HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-7-10Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JULY 10, 2013
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
AUDITORIUM
3:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order.
2. Work Session: Solid Waste Service Options.
3. Closed Meeting.
6:00 p.m.
4. Call to Order.
5. Certify Closed Meeting.
6. Pledge of Allegiance.
7. Moment of Silence.
8. Adoption of Final Agenda.
9. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
10. Appointment of Scottsville District representative on the Board of Supervisors.
11. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
12. Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
13. SP-2013-00009. All Things Pawssible (Sign #13). PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for
dog day care, training and overnight boarding. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Airport Impact Overlay and
Planned Unit Development (Industrial). SECTION: 29.2.2.1 Commercial Kennel (via 26.2 pending adoption by the Board
of Supervisors). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service – warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting
commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 4. ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 1201 Stoney Ridge Road (Rt. 1000) [appx. 750 feet from intersection of Stoney Ridge Road
and Southern Parkway (Rt. 1165)]. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076M1000001200. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
14. SP-2013-00011. Verizon Wireless/Boiling Siding/Brochu Property - Tier III
Personal Wireless Service Facility (Sign #5). PROPOSED: Request for installation of a 95’ tall
monopole structure & associated ground equipment on 21.1 acres. No dwellings proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/
GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots), and Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural
significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: Chapter 18 Section 10.2.2.48 of
the Albemarle County Code, which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots). LOCATION: Tax Map 127, Parcel 40A.
At the intersection of Irish Road [State Route 6] and Old Green Mountain Road [State Route 722]. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
15. ZMA-2013-000001. The Lofts At Meadowcreek (Sign #15). PROPOSED: Rezone
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0710/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/5/2020 9:50:21 AM]
Tentative
approximately 2.80 acres from R-4-Residential zoning district which allows residential uses at a density of 4 units per acre
to NMD-Neighborhood Model District zoning district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial,
service and industrial uses. Proposed 65 maximum dwelling units for a density of 23units/acre. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR:
No. AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes. PROFFERS: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential – residential
(6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses –
Places 29 Corridor. LOCATION: 605 Rio Road East in Neighborhood 2 TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061A0000001500 and
061A0000001700. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
16. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
17. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
18. Adjourn to July 25, 2013, .12:30 p.m., Department of Forestry Building.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
12.1 Approval of Minutes: March 13(N), April 10(A) and April 10(N), 2013.
12.2 Resolution to add Petty Cash Fund for Ivy Fire Station and Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail.
12.3 SUB-2013-42. Old Trail Block 14 – Special Exception to Waive Overlot Grading Plan Standards for Driveways.
NEW: CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0710/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/5/2020 9:50:21 AM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Solid Waste Service Options
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Consider response to solid waste RFP and provide
direction on preferred services
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham, Shadman
PRESENTER(S): Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 10, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the April 10, 2013 work session, the Board directed staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for solid waste
services. The purpose of the July 10, 2013 work session is for the Board to consider options for the provision of future
solid waste services and to review of the results of the RFP. The RFP was advertised from May 20, 2013 to June 20,
2013 and one acceptable proposal was received. Four site visits were conducted with potential contractors and staff
responded to phone calls requesting additional information from a number of potential contractors. Based on those
site visits and phone calls, staff anticipated receiving several other proposals. Following up to determine why more
proposals were not submitted, staff found there were two reasons cited:
1) The RFP includes a requirement to operate the facilities, and the companies had limited or no
experience in running convenience centers. The primary business of most companies was hauling
and disposal of waste.
2) The RFP places the financial risk on the contractor for assuring the tonnage received could make the
operation profitable.
The proposal includes an option to operate a convenience center at the Ivy MUC location and an option to operate up
to three convenience centers at other County locations.
Despite having only one proposal, staff found this proposal addresses the requested services and appears to provide
viable options. At this point, staff requests that the Board review the two options provided by this proposal against the
option of continuing with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) operating the Ivy Materials Utilization Center (Ivy
MUC), then provide direction on which option to pursue.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
DISCUSSION:
Submitted Proposal
A copy of the Container Rentals, LLC proposal is provided as Attachment A. To summarize, Container Rentals
proposes to operate a convenience center at Ivy MUC or at other locations specified by the County with fees equal to
those charged by RSWA and without any additional County financial support . As has been previously discussed, the
County would still incur cost for (1) the cost of the RSWA ground lease and post-closure expenses if the Ivy MUC site
is utilized and (2) the County’s oversight management expenses regardless of which option is selected. The proposal
includes the requested services except for clean fill, which was an option service. Vegetative waste would be limited
to small loads. Large loads and stumps would be required to use other facilities, which are currently available. Staff
does not believe this limitation is a significant concern with the understanding a convenience center is not inte nded to
serve commercial users. Typically, large loads of clean fill or vegetative waste that include stumps delivered by
commercial users would not be allowed at a convenience center. The option of delivering this material to other
locations still remains and could potentially be continued at Ivy if the RSWA found it profitable to offset other expenses
of the Authority. Additionally, Container Rentals has offered to provide additional recycling services at no cost to the
County provided any permitting issues are addressed by the County. This would include materials such as paint,
fluorescent bulbs and electronics. Staff is still consulting with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on
how these recycling services could be part of a County convenience center, but initial discussions sugg est this can be
done.
