HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-4-10Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
APRIL 10, 2013
AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
4:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order.
2. Discussion: Solid Waste RFP.
3. Discussion: Proposed Police Firing Range
4. Adjourn.
6:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation recognizing the Monticello District Boy Scouts of America.
b. Proclamation recognizing May 2013 as Fair Housing Month.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9. To consider granting easements to Central Telephone Company of Virginia, d/b/a
CenturyLink, across property owned by the County located on Boulders Road (Parcel 03200-00-00-
005C3). The easements are necessary for the installation and maintenance of underground cables
across Boulders Road.
10. To consider granting an easement to the City of Charlottesville, Virginia within a public road
owned by the County known as Fontana Drive, (adjacent to Parcel ID 078E0-00-00-000A0). This
easement is necessary for the installation and maintenance of a gas line.
11. SP-2012-00028. Stoner (Sign #5). PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for one
additional development right to create a second dwelling unit on the parcel. ZONING CATEGORY/
GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2.28 Divisions of land as provided in Section
10.5.2.1. 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: No. LOCATION: 240 Chestnut Oak Lane. TAX MAP/
PARCEL: 076N00000013A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
12. ZMA-2010-00013. Hollymead Town Center (A-2). PROPOSAL: Request to
amend proffers for 44.29 acres on property zoned Neighborhood Model District zoning district which
allows residential (3–34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. No new
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0410/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/2/2020 4:17:03 PM]
Tentative
dwellings proposed. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes for TMP: 03200000004500; No for TMP:
03200000005000. AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes. PROFFERS: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) – retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and
open space; Commercial Mixed Use – commercial, retail, employment uses, with supporting
residential, office, or institutional uses; Light Industrial – manufacturing from prepared materials,
processing, fabrication, assembly, and distribution of products and Urban Density Residential –
residential (6.01–34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial,
office and service uses in Hollymead-Places 29. LOCATION: Hollymead Town Center Area A-2, the
southwest quadrant of Seminole Trail (US 29) and Towncenter Drive to the west of Area A-1 in the
Hollymead Development Area. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200000004500, 03200000005000.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
13. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
14. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
15. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: December 5, 2012.
8.2 FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriation.
8.3 Authorize the County Executive to Execute Site Development Easements across Public
Property Involving Improvement of Property Owned by the County.
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/2013Files/0410/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/2/2020 4:17:03 PM]
Monticello District Boy Scouts of America
WHEREAS, Boy Scouts of America was established February 8, 1910 and has, for over 103 years,
created a strong foundation of leadership, service and community for millions of
American youth; and
WHEREAS, the program of the Boy Scouts of America builds character, trains in responsibility,
participates in citizenship, and develops personal fitness; and
WHEREAS, every rank advancement or badge achievement recognizes new challenges, new
adventures, and new friends for scouts and all those, including friends and family, who
accompany the scouts along the path; and
WHEREAS, the Monticello District, Stonewall Jackson Area Council, Boy Scouts of America has, for
over Seventy-Five years, provided valuable service and leadership training to scouts in
Charlottesville/Albemarle and five neighboring counties; and
WHEREAS, scouts of the Monticello District continue to demonstrate citizenship by providing over
11,000 hours of community service annually in all fields, including business, education
and government using the confidence gained through scouting values to make ethical
choices and realize full potential as citizens; and
WHEREAS, sixty-six local young men earned the rank of Eagle Scout in 2012, the most in a si ngle
year in the Monticello District Boy Scouts of America; and
WHEREAS, the Monticello District will continue to share lifetime values and lifetime memories as it
celebrates its legacy and reaffirms the commitment to inspire and prepare future
generation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
recognizes, commends and congratulates the Monticello District Boy Scouts of America
in accomplishing such high standards as an organization.
Signed and sealed this 10th day of April, 2013.
Return to agenda
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April 2013 is Fair Housing Month, and marks the forty-fifth anniversary of the passage
of the Federal Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended
by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988); and
WHEREAS, the Fair Housing Act provides that no person shall be subjected to discrimination
because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status in the
rental, sale, financing or advertising of housing (and the Virginia Fair Housing Law
also prohibits housing discrimination based on elderliness); and
WHEREAS, the Fair Housing Act supports equal housing opportunity throughout the United States ;
and
WHEREAS, fair housing creates healthy communities, and housing discrimination harms us all; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County supports equal housing opportunity and seeks to affirmatively further
fair housing not only during Fair Housing Month in April, but throughout the year
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing
opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2013
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in
Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Signed and sealed this 10th day of April, 2013.
View attachment
Return to agenda
Memorandum
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Karen Reifenberger, Deputy Director, Piedmont Housing Alliance
Ron White, Albemarle County Office of Housing
DATE: March 29, 2013
RE: Fair Housing Month Resolution
April is Fair Housing Month, and this April marks the 45th anniversary of the federal Fair
Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color,
national origin, sex, religion, familial status, or disability (and elderliness under Virginia’s Fair
Housing Law). The Act’s purpose includes promoting housing integration and equal opportunity.
A recent Report on Fair Housing Compliance in the Rental Housing Market in the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County found that housing discrimination based on race, disability,
and familial status may limit housing opportunities in our area. Key differences noted were
discouragement and inconsistent application procedures for African Americans and families with
children, and lack of awareness about rights of people with disabilities to reasonable
accommodations and modifications in housing.
Piedmont Housing Alliance’s Fair Housing Program works year-round to raise awareness and
promote compliance with civil rights laws that protect all of us from housing discrimination and
support our shared value of equal opportunity. PHA’s fair housing services include advocating for
victims of housing discrimination, responding to fair housing compliance questions, conducting
fair housing education sessions, creating comprehensive educational materials and public
awareness campaigns, and chairing the Regional Fair Housing Advisory Meetings. Last year,
PHA provided 25 education sessions for over 450 people and assisted 89 callers with fair housing
information and/or advocacy.
We invite you to celebrate Fair Housing Month by participating in one of these upcoming events:
Fair Housing Forum: Is There a Fair Housing Gap in the Charlottesville Area?
Tuesday, April 23rd from 10 am – noon
Charlottesville City Council Chambers
This panel presentation and interactive discussion will identify fair housing gaps and initiatives to
promote equal housing opportunity. Topics and speakers will include HUD’s role in promoting
and enforcing fair housing, PHA’s recent fair housing compliance testing report, local
government’s responsibilities to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, TJPDC’s Fair Housing &
Equity Assessment, City of Charlottesville’s Human Rights Commission, and other local fair
housing issues. This event is designed to engage community members, local government
officials, planners, community organizations and advocates, rental and real estate professionals,
housing and community development staff.
Fair & Accessible Housing Seminar for People with Disabilities & Advocates
Wednesday, April 24th from 1 pm – 3 pm
Independence Resource Center, 815 Cherry Avenue, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Learn about rights of people with disabilities under the fair housing laws: non-discrimination,
reasonable accommodations, reasonable modifications, and requirements for accessible housing.
Thank you for your continued support of fair housing and equal housing opportunity. For more
information about this resolution or PHA’s fair housing services, please contact Karen
Reifenberger at: 434-817-2436 ext. 106 or karenr@piedmonthousing.org.
Return to proclamation
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriation
#2013085 for local government programs and projects.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri and Davis, and Ms. Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: N/A
AGENDA DATE:
April 10, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such am endment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first
publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all
County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total increase to the FY 13 budget due to the appropriations itemized below is $73,000.00. A budget amendment
public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the
currently adopted budget.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of one (1) FY 2013 appropriation as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2013085) to appropriate $73,000.00 for Emergency Communication Center projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2013085.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
1
Appropriation #2013085 $73,000.00
Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 73,000.00
The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) requests that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the ECC,
appropriate funding from the ECC’s fund balance for the following request s, which have been approved by the ECC
Management Board:
Requests $30,500.00 to fund the impact of related benefit costs for the state mandated change requiring
employees to pay a 5% contribution to VRS and for local governments to provide current employees with a
salary increase to offset the cost of current employees’ VRS contribution.
Requests $20,000.00 for HVAC equipment replacement. Over the previous three years the ECC has
replaced one of its aging HVAC units, this will be the equipment replacement for the fourth unit, which is 13
years old. Because air conditioning (AC) units at the ECC run constantly year round to maintain a specific
temperature for equipment, its actual usage is 3 times a normal AC unit. The City of Charlottesville’s
maintenance division has worked with the ECC to develop a usage replacement plan for this equipment.
Requests $20,000.00 for bi-directional amplifier (BDA) equipment replacement. The ECC is responsible for
26 BDA units that are within government buildings throughout the City, County and University. These units
provide in-building radio coverage for the public safety providers when they are within these buildings. This
funding will replace 8 units found to be not working properly and beyond repair during an annual in spection.
Requests $2,500.00 for the purchase of additional batteries for the 800 MHz regional radio cache which is
maintained by the ECC. This is for replacement batteries for the 80 handheld units .
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Authorize the County Executive to Execute Site
Development Easements across Public Property Involving
Improvement of Property Owned by the County
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the County Executive to
execute site development easements across public
property involving improvement of property owned by the
County
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis and Herrick
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 10, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County of Albemarle grants site development easements across public property, including, but not limited to,
easements for ingress, egress, utilities, cable, telecommunications, storm water management, and other similar
conveyances that are consistent with the County’s capital improvement program, involving improvement of property owned
by the County. The deeds of easement for such conveyances set forth the rights and responsibilities of the grantee(s) and
the rights and remedies of the County. It has been the County’s practice to authorize these deeds on an individual basis.
Routinely easements for electricity, phone, gas, and water and sewer service are required to be granted for facilities being
constructed for County use.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1800(B), a public hearing is not required for the conveyance of site development
easements across public property, including, but not limited to, easements for ingress, egress, utilities, cable,
telecommunications, storm water management, and other similar conveyances, that are consistent with the local
capital improvement program, involving improvement of property owned by the locality.
Because it is necessary for the County to grant such site development easements, the efficiency of government would
be improved by generally delegating the authority to the County Executive to execute such site development
easements on behalf of the County. Virginia Code § 15.2-1803 requires that any instrument conveying real estate
must be executed by a person authorized to act on behalf of the locality. A proposed Resolution (Attachment A)
authorizing the County Executive to execute site development easements across public property, including but not
limited to, easements for ingress, egress, utilities, cable, telecommunications, storm water management, and other
similar conveyances, that are consistent with the County’s capital improvement program, involving improvement of
property owned by the County, is attached.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The authorization will streamline the process and will minimize staff time involved in preparing an executive
summary and presenting the item to the Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the County Executive to
execute site development easements across public property, including, but not limited to, easements for ingress,
egress, utilities, cable, telecommunications, storm water management, and other similar conveyances, that are
consistent with the County’s capital improvement program, involving improvement of property owned by the County.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
TO EXECUTE SITE DEVELOPMENT EASEMENTS ACROSS PUBLIC PROPERTY
INVOLVING IMPROVEMENT OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle grants site development easements across public
property, including, but not limited to, easements for ingress, egress, utilities, cable, telecommuni -
cations, storm water management, and other similar conveyances, that are consistent with the
County’s capital improvement program, involving improvement of property owned by the County;
and
WHEREAS, the deeds of easement for such conveyances set forth the rights and
responsibilities of the grantee(s) and the rights and remedies of the County; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for the conveyance of site development
easements across public property, including, but not limited to, easements for ingress, egress, utilities,
cable, telecommunications, storm water management, and other similar conveyances, that are
consistent with the local capital improvement program, involving improvement of property owned by
the locality pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1800(B); and
WHEREAS, a number of site development easements for such conveyances are presented to
the Board for approval; and
WHEREAS, the efficiency of government would be improved by delegating the authority to
the County Executive to execute such site development easements on behalf of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
authorizes the County Executive to execute site development easements across public property,
including, but not limited to, easements for ingress, egress, utilities, cable, telecommunications, storm
water management, and other similar conveyances, that are consistent with the County’s capital
improvement program, involving improvement of property owned by the County, that do not require a
public hearing on behalf of the County provided that such deeds of easement are approved as to form
and content by the County Attorney.
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 _________________________.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Central Telephone Company of Virginia Easements
Within Boulders Road
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider granting easements to Central
Telephone Company of Virginia within Boulders Road, a
public right-of-way owned by the County (TMP 03200-00-
00-005C3)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Herrick and Kelsey
PRESENTER (S): Jack Kelsey
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 10, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Central Telephone Company of Virginia, doing business as CenturyLink, has requested that the County grant 10-foot wide
easements within Boulders Road, a public right-of-way owned by the County (TMP 003200-00-00-005C3), in the locations
shown on the attached plat (Attachment A). The proposed deed of easement (Attachment B) would allow CenturyLink to
install and maintain underground cables and related facilities or structures within the easement area to serve NGIC and
would also grant CenturyLink the right of ingress and egress to the easement area. Boulders Road is currently not in the
secondary system of state highways.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of any interest in County-
owned real property. Staff prepared the proposed deed of easement. CenturyLink has submitted a plat depicting the
exact location and dimensions of the easements.
The proposed deed is based on the deed form used for easements within County-owned rights-of-way that are not in
the secondary system of state highways, and it includes provisions that will assure that granting the easements will not
prevent Boulders Road from being accepted into the state-maintained secondary system.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that, after holding the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached resolution (Attachment C) to
approve the proposed easements and to authorize the County Executive to sign the deed of easement on behalf of the
County after the deed has been approved in substance and form by the County Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Plat
B – Deed of Easement
C – Resolution
Return to agenda
Attachment B
1
This document was prepared by:
Albemarle County Attorney
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Tax Map and Parcel Number 03200-00-00-005C3 (Boulders Road right-of-way)
This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code § 58.1-811(C)(4).
