dangerous through street. They understand the county’s reasons for this plan, but
seriously ask the county to please find another way. If Estes Park had a smaller number of houses the
county would not need to have a second entrance or exit and could leave Moubry Lane as it is. The
county could find another place for a second entrance road. The county could make an exception and
keep an existing community alive. No one planned Moubry Lane’s cul-de-sac to become their
neighborhood center. It just happened, which is often the best way. They ask that they do not destroy
this wonderful creation.
Joan Miller noted that 14 years ago she moved here from New York to be near her children. They love
the area. However, it is changing. She was very worried about the change since the area is becoming too
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 12
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
busy and commercial. She encourages the county to allow Moubry Lane to stay as is due to safety of her
grandchildren and its existing beauty. Farmers in Illinois say one can’t put ten pounds of horse manure in
a five pound bag, it does not fit. She thought that was what they were doing around here by putting too
many people in this area. They need roads and not just more people, which she thought was what was
happening. Moubry Lane is fine the way it is since they can park two cars on it. She asked that Moubry
not be changed.
Peter Walpole, resident of Moubry Lane for 11 years, strongly encouraged the county to find another way
to develop and protect their beautiful quiet little treasure that his child enjoys and not destroy the cul -de-
sac on Moubry Lane. His son, Max, wanted to say something. It is their home and community that they
don’t want destroyed. He asked the county to allow the applicant to develop, but to find another way that
does not impact Moubry Lane.
Max Walpole said that he did not like the aspect of taking down their cul-de-sac. It is a very nice place
and he liked it. He would not like it if it was changed due to traffic.
Jim Frey, Forest Ridge resident, spoke against the request. Before he was a Forest Lake resident he was
an international corporate executive and then was in municipal government in a very small New Jersey
town. He knows that in long range planning sometimes when the long range comes it is not the same as
when it was planned. Sam Craig put together what he thought was a housing development. A cul-de-sac
got him off the hook since he said they can use it as an outlet later. It is not a housing development. It is
a community. They have people from the Far East, Middle East, Europe, South America and New York
City with many diverse opinions and politics. That cul-de-sac has become a community center. He
asked the commission to figure it out. They don’t want to stop growth and want to let Estes Park develop.
However, there has to be another way to not destroy a community and not build Estes Park on top of their
neighborhood.
Cynthia Nath said that she respects the desire of the builder to do this, but this is a community. It is a
really good plan. However, she was struggling with it in that one of the rational f or doing this very high
density project is because of the demand for housing in our area. She did not see it. She asked what the
build out of everything was that has already been approved and not developed. They don’t track that.
She felt that was a problem. She did not see an overwhelming demand for housing at this moment. They
are not taking into account the number of houses already on the market and unsold. She voiced concern
that they were harming a neighborhood for housing not needed.
Marie Portoghese, resident of Moubry Lane resident for 15 years, spoke against the request since she did
want them to take away her neighbors by opening up the street.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Commission.
Mr. Morris said this is a very difficult situation because they have been looking to have a development in
this area for quite some time. As Mr. Franco said originally they were looking at a different road coming
in here. He would hope they could revisit that in some manner. It is truly a community and he would hate
to see it destroyed in any manner, shape or form. However, as far as the master plan is concerned there is
connectivity. He was sorry the developer’s hands are tied. Somehow there has to be another second
entrance. He did not exactly what they can do for this individual and for the people in the community.
He opposed changing this wonderful community.
Mr. Loach asked staff if there is the need for a second entrance based on it being over 50 homes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 13
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
Ms. Wiegand replied yes it was based on fact that it was over 50 homes and the fact that when this was
laid out that they expected there to be an interconnection to make this a little wider neighborhood. That is
why staff encouraged the developer to do it.
Mr. Zobrist asked if they reduced the number of unit to 50 units would they still need the
interconnectivity.
Mr. Benish replied that the plan does require access to adjacent properties. At a certain threshold it does
not have to be vehicular access.
Mr. Zobrist said they could do walking access and not have vehicular access. He asked what the
threshold was.
Ms. Monteith relied it was 50 units.