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Service Options
July 10, 2013
Page 2
Comparison of Options
Attachment B provides a staff analysis of the three considered options. The first page of the attachment provides an
analysis of costs and the second page considers other factors that may influence the decision. To summarize:
Option 1 is continuing with the RSWA. This option has the highest operating costs, is the easiest for the
County to implement, and is the only option that continues services for commercial users. Any capital costs
for replacement or upgrading of the facility is assumed to be RSWA’s responsibility, but that cost would
eventually be recovered through fees or County contributions. Depreciation funds set aside by RSWA over
that past number of years may also potentially be used to offset start -up costs. Additionally, a longer term
commitment to this arrangement by the County would likely require a major amendment to the RSWA
Organizational Agreement to align RSWA funding with Board composition, though this process presents its
own challenges. This option appears to be the best choice if the Board wishes to maintain the current level of
service and continues to want to explore other long term options.
Option 2 is the County overseeing a convenience center at the Ivy MUC through a space leased from RSWA
and a contract based on the proposal. This option has no anticipated capital costs , though there will be start-
up and other costs as outlined in attachment B. Based on the RFP response, this option does cut annual
County funding to one-half of Option 1. However, it provides limited services in one location that is marginally
convenient to most County residents, as is the case with Option 1. Additionally, it places the County at
greater risk for possible environmental liabilities associated with any additional issues discovered at the Ivy
MUC. This option appears to be the best choice if the Board believes minimal services are needed, is not
prepared for the capital investment required by Option 3, and the potential environmental liability is judged
acceptable.
Option 3 is the County overseeing the operation of three convenience centers on County properties through a
contract based on this proposal. The analysis of this option includes three convenience centers because the
County’s CIP has included three recycling centers since the early 2000’s. This option would incorporate those
recycling services in addition to other services, replacing a need to continue funding o f the RSWA McIntire
Recycling facility. This option is the more complex to implement and requires more significant upfront funding
to establish the facilities. However, the County’s portion of depreciation funds set aside by the RSWA over
the past number of years should eventually be available to offset some of this c ost, based on a future
settlement with the RSWA. Once past the start up phase, this option was found to have the lowest annual
operating costs while providing the highest level of services to residential users. This option appears to be
the best choice if the Board believes there is a need to improve solid waste services to its residents through
multiple locations without significant ongoing funding for operations, believes commercial users h ave other
viable options, and is prepared to make the capital investment necessary for implementation.
Under this option, the Board would need to agree on convenience center locations and fund their
construction. While very aggressive, staff believes it may be possible to have one facility in place adjacent
the Monticello Fire Station by early 2014. Staff believes this site is a viable option because of its easy access,
the availability of existing infrastructure and the site’s location on the edge of the development area. Sites
located on the edge of development areas are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and serve both rural
residents for solid waste disposal and recycling services and urban areas resident s who may have less need
for solid waste disposal services, but would want easy access to recycling. Proceeding with this site would
allow the County to cease ongoing funding of the RSWA operation at the Ivy MUC. Remaining facilities could
then follow as sites are identified by the Board and constructed. Staff has identified other County properties
that could potentially serve as additional convenience centers, but none that allow quick development.
Additionally, staff realizes the Board may wish to solicit public input before committing to those locations. If
the Board is not comfortable with the Mill Creek site as a location for a convenience center that can more
quickly be placed in service, we would recommend a six month extension of services with the RSWA (until
June 30, 2014) at the current IVY MUC to allow adequate time to go through a site selection and construction
process.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Budget impacts are defined on page 1 of Attachment B.
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Service Options
July 10, 2013
Page 3
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After reviewing the three options, staff believes Option 3 is in the overall best interest of the County. This option
provides the lowest annual operating cost once the facilities are in place and enhances the level of service for
residents, providing three rather than one convenience center location. In addition, this option avoids the potential
liability at the Ivy site and the complications of remaining in a “regional” organization for an exclusively County service.