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, is made and entered into on this _______ day of
_______________, 2013, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political
subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, hereinafter referred to as the “County,” and
CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, doing business as CENTURYLINK,
whose address is 100 Century Link Drive, Monroe, Louisiana, 71203, Grantee, hereinafter referred to
as “CenturyLink.”
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the County does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL
WARRANTY to CenturyLink, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, permanent
easements and rights-of-way (hereinafter, the “Easements”) to install, construct, operate, maintain,
expand, replace and remove underground cables and related facilities or structures as are reasonably
necessary for CenturyLink to exercise the rights granted to it herein, upon, over, through, under and
along the real property of the County known as Boulders Road and identified in the tax records of the
County as Tax Map and Parcel Number 03200-00-00-005C3, in Albemarle County, Virginia, and more
particularly described as follows:
Permanent easements in the public right-of-way known as Boulders Road in Albemarle
County, Virginia, as shown on the plat of Kerry L. Skinner, dated March 25, 2013 (the
“Plat”) entitled “Plat Showing Fiber Optic Utility Easements on the Property of County
of Albemarle, Virginia” showing two C/L 5’ fiber optic utility easements; the said
roadway shown as Boulders Road is on a plat of record in the Albemarle County Circuit
Court Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 1590, page 359.
Reference is made to the Plat, a copy of which is attached hereto to be recorded herewith, for
the exact location and dimensions of the permanent easements hereby granted and the property over
Attachment B
2
which the Easements cross.
These Easements shall be subject to the following:
1. Location of Improvements. CenturyLink may install, construct, operate, maintain,
expand, replace and remove underground cables and related facilities or structures (hereinafter, the
“Improvements”) only within the Easements. The Improvements shall be underground.
2. Right to Enter; Ingress and Egress. CenturyLink shall have the right to enter upon the
Easements for the purposes of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, expanding, replacing
and removing the Improvements within the Easements. CenturyLink shall have the right of ingress
and egress thereto as reasonably necessary to install, construct, operate, maintain, expand, replace and
remove the Improvements.
3. Excavation and Restoration. Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the
Easements, CenturyLink shall backfill the excavation in a timely, proper and workmanlike manner so
as to restore the surface conditions to the same condition as they were prior to excavation, including
restoration of all paved surfaces that were damaged or disturbed as part of the excavation.
4. Vegetation and Obstructions. CenturyLink may cut any trees, brush and shrubbery,
remove obstructions, and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide for safe installation,
construction, operation, maintenance, expansion, replacement and removal of the Improvements.
CenturyLink shall not be responsible to the County or its successors and assigns, to replace or
reimburse the cost of replacing or repairing any County-owned trees, brush, shrubbery or obstructions
that are removed or otherwise damaged if such vegetation or obstructions prevent CenturyLink from
installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, expanding, replacing or removing the Improvements.
5. Ownership of Improvements. The Improvements shall be the property of CenturyLink.
6. Obligations of CenturyLink if and when Boulders Road is Proposed for Acceptance or
is Accepted into the State-Maintained System. If and when the segment of Boulders Road in which the
Attachment B
3
Easements lie is proposed for acceptance or is accepted into the state-maintained or other publicly-
maintained system of highways, CenturyLink shall comply with the following:
a. Permits. CenturyLink shall obtain all permits required by the Virginia
Department of Transportation (hereinafter, “VDOT”) or such other public entity that becomes
responsible for the maintenance of Boulders Road (hereinafter, “such other public entity”) to authorize
the Improvements to exist or remain within the Boulders Road right-of-way (hereinafter, the
“Permits”) and shall comply with all applicable requirements of VDOT or such other public entity.
b. Acts Required of CenturyLink to Assure Acceptance of Boulders Road into the
State-Maintained System. Until CenturyLink quitclaims its interest in the Easements to VDOT, such
other public entity, or the County as required in conjunction with the acceptance of Boulders Road into
the state-maintained or other publicly-maintained system, CenturyLink, at its sole expense, shall,
promptly alter, change, adjust, relocate or remove the Improvements from the Boulders Road right-of-
way if VDOT or such other public entity determines that such alteration, change, adjustment,
relocation or removal is required in order for VDOT or such other public entity to accept Boulders
Road into the secondary system. Neither VDOT, such other public entity, nor the County shall be
responsible or liable to CenturyLink or its successors or assigns for any costs associated with such
alteration, change, adjustment, relocation or removal of the then-existing Improvements. In addition,
neither VDOT, such other public entity, nor the County shall be obligated to compensate or reimburse
CenturyLink or its successors or assigns for any increased or decreased cost or value associated with
either the Improvements or Boulders Road resulting from such alteration, change, adjustment,
relocation or removal.
c. Continuing Obligations of CenturyLink to the County. After VDOT or such
other public entity has issued the required Permits, CenturyLink shall be subject to the following
conditions, notwithstanding any quitclaim of its interests to VDOT or such other public entity, and
these conditions shall be continuing obligations of CenturyLink:
Attachment B
4
1. CenturyLink, to the extent authorized by law, shall at all times indemnify
and save harmless the County, its employees, agents, officers, assigns, and successors in interest from
any claim whatsoever arising from CenturyLink’s exercise of rights or privileges stated herein.
2. In the event that the County or such other public entity becomes
responsible for the maintenance of Boulders Road and the County or such other public entity requires,
for its purposes, that CenturyLink alter, change, adjust, or relocate the Improvements, across or under
Boulders Road, the cost to alter, change, adjust, or relocate the Improvements shall be the sole
responsibility of CenturyLink. Neither the County nor such other public entity shall be responsible or
liable to CenturyLink or its successors or assigns for any costs associated with altering, changing,
adjusting or relocating the then-existing Improvements as may be required herein. In addition, neither
the County nor such other public entity shall be obligated to compensate or reimburse CenturyLink or
its successors or assigns for any increased or decreased cost or value associated with either the
Improvements resulting from such alteration, change, adjustment or relocation. The requirements of
this paragraph 6(c)(2) shall not apply if VDOT, such other public entity, or the County is either
required by law to pay for such costs or is authorized and elects to pay for such costs.
The County, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by action of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on ____________, 2013, does hereby convey the interest in
real estate made by this deed.
By its acceptance and recordation of this Deed of Easement, CenturyLink acknowledges that it,
its successors and assigns, shall be bound by the terms herein.
WITNESS the following signatures.
Return to exec summary
Attachment C
RESOLUTION APPROVING DEED OF EASEMENT BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND THE CENTRAL TELEPHONE
COMPANY OF VIRGINIA (d/b/a CenturyLink)
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle owns the public right-of-way located on
Boulders Road (Parcel 03200-00-00-005C3); and
WHEREAS, easements are necessary for the Central Telephone Company of
Virginia to extend telecommunications service to the National Ground Intelligence
Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby approves granting easements to the Central Telephone Company of
Virginia, and authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County
Attorney, a Deed of Easement with the Central Telephone Company of Virginia for
easements within Parcel 03200-00-00-005C3.
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
______________________.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
City of Charlottesville Request for a Gasline Easement
Within Fontana Drive
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider granting an easement to the
City of Charlottesville within Fontana Drive, a public right-
of-way owned by the County (adjacent to Parcel 078E0-
00-00-000A0)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Herrick and Kelsey
PRESENTER (S): Jack Kelsey
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 10, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The City of Charlottesville has requested that the County grant a 15-foot wide easement within Fontana Drive, a public
right-of-way owned by the County (adjacent to Parcel 078E0-00-00-000A0), in the location shown on the attached plat
(Attachment A). The proposed deed of Easement (Attachment B) would allow the City of Charlottesville to install a natural
gas line to serve the Fontana subdivision. The easement is located within the County-owned right-of-way. Fontana Drive
is not currently in the secondary system of state highways.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of any interest in County-
owned real property. Staff has reviewed the proposed deed of easement, prepared by the City Attorney. The City of
Charlottesville has submitted a plat depicting the exact location and dimensions of the easement.
The proposed deed is based on the deed form used for easements within County-owned rights-of-way that are not in
the secondary system of state highways, and it includes provisions that will assure that the grant of the easement will
not prevent Fontana Drive from being accepted into the state maintained secondary system.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that, after holding the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached resolution (Attachment C) to
approve the proposed easement and to authorize the County Executive to sign the deed of easement on behalf of the
County after the deed has been approved in substance and form by the County Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Plat
B – Deed of Easement
C – Resolution
Return to agenda
This document was prepared by:
Albemarle County Attorney
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Tax Map 78A (Fontana Drive right -of-way)
This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code §§ 58.1-811(A)(3) and 58.1-811(C)(4).
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, is made and entered into on this _______ day of
_________________________, 20_____, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, hereinafter
referred to as the “County,” and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a
municipal corporation and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee,
whose address is Post Office Box 911, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902, hereinafter referred to as
the “City”.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged, the County does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with
SPECIAL WARRANTY to the City, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, a
permanent easement and right-of-way (hereinafter, the “Easement”) to construct, install,
maintain, repair, replace and extend certain natural gas line improvements over, under, and
across the real property of the County known as Fontana Drive in Albemarle County, Virginia,
and more particularly described as follows:
Permanent natural gas line easement in the public right-of-way known as Fontana
Drive (50’ R.O.W.) in Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown on the plat made by
the City of Charlottesville Gas Division, dated August 6, 2012 (the “Plat”),
identified as “A 15.0’ Wide Easement for a 2” P.E. Gas Line”; the said roadway
shown as Fontana Drive is on a plat of record in the Albemarle County Circuit
Court Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 4163, page 434.
Reference is made to the Plat, a copy of which is attached hereto to be recorded herewith,
for the exact location and dimensions of the permanent easement hereby granted and the property
over which the Easement crosses.
This Easement shall be subject to the following:
1. Location of Improvements. The City shall construct, install, maintain, repair,
replace and extend the natural gas line improvements (hereinafter, the “Improvements”) only
within the Easement. The Improvements shall be underground and may be within the travel
lanes on Fontana Drive only if such a location does not prevent the acceptance of Fontana drive
into the Virginia Department of Transportation (hereinafter “VDOT”) or other publicly-
maintained system.
2. Right to Enter; Ingress and Egress. The City shall have the right to enter upon the
Easement for the purpose of installing, constructing, maintaining, repairing, replacing and
extending the Improvements within the Easement. The City also shall have the right o f ingress
and egress thereto as reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and
extend the Improvements.
3. Excavation and Restoration. Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within
the Easement, the City shall backfill the excavation in a timely, proper and workmanlike manner
so as to restore the surface conditions to a condition necessary for the acceptance of Fontana
Drive into the VDOT or other publicly-maintained system, including restoration of all paved
surfaces that were damaged or disturbed as part of the excavation.
4. Vegetation and Obstructions. The City may cut any trees, brush and shrubbery,
remove obstructions, and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide economical
and safe installation, operation and maintenance of the Improvements. The City shall not be
responsible to the County or its successors and assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of
replacing or repairing any County-owned trees, brush, shrubbery or obstructions that are
removed or otherwise damaged that would be inconsistent with the proper maintenance,
operation or use of the Improvements.
5. Ownership of Improvements. The Improvements shall be the property of the
City.
6. Obligations of the Grantee if and when Fontana Drive is Proposed for Acceptance
or is Accepted into the State-Maintained System. If and when the segment of Fontana Drive in
which the Easement lies is proposed for acceptance or is accepted into the state-maintained or
other publicly-maintained system of highways, the Grantee shall comply with the following:
a. Permits. The Grantee shall obtain all permits required by the Virginia
Department of Transportation (hereinafter, “VDOT”) or such other public entity that becomes
responsible for the maintenance of Fontana Drive (hereinafter, “such other public entity”) to
authorize the Improvements to exist or remain within the Fontana Drive right-of-way
(hereinafter, the “Permits”) and shall comply with all applicable requirements of VDOT or such
other public entity.
b. Acts Required of Grantee to Assure Acceptance of Fontana Drive into
State-Maintained System. Until the Grantee quitclaims its interest in the Easement to VDOT,
such other public entity, or the Grantor as required in conjunction with the acceptance of Fontana
Drive into the state-maintained or other publicly-maintained system, the Grantee, at its sole
expense, shall, promptly alter, change, adjust, relocate or remove the Improvements from the
Fontana Drive right-of-way if VDOT or such other public entity determines that such alteration,
change, adjustment, relocation or removal is required in order for VDOT or such other public
entity to accept Fontana Drive into the system. Neither the Grantor, VDOT, nor such other
public entity shall be responsible or liable to the Grantee or its successors or assigns for any costs
associated with such alteration, change, adjustment, relocation or removal of the then-existing
Improvements. In addition, neither the Grantor, VDOT, nor such other public entity shall be
obligated to compensate or reimburse the Grantee or its successors or assigns for any increased
or decreased cost or value associated with either the Improvements or Fontana Drive resulting
from such alteration, change, adjustment, relocation or removal. The alteration, change,
adjustment, relocation or removal of such Improvements shall not be at Grantee’s sole expense if
VDOT or such other public entity is either required by law to pay for such costs or is authorized
and elects to pay for such costs.
c. Continuing Obligations of Grantee to the County. After VDOT or such
other public entity has issued the required Permits, the Grantee shall be subject to the following
conditions, notwithstanding any quitclaim of its interests to VDOT or such other public entity,
and these conditions shall be continuing obligations of the Grantee:
1. The Grantee, to the extent authorized by law, shall at all times
indemnify and save harmless the Grantor, its employees, agents, officers, assigns, and successors
in interest from any claim whatsoever arising from the Grantee’s exercise of rights or privileges
stated herein.