Mr. Kamptner agreed it was 50 units for the second access. One course the county has taken in the past is
to require some type of access be constructed and then it be chained so it is accessible only for emergency
situations. They have done that at least a few items.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out it had been done in Running Deer, Cascadia and Gray Rock North.
Mr. Benish noted that was places where there are no existing roads and the public road could be stubbed
out for future connections. So other undeveloped properties could theoretically provide that second point.
Mr. Zobrist asked what could be done to not have the connectivity. The connectivity is required under the
Code because it is 66 units.
Mr. Franco said it was also encouraged by the Comp Plan.
Mr. Kamptner said that even if these parcels were not rezoned under t he Subdivision Ordinance when a
plat came in staff probably look at it and the county has the authority to require that roads be extended to
the property line.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the county has the ability not to extend it.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes. At the plat stage it would be decided either by the agent or the Commission.
However, that decision is made at the plat stage. In the rezoning stage the Commission can make
recommendation to the Board who would determine if that was appropriate. It would be helpful if the
Commission could state the reasons why in this case that it is recommending that the extension not be
provided. It could also make a recommendation for an access at a different location.
Mr. Benish noted there is a stub out to an adjacent property to the south that eventually could provide a
second point of access.
Ms. Wiegand noted that it went to the Virginia Power property. They talked about this in the pre -
application conference with the applicants. There was an issue with trying to get the right-of-way so it
would line up with the entrance into the shopping center on the other side of Worth Crossing.
Mr. Benish said there is a practical feasibility to a utility of that second access.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 14
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
Mr. Zobrist noted that it was done in Glenmore. The Commission could say stub it out on the south side
and leave Moubry Lane the way it is. The Commission would make the recommendation and then the
Board of Supervisors would make the decision.
Ms. Porterfield said based on that after they talked about these things the Commission could ask the
applicant to defer to come back with changes to the plan so an actual plan could be sent to the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Benish replied that is correct as well. The Commission could direct the applicant to look at other
items.
Mr. Loach noted that he would not support this proposal for a number of reasons. He was not happy with
the lack of 15 percent of affordable housing. He did not agree with the policy where essentially they
could pay it off. He was not happy with the cash proffers and the way they are by subtracting the money
for sidewalks, which would take money away from other projects in the CIP. He was not happy that they
were not proffering for the total number of houses, but just those over the by right.
Mr. Franco noted that regarding off-site improvements it has been common practice to provide a credit
back for those off-site improvements. He agreed with the affordable housing component. He would like
to see it incorporated into the project. However, he understands why it can’t be sometimes. His
observation on the affordable housing has been also is that they are collecting the funds but they are not
necessarily dispersing them as quickly as he would like to see. He would be will ing to relook at the
affordable housing policy to even potentially reduce the number of required units in there in order to
make sure that a unit got in there. For instance, it is something like $250,000 to $270,000 of proffer. So
by giving to build a house and making sure it was affordable would be a way of satisfying that
requirement in his eyes. It would not hit 15 percent, but it would meet the intent of the ordinance to
provide affordable housing throughout the community.
Mr. Loach agreed with the speaker from Forest Lakes that the agreement should be part of the conditions
before approval.
Mr. Morris agreed. He thought there are a number of things he would really like to have answers to. He
was looking at a motion to approve or deny. Right now he did not want to do either one. He thought the
plan was wonderful except they were evading the end of the cul-de-sac. They may or may not want to do
it, but they have to do it. Or, they need to find another way to have that second entrance. He would really
like to see if they could look at that a little more thoroughly and possibly get the agreement with Forest
Lakes Homeowner’s Association. He noted that the applicant would have to request a deferral since the
Commission could not.
Mr. Franco noted concern with the road width.