If Option 3 is selected, staff requests the Board provide direction regarding its desire to (1) begin this new service at
Mill Creek next to the Monticello Fire Station or (2) request an extension of service from the RWSA until June 30,
2014 so that a site selection and construction process can be undertaken. Based on that direction, staff will identify
funding sources for facility construction and finalize a contract that provides for up to three facilities for future review
with the Board.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Copy of Container Rentals Proposal (w/o attachments)
Attachment B - Comparison of Solid Waste Options (page 1 – costs, page 2 – other factors)
Return to agenda
Solid Waste, Attachment B
Solid Waste Options
Cost Comparisons
RSWA
Continuation
Container Rentals at Ivy
MUC
Container Rentals at 3
County Locations
Capital/Start-Up Cost $0 $50,000 (9) $1,000,000 (1)
Annual Operating Costs
Facility charges $378,000 (2) $0 $90,000 (3)
Lease $0 $15,000 $0
Environmental Mgt $0 $50,000 (4) $0
County Management $0 $50,000 (5) $75,000 (5)
Recycling $57,000 (2) $57,000 (2) $ 0 (6)
$435,000 $172,000 (7) $165,000 (7)
County Cost Share
Increase for RSWA
Environmental Costs
$0 $18,000 (8) No Estimate, presumed no
more than $30,000
($18,000 + $12,000)
County Cost Share
Increase for RSWA
Recycling Costs
(McIntire)
$0 $12,000 (8) $0
ESTIMATED ANNUAL
OPERATING COST
$435,000 $202,000 $165,000 - $195,000
Explanation of Options:
RSWA Continuation: This is the status quo scenario and there is no change from current operations, as of July 1,
2013. Costs are derived from the RSWA FY 13-14 Budget.
Container Rentals at Ivy: This scenario would close the RSWA transfer station at Ivy and the County would
leave a space at Ivy for a convenience center. As a convenience center, it would continue services for households
but would no longer provide services to businesses.
Container Rentals at County Locations: This scenario would close the RSWA transfer station at Ivy and the
County would replace this with multiple convenience centers. For purposes of the estimate, 3 convenience
centers were assumed.
(1) - Estimated cost for startup of 3 convenience centers. This includes grading and paving 1 acre pad, fence and
landscaping around facility, 3 phase 440V electricty brought to site. Assumes County already owns property and use
has been found consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Costs would be considerably lower if sites are already graded,
with road entrances and power in place at property.
(2) - Per RWSA FY 13-14 Budget. County Contribution = $378, 000 for Ivy MUC and $57,000 for Recycling
(3) - Per Proposal cost of $15 / Hour and assumed 2,000 hours / year for oper ation at each of 3 centers
(4) - Previous staff estimate of cost for managing industrial stormwater permit as required by RSWA lease
(5) - Previous staff estimate of cost for program management at Ivy, estimated 1 ½ times for 3 centers
(6) - With comprehensive recycling at multiple convenience centers, assume no need for continuing McIntire
(7) - Does not include additional programs or services beyond proposal (e.g. Household Hazardous Waste).
(8) - RSWA cost allocations per April 23rd report to RSWA Board
(9) - Estimated, Draft RSWA lease makes County responsible for all of RSWA’s expense with lease (e.g. legal,
necessary facility changes, etc.)
Solid Waste, Attachment B
Solid Waste Options
Other Decision Factors
RSWA
Continuation
Container Rentals at Ivy
MUC
Container Rentals at
County Locations
Other Factors
Location Existing Facility with
low convenience for
most citizens
Existing Facility with low
convenience for most citizens
Locates facilities with
improved convenience to
citizens
Commercial Users Yes, continues current
operation
No, convenience center limited
to residential customers
No, convenience center
limited to residential
customers
Other Services Continues current
services
Continues current services, but
limits vegetative waste to small
loads. Clean fill not accepted.
Continues current services,
but limits vegetative waste to
small loads. Clean fill not
accepted.
Recycling Services Limited, continues
reliance on McIntire
Recycling Facility for
primary recycling
services
Expanded to match McIntire
materials through commingled
MSW, additional products such
as paints, Styrofoam,
fluorescent bulbs, batteries,
electronics, and reuse of
materials appear possible,
subject to DEQ approval.
Anticipate continued reliance
on McIntire Recycling given
limited convenience.
Expanded to match McIntire
materials through
commingled MSW,
additional products such as
paints, Styrofoam,
fluorescent bulbs, batteries,
electronics, and reuse of
materials appear possible,
subject to DEQ approval.
May also allow County to
discontinues services at
McIntire
Timing No issues, continues
existing operation
Need to finalize lease no later
than October for new
operation to be in place by
January 2014.
Need to turn over
constructed facility to
contractor no later than six
weeks before beginning
operation
Coordination No issues, continues
existing operation
Significant issues, Container
Rentals must prepare for their
operation while RSWA
continues to provide services
on same property.