2. In the event that the Grantor or such other public entity becomes
responsible for the maintenance of Fontana Drive and the Grantor or such other public entity
requires, for its purposes, that the Grantee alter, change, adjust, or relocate the Improvements,
across or under Fontana Drive, the cost to alter, change, adjust, or relocate the Improvements
shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. Neither the Grantor nor such other public entity
shall be responsible or liable to the Grantee or its successors or assigns for any costs associated
with altering, changing, adjusting or relocating the then-existing Improvements as may be
required herein. In addition, neither the Grantor nor such other public entity shall be obligated to
compensate or reimburse the Grantee or its successors or assigns for any increased or decreased
cost or value associated with either the Improvements resulting from such alteration, change,
adjustment or relocation. The requirements of this paragraph 6(c)(2) shall not apply if the
Grantor, VDOT, or such other public entity is either required by law to pay for such costs or is
authorized and elects to pay for such costs.
The County, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by action of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on _________________________, does hereby convey
the interest in real estate made by this deed.
The Grantee, acting by and through its City Attorney, the City official designated by the
City Manager pursuant to authority granted by resolution of the City Council of the City of
Charlottesville, does hereby accept the conveyance of this easement, pursuant to Virginia Code §
15.2-1803, as evidenced by the City Attorney’s signature hereto and the City’s recordation of
this deed. By its acceptance and recordation of this Deed of Easement, the City acknowledges
that it, its successors and assigns, shall be bound by the terms herein.
WITNESS the following signatures.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Return to exec summary
Attachment C
RESOLUTION APPROVING DEED OF EASEMENT BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle owns the public right-of-way located on
Fontana Drive (adjacent to Parcel 078E0-00-00-000A0); and
WHEREAS, an easement is necessary for the City of Charlottesville to extend
natural gas service to the Fontana subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby approves the granting of an easement to the City of Charlottesville,
and authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney,
a Deed of Easement with the City of Charlottesville for an easement within Parcel 78E0-
00-00-000A0 in order to provide natural gas service.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP2012-00028 Stoner
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special use permit request for an additional
development right in the Rural Areas zoning district.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Benish, Clark and Kamptner
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 10, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This special use permit was heard by the Planning Commission on February 26, 2013. The Commission recommended
approval of this special use permit with the conditions shown in the action letter .
DISCUSSION:
Staff’s initial recommendation to the Planning Commission was to include a condition of approval limiting use of the new
structure to habitation by family members or as a guest house, rather than specifying a period for use only by family
members.
The Planning Commission has recommended that the new dwelling be limited to family or guest use for a 7-year period.
After that time, there would be no restriction on the occupancy of the structure.
The Board has previously applied a time limit to approval of special use permit requests for a dditional lots for family
members. In its approvals of SP2009-00033 Coleman Morris, SP2010-00017 Matheny, and SP2010-00034 Glenn Hall,
the Board imposed minimum 15-year periods for each new lot to remain in the family. However, the circumstances of
those approvals were not directly comparable to the current request. Those requests were for additional lots, while the
current request is for an additional size-restricted dwelling in lieu of an accessory apartment on an existing lot that is not to
be further subdivided.
Staff notes that time periods for restricting occupancy are generally difficult to enforce. Enforcement actions would
primarily be driven by complaints received by the Community Development Department.
The Planning Commission recommended the following change to condition number 3:
3. The additional single-family dwelling unit shall be occupied by a member or members of the immediate family of
the permittee, as that term is defined in Albemarle County Code §14-106 in effect on (date of Board action), 2013,
or by transient guests of the permittee, for a period of seven (7) years.
Since the Commission hearing, the County Attorney’s office has recommend ed that this condition be revised as follows to
clarify the starting point of the seven-year period:
3. During the seven (7) year period after the date the certificate of occupancy is issued for it, the
additional single family dwelling unit shall be occupied only by a member or members of the immediate family
of the permittee, as that term is defined in Albemarle County Code §14-106 in effect on April 10, 2013, a
copy of which is attached hereto, or by transient guests of the permittee.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve SP2012-00028 with the following revised conditions:
1. One single-family dwelling unit in addition to the existing single-family dwelling unit may be built on Tax Map
Parcel 076N00000013A0.
2. The additional single-family dwelling unit shall not exceed one thousand three hundred (1,300) square feet of
gross floor area.
3. During the seven (7) year period after the date the certificate of occupancy is issued for it, the additional single
family dwelling unit shall be occupied only by a member or members of the immediate family of the permittee, as
that term is defined in Albemarle County Code §14-106 in effect on April 10, 2013, a copy of which is attached
hereto, or by transient guests of the permittee
4. No accessory apartment shall be established within the existing single-family dwelling unit or the additional single-
family dwelling unit.
5. Construction of the additional single-family dwelling unit shall not commence without approval from the building
official, the fire official, and the Virginia Department of Health.
6. Tax Map Parcel 076N00000013A0 shall not be subdivided or reduced in acreage.
ATTACHMENTS:
View PC actions letter
View Staff Report
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 12, 2013
Stoner, Frank R IV or Elizabeth Bondurant Stoner
240 Chestnut Oak Lane
Charlottesville, Va. 22903
RE: SP201200028 - Stoner
TAX MAP PARCEL: 076N00000013A0
Dear Mr. or Ms Stoner:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 26, 2013, by a vote of 6:1,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. One single-family dwelling unit in addition to the existing single-family dwelling unit may be built on
Tax Map Parcel 076N00000013A0.
2. The additional single-family dwelling unit shall not exceed one thousand three hundred (1,300)
square feet of gross floor area.
3. The additional single-family dwelling unit shall be occupied by a member or members of the
immediate family of the permittee, as that term is defined in Albemarle County Code §14-106 in
effect on April 10, 2013, or by transient guests of the permittee, for a period of seven (7) years.
4. No accessory apartment shall be established within the existing single-family dwelling unit or the
additional single-family dwelling unit.
5. Construction of the additional single-family dwelling unit shall not commence without approval from
the building official, the fire official, and the Virginia Department of Health.
6. Tax Map Parcel 076N00000013A0 shall not be subdivided or reduced in acreage.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on April 10, 2013.
Return to memo
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning Division
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2011-00028 Stoner Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing: February
26, 2012
Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBA
TBD
Owners: Stoner, Frank R IV Or Elizabeth
Bondurant Stoner
Applicant: Stoner, Frank R IV Or
Elizabeth Bondurant Stoner
Acreage: 10.16 Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2.28 Divisions
of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1
TMP: Tax Map 76N Parcel 13A
Location: 240 Chestnut Oak Lane
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: 1 DA - RA - X
Proposal: Special Use Permit for one
additional development right to create a
second dwelling unit on the parcel
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas -
preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in
development lots)
Character of Property: Large, wooded
residential lot on sloping face of ridge
Use of Surrounding Properties: Low-density
rural residential development
Factors Favorable:
1. The Board of Supervisors has previously
approved a similar request for an additional
development right to permit better care for a
family member.
2. The impacts of the proposed additional
dwelling can be limited through conditions of
approval to a level similar to those created by
the addition of a by-right accessory apartment.
3. The size and character of the property would
serve to limit potential impacts to adjacent
properties.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Additional residential development in the
Rural Areas is not consistent with the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation: Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of
SP201200028 (with conditions).
2
STAFF CONTACT: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 26, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201200028 Stoner
PROPERTY OWNER: Stoner, Frank R IV Or Elizabeth Bondurant Stoner
APPLICANT: Stoner, Frank R IV Or Elizabeth Bondurant Stoner
PROPOSAL:
PROJECT: SP201200028 Stoner
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for one additional development right to create a second
dwelling unit on the parcel
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2.28 Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1;
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: No
LOCATION: 240 Chestnut Oak Lane
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076N00000013A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The area is largely wooded, but consists of large-lot rural residential uses (mostly in the
Sherwood Farms subdivision) near the boundary of a Development Area (Neighborhood 5).
Sherwood Farms is accessed from US 29 via Teel Lane and Overlook Drive. The single access to
the subdivision is crossed by the Norfolk Southern railway at a signaled and gated level crossing.
Like many of the nearby lots in Sherwood Farms, this 10.16-acre property is wooded and is
located on the face of a ridge, with road access along the top of the ridge. Residences are
somewhat isolated from each other by terrain, forest cover, and the size of the lots.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
This property was zoned RA Rural Areas during the comprehensive rezoning of the County in
1980.
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND JUSTIFICATION
The applicants are requesting an additional development right in order to build a
secondary dwelling to house elderly family members. The applicants feel that the steep
topography of their parcel and the design of their house make creating an addition for an
accessory apartment impractical. Also, they and their family members would prefer to
3
have separate (but nearby) dwellings.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as Rural Areas, emphasizing
the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic
and scenic resources as land use options.
The Rural Areas Plan states that the County should “[r]educe the level and rate of
residential development in the Rural Areas, and minimize the impacts of permitted
development” and should “[a]chieve the Vision for Rural Albemarle County by limiting
the extent of residential development in the Rural Areas and establishing a land use
pattern based on protecting large parcels and valuable resources for farming, forestry,
natural resource conservation, and other rural activities.” Therefore, no addition of
residential development rights in the Rural Areas can be considered to be in conformity
with the Comprehensive Plan.
However, the Board of Supervisors has approved special use permits for additional
development rights in certain cases. Most of those approvals were for an additional lot
for a family member on a property where all the previous development rights had been
used for family subdivisions.
The most relevant approval for this application was that for SP2010-00034 Glenn A.
Hall. In that case, the applicant wanted to create an additional dwelling on her father’s
parcel so that her disabled child could be close to the grandparents, who could provide
child care. The request in SP2012-00028 is similar, in that the motivation for the request
is the desire to care for family members.
In many cases, the need for such a dwelling would be addressed with an accessory
apartment. The applicants do not feel that that approach is practical on this site due to
the topography and the design of their current dwelling, which would make the
construction of an addition difficult. (Staff acknowledges that topography is an issue on
this site, but has not established to what degree the topography would increase the cost
of an addition, or whether the topography would preclude construction of an addition.)
The proposed dwelling can be made substantially similar to an accessory apartment by:
1. Limiting the gross floor area of the additional dwelling to the same maximum
applied to accessory apartments (35% of the gross floor area of the main
dwelling).
2. Prohibiting the subdivision of the parcel, so that the new dwelling cannot
become a separate property. (The current zoning ordinance would not permit
further subdivision of the property, but is subject to change in the future.)
3. Prohibiting any reduction in size of the parcel, so that other properties do not
become closer to the additional dwelling.
4. Prohibiting any accessory apartment in the additional dwelling, as it would be for
a standard accessory apartment.
4
5. Prohibiting any accessory apartment in the main dwelling. The additional
dwelling would effectively replace the property’s potential for an accessory
apartment.
6. Prohibiting the rental of the additional dwelling, which would limit its uses to
those typical for accessory apartments. (However, the current zoning ordinance
does not prohibit the rental of by-right accessory apartments.)
It should be noted that any conditions of approval to address items 5 and 6 above may be
difficult to enforce, or may be only enforceable through complaints.
Staff therefore has two central reasons for recommending approval of this special use
permit request:
1. There is precedent in a previous approval for permitting an additional
development right for the purpose of housing family members who are in need of
care.
2. The additional dwelling can be made substantially similar to a by-right accessory
apartment by conditions of the approval (see below), except for the fact that the
dwelling would be separate from the main house.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
property. The large lots in the Sherwood Farms subdivision (10.16 acres in this case) and the
wooded landcover would significantly limit the visual impact of the additional dwelling. The
character of the site is a significant factor behind staff’s recommendation of approval.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
This portion of the Rural Areas zoning district is a large-lot subdivision (56 lots, averaging 4.6
acres, with a range of 2 to 21 acres). The additional dwelling would not greatly change the
character of this residential area.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
The purposes of the RA zoning district are:
o Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
o Water supply protection;
o Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
o Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.
The proposal is not in harmony with these purposes. However, its surroundings have already
been converted from rural uses to low-density residential development. The proposal would
5
not further reduce this area’s conformity with the purposes of the zoning district.
It should be noted that the cumulative impact of numerous similar proposals could more
significantly impact the character of the Rural Areas and conflict with the purposes of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
The proposed residential use would be similar to the surrounding residential uses in this
portion of the RA zoning district.
The similarity of the proposed dwelling to an accessory apartment means that the impacts of
additional residents on the site is no more than is already possible by right.
Will the use be in accord with the additional regulations provided in section 5 of this
ordinance?
There are no supplemental regulations in section 5 for this use. However, section 10.5.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance requires the following analysis for special use permits requesting additional
development rights in the Rural Areas zoning district:
10.5.2 WHERE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
10.5.2.1 The board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of a special use permit for more
lots than the total number permitted under section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no
such permit shall be issued for property within the boundaries for the watershed of any public
drinking water supply impoundment, and further provided that no such permit shall be issued
to allow more development lots within a proposed rural preservation development than that
permitted by right under section 10.3.3.3(b). (Added 11-8-89; Amended 5-5-04 effective 7-1-
04)
The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible with the
neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of this chapter with reference to the goals and
objectives of the comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the type of division
proposed and specifically, as to this section only, with reference to the following: (Amended
11-8-89)
1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its
suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry.
The property is 10.16 acres, and largely consists of wooded slopes outside the residential
improvements. Before residential development, the area would have been suitable for forestal
production, but the current small parcel sizes and the proximity of residential uses reduce that
suitability significantly.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be
shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil
6
Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil
Conservation Service.