Mr. Wiegand pointed out when VDOT looked at the road they meet the requirements to be accepted into
the state system because they have two parking spaces off site for each unit. However, the problem is that
even though they meet the standards VDOT and the county engineer is concerned that right now the
streets are narrow enough that once they are accepted into the state system they would have to be posted
for no parking on one side or the other on each street. Staff is concerned that is not going to leave enough
space for cars to park. There may be households with more than two cars. Also, they could have people
coming to visit. It could be difficult to have enough parking here at certain times. Staff indicated that
they would like the streets a few feet wider to ensure they could have parking on both sides. Staff
believes by narrowing the boundaries around the edges or buffers that they could get enough space for the
street. They were looking for 30’ so to be wide enough to provide parking on both sides.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 15
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
Ms. Porterfield suggested that the applicant defer the request since she did not want to vote on this request
tonight. She would like to see a tot lot on the plan. If the county did a stub out for Glenmore that had 750
homes she thought they could figure out a way to do it here. Lastly, she sits on the Historic Preservation
Committee. They met last evening and are concerned that the cemetery be protected. They would very
much like to have the applicant at least fence the cemetery with temporary fencing prior to commencing
any site work including the initial grading on this area. Then not later than completion of the grading for
lots 1 through 12 in phase 2 the owner shall replace any temporary fencing with permanent fencing of a
lasting low maintenance variety including a gate at the western end of the access easement being shown
to the cemetery from road B. At that time the owner would also mow and other wise clean up the
cemetery and continue to maintain the cemetery and fencing until such time the owner turns such
maintenance over to the Estes Park Homeowner’s Association as will be covered in the Estes Park
covenants and restrictions. She believed that the 10’ access easement that they are showing handles thi s.
However, they wanted to make sure that the easement was clear on the plans. She assumed it would be
part and parcel of the open space and not a piece of someone’s lot. They would like to see a proffer to
that extent added.
Mr. Smith said they were talking about making the streets wider. He despises the buffer areas on the
outside. They are either a jungle or else somebody extends their yard back. Where they lose that they
could gain space for the open space in the middle and expand the street. He did not like closing the cul-
de-sac. Regarding the grave yard, he was not sure they could demand that the owner maintain the grave
yard because it belongs to the family.
Ms. Porterfield noted she was not demanding but asking if the applicant when they are putting this
altogether couldn’t make it look decent and keep it looking decent if they are going to transfer it over to
the homeowner’s association eventually. The concern is that they have historic entities in this county. It
is a good idea if they can figure out a way to maintain those entities. If they can delineate the area and
mow occasionally, she thought they have taken care of the problem.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the applicant wants the Commission to vote on the request.
Scott Collins asked to make a couple of points. The cemetery is no problem since they have already
delineated it with the county.
Ms. Porterfield asked that they put it in writing.
Mr. Collins made the following comments:
- It was good to have narrower street and parking on one side. It does cut down on traffic. It is a
calming effect and keeps people from speeding in neighborhood. Narrow streets leads to slower
moving cars. It is a much better design. There is plenty of parking.
- They are there with working out a condition about the pond with Forest Lakes. They are on
board about having an agreement about siltation before the Board meeting.
- Regarding affordable housing, the problem they are having is with the down payment to get the
applicants into these homes. That is what they really want to see more of is monetary
contributions into the affordable housing program. The initial down payment seems to be the
hurdle for a lot of families, which is what they are focusing on. They are in tune with what they
want to do.
- Regarding the connection to Moubry Lane and a cul-de-sac versus a road connection they could
go either way. He would hate to get into the fact of having to come back and change the plan in
how it is going to connect or not with the Board ultimately making that decision as well. They
have a connection at the southern end and they have done that to allow development down there
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 16
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
to have a connection. They can easily work out that change if they had an emergency connection.
They can work out the small change in the streetscape alignment to make that work.
- He would not see that as a need to come back here. This is a good plan and it can work. They can
accommodate that connection whether it is pedestrian, pedestrian and bicycle, or vehicle
whichever way the Board feels on that. They are open to that either way. He would like to move
forward with the intent that these couple of items they will definitely take care of.
The Planning Commission held a discussion on the proposal and provided comments on items that need
further work.
Mr. Benish summarized the Commission’s comments, as follow.
1. Lack of provision of affordable housing units. The recent trend to proffer cash in lieu of units
needs to be reviewed as part of a discussion of the Affordable Housing Policy. T here was a
general consensus that the applicant should base the amount of the cash proffer for affordable
housing on the total number of units.