Some issues, County must
coordinate construction,
utilities, and turnover of site
to contractor
Environmental Liability No additional liability,
continues current
operation
Significant Increase, Ivy lease
puts County in ownership
chain if problems later found
on facility that predates
regulations.
Small increase, similar to
other localities operating
convenience centers
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Petty Cash Resolution
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of a Resolution to add a Petty Cash Fund for the
Ivy Fire Station and the Albemarle-Charlottesville
Regional Jail
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Burrell, Koonce, Murray
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 10, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code Section 15-2-1229 provides that the County may adopt a resolution to establish petty cash funds not
exceeding $5,000 to be used to transact daily County business.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
The Board of Supervisors last established petty cash funds by a Resolution adopted on June 2, 2010. Staff recommends
the addition of a $1,000.00 petty cash fund for the Fire and Rescue Department at the Ivy Fire Station and the addition of a
$300.00 petty cash fund for the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. These new petty cash funds would allow for
reimbursements of authorized small purchases or expenses of employees and volunteers.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to reestablish the existing petty cash funds and to add a
petty cash fund for the Ivy Fire Station and the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail (Attachment A).
AT TACHMENTS:
A – Petty Cash Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Virginia Code §15.2-1229, provides that the governing body of any
county may establish by resolution one or more petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000
each for the payment of claims arising from commitments made pursuant to law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution on June 2, 2010
establishing petty cash funds; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors now desires to add certain petty cash
funds for the above stated purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia establishes the following petty cash funds:
Finance Department $4,350.00
Social Services 200.00
Community Development 100.00
Police Department 1,800.00
Fire and Rescue 150.00
Fire and Rescue – Hollymead Fire Station 500.00
Fire and Rescue – Ivy Fire Station 1,000.00
Fire and Rescue – Monticello Fire Station 200.00
Commonwealth’s Attorney 300.00
Parks & Recreation 100.00
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail
300.00
Total $9,000.00
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Old Trail Block 14 (SUB 2013-42) Special exception to
waive overlot grading plan standards for driveways
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special exception to allow waiver of standards for
minimum length and maximum grade of driveways
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham and
Brooks
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 10, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Old Trail rezoning was approved in September 2005 with 8 proffers. Proffer 7 required an overlot grading plan
and Proffer 7(H) provides that “the driveway grading shall provide an area in front of the proposed garage, or an area
proposed for vehicle parking where no garage is proposed, that is not less than eighteen (18) feet in length that will be
graded no steeper than eight (8) percent.” Proffer 7(J) allows any requirement of Proffer 7 to be waived. The applicant
has requested that the minimum length and maximum grade standards for driveways be waived in Old Trail Block 14.
Under current procedures, these standards may be waived by special exception approved by the Board. The
applicant’s original request and related exhibits are provided in Attachment A. A similar request was reviewed and
approved by the Board November 7, 2012 for Block 13 in Old Trail.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
In evaluating this request, Proffer 7(J) provides that the Board should “consider whether the alternative proposed by
the Owner satisfies the purpose of the requirement to be waived to at least an equivalent degree.” Staff has concluded
that the purpose for the minimum length and maximum grade standards for driveways in Proffer 7(H) is to ensure safe
and convenient access. The standards provide adequate sight distance for vehicles exiting garages, appropriate sight
lines for vehicles entering and exiting garages, and prevent vehicles from scraping driveways at severe grade
transitions. Staff’s analysis focuses on this purpose.
Reduction in Driveway Length
The applicant has requested approval to reduce the minimum length of driveways in front of garages to either 5 feet or
16 feet. Staff has evaluated the minimum length of a driveway that is necessary in order to provide safe sight distance
for vehicles exiting garages, and has concluded that the safe minimum length is 7 feet from the edge of the pavement.
Driveways shorter than 7 feet would require the vehicle to partially back into the alley before the driver could see
oncoming vehicles or pedestrians. The following illustrations depict staff’s sight distance concern:
Illustrations 1 and 2: Driveways shorter than 7 feet from the edge of the alley would not provide sight distance until part
of the vehicle was in the alley.
Therefore, staff supports a reduction in minimum driveway length to 7 feet, measured from the edge of the pavement
rather than from the boundary of the alley easement.
Increase in Driveway Grade
The applicant has requested permission to increase the grade of driveways above the maximum 8% grade allowed by
proffer 7(J), but has not specified a particular grade. Staff has evaluated the request and has concluded that a driver’s
sight lines are restricted at grades of 10% or greater. Steeper grades prevent a driver from seeing the lower portion of
the garage upon entry, or low-lying objects in the the alley directly behind the vehicle, upon exit. Staff also has
concluded that the bottoms of vehicles will scrape a driveway if grade transitions are approximately 20% or greater.