Of the 10.19 acres of the property, 0.8 are listed as “Locally Important” for agricultural
production in the Open Space & Critical Resources Plan. The entire property contains soils
rated highly for hardwood tree production (0.8 acres in “Hardwoods 1,” the remainder in
“Hardwoods 2.”) These soil designations were developed by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the
extent that is reasonably available.
The aerial photographs normally used by staff to determine past uses are not currently
available. However, the property has been in residential use since the existing dwelling was
built in 1992, and the area is not likely to be returned to agricultural use.
4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed
development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be
deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within
one (1) mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal
use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special use permit. In making this
determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract
from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
The parcels with boundaries within one mile of the Stoner property include a total of 2,909
acres. Of those, 839 acres (28.8%) are enrolled in the land-use tax program, which is the
standard indicator of current agricultural or forestal use. Therefore this not an “agricultural or
forestal area” as defined in this section of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of
this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50)
percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in
parcels of record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making
this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract
from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
From a visual assessment of the 1979 tax maps, it does not appear that 50 percent or more of
the land within one mile of this property was in parcels of 5 acres or less, meaning that this
would not be considered a “developed rural area” as defined in this section of the Zoning
Ordinance. However, it may be more relevant to note that 35 percent of the land within one
mile of the property is in a Development Area (Neighborhood 5), and that the property is less
than a half-mile from the Neighborhood 5 boundary.
6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers,
services and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in
proximity to the area or use described:
7
a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89)
The property is just under one mile (by road) from the boundary of Neighborhood 5.
Measured in a straight line, it is approximately 2,200 feet from the boundary.
b. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89)
The property is not within one-half mile of a community boundary.
c. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the comprehensive plan.
(Amended 11-8-89)
The property is not within one-half mile of a village boundary.
7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in
regard to increased provision of services.
The addition of one dwelling to this area of existing residential lots is not expected to require
any significant increase in service provision.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the
Virginia Department of Transportation: (Amended 11-8-89)
a. Occasion the need for road improvement;
b. Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road;
c. Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed this application and has no
comments. The addition of one dwelling is not expected to generate the need for
transportation improvements.
9. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within
the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment, the following
additional factors shall be considered:
This parcel is not within the watershed of a public drinking water impoundment.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The Fire/Rescue Department has reviewed this application. While they would not support the
single access to the Sherwood Farms subdivision today, they did not feel the addition of one
8
lot was a significant-enough change to the existing situation to justify a recommendation of
denial.
For the site itself, Fire/Rescue recommended that the additional dwelling have a turnaround
area in the driveway large enough for an ambulance, as well as a 12-foot by 30-foot level
parking area for an ambulance to load patients. This recommendation is reflected in the
proposed conditions of approval below.
Additional development on the property could impact water quality due to the replacement of
wooded land with impervious surface. However, staff feels that addressing this increase of
impervious surface by condition is not necessary in this particular case because:
1. an exterior addition for a by-right accessory apartment could also increase impervious
surface;
2. the property is largely wooded, which limits surface runoff and increases groundwater
recharge; and
3. the conditions of approval would limit the size of the new dwelling
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The Board of Supervisors has previously approved a similar request for an additional
development right to permit better care for a family member.
2. The impacts of the proposed additional dwelling can be limited through conditions of
approval to a level similar to those created by the addition of a by-right accessory
apartment.
3. The size and character of the property would serve to limit potential impacts to adjacent
properties.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. Additional residential development in the Rural Areas is not consistent with the goals
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Although it is not an unfavorable factor for this individual request, the cumulative impact of
numerous similar approvals could lead to more significant impacts to the Rural Areas or a
particular portion there
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2012-00028 Stoner with the
conditions listed below, based on the analysis provided herein.
9
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. One single-family dwelling unit in addition to the existing single-family dwelling unit
may be built on Tax Map Parcel 076N00000013A0.
2. The additional single-family dwelling unit shall not exceed one thousand seven hundred
(1,700) square feet of gross floor area.
3. The additional single-family dwelling unit shall be occupied by a member or members of
the immediate family of the permittee, as that term is defined in Albemarle County Code
§14-106 in effect on (date of Board action), 2013, or by transient guests of the permittee.
4. No accessory apartment shall be built within the existing single-family dwelling unit or
the additional single-family dwelling unit.
5. Construction of the additional single-family dwelling unit shall not commence without
approval from the building official, the fire official, and the Virginia Department of
Health.
6. Tax Map Parcel 076N00000013A0 shall not be subdivided or reduced in acreage.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Area Map
B. Site Map
Return to memo
Motions:
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
I move to recommend approval of SP 20110028 Stoner with the conditions outlined
in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this special use
permit:
I move to recommend denial of SP 20110028 Stoner. (Planning Commission needs to
give a reason for denial)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 26, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00028 Stoner (Sent to Board of Supervisors0
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 26, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 26, 2013, 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, Don Franco, Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach,
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, Planner; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development;
David Benish, Chief of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; 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.
Public Hearing Item
SP-2012-00028 Stoner
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for one additional development right to create a second dwelling unit
on the parcel
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2.28 Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1;
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: No
LOCATION: 240 Chestnut Oak Lane
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076N00000013A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Scott Clark)
Scott Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a request for a special use permit for an additional development right for a parcel in the rural
areas. The property is in the Short Farm Subdivision. There are significant areas of critical slopes on the
site. The proposal is for an additional development right to build a dwelling near the existing house. The
property has no existing additional development rights. In this case the new structure would be used for
housing relatives of those living in the main structure.
The main points in the staff report include:
The property is designated as rural areas in the Comprehensive Plan. The planning polic ies for the rural
areas do focus on limiting and reducing the potential for residential development. As is true for nearly all
of requests for additional development rights they can’t be said to be totally in conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan. However, there is a long history of these applications and many of them have been
approved most often when they were applications for an additional development right for a family that had
used all of their development rights for family members on a family farm. The case most similar to this
one was SP-2010-34, which was approved a couple of years ago. It was done mainly to provide housing
for a family to be near grandparents so the grandchild could be taken care of because the grandchild was
disabled. There are similar conditions in the current proposal, except that the intention is to use the
additional dwelling for family members who may need medical care. The Glen Hall request was approved
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 26, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00028 Stoner (Sent to Board of Supervisors0
2
by the Board of Supervisors. The only difference there was it was approved for the creation of a separate
lot whereas there is no separate lot being requested in this case.
In many cases the need for an additional dwelling like this for family members would be done through an
accessory apartment either within the existing dwelling or as a connected addition onto an existing
dwelling. Due to the design of the existing house and due to the steep topography on the property the
applicants don’t feel that is a practical option for them. It would be much more practical to build a
separate dwelling than to have an accessory apartment inside or added to their existing house. Staff’s
approach in reviewing this was to try use potential conditions of approval to make the proposed additional
dwelling as similar to an accessory apartment as possible. There are several ways in which they propose
doing that, which are listed in the presentation.
- The first was limiting the gross floor area of the additional dwelling to the same amount that would
be permitted for an accessory apartm ent or 35 percent of the gross floor area of the main
dwelling.
- Prohibiting subdivision of the parcel so that the separate dwelling could not become the residence
on a separate property. It would always remain part of this existing parcel prohibiting red uction in
the size of the parcel so that now it is a ten acre parcel, it is wooded, and a decent distance from
the nearby dwellings. If there were subdivisions or boundary adjustments in the future that could
end up meaning there would be other dwellings closer to this that might be more impacted.
Prohibiting subdivision would avoid that.
- Prohibiting an accessory apartment in the existing dwelling so they would not end up with
effectively two accessory dwellings on the same parcel. This new house woul d just replace the
potential for an accessory apartment.
- Condition #6 is about rental of the additional dwelling. Staff felt that limiting the use to either
occupancy by family members or to transient guests would make it more like the typical uses for
an accessory apartment. However, it is true that a ccessory apartments can be rented. Those are
the policies issues.
There were no sufficient problems with the technical issues for the site. The only detailed concern they
heard was from Fire/Rescue who wanted to make sure there could be a turnaround area and a parking
spot in front of the new dwelling accessible to an ambulance given its proposed use for people needing
medical care. That is not typical to achieve. Staff is just proposing that be included in the conditions of
approval so that Fire/Rescue could review the building permit plans if and when the building is approved.
In summary, there are two main reasons for recommending approval.
1. There is a precedent for approving additional development in the rural areas for the purposes of
family medical care.
2. Through conditions of approval they could make this additional dwelling very similar to a by-right
accessory apartment.
Although it is not an unfavorable factor for this individual request , the cumulative impact of numerous
similar approvals could lead to more significant impacts to the Rural Areas or a particular portion .
Staff recommends approval of SP-2012-00028 Stoner with the six conditions as listed in the staff report,
as amended, changing the word “built” to “establish” in condition #4.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. One single-family dwelling unit in addition to the existing single-family dwelling unit may be built
on Tax Map Parcel 076N00000013A0.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 26, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00028 Stoner (Sent to Board of Supervisors0
3
2. The additional single-family dwelling unit shall not exceed one thousand seven hundred (1,700)
square feet of gross floor area.
3. The additional single-family dwelling unit shall be occupied by a member or members of the
immediate family of the permittee, as that term is defined in Albemarle County Code §14-106 in
effect on (date of Board action), 2013, or by transient guests of the permittee.
4. No accessory apartment shall be built within the existing single-family dwelling unit or the
additional single-family dwelling unit.
5. Construction of the additional single-family dwelling unit shall not commence without approval
from the building official, the fire official, and the Virginia Department of Health.
6. Tax Map Parcel 076N00000013A0 shall not be subdivided or reduced in acreage.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked if staff knows the proposed dwelling’s location.
Mr. Clark replied no, there is no plan to go with the special use permit. However, in general the plan is to
have the dwelling in an area near the existing dwelling. Due to the terrain it gets impractical to place the
dwelling any further down the slope.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing to the applicant and for
public comment. He invited the applicant to come forward and address the Planning Commission.
Frank Stoner, applicant and property owner, said he was present this evening with his wife, Elizabeth;
father-in-law, Ben Bondurant; and mother-in-law, Ann Bondurant who would be the residents of this
dwelling unit. He did not have a lot to add to the staff report. A copy of the location aerial showing
potential locations for the dwelling unit was given to Mr. Smith. He would pass out copies to the
Commission.
Mr. Morris noted he said sites and asked if there was more than one possible site.
Mr. Stoner replied there are several sites they have evaluated. Different sites have different advantages
and drawbacks both from an accessibility standpoint as well as a proximity standpoint to the existing
house. They can look at those in more detail if they would like. In general, the locations that are further
up the hill probably provide easier access for them by vehicle, particularly if the weather is not ideal. The
units further down the hill obviously involve going down terrain that is a bit steeper that has a curve in it.
Obviously, the advantages of being proximate to the house are that it is closer to the main house and
puts the building closer to the existing open space, which is reasonably level. T he problems with the
location that is closer to the house are parking problems and getting a route from the parking area to the
house that would be accessible for someone handicapped. They are still evaluating that. They did not
see any point in doing engineering until they had some indication from the Commission as to whether
they can move forward. (Attachment 1- Aerial Map submitted by Frank Stoner – Attachments on file with
the printed minutes in the office of the clerk)
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Loach asked for a description on what he plans to build.
Mr. Stoner replied they plan to build a cottage. While they have been limited to 1,700 square feet under
the proposed conditions he thinks realistically the size would be m ore in the 1,100 to 1,200 square foot
range. They would be agreeable to a further limitation in square footage if that was for some reason
important to the Commission. It would be a simple one bedroom probably with a small sitting room of
some sort for his father-in-law to read and may have some loft space above for storage depending on the
topography. It may have a partial unfinished area below that could also be used for storage because that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 26, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00028 Stoner (Sent to Board of Supervisors0
4
is how their topography works. It would have a simple small kitchen, a little eating area, living room and a
bedroom.
Mr. Randolph said he would be interested if this body turned him down what he would then do.
Mr. Stoner replied that they would look for another place. His father-in-law and mother-in-law live in
Earlysville and would like to get closer. He and his wife would also like them closer to their home.
Therefore, the proposal is certainly their preferred solution. They think it is in compliance with the intent
of the existing regulations, which would allow an attached accessory dwelling unit of this size. In their
case a detached dwelling would make more sense because of the architecture of their house and
topography. In addition, while they would like to be close they don’t necessarily want to be in the same
building. He thinks that is a quality of life issue. If the request gets turned down, he guessed they would
find another solution.
Mr. Randolph said the reason they did not want an attached wing on his house was due to the
topography and having enough area for a detached dwelling, which would be for the sake of his in-laws
and their privacy and style of life.
Mr. Stoner agreed that was a primary consideration. A secondary consideration is they have already put
two additions on the house. If they looked at the layout inside the house there is no place really to
connect an accessory structure that would not end up in somebody’s bedroom or involve a serious
reorienting of the existing rooms.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out under state law there is an alternative that is called a temporary family
healthcare structure. That is an alternative since by law they are to be permitted as an accessory use to
the primary residential use. They are temporary in nature, manufactured homes that would be brought to
the site, which would have to be removed once the family member being cared for is no longer living
there.
Mr. Randolph asked if there is a stipulation of how many square feet that unit cannot exceed.
Mr. Kamptner replied no, in this case by definition it is limited to one occupant and has to either have a l,
physical or mental impairment with no more than 300 gross square feet. Therefore, the structure is very
small.