2. Protection of Arbor Lake – Need to ensure that the agreement is in place.
3. Provide for tot lot or another recreational amenity in the 25% open space.
4. Better provision for temporary and long-term protection of the historic cemetery
5. Provide adequate road width to allow parking on both sides of public road.
6. Evaluate options for another point of vehicular access instead of the Moubry Lane
interconnection. It was a general consensus not to make the interconnection, but to preserve the
cul-de-sac. Second means of access needs to be made. Typically, this issue would be addressed
during site plan review.
Mr. Collins said they do not have a whole lot of issues with the Commission’s comments. He would be
happy to make all those conditions of approval. They would be willing to go 50 percent on the affordable
housing and go ahead and change that as well. They would do 15 percent affordable housing, the
condition of having the Arbor Lake agreement in place, and they will widen the streets 12’ if that works
for everybody. The one trick about coming back and changing the plan is that they would like to just
make that a condition and if they don’t make the vehicle connection they make more of a pedestrian
connection or bicycle connection. Then they would do a variance to the plan and change that plan at the
time. What he would hate to do is go ahead and change the plan now and then go to the Board and have
them shoot it down because they are pushing the promotion of interconnectivity They are stuck in that
little turmoil. They can easily change the plan one way or the other with a variance and make that change
happen.
Mr. Collins continued that they have looked at the ability to connect with the Virginia Power property.
There is actually another property on the other side of that strip as well. They need to have both of those.
Right now with all of the utilities and the existing power poles it was not feasible. They have looked at
that entrance as a possibility. They are down to these two connections. These are the two best
connections. There is another connection north, but they ruled that one out as well. From the work on
Profit Road there could be no connection to Profit Road to the north because there was not enough room
between Worth Crossing and Moubry Lane. He thought that a lot of this could be done with conditions,
especially the idea of connecting to Moubry Lane or not. That could be handled as well as with a simple
change to the plan when it comes back in for approval with the site plan.
Mr. Benish noted that the Commission could not condition a rezoning. They can either motion for
approval or denial with the basis that the expectations to be addressed with the Board or denial because of
the issues they have discussed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 17
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
Ms. Porterfield pointed out she would not do that. She got bumped into doing that on a couple of things
in the past and she really does not like it. If this Commission is doing its work, they will put it together
and they will stand behind what they are saying. When the Commission sends it to the Board of
Supervisors they should say this is the way it should be done. If at their level, the Board decides to say
that the Commission did not do it right or they don’t agree, that is up to them. However, the Commission
will send them something that is a complete package. That is not what he is asking them to do at this
point and she cannot support that. She would be very happy to support the things that have been said here
that he has agreed to if he will bring his plan back done that way.
Mr. Franco said he was torn because he has been the applicant before. He understands what the applicant
is saying and really thinks especially the interconnection is difficult. He thought the policy has been to
provide interconnections to help take the pressure off the bigger roads. He could see the Board going the
opposite direction. However, he also sees the point of sending their best foot forward. He was a little
torn on that.
Mr. Zobrist asked if there was a motion. He asked the applicant if he wants to defer or wants the
Commission to vote.
Mr. Collins requested a deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Smith seconded to accept the applicant’s request for deferral of
ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park.
Ms. Porterfield asked staff to work with the applicant for the earliest possible date that he can bring it
back.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out the next meetings would be September 13, September 20, and September 27.
Mr. Benish noted it would be preferable to defer to a date specific so they don’t have to readvertise.
Mr. Kamptner said if the Commission sets the hearing date now, it does not need to be readvertised.
Mr. Benish pointed out staff can make sure the Homeowner Association is made aware of this.
Mr. Zobrist asked how much time the applicant would like.
Mr. Collins asked for deferral to September 27.
Mr. Benish said that September 27 is a short turn around, but staff would make every effort with the
applicant to address all the issues.
Mr. Collins said they would have it submitted within five days if staff can turn it around.
Mr. Morris amended the motion to defer the request to the September 27 Planning Commission meeting.
The motion passed by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Zobrist noted that ZMA-2010-00011, Estes Park was deferred to the September 27th Planning
Commission meeting. The applicant agreed to address the changes in the applicatio n plan and proffers as
recommended by the Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 18
FINAL MINUTES – PARTIAL ZMA-2010-11 ESTES PARK
Return to exec summary