The following illustrations depict staff’s driveway grade concerns:
Illustrations 3 and 4: At grades greater than 10%, sight lines are adversely affected. Illustration 5: At grades 10% or
less, sight lines are appropriate.
Illustration 6: At grades of 20% or greater, scraping occurs at grade transitions.
Based upon the foregoing, the maximum 8% grade in Proffer 7(H) is reasonable and staff recommends that it not be
changed, but that a grade transition not to exceed 10% be allowed.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the special exception subject to the following conditions:
1. Garages shall be set back from the edge of pavement of the alley at least seven (7) feet.
2. Driveway grades shall be 8% or less. The grade transition on the driveway shall not exceed 10%.
3. The applicant shall obtain approval of an amended overlot grading plan for each block, phase, or sub-phase
within Block 14 before any permits are issued within Block 14.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Old Trail Proffer Waiver Request-Block 14, dated April 10, 2013
B. Old Trail Block 14 Proffer Waiver exhibit
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular 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
June 14, 2013
Karen Quillen
706 Henry Ave.
Charlottesville, VA. 22903
RE: SP201300009 All Things Pawssible
TAX MAP PARCEL: 076M1000001200
Dear Ms. Quillen:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 4, 2013, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “All
Things Pawssible Conceptual Plan” dated March 18, 2013, and revised May 28, 2013, as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general
accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major
elements within the development essential to the design, as shown on the plan:
Location of outdoor play areas
Height, type and material for fencing around outdoor play areas
Location of approved parking areas
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinanc e.
2. The total number of dogs admitted for daycare each day shall not exceed 70 dogs.
3. The total number of dogs kept for boarding shall not exceed 30 dogs.
4. The total number of guests invited for events shall not exceed 75 people.
5. Dogs located in outdoor play areas shall be supervised by the permittee’s staff.
6. Off-site parking shall be provided for any event open to the public or allowed by
Condition 4 for which more than 12 guests are invited. Prior to the first event or in
conjunction with approval of a site plan for the site, whichever occurs first, the permittee
shall obtain approval of an instrument for shared parking as provided under Albemarle
County Code §§ 18-4.12.8(e) and 18-4.12.10 for up to 63 invited guests.
7. The use shall commence on or before July 3, 2018 or permit shall expire and be of no
effect.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on July 10, 2013.
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,
J.T. Newberry
Planner
Planning Division
cc: Five Springs LLC
P O Box 330
Keswick, VA. 22947
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
SP201300009 – All Things Pawssible
Planning Commission: June 4, 2013
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Proposal: SP201300009 All Things Pawssible Staff: J.T. Newberry
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
June 4, 2013
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD
Owner: Five Springs LLC Applicant: Karen Quillen, Sean Julian, Benton
Downer
Acreage: 0.997 acres TMP: 076M1000001200
Location: 1201 Stoney Ridge Road,
approximately 750 feet north of the
intersection of Stoney Ridge Road and
Southern Parkway.
Zoning: Planned Unit Development-Industrial,
which permits the same uses allowed by-right
and by special use permit as the Light Industry
(LI) zoning district.
Magisterial District: Scottsville Conditions: Yes EC: No
Proposal: Special use permit request to
establish a dog daycare, training and
overnight boarding facility (listed as a
“commercial kennel” in Zoning Ordinance)
permitted under Section 26.2.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 1
DA: X RA: Comp. Plan Designation:
Industrial Service - warehousing, light industry,
heavy industry, research, office uses, regional
scale research, limited production and
marketing activities, supporting commercial,
lodging and conference facilities, and
residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
Character of Property: This site is improved
by a two-story, 8,000 square foot
office/industrial building and associated
parking.
Use of Surrounding Properties: A mix of
industrial, commercial and residential uses,
including a school and daycare facility at the
entrance of Stoney Ridge Road.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal provides services that
support the community.
2. No detrimental impacts to adjoining
properties are anticipated.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Loss of space that could otherwise be
available for industrial uses.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP201300009, All Things Pawssible
with conditions.