Mr. Dotson said he was interested in hearing a little more about what is unique about his site. He was
concerned with the precedent in others who may have exactly the same conditions making the same
request. He asked in what ways he considers his site unique
Mr. Stoner replied obviously the topography is such that there are not a lot of areas to build, which is not
relevant to the policy issue that he is talking about. He thinks f undamentally their request is in
compliance with the spirit of the existing regulation. They are in effect already in the urban growth area.
While they are not defined as such if they look at their proximity to town they are served by two major
highways within one-half mile being Route 29 and I- 64. The request is unique in that sense and not just
another rural subdivision. One, they are not asking for a subdivision. Two, they are in effect in the urban
area. In that sense when they add that to the fact that essentially they are asking for an accessory
dwelling unit and the impact is no different than it would be if the unit was attached. He was not sure
what the county’s concerns are as it relates to impact. However, if he had the same number of residents
living in an accessory dwelling that happens to be attached to his house he was not sure the difference if
it was detached. He would ask for some policy clarification from the Commission’s perspective about
what it is about this that could scare them. Then he could address that in m ore detail.
Mr. Morris pointed out from a personal point of view he applauds them for just coming up with this. It is
wonderful they are trying to keep the family together. It does not bother him at all that he wants a
separate dwelling unit up to 1,700 square feet. He would beg him to consider the same stipulation that
they had for the Halls and others that this remain in the family for at least ten years.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 26, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00028 Stoner (Sent to Board of Supervisors0
5
Mr. Loach said he would ask for two stipulations. One, he had already stated, which is limiting it in the
condition to one bedroom . The second limitation would be the limitation of ten years in the family. That is
the consistent number of years they have been using for all of these requests in this type of situation.
Usually it has been where someone has run out of family division rights and they have one more child.
Mr. Stoner asked given those terms would they have the right to subdivide because that is what it sounds
like. In effect, they have to treat this as if they are asking for another development right when in fact they
really are not. He feels like he is being penalized. Essentially he is asking for a detached accessory
dwelling and he is somehow being treated as if this was a request for another development right which it
is not. If he had the ability to subdivide he could understand the concern about the ten years and the
family issue. But, he was not quite sure he understands.
Mr. Loach noted his view was that he did not have a development right.
Mr. Stoner pointed out that he was not asking for one either.
Mr. Loach pointed out he was just trying to be consistent in the treatment they have done to others where
the ability to build did not exist, but there was a need to build. That is how they treated it.
Mr. Stoner noted his only question would be if they did get a development right in that case,
Mr. Morris replied they did not.
Mr. Clark pointed out the last few approvals on special use permits for additional development rights have
had time limits on them for the ownership of the new parcel that is created. In this case since there would
no parcel being created the condition requiring that this current parcel not be divided is essentially doing
the same thing permanently they do with those other approvals for ten or fifteen years. Because there is
no subdivision here there is not going to be a separate parcel. The dwelling could be rented so it might
become its own primary dwelling. However, he was not sure how they would apply the time limit. They
could apply the time limit to occupancy of the new dwelling, which could only be a family member for 10
or 15 years. However, he was not sure what that achieved in the long term.
Mr. Morris pointed out when the Commission looked at the Hall request for the dwelling unit they did not
have any additional subdivision rights. The Halls wanted an additional unit so they could have their
grandchild near who was severely disabled. They put the time limit there, again, because it was a
separate dwelling on that piece of property for ten years. It was not a subdivision right.
Mr. Clark noted that one actually was going to be a separate lot and a family subdivision. The time limit
would apply to ownership of the newly created parcel.
Mr. Morris said he would stand corrected.
Mr. Franco said it usually has been associated with a subdivision or the creation of a lot that could be sold
with the idea that if it is going to be created for a family purpose they want to allow that. However, at the
same time they don’t want someone taking advantage of this in creating a commodity that they can sell in
the near future. Since this is not going on a separate piece, he did not know if the fifteen years applies.
Mr. Lafferty noted one of the concerns was this is rural and how it would affect the Short Farm
Subdivision if everybody else got the same deal.
Mr. Stoner noted that everybody else has that right already to build an accessory dwelling unit and put
that additional traffic on the street.
Mr. Kamptner noted they need to have a development right to create a dwelling unit. Having that
development right also allows the owner to divide. When the dwelling unit is created if they have three
development rights they can put those three units on a single parcel. Community Development will look
to make sure those parcels could be subdivided at some point in the future. So the d evelopment right
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 26, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00028 Stoner (Sent to Board of Supervisors0
6
really serves two purposes. It allows the fully functioning dwelling unit and the potential for future
subdivision.
Mr. Stoner clarified his perspective as it relates to the time limit. If the y want to treat it as these other
cases have been treated he was happy to consider that as an alternative as long as they get the same
rights they conferred to.
Mr. Morris pointed out that is what they are trying to do and not make life difficult for him.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed to bring the matter
back before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Dotson said his question to Commissioner Loach referred to condition 3, which is for the life of the
special use permit. He asked if he was talking about limiting that perhaps to ten years.
Mr. Loach replied yes, that number 3 essentially says in effect it has to be a family member in the
residence. He was just trying to be consistent with the time period they have used in the last 3 or 4
cases, which was ten years that it has to be a family member there.
Mr. Dotson said his opinion is unless there is a time limit it is entirely unrealistic and is just asking for an
enforcement headache in the future.
Mr. Smith asked staff what is the definition of transient guests.
Mr. Clark replied that transient was the best term staff could come up with to mean not permanent. That
is open to interpretation.
Mr. Smith said that answers the question. Transient guest could be someone here for a year going to
college.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out when zoning looks at that question in dealing with transient lodging they usually
use 30 days as a rule of thumb in the cases in which they have conferred with him.
Motion: Mr. Smith moved to recommend approval of SP-2012-28 Stoner with the conditions outlined in
the staff report.
Mr. Lafferty asked does that mean there has to be a family member in there or nobody.
Mr. Clark replied that a guest would not have to be family members.
Mr. Benish pointed out it could be used as a guest cottage or for family.
Mr. Franco asked what a guest cottage is.
Mr. Benish replied that it was for guests that were not there for a year at a time.
Mr. Morris said it was limited to 30 days or so on. He asked if he was hearing it correctly.
Mr. Franco said he supported it and would like to consider a second to the motion.
Mr. Kamptner said as a matter of protocol the second is just to show enough support for the motion so
that can lead to a discussion.
Mr. Loach seconded the motion.
Mr. Morris invited discussion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 26, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00028 Stoner (Sent to Board of Supervisors0
7
Mr. Franco said he would like to see a friendly amendment to that motion. He did not have as much
concern because, again, he did not think they were creating a commodity that can be sold. He was
looking at accessory units as a right to have now. The fact that it is a separate building does not bother
him as much as long as it remains accessory in scale and everything else. To that end 1,700 square feet
sounds big. Therefore, he would prefer to see that number r educed in size. The applicant talked about
1,200 square feet. Therefore, he suggested the condition be for 1,300 square feet to allow some wiggle
room on that. He proposed they eliminate the third condition because it is too hard to enforce. If it is an
appropriate scale and if he could rent the accessory unit within the building, he did not think he needs to
make that a condition for an accessory building that just happens to be separate as long as there is no
ability to subdivide it in the future.
Mr. Morris said his request for an amendment is the elimination of condition #3.
Mr. Franco agreed and suggested adding a change to condition #2 to say 1,300 square feet instead of
1,700 square feet.
Mr. Loach said the question has to arise in what he is saying would then set a precedent that anyone that
felt they wanted to use this methodology versus an accessory apartment would be able to do it.
Mr. Lafferty agreed it would be for anybody.
Mr. Franco agreed if they can make it accessory. He thinks what makes it accessory is the scale of the
building, the lot, and the ability to make it seem accessory. If they were trying to do this on a one acre lot
he thinks they would have problems with some of the health and safety aspects of it and the utilities.
Two, they would have a hard time making that look accessory to a building on a two acre lot in the rural
area.
Mr. Lafferty noted in the past they have done this for humanity reasons.
Mr. Franco said in the past they have created the division right. With the Hall request they could have the
building in the lot and were allowed to create the lot. The concern was that lot would be created and they
would end up with an extra unit in the rural area because it is now something that could be sold. By not
having it something that could be sold right away he thought they were forcing the applicant to sit down
and say do I really want this. He would want to keep it of a small enough scale that it does seem
accessory because he did not know it will ever recover its value if they try to sell the property. It is not
going to be two units on the property.
Mr. Lafferty asked would it be possible for them to build it and have someone else live in it since they are
eliminating condition #3 and then have an accessory unit attached to the house.
Mr. Franco replied no, because condition #4 says no accessories to the main structure or to this new
structure. He thinks they have eliminated the ability to get more residential units so to speak if they
consider an accessory unit a unit. It was simply moving it from inside the building to outside and because
there is enough land in this particular case and scale to continue to make it feel accessory he did not
have a problem with it
Mr. Loach said it goes back to the precedent. Do you want to set a precedent of creating something
when nothing exists as a separate entity versus an accessory attached apartment? That is all he was
saying.
Mr. Franco pointed out to answer that question he thinks they are going to see more and more of these
as they deal with the aging population. It was okay in his mind because if they are going to deal with this
he thought that the component about the standard of living or life style of not having it necessarily
connected is a good thing. Again, it won’t apply to every situation. It is just in this particular case they do
have the acreage and the ability to make it accessory.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 26, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00028 Stoner (Sent to Board of Supervisors0
8
Mr. Smith said they need to show some compassion and understanding in how they would like to be
treated in the same situation. He suggested they make that am endment to the motion and he would
agree to it.
Mr. Franco agreed.
Mr. Randolph said he liked the idea of cutting the size down from 1,700 to 1,300 square feet. He actually
had 1,200 in mind, but 1,300 is livable. He was not comfortable eliminating condition #3 for the reasons
discussed. He thinks they are opening up situations that are going to come back to haunt us. In
condition #4 he is not sure if the wording is appropriate. It says no accessory apartment. He would
rather have that read a little more broadly to say no accessory structure shall be established within the
existing single-family dwelling unit for the additional single-family dwelling unit. In essence after this is
permitted to allow the 1,300 square feet on this particular piece of property there will be no discussion in
the future of an addition going onto this single-family dwelling unit. With that basis he can support it.
However, if condition #3 is eliminated he cannot support the application.
Mr. Kamptner noted the term accessory apartment is a defined term in the zoning ordinance. It is the one
type of dwelling that can be created without using a development right. It is very specifically used in this
case.
Mr. Randolph withdrew his objective to condition #4 and recommendation to change the language.
However, he still has a concern about the elimination of paragraph 3.
Mr. Morris asked how many Commissioners would be willing to remove condition #3. There were two
Commissioners out of seven willing to remove condition #3.
Mr. Randolph amended the motion for approval with the conditions as stated.
Mr. Morris said the motion stands with the condition as stated. In the straw pull the recommended
amendment would not pass.
Mr. Franco said if there was a concern to add the time line and they were trying to build that consistency
they have been talking about if they want to consider making an addition of a development right so that it
could be subdivided.
Mr. Loach replied no. He was willing to change #3 from being in perpetuity to a ten-year limit since that is
consistent. However, the only difference in the motion would be to amend the square footage. That
would have to be done.
Mr. Lafferty said one of the favorable conditions is a precedent. He just does not want to create more
precedents that come back to bite us. He would support the 1,300 square feet and leaving condition #3
in.
Mr. Dotson favored 1,300 square feet and the ten-year modification to condition #3. To feel progressively
more comfortable with this he was wondering if the Commission thinks it wise and if the applicant would
be willing to stipulate the siting as being the blue site on the diagram passed around. That would place
accessory unit within what he would call sort of the “family homestead”. It helps him to think of it as really
just being an accessory apartment that is detached. It is almost like a transfer of a development right. He
hates to use that term because it may confuse things. However, it is taking a living space that is allowed
within and moving it someplace nearby even though it is not attached. That is starting to get close to the
same intent. However, that is true on the site that is blue but not so much on the other two sites. He
does not know if the Commission or the applicant would be interested in keeping the accessory unit within
the “homestead” as opposed to sort of being off by itself. That would help him support the request.
Mr. Franco said when he thinks about it in the terms of what he was saying about simply transferring that
development right or living right outside and keeping it in that envelope that he kind of falls back on he
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 26, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00028 Stoner (Sent to Board of Supervisors0
9
could have that right in the house and rent it without restriction. He was not sure why they would want to
place that restriction as it moves outside if they are still maintaining it as an accessory structure.
Mr. Loach agreed for just that reason. He felt that an accessory apartment was always a contiguous part
of the house used as a rental unit to help subsidize the homeowner. That is the way he has always
looked at the concept of accessory units as they have defined them. It is not a separate entity built as an
accessory dwelling on the property.
Mr. Morris said he personally supports what Mr. Dotson was saying. The only thing that concerns him is
based upon what he thought he heard the applicant say. It is that these are three sites that are being
considered and weighing the pros and the cons that really has not been finalized yet. He would prefer
that if they approve this that the applicant has the right to complete that analysis as to what would be the
best site for the applicant and his in-laws. That is where he is coming from.
Mr. Dotson commented that if the Commission wanted to include that, then since this has to go to the
Board of Supervisors that analysis of the site could be completed before it gets to the Board. Then the
Board could remove the condition from the Commission’s recommendation if they saw fit.
Mr. Morris pointed out that was a good point.
Mr. Smith said he hates to take away Mr. Stoner’s choices of locations. However, the blue location is
ideal. But, they are going to have to do a lot more grading and cut a lot more trees to be able to get a
driveway into it, whereas the other two choices would not and would be less disruptive.
Mr. Lafferty said it appears from the contours that the closer to the entrance would be more ideal with less
grading.
Mr. Franco noted that it would probably feel less as an accessory use.