SP201300009 – All Things Pawssible
Planning Commission: June 4, 2013
1
STAFF PERSON: J.T. Newberry
PLANNING COMMISSION: June 4, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP201300009 All Things Pawssible
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for dog day care, training and overnight boarding.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Airport Impact Overlay and Planned Unit Development
(Industrial)
SECTION: 29.2.2.1 Commercial Kennel (via Section 26.2)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service – warehousing, light industry,
heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing
activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre)
in Neighborhood 4.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 1201 Stoney Ridge Road (Rt. 1000) [approx. 750 feet from intersection of Stoney Ridge
Road and Southern Parkway (Rt. 1165)]
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076M1000001200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA:
The subject property is located approximately 750 feet north of the intersection of Southern Parkway
and Stoney Ridge Road (Attachment A). Stoney Ridge Road contains a mix of industrial and
commercial uses, including two schools, a storage yard, an electrical subcontractor, a shipping
warehouse and a facility for UVa.’s medical transportation network. Across from the intersection with
Southern Parkway is a section of the Mill Creek neighborhood containing single-family residences. The
Fox Chase neighborhood is located further west along Southern Parkway, which also contains single-
family residences and a clubhouse.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
ZMA1985-029 – The original rezoning for the Mill Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) approved
approximately 236 acres for a mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses. The area under
review was not included in the original rezoning and was left zoned as Light Industry (LI).
ZMA1995-019 – Rezoning approved to expand PUD-Residential area and change the remaining LI
area to PUD-Industrial, except for two lots on Stoney Ridge Road - - Parcel 16 remained with LI zoning
and Parcel 14 was rezoned to PUD-Commercial (Parcel 14 became Bright Beginnings Preschool).
ZMA1996-021 – Rezoning approved to change the lot across the street from Bright Beginnings
Preschool from PUD-Industrial to PUD-Commercial to allow a private school (now the Peabody
School).
Attachment B shows the current zoning map with the current PUD designation labeled on each parcel.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
All Things Pawssible is requesting special use permit approval to relocate their dog daycare and
training facility to an existing two-story, 8,000 sq. ft. brick office/industrial building at 1201 Stoney Ridge
Road. They are currently located in a mixed-use industrial area in the City of Charlottesville on Henry
Avenue. Their proposal includes a mix of limited commercial uses, as well as a 500 square foot
residential dwelling unit for an employee. The proposed commercial uses include overnight boarding,
subordinate retail sales, grooming/massage, and infrequent special events for competitions and
adoptions. Although this site is larger than their current location, the scale and intensity of their
proposal is not significantly different than what exists at their current operation.
SP201300009 – All Things Pawssible
Planning Commission: June 4, 2013
2
The conceptual plan shows how the dogs attending daycare would be separated into three different
outdoor play areas depending on the size of the dog (Attachment C). Each of these areas is proposed
to be fenced by a 6 foot tall solid white vinyl fence. The medium and large dogs would each have 2,000
square foot outdoor play areas behind the building and the small dogs would use an approximately 855
square foot outdoor area located on the southside of the building. These areas supplement the space
available inside the building. Each area would be continually supervised by staff throughout the day to
ensure the safety and wellbeing of the dogs.
In addition to daycare during the week, All Things Pawssible offers training classes and boarding
services on evenings and weekends. A typical training class is held indoors and trains about ten dogs
for a one hour session. Boarding services are available for up to 30 dogs at a time. These dogs
participate in daycare during the day, but are kept indoors during off-hours (8pm – 7:30am). The onsite
residential dwelling unit allows an employee to be available to monitor the dogs being boarded in case
of an emergency.
The applicants also indicate there will be an area available for subordinate retail sales of specialty dog
foods and treats. This area would be less than 500 square feet and be available to customers that use
the daycare, training and boarding services. Similarly, there will be one 80 square foot room available
to a groomer or masseur on an as-needed basis. The grooming and massage services would take
place from 10am-3pm during non-peak hours.
Finally, the proposal also includes plans to use this location for special events. These events would
take place not more than once per month and be held on weekends between 8am and 5pm. The
applicants envision that events like competitions would use approximately 2,000 square feet of the
building and be open only to invited guests (50 guest maximum). Adoption events, however, would be
open to the public and be staggered in terms of visitors. Overflow parking would be located across
Stoney Ridge Road at the Probuild storage yard or adjacent to this site at Moore’s Electric.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting upon an
application for a special use permit:
No substantial detriment.
Stoney Ridge Road contains a mix of industrial and commercial uses. In evaluating whether a use will
be a detriment to adjacent properties, the intensity of the use and other impacts are evaluated.
Comments and concerns of neighboring properties are also considered. One measure of intensity in
relation to nearby properties is the traffic from the proposal. A closely related measure of intensity is the
scale of the use in relation to the neighborhood where the use is located.
VDOT and Engineering have no objection to the anticipated traffic impacts from this proposal. The
most intense traffic impacts will take place on the evenings and weekends when many of the adjacent
businesses are closed. The applicants have spoken to adjacent property owners about their proposal
and obtained shared parking agreements on two adjacent sites to handle any overflow parking.
Another potential impact on adjacent properties is noise. County staff used a noise meter to take
measurements 100 feet away from the outdoor play area at the applicant’s existing location in the City
during the evening pick-up time. At no point did the noise impact come close to violating the noise
ordinance. At the proposed location, the closest structure to the outdoor play areas is approximately
100 feet away and the maximum permitted noise level at any time is 70 dBA. The measurements at
the existing location showed an increase of 2.0-3.0 dBA above the ambient noise level readings, which
were 49.4 dBA and 51.2 dBA. Staff additionally made contact with a neighbor at their existing location,
SP201300009 – All Things Pawssible
Planning Commission: June 4, 2013
3
as well as the Department of Neighborhood Services with the City. Neither party had complaints about
the noise impact of this use.
A last potential impact on adjoining properties is from the waste generated by this operation. The
waste management plan at the proposed location would follow the current waste management practice,
where solid waste is bagged and put in the trash and liquid waste is mopped-up wherever possible.
One area at the proposed location where it will not be possible to mop-up liquid waste is outside on the
144 square feet of synthetic turf proposed to be installed in the small dog outdoor play area (shown on
Attachment C). This area would have a plastic tray to catch any liquid waste, which would then be
hosed off into the grass at the end of each day. This is distict from the medium and large dog areas,
which would be surfaced with a non-toxic product that can be mopped easily.
Under ideal conditions, our Engineering Division recommends that all wastes from a site be fully
contained. In this case, however, it recognizes that the standard industry practice is to hose off wastes
that cannot be picked-up and bagged. There are no state requirements for this type of waste and there
is currently no definitive data on the impact of liquid waste from animals on the function of a stormwater
treatment facility, such as the one where the small dog area will drain. There should not be any
substantial detriment from this impact as long as the solid waste is being picked-up and bagged.
Character of the district unchanged.
The proposed use is located in an area of mixed industrial, office and commercial uses. In many ways,
this use functions like a daycare or school and Stoney Ridge Road already contains Bright Beginnings
Preschool and the Peabody School. The use will not change the character of the district.
Harmony.
The purpose and intent of the PUD district is to provide for a mixture of uses and housing types.
Commercial uses are intended to be limited to a scale appropriate to the support of the residential uses
within the PUD and employees of the commercial and industrial areas. The proposed use is
compatible with other industrial users in the area. At its proposed scale, it’s in harmony with the
purpose and intent of this ordinance.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial Service which allows for warehousing,
light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and
marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34
units/acre).
Since construction of this building was completed in 2006, it has been used mainly for office uses,
including a design firm and tutoring services. It is currently occupied by offices for an insurance
company and hospice care provider. The applicant has put in an offer to purchase the building from the
owner after looking at various options for a new location for the past three years. The applicant has
searched exhaustively for an existing commercial site, but has not found any possible sites that could
accommodate them. Their proposal at this location would not displace an existing industrial user, nor
occupy an area that has historically used by industrial users.
In addition, even though the proposed use is not industrial and is considered a commercial activity not
exclusively related to the support of an industrial area, it does support objectives of our Economic
Development Policy and the Neighborhood Model. All Things Pawssible is a locally-owned business
that supports the local labor force. The proposed dwelling unit provides an affordable space for
employee(s) to live and work. Most importantly, the proposed use and changes to the site are
compatible with the existing industrial users in the area and would not prevent a future industrial user
from occupying this site later.
SP201300009 – All Things Pawssible
Planning Commission: June 4, 2013
4
Lastly, the proposed use provides several positive services for the community. The training
and socialization of dogs helps prevent dangerous interactions. The supervised exercise and
boarding provides a safe and humane place for dogs to stay while people work or go out of
town. The special events provide a place where the community can learn more about
responsible pet ownership. Collectively, these services help keep dogs in their homes and
help prevent stray animals. They support services that reduce the burden on the
Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA and our Animal Control Division.
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA
Section 26.3 of the Zoning Ordinance also requires the following factors be considered for
general commercial uses in this district:
a. The purpose of the industrial district in which the use is proposed.
The PUD-Commercial and PUD-Industrial areas were designated to allow commercial and industrial
uses that primarily support and serve the residential portions of the PUD. The proposed use will serve
customers that live both within and outside of the residential portions of the Mill Creek PUD.
b. The proposed use and its proposed size should be consistent with the intent of the
applicable industrial district.
Uses in PUD-Industrial areas are regulated by the Light Industry (LI) zoning district regulations. The
intent of the LI district is “to permit industrial and supporting uses that are compatible with, and do not
detract from, surrounding districts.” This use is compatible with uses in the PUD and surrounding
districts and uses.
c. The use proposed should not be located on the lowest floor of any building having direct
exterior access to the ground surface in order to allow that floor to be used for industrial
purposes.
The proposed use would occupy the lowest floor of the existing building having direct exterior access.
Therefore, it would prevent other industrial users from using this space while operating as proposed.
d. The gross floor area of each establishment should not exceed three thousand (3,000) square
feet.