Mr. Lafferty said it would be more accessible for an ambulances, fire engines, and things like that.
Mr. Loach said the other thing as Mr. Franco mentioned before was that in this situation it might very well
fit because of the size. However, then they would also have to determine what is the minimum size they
would allow a structure to be an accessory or off site. In other words, on the site but built as a separate
unit. Why couldn’t somebody who has the acres say they can fit it on the site? It might be a tight
squeeze, but this is the way they would want to do it. He was just thinking they are asking for more
problems in the definition by setting the precedent.
Mr. Franco said he thinks they set the precedent by allowing this . Even with the restrictions they were
allowing they were setting a precedent. So the real question is it a necessary condition because it will be
an enforcement issue. It talks about it in the staff report. He did not know how they were going to
regulate that. So why are they setting up something that is going to be difficult to regulate for the
requirement that it be for the family member.
Mr. Loach said to some extent he was absolutely correct, except in the instance where somebody abuses
it and gets caught, and then the infraction can be rectified. As far as the condition in setting the
precedent they are not actually setting too much of a precedent because they are using the same sort of
decision making in using the family need for this as they have used in the past. They have not gone
outside that use for family purposes in that context as they have in the past.
Mr. Franco noted that was where he probably disagrees. What he hears him saying is because the
precedent has been set with the family member and given the extra division right to allow this to happen
that in the past it would be a better idea to come forward and ask for a division right to accommodate the
family because the precedent has been set for that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 26, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00028 Stoner (Sent to Board of Supervisors0
10
Mr. Loach pointed out what he was saying is that he is using the need expressed by the family to do this
as the reason for doing it as he has done in the past that it was a “family need” to have it done. That is
what he is basing it on.
Mr. Morris said what he thinks he hears from the Commissioners is number one they have a motion
recommending approval with all of the conditions as set forth. During the discussion two primary things
have come out that he has heard. 1. A reduction of the square footage allowed from 1,700 to 1,300
square feet. 2. To encourage the siting of the house on the blue area shown. Those are possible
amendments. He asked if the Commission wants to go that route.
Mr. Smith, as the motion maker, said he did not want a restriction as to where he builds it.
Mr. Lafferty agreed.
Mr. Smith said he thought that was unfair. He would go along with the 1,300 square feet.
Amended Motion: Mr. Smith amended the motion to change the condition for the reduction of the
square footage from 1,700 to 1,300.
Mr. Loach seconded the motion.
Mr. Kamptner asked to add one additional amendment. Staff has shown one minor change to condition
#4 changing “built” to “establish”.
Mr. Loach said it would be the conditions as stipulated by staff with the changes.
Mr. Clark pointed out he also noticed that condition #3 in the staff report says transient guests and for
some reason the PowerPoint just says guests. However, the assumption would be that they are going by
what is in the staff report.
Mr. Lafferty said in condition #3 it goes on forever. If sometime in the future they can only have guests
there. He thought that was too restrictive and they should put some time limit on that.
Mr. Loach suggested that they go to the standard they have been using of ten years.
Mr. Smith said he would go with five years as part of the motion since ten years is too long.
Mr. Randolph asked if they could live with seven years.
Mr. Morris noted that the maker of the motion said five years. He asked if there was a second to the
motion.
Mr. Lafferty seconded the motion.
Mr. Randolph said he felt that five years is too short and ten years too long. He asked Mr. Smith if he
would go with seven years.
Amended Motion: Mr. Smith amended the motion to change condition #3 to seven years.
Mr. Dotson seconded the amendment to seven years.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Mr. Franco voted nay.)
Mr. Franco noted that he voted nay. He was in favor of moving this forward, but not in favor of the time
restriction of condition #3. He can’t support the motion as made for seven years.
Mr. Morris voted aye, but noted he would rather have ten years.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 26, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00028 Stoner (Sent to Board of Supervisors0
11
Mr. Lafferty voted aye with the note the Commission is recommending this to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Morris said a recommendation for approval of SP-2012-00028 Stoner would be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors to a date to be determined with the conditions outlined in the staff report, as
amended.
1. One single-family dwelling unit in addition to the existing single-family dwelling unit may be
built on Tax Map Parcel 076N00000013A0.
2. The additional single-family dwelling unit shall not exceed one thousand three hundred
(1,300) square feet of gross floor area.
3. The additional single-family dwelling unit shall be occupied by a member or members of the
immediate family of the permittee, as that term is defined in Albemarle County Code §14-106
in effect on (date of Board action), 2013, or by transient guests of the permittee, for a period
of seven (7) years.
4. No accessory apartment shall be established within the existing single-family dwelling unit or
the additional single-family dwelling unit.
5. Construction of the additional single-family dwelling unit shall not commence without approval
from the building official, the fire official, and the Virginia Department of Health.
6. Tax Map Parcel 076N00000013A0 shall not be subdivided or reduced in acreage.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 26, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00028 Stoner (Sent to Board of Supervisors0
12
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201000013 Hollymead Town Center (A-2)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amend the original application plan, code of
development and proffers
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish and Grant
AGENDA DATE: April 10, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On February 8, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2 rezoning
request. (See Attachment I, Staff Report, and Attachment II, Minutes) The Planning Commission, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of ZMA201000013 based on the following:
Change the phasing plan to reduce the number of building permits from 30 to 25 as described in the staff
report;
Proffer #6 will remain as it is with the understanding that the applicant will add another pocket park within
blocks B-1 or B-2 composed of approximately 5,500 square feet; and
Proffer #2 for road improvements to be amended as recommended by staff for dedication and construction of
road improvements upon demand of the County.
On April 15, 2011, the applicant requested an indefinite deferral of this ZMA before it was advertised for a Board of
Supervisors’ public hearing. On March 7, 2012, the applicant requested an extension of this indefinite deferral from the
Director of Planning which was granted until December 31, 2012 to allow additional time for the applicant to determine
how to address the Planning Commission’s recommendations in light of the nature of the currently approved Hollymead
Town Center A-2 and market conditions at that time. Because the applicable zoning ordinance provisions only allowed the
Director to grant one such extension, on October 11, 2012 the applicant requested that the Board of Supervisors further
extend the deferral of this ZMA. On December 5, 2012, the Board granted an extension of the deferral to not later than
April 15, 2013.
DISCUSSION:
This matter has been scheduled for Board public hearing as an action needs to be taken by the Board before the current
deferral extension expires or the application will be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn , something the applicant
does not want to occur. The applicant has not addressed the recommendations of the Planning Commission and has
indicated to staff that conditions that lead to their prior requests for de ferral extensions have not changed. The applicant
is requesting that the Board further defer this application due to continuing uncertain market conditions and with an
interest in potentially having this application reviewed comprehensively along with ZMA201200005 Hollymead Town
Center A-1 which has not as yet been heard by the Planning Commission and is currently indefinitely deferred. (See
Attachment III)
In December, staff noted that any extension of the deferral requested at that time should continue to be based on the
particulars of the ZMA201000013 application and the applicant’s efforts to address the Pla nning Commission’s action on
this ZMA. The applicant has previously noted that they are considering a comprehensive review of the proffers for this
ZMA as well as more recently indicating their interest in having concurrent Hollymead Town Center ZMA reviews. As staff
noted in December, any substantive changes beyond those necessary to address the recommendations of the Planning
2
Commission for ZMA201000013 would likely require additional staff and Planning Commission review and necessitate a
new application.
RECOMMENDATION:
As the recommendations of the Planning Commission in its February 8, 2011 action have not been addressed, staff would
not recommend approval of ZMA201000013. However, the applicant’s request is for deferral of this ZMA. In its December
recommendation to the Board staff stated that, in light of the Planning Commission’s recommendations and the time that
has passed for the applicant to address the conditions of that recommendation, a reasonable extension of this deferral
would be until April 15, 2013, which will be two (2) years since the original deferral for this ZMA. Staff believes reasonable
time has been provided to reach decision on this application, but if the Board believes circumstances noted by the
applicant warrant further deferral of ZMA201000013, staff recommends that the Board affirm that the purpose of the
deferral continues to be based on the particulars of the ZMA201000013 as presented to the Planning Commission and on
which the Planning Commission based its recommendations. It should be understood that if this ZMA is further deferred
and there are substantive changes to this application that subsequently result from the applicant’s on-going
considerations, a new application will likely be necessary and the matter would go back before the Planning Commission
for their review and recommendations.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Planning Commission staff report, dated Februar y 8, 2011
II. Planning Commission m inutes, dated February 8, 2011
III. Applicant deferral request, dated March 4, 2013
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2010-00013, Hollymead
Town Center, Area A-2
Staff: Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
February 8, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Not scheduled
Owner(s): Route 29, LLC Applicant: Wendell Wood, Nena Harrell
Acreage: 44.29 acres Rezone from: NMD to NMD to allow changes to the
Proffers.
TMP: TMP 03200000004500,
03200000005000
Location: These two parcels are located
west of US 29 and are accessed from
Towncenter Drive. They are between Area A-
1 where the Kohl’s is now under construction
and the Forest Springs Mobile Home
Park.(See Attachment A)
By-right use: The Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2
is zoned Neighborhood Model District (NMD), which
allows a mixture of residential and commercial uses.
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes
Proposal: To amend the proffers for
Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2 to make
substantive changes relating to open space,
phasing, and road improvements.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: A maximum of
1222 dwelling units is allowed in HTC A-2. This
rezoning does not change the maximum number of
units.
DA (Development Area): Community of
Hollymead
Comp. Plan Designation: Town Center, Urban
Density Residential, and Parks and Greenways
Character of Property: The property has
been graded, but is undeveloped. Some
steep slopes remain at the edges of the two
vacant parcels.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Hollymead Town
Center Area B containing the Harris Teeter/Target
Shopping Center is located to the northeast. A Kohl’s
is under construction to the east in Area A-1, which
will be nonresidential when developed. The Abington
Place townhome development is located in Area D to
the north across Towncenter Drive. The Forest
Springs Mobile Home Park is located to the west. The
Powell Creek Greenway is located to the south.
Factors Favorable:
1. The change in the phasing (Proffer 11) to
allow fewer residential building permits to
be issued prior to issuance of a
commercial building permit is more realistic
in this economic climate than it was when
the original zoning was approved.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The reduction in the size of the Pocket Park
removes an important amenity which was identified
by the Planning Commission at an earlier public
hearing.
2. The dedication and construction of the remaining
segment of Meeting Street has not been proffered.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of the rezoning unless the substantive and
technical changes identified in this staff report are addressed.
ATTACHMENT I
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Judith Wiegand, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 8, 2011
ZMA 2010-00013, Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA 2010-00013 Hollymead Town Center (A-2)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 44.29 acres from Neighborhood Model District zoning district which allows
residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses to Neighborhood
Model District zoning district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service
and industrial uses, in order to amend the existing proffers.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town/Village Center—compact, higher
density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public
spaces, attracting activities of all kinds (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in the Hollymead Development
Area.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Hollymead Town Center Area A-2, the southwest quadrant of Seminole Trail (US 29) and
Towncenter Drive to the west of Area A-1 in the Hollymead Development Area
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200000004500, 03200000005000
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The location of the rezoning is shown on Attachment A. Area A-2 is part of the larger Hollymead Town
Center development, a mixed use development that, when complete, will include retail, commercial,
and residential uses. The area to the northeast that includes the Harris-Teeter and Target stores is
built, the Abington Places townhomes have been constructed. Area A-1 to the east will be the site of
the new Kohl’s and other nonresidential uses now under construction. The southern edge of the Town
Center is formed by the Powell Creek Greenway.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
On November 10, 2010, the Board approved ZMA 2010-00006, Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2, that
permitted changes to the Code of Development, the Application Plan, and nonsubstantive changes to
the Proffers.
This ZMA is the applicant’s request to make modifications to two of the Proffers: to reduce the size of
the Pocket Park and to reduce the number of dwelling units for which a building permit must be issued
before a building permit can be issued for any commercial space. The proposed Proffers are included
in Attachment B.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
In the application, the Applicant states:
At the time the original proffers were made in 2007, the subject property was owned by others and
the economic climate was strong. There were proffers made at that time that cannot be achieved
today (although I do not believe they could have been economically feasible in 2007 either). After
financial hardship, the property has been taken back by the Seller through a Deed in Lieu of
Foreclosure.
ATTACHMENT I
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 4
2. Parks and Open Space. If approved, the proposed change to Proffer 6, Pocket Park, would
mean that the open space provided no longer meets the 20% requirement for open space in
Area A-2, as stated in the Code of Development (Table E). (See Staff Comment below) This
principle is not met.
3. Mixture of Uses. In 2007, Area A-2 was rezoned to allow both residential and nonresidential
uses. Proffer 11, Phasing Plan, required that a portion of the residential units be built before
commercial uses, in order to ensure that both the residential units and the commercial buildings
would be built. Changing the proffer language to allow the indoor theater building permit to be
pulled after building permits are issued for a smaller number of residential units maintains the
intended expectation for both residential and nonresidential uses. (See Staff Comment below)
This principle is met.
STAFF COMMENT
Staff will comment on each of the proposed Proffer changes: Proffer 6, Pocket Park, Proffer 11,
Phasing Plan, and Proffer 2, Road Improvements.
Proffer 6. Pocket Park. The Applicant would like to amend this proffer to decrease the required size of
the Pocket Park from “approximately 10,000 square feet,” as approved with the original rezoning in
2007, to “approximately 4,500 square feet.” This substantive change would be necessary in order to
allow development to take place according to the Application Plan approved on November 10, 2010
(ZMA 2010-00006). The November 2010 rezoning was approved with the understanding that the
existing proffer from 2007 still governed, and it would have to be changed for the park to be built at the
size shown on the Application Plan.
The Planning Commission discussed this item at its meeting on September 21, 2010, when the Block B
Application Plan change was requested (ZMA 2010-00006). The Commission directed specifically that
the parks and public spaces should be labeled on the Application Plan and should be generally
consistent with the size and number shown on the original Application Plan. There was significant
discussion at that meeting about the need for this amenity because of the amount of development
included in this area of the Town Center. While much of the open space for Area A-2 is in the
Greenway, the Commission noted the difficulty of access to the Greenway and directed that the trail
should be shown on the other (south) side of the Greenway with a bridge to allow access to the trail.
One of the features of the Neighborhood Model District is the requirement for 20% open space and
20% amenity space (these can overlap). The original application, approved in 2007, met this
requirement. This requested change will not. Table E from the current Code of Development shows:
ATTACHMENT I
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 3
We are requesting that Proffer 11, Phasing Plan, be amended to allow commercial development
upon the issuance of 31 residential building permits rather than 100 residential building permits as
stated in the original proffer.
We are also requesting that the size of the Pocket Park be amended to 4,500 SF. The parking
required for the proposed development will not allow the Park as originally proffered.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
A detailed history was provided in the staff report for ZMA 2010-00006 (approved on November 10,
2010), which amended the Code of Development to allow an indoor theater in Block B, to change the
alignment of the midblock road in Block B on the Application Plan, and to amend the Proffers to make
certain nonsubstantive changes that were essential to the rezoning.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use Plan:
In 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for the
entire Hollymead Town Center development, including A “Conceptual Master Plan & Guidelines for
Hollymead Town Center” (the “Guidelines”). During the original rezoning for Area A-2 (2007) the
proposed development was evaluated for conformity with the Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive
Plan and was found to be in compliance.
However, in evaluating this ZMA, the Applicant’s proposed change to the size of the Pocket Park
(Proffer 6) does not conform to the size and purpose of the “Public Space” that is shown on the
Master Plan in the Guidelines and described in the text. The Guidelines recommend a Park of
approximately 10,000 square feet at each end of a “Main Street” (now named Lockwood Drive) that
would serve as a communal gathering space for the residents living nearby—which, ultimately,
could be as many as 1,222 residences.
The Applicant’s proposed change to the phasing (Proffer 11) and the County’s requested change to
the road improvements (which would be part of Proffer 2) would both be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Places 29 Plan:
The proposed Places 29 Master Plan retains the key features of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan
amendment. The proposed change to the Proffer 6, Pocket Park would not be in compliance with
Places29 because the Guidelines remain in effect. The proposed changes to Proffer 11, Phasing Plan,
and Proffer 2, Road Improvements, would be in compliance with the draft Places 29 Master Plan.
The Neighborhood Model:
Three Neighborhood Model principles are relevant to the proposed proffer amendments for Area A-2:
1. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks. Meeting Street from the intersection with
Town Center Drive south to the southern boundary of Area A-2 will be essential to provide safe
and convenient access to uses in the Hollymead Town Center and to provide connections to
other parts of the County’s transportation network. The timing for dedication and construction of
the portion of Meeting Street related to construction of the uses in Area A-1 was taken care of
with ZMA 2010-00014, approved on January 12, 2011. A similar change is needed for Meeting
Street in Area A-2 to allow for the timely connection of Berkmar Drive Extended into Hollymead
Town Center.
ATTACHMENT I
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 6
retain the designated amenity areas. Staff suggests the minimum number of units be lowered from 30
to 25.
A comparison of the approved (2007) language and the proposed (2010) language:
2007 Rezoning Language Proposed 2010 Language
1
Required:
30 dwelling units
For:
Up to 75,000 SF of
commercial/office space
2
Required:
100 dwelling units
For:
Any commercial/
office space
Required:
100 dwelling units
For:
Up to 200,000 SF of
commercial/office space
3
Required:
600 dwelling units
For:
Over 200,000 SF
commercial/ office
space
Required:
600 dwelling units
For:
Over 200,000 SF of
commercial/office space
Changing the phasing plan is not expected to have any impact on nearby and surrounding properties,
although constructing the indoor theater in conjunction with fewer dwelling units may mean that
residents of dwelling units constructed later would not have to deal with the impacts of theater
construction.
Proffer 2. Road Improvements. As part of this rezoning, staff feels the Applicant should make a
commitment to provide for dedication and construction of the segment of Meeting Street from just south
of the intersection of the unnamed road that provides access to Area A-1 (the Kohl’s) and Area A-2 (the
indoor theater) to the southern property line of Area A-2, upon request of the County. The segment of
Meeting Street the County requested is shown within the oval on the map below. Staff understood the
Applicant to agree to make this change during the amendment to the Hollymead Town Center A1 and
A2 proffer discussions. The absence of this commitment creates a barrier to efficient provision of the
extension of Berkmar Drive Extended into the Hollymead Town Center as has been intended with the
original Hollymead Town Center CPA and Places29 Master Plan.
ATTACHMENT I
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 7
This commitment would also:
Provide access between Hollymead Town Center and adjacent properties without using US 29.
Provide the remaining link in a major parallel road to US 29, which will be a major part of the
County’s transportation network.
Staff notes that the alignment and cross section of the road are not being changed from what was
originally anticipated with the 2007 rezoning.
PROFFERS: Outstanding Issues
Staff believes that the following substantive issues should be addressed before the proposed Proffers
can be approved:
Proffer 6, Pocket Park. As previously stated, staff believes either the full 10,000 square feet should be
provided in the area shown on the original (2007) Application Plan or another Pocket Park with at least
5,500 square feet should be provided within walking distance of the residential units in Block B. Staff
notes that the original layout of uses in Block B has changed since the indoor theater was added. At
this time, the Pocket Park is an amenity that will serve theater patrons primarily. Therefore, staff would
support creation of another Pocket Park, 5,500 square feet in size, located where it would serve the
residential uses planned in Block B.
If the applicant declines to add 5,500 square feet of public space in another part of the developemnt,
then the Code of Development must be revised to reflect the decrease and to be in agreement with the
proffer.
Proffer 11, Phasing Plan. In order to allow flexibility for the developer to provide different sizes of
dwelling units and retain amenity areas, staff suggests that the minimum number of units required for
issuance of a building permit for 75,000 SF of commercial/office space be 25 instead of the 30 now
listed in this proffer.
Proffer 2, Road Improvements. The southernmost segment of Meeting Street, from just south of the
intersection with the unnamed road that provides access to Area A-1 (Kohl’s) and A-2, Block B (indoor
theater) to the southern boundary of Area A-2 should be included in Proffer 2, Road Improvements,
with language that would permit the County to request dedication and construction of the road at the
time it is needed.
Technical Changes Needed:
At present, the Proffers are not in agreement with the Code of Development. Prior to an action by the
Board, changes will be needed. If the Board believes that the 5,500 SF needs to be provided in another
part of Area A-2, then the Code of Development, Application Plan, and Proffers will all need to be
revised prior to action by the Board.
In addition to the substantive issues listed above, there are several changes to the proffers which staff
has requested to clarify questions which have been raised with site plans, clarify the status of proffers
made in 2007, and to provide ease in understanding and enforcement of the proffers. These technical
changes have been provided to the applicant.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The change in the phasing (Proffer 11) to allow fewer residential building permits to be issued
ATTACHMENT I
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 8
prior to issuance of a commercial building permit is more realistic in this economic climate than
it was when the original zoning was approved.
Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning:
1. The reduction in the size of the Pocket Park removes an important amenity which was identified
by the Planning Commission at an earlier public hearing.
2. The dedication and construction of the remaining segment of Meeting Street has not been
proffered.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff does not recommend approval of the rezoning unless the substantive and technical changes
identified in this staff report are addressed.
ATTACHMENT A – Location Map
ATTACHMENT B – Proposed Proffers, as submitted with this application
ATTACHMENT C – Staff Report, ZMA 2010-00006, Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2
ATTACHMENT D – Excerpt from Planning Commission minutes, September 21, 2010.
ATTACHMENT I
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 5
Table E
Minimum Green Space, Civic and Amenity Area
Total Area (sq. ft.)
Block A
Powell Creek Greenway 143,750
Block B
Powell Creek Greenway 148,100
Pocket Park 14,500
Neighborhood Center 38,000
Block C
Linear Park 41,600
Powell Creek Greenway 39,200
Block D
Linear Park 12,600
Central Plaza 30,000
Total 467,750
Total Area = 10.7 acres = 20% Area A-2
From this table, one can see that the Powell Creek Greenway provides 70 percent of the amenity area
for the development. As was discussed at the September 21 meeting, the amenity aspect of the
greenway is minimal. When the greenway acreage is removed from the 20 percent “Minimum Green
Space, Civic and Amenity Area,” what is left as central public space is about 6 percent of the entire
development. If the Applicant is not required to replace this 5,.500 SF, public space will be taken away
from future residents who need communal amenity areas in such a dense development. Staff
acknowledges the character of Block B is changed with the addition of the theater. While the full
amount of 10,000 square feet amenity area may not be needed at this location, staff believes it should
be made up in another part of the Town Center that is easily accessible to residents.
Proffer 11. Phasing Plan. The Applicant would like to amend this proffer to permit issuance of the first
building permit for commercial space after issuance of building permits for fewer residential units than
required in the original proffer. The Applicant proposes a three-tiered phasing plan to replace the
original two-tiered plan. This three-tiered plan is more realistic in today’s market.
The proposed Proffer language reads:
11. Phasing Plan. Prior to building permits that would authorize up to 75,000 square feet of
commercial/office, building permits shall have been issued for at least 30 residential units.
Prior to building permits that would authorize up to 200,000 sq ft of commercial/office, building
permits shall have been issued for at least residential units (total). Prior to building permits
that would authorize more than 200,000 sq ft of commercial/office, building permits shall have
been issued for at least 600 residential units.
The changes proposed to Proffer 11, Phasing Plan, would be in compliance with the purpose and intent
of the NMD which is to ensure a mixture of uses. However, staff believes a slightly lower number of
units would allow flexibility to provide different sizes of dwelling units and allow more opportunity to
SEMINOLE TRLDICKERSON RDAIRPORT RD
DEERWOOD DRCONNOR DRHAVEN LN ABINGTON DRTOWNCENTER DR¡606
£¤29
32-45
32-50
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, January 2011.
Note: The map elem ents depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2009 Comm onwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009
0 500 1,000250Feet
ZMA 2010-13Hollymead Town Center Area A-2
Roads
Driveways
Buildings
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcels of Interest
±
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2010-00013, Hollymead
Town Center, Area A-2
Staff: Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
February 8, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Not scheduled
Owner(s): Route 29, LLC Applicant: Wendell Wood, Nena Harrell
Acreage: 44.29 acres Rezone from: NMD to NMD to allow changes to the
Proffers.
TMP: TMP 03200000004500,
03200000005000
Location: These two parcels are located
west of US 29 and are accessed from
Towncenter Drive. They are between Area A-
1 where the Kohl’s is now under construction
and the Forest Springs Mobile Home
Park.(See Attachment A)
By-right use: The Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2
is zoned Neighborhood Model District (NMD), which
allows a mixture of residential and commercial uses.
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes
Proposal: To amend the proffers for
Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2 to make
substantive changes relating to open space,
phasing, and road improvements.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: A maximum of
1222 dwelling units is allowed in HTC A-2. This
rezoning does not change the maximum number of
units.
DA (Development Area): Community of
Hollymead
Comp. Plan Designation: Town Center, Urban
Density Residential, and Parks and Greenways
Character of Property: The property has
been graded, but is undeveloped. Some
steep slopes remain at the edges of the two
vacant parcels.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Hollymead Town
Center Area B containing the Harris Teeter/Target
Shopping Center is located to the northeast. A Kohl’s
is under construction to the east in Area A-1, which
will be nonresidential when developed. The Abington
Place townhome development is located in Area D to
the north across Towncenter Drive. The Forest
Springs Mobile Home Park is located to the west. The
Powell Creek Greenway is located to the south.
Factors Favorable:
1. The change in the phasing (Proffer 11) to
allow fewer residential building permits to
be issued prior to issuance of a
commercial building permit is more realistic
in this economic climate than it was when
the original zoning was approved.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The reduction in the size of the Pocket Park
removes an important amenity which was identified
by the Planning Commission at an earlier public
hearing.
2. The dedication and construction of the remaining
segment of Meeting Street has not been proffered.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of the rezoning unless the substantive and
technical changes identified in this staff report are addressed.
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Judith Wiegand, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 8, 2011
ZMA 2010-00013, Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA 2010-00013 Hollymead Town Center (A-2)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 44.29 acres from Neighborhood Model District zoning district which allows
residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses to Neighborhood
Model District zoning district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service
and industrial uses, in order to amend the existing proffers.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town/Village Center—compact, higher
density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public
spaces, attracting activities of all kinds (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in the Hollymead Development
Area.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Hollymead Town Center Area A-2, the southwest quadrant of Seminole Trail (US 29) and
Towncenter Drive to the west of Area A-1 in the Hollymead Development Area
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200000004500, 03200000005000
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The location of the rezoning is shown on Attachment A. Area A-2 is part of the larger Hollymead Town
Center development, a mixed use development that, when complete, will include retail, commercial,
and residential uses. The area to the northeast that includes the Harris-Teeter and Target stores is
built, the Abington Places townhomes have been constructed. Area A-1 to the east will be the site of
the new Kohl’s and other nonresidential uses now under construction. The southern edge of the Town
Center is formed by the Powell Creek Greenway.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
On November 10, 2010, the Board approved ZMA 2010-00006, Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2, that
permitted changes to the Code of Development, the Application Plan, and nonsubstantive changes to
the Proffers.
This ZMA is the applicant’s request to make modifications to two of the Proffers: to reduce the size of
the Pocket Park and to reduce the number of dwelling units for which a building permit must be issued
before a building permit can be issued for any commercial space. The proposed Proffers are included
in Attachment B.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
In the application, the Applicant states:
At the time the original proffers were made in 2007, the subject property was owned by others and
the economic climate was strong. There were proffers made at that time that cannot be achieved
today (although I do not believe they could have been economically feasible in 2007 either). After
financial hardship, the property has been taken back by the Seller through a Deed in Lieu of
Foreclosure.
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 3
We are requesting that Proffer 11, Phasing Plan, be amended to allow commercial development
upon the issuance of 31 residential building permits rather than 100 residential building permits as
stated in the original proffer.
We are also requesting that the size of the Pocket Park be amended to 4,500 SF. The parking
required for the proposed development will not allow the Park as originally proffered.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
A detailed history was provided in the staff report for ZMA 2010-00006 (approved on November 10,
2010), which amended the Code of Development to allow an indoor theater in Block B, to change the
alignment of the midblock road in Block B on the Application Plan, and to amend the Proffers to make
certain nonsubstantive changes that were essential to the rezoning.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use Plan:
In 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for the
entire Hollymead Town Center development, including A ―Conceptual Master Plan & Guidelines for
Hollymead Town Center‖ (the ―Guidelines‖). During the original rezoning for Area A-2 (2007) the
proposed development was evaluated for conformity with the Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive
Plan and was found to be in compliance.
However, in evaluating this ZMA, the Applicant’s proposed change to the size of the Pocket Park
(Proffer 6) does not conform to the size and purpose of the ―Public Space‖ that is shown on the
Master Plan in the Guidelines and described in the text. The Guidelines recommend a Park of
approximately 10,000 square feet at each end of a ―Main Street‖ (now named Lockwood Drive) that
would serve as a communal gathering space for the residents living nearby—which, ultimately,
could be as many as 1,222 residences.
The Applicant’s proposed change to the phasing (Proffer 11) and the County’s requested change to
the road improvements (which would be part of Proffer 2) would both be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Places 29 Plan:
The proposed Places 29 Master Plan retains the key features of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan
amendment. The proposed change to the Proffer 6, Pocket Park would not be in compliance with
Places29 because the Guidelines remain in effect. The proposed changes to Proffer 11, Phasing Plan,
and Proffer 2, Road Improvements, would be in compliance with the draft Places 29 Master Plan.
The Neighborhood Model:
Three Neighborhood Model principles are relevant to the proposed proffer amendments for Area A-2:
1. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks. Meeting Street from the intersection with
Town Center Drive south to the southern boundary of Area A-2 will be essential to provide safe
and convenient access to uses in the Hollymead Town Center and to provide connections to
other parts of the County’s transportation network. The timing for dedication and construction of
the portion of Meeting Street related to construction of the uses in Area A-1 was taken care of
with ZMA 2010-00014, approved on January 12, 2011. A similar change is needed for Meeting
Street in Area A-2 to allow for the timely connection of Berkmar Drive Extended into Hollymead
Town Center.
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 4
2. Parks and Open Space. If approved, the proposed change to Proffer 6, Pocket Park, would
mean that the open space provided no longer meets the 20% requirement for open space in
Area A-2, as stated in the Code of Development (Table E). (See Staff Comment below) This
principle is not met.
3. Mixture of Uses. In 2007, Area A-2 was rezoned to allow both residential and nonresidential
uses. Proffer 11, Phasing Plan, required that a portion of the residential units be built before
commercial uses, in order to ensure that both the residential units and the commercial buildings
would be built. Changing the proffer language to allow the indoor theater building permit to be
pulled after building permits are issued for a smaller number of residential units maintains the
intended expectation for both residential and nonresidential uses. (See Staff Comment below)
This principle is met.
STAFF COMMENT
Staff will comment on each of the proposed Proffer changes: Proffer 6, Pocket Park, Proffer 11,
Phasing Plan, and Proffer 2, Road Improvements.
Proffer 6. Pocket Park. The Applicant would like to amend this proffer to decrease the required size of
the Pocket Park from ―approximately 10,000 square feet,‖ as approved with the original rezoning in
2007, to ―approximately 4,500 square feet.‖ This substantive change would be necessary in order to
allow development to take place according to the Application Plan approved on November 10, 2010
(ZMA 2010-00006). The November 2010 rezoning was approved with the understanding that the
existing proffer from 2007 still governed, and it would have to be changed for the park to be built at the
size shown on the Application Plan.
The Planning Commission discussed this item at its meeting on September 21, 2010, when the Block B
Application Plan change was requested (ZMA 2010-00006). The Commission directed specifically that
the parks and public spaces should be labeled on the Application Plan and should be generally
consistent with the size and number shown on the original Application Plan. There was significant
discussion at that meeting about the need for this amenity because of the amount of development
included in this area of the Town Center. While much of the open space for Area A-2 is in the
Greenway, the Commission noted the difficulty of access to the Greenway and directed that the trail
should be shown on the other (south) side of the Greenway with a bridge to allow access to the trail.
One of the features of the Neighborhood Model District is the requirement for 20% open space and
20% amenity space (these can overlap). The original application, approved in 2007, met this
requirement. This requested change will not. Table E from the current Code of Development shows:
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 5
Table E
Minimum Green Space, Civic and Amenity Area
Total Area (sq. ft.)
Block A
Powell Creek Greenway 143,750
Block B
Powell Creek Greenway 148,100
Pocket Park 14,500
Neighborhood Center 38,000
Block C
Linear Park 41,600
Powell Creek Greenway 39,200
Block D
Linear Park 12,600
Central Plaza 30,000
Total 467,750
Total Area = 10.7 acres = 20% Area A-2
From this table, one can see that the Powell Creek Greenway provides 70 percent of the amenity area
for the development. As was discussed at the September 21 meeting, the amenity aspect of the
greenway is minimal. When the greenway acreage is removed from the 20 percent ―Minimum Green
Space, Civic and Amenity Area,‖ what is left as central public space is about 6 percent of the entire
development. If the Applicant is not required to replace this 5,.500 SF, public space will be taken away
from future residents who need communal amenity areas in such a dense development. Staff
acknowledges the character of Block B is changed with the addition of the theater. While the full
amount of 10,000 square feet amenity area may not be needed at this location, staff believes it should
be made up in another part of the Town Center that is easily accessible to residents.
Proffer 11. Phasing Plan. The Applicant would like to amend this proffer to permit issuance of the first
building permit for commercial space after issuance of building permits for fewer residential units than
required in the original proffer. The Applicant proposes a three-tiered phasing plan to replace the
original two-tiered plan. This three-tiered plan is more realistic in today’s market.
The proposed Proffer language reads:
11. Phasing Plan. Prior to building permits that would authorize up to 75,000 square feet of
commercial/office, building permits shall have been issued for at least 30 residential units.
Prior to building permits that would authorize up to 200,000 sq ft of commercial/office, building
permits shall have been issued for at least residential units (total). Prior to building permits
that would authorize more than 200,000 sq ft of commercial/office, building permits shall have
been issued for at least 600 residential units.
The changes proposed to Proffer 11, Phasing Plan, would be in compliance with the purpose and intent
of the NMD which is to ensure a mixture of uses. However, staff believes a slightly lower number of
units would allow flexibility to provide different sizes of dwelling units and allow more opportunity to
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 6
retain the designated amenity areas. Staff suggests the minimum number of units be lowered from 30
to 25.
A comparison of the approved (2007) language and the proposed (2010) language:
2007 Rezoning Language Proposed 2010 Language
1
Required:
30 dwelling units
For:
Up to 75,000 SF of
commercial/office space
2
Required:
100 dwelling units
For:
Any commercial/
office space
Required:
100 dwelling units
For:
Up to 200,000 SF of
commercial/office space
3
Required:
600 dwelling units
For:
Over 200,000 SF
commercial/ office
space
Required:
600 dwelling units
For:
Over 200,000 SF of
commercial/office space
Changing the phasing plan is not expected to have any impact on nearby and surrounding properties,
although constructing the indoor theater in conjunction with fewer dwelling units may mean that
residents of dwelling units constructed later would not have to deal with the impacts of theater
construction.
Proffer 2. Road Improvements. As part of this rezoning, staff feels the Applicant should make a
commitment to provide for dedication and construction of the segment of Meeting Street from just south
of the intersection of the unnamed road that provides access to Area A-1 (the Kohl’s) and Area A-2 (the
indoor theater) to the southern property line of Area A-2, upon request of the County. The segment of
Meeting Street the County requested is shown within the oval on the map below. Staff understood the
Applicant to agree to make this change during the amendment to the Hollymead Town Center A1 and
A2 proffer discussions. The absence of this commitment creates a barrier to efficient provision of the
extension of Berkmar Drive Extended into the Hollymead Town Center as has been intended with the
original Hollymead Town Center CPA and Places29 Master Plan.
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 7
This commitment would also:
Provide access between Hollymead Town Center and adjacent properties without using US 29.
Provide the remaining link in a major parallel road to US 29, which will be a major part of the
County’s transportation network.
Staff notes that the alignment and cross section of the road are not being changed from what was
originally anticipated with the 2007 rezoning.
PROFFERS: Outstanding Issues
Staff believes that the following substantive issues should be addressed before the proposed Proffers
can be approved:
Proffer 6, Pocket Park. As previously stated, staff believes either the full 10,000 square feet should be
provided in the area shown on the original (2007) Application Plan or another Pocket Park with at least
5,500 square feet should be provided within walking distance of the residential units in Block B. Staff
notes that the original layout of uses in Block B has changed since the indoor theater was added. At
this time, the Pocket Park is an amenity that will serve theater patrons primarily. Therefore, staff would
support creation of another Pocket Park, 5,500 square feet in size, located where it would serve the
residential uses planned in Block B.
If the applicant declines to add 5,500 square feet of public space in another part of the developemnt,
then the Code of Development must be revised to reflect the decrease and to be in agreement with the
proffer.
Proffer 11, Phasing Plan. In order to allow flexibility for the developer to provide different sizes of
dwelling units and retain amenity areas, staff suggests that the minimum number of units required for
issuance of a building permit for 75,000 SF of commercial/office space be 25 instead of the 30 now
listed in this proffer.
Proffer 2, Road Improvements. The southernmost segment of Meeting Street, from just south of the
intersection with the unnamed road that provides access to Area A-1 (Kohl’s) and A-2, Block B (indoor
theater) to the southern boundary of Area A-2 should be included in Proffer 2, Road Improvements,
with language that would permit the County to request dedication and construction of the road at the
time it is needed.
Technical Changes Needed:
At present, the Proffers are not in agreement with the Code of Development. Prior to an action by the
Board, changes will be needed. If the Board believes that the 5,500 SF needs to be provided in another
part of Area A-2, then the Code of Development, Application Plan, and Proffers will all need to be
revised prior to action by the Board.
In addition to the substantive issues listed above, there are several changes to the proffers which staff
has requested to clarify questions which have been raised with site plans, clarify the status of proffers
made in 2007, and to provide ease in understanding and enforcement of the proffers. These technical
changes have been provided to the applicant.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The change in the phasing (Proffer 11) to allow fewer residential building permits to be issued
ZMA2010-00013
Planning Commission Public Hearing, February 8, 2011
Staff Report Page 8
prior to issuance of a commercial building permit is more realistic in this economic climate than
it was when the original zoning was approved.
Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning:
1. The reduction in the size of the Pocket Park removes an important amenity which was identified
by the Planning Commission at an earlier public hearing.
2. The dedication and construction of the remaining segment of Meeting Street has not been
proffered.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff does not recommend approval of the rezoning unless the substantive and technical changes
identified in this staff report are addressed.
ATTACHMENT A – Location Map
ATTACHMENT B – Proposed Proffers, as submitted with this application
ATTACHMENT C – Staff Report, ZMA 2010-00006, Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2
ATTACHMENT D – Excerpt from Planning Commission minutes, September 21, 2010.
ATTACHMENT III
From: Claudette Grant
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 4:29 PM
To: Wayne Cilimberg
Subject: FW: Hollymead Town Center
From: Nena Harrell [mailto:ulcwww@embarqmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 11:38 AM
To: Sarah Baldwin; Claudette Grant
Subject: Hollymead Town Center
Sarah and Claudette,
Pursuant to our meeting, we hereby request staff to defer proffer amendment request on section A-1.
We also ask that the Board of Supervisors defer proffer amendment request on A-2.
As we discussed the market has changed dramatically since the proffers were adopted. And as a
reminder, we had sold the property at the time the proffers were adopted and now we have been
forced to take the property back by deed in lieu. Development has been very difficult at best; however,
fortunately by taking the property back we were successful in building Town Center Blvd. (which the
residents of Earlysville must love due to the traffic), Meeting Street and getting Kohl’s open plus some
other tenants. However, as we all know, the market just is not anywhere near the same. As we also
discussed and agreed, it would make more sense to review A-1 and A-2 comprehensively. We agree
that merging A-1 and A-2 and reviewing comprehensively should produce a more cohesive
development.
Thank you for assistance and input into how to handle the proffer issues.
Nena Harrell (on behalf of Wendell W. Wood)
Vice President/Broker
United Land Corporation
P.O. Box 5548
Charlottesville, VA 22905
434-975-3334
Return to exec summary