The gross floor area of this use occupies the entire building, which is approximately 8,000 square feet.
e. The aggregate gross floor area of the independent offices or general commercial uses, or
both, should not exceed twenty-four thousand (24,000) square feet and should not exceed
twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the building.
The aggregate gross floor area is below 24,000 square feet, but it encompasses 100% of the gross
floor area of the building.
f. Whether the structure or structure expansion will be constructed to the standards required
for industrial structures, regardless of its intended use.
The improvements shown on the conceptual plan would meet industrial building standards and would
not prevent a future industrial user from occupying this space.
SP201300009 – All Things Pawssible
Planning Commission: June 4, 2013
5
SUMMARY:
Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request:
1. The proposed use provides services that support the community.
2. No detrimental impacts to adjoining properties are anticipated.
3. The proposed use is compatible with other industrial users in the district.
4. The site could revert back to an industrial user in the future.
Staff finds the following factor(s) unfavorable to this request:
1. Loss of space that could otherwise be available for industrial uses.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of SP201300009, All Things Pawssible with the following
conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “All Things
Pawssible Conceptual Plan” dated March 18, 2013, and revised May 28, 2013, as determined
by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design, as shown on the plan:
• Location of outdoor play areas
• Height, type and material for fencing around outdoor play areas
• Location of approved parking areas
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The total number of dogs admitted for daycare each day shall not exceed 70 dogs.
3. The total number of dogs kept for boarding shall not exceed 30 dogs.
4. The total number of guests invited for events shall not exceed 75 people.
5. Dogs located in outdoor play areas shall be supervised by the permittee’s staff.
6. Off-site parking shall be provided for any event allowed by Condition 4 for which more than 12
guests are invited. Prior to the first event or in conjunction with approval of a site plan for the
site, whichever occurs first, the permittee shall obtain approval of an instrument for shared
parking as provided under Albemarle County Code §§ 18-4.12.8(e) and 18-4.12.10 for up to 63
invited guests.
7. The use shall commence on or before July 3, 2018 or the permit shall expire and be of no effect.
MOTION:
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP201300009, All Things Pawssible, with conditions as stated
in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP201300009, All Things Pawssible. Should a commissioner
motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
SP201300009 – All Things Pawssible
Planning Commission: June 4, 2013
6
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Area Map
Attachment B – Zoning Map with PUD Designations
Attachment C – Conceptual Plan dated March 18, 2013, revised May 28, 2013
Return to PC actions letter
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Attachment A: Proposed Location
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources May 21, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
200 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Zoning Info
Zoning Classifications
Rural Areas
Village Residential
R1 Residential
R2 Residential
R4 Residential
R6 Residential
R10 Residential
R15 Residential
Planned Unit Developmen
Planned Residential Devel
Neighborhood Model Distri
Monticello Historic District
C1 Commercial
Commercial Office
Highway Commercial
Planned Development Sh
Planned Development Mix
Downtown Crozet District
Light Industry
Heavy Industry
Planned Development Ind
Town of Scottsville
Zoning Map with PUD Designations
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources May 22, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
181 ft
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 4, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, June
4, 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, Richard Randolph, Don Franco,
Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Absent was Thomas
Loach. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia
was absent.
Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning; J. T. Newberry, Senior
Planner; Brent Nelson, Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk
to Planning Commission; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner,
Deputy County Attorney.
Public Hearing Items
b. SP-2013-00009 All Things Pawssible
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for dog day care, training and overnight boarding.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Airport Impact Overlay and Planned Unit
Development (Industrial)
SECTION: 29.2.2.1 Commercial Kennel (via Section 26.2)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service – warehousing,
light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited
production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference
facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 4.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 1201 Stoney Ridge Road (Rt. 1000) [appx. 750 feet from intersection of
Stoney Ridge Road and Southern Parkway (Rt. 1165)]
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076M1000001200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(JT Newberry)
J.T. Newberry presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
Proposal:
• Request for Special Use Permit to allow a dog daycare, training and overnight
boarding facility.
• Additional uses include limited events on weekends, a small retail area for
specialty dog foods/treats, an 80 square foot room for specialty services
(groomer/masseur), and a 500 square foot residential dwe lling unit for an
employee.
This proposal is located in the Mill Creek Industrial Park. There is a variety of zoning
along Stoney Ridge Road. It is mostly Planned Unit Development Industrial. However,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
2
there are some exceptions to that. The two parcels closest to the intersection with
Southern Parkway are zoned PUD-Commercial (this is where Bright Beginnings and the
Peabody School are located) and the rest of the parcels in the vicinity are zoned PUD -
Industrial, except for the ProBuild building supply site, which has full Light Industry
zoning.
The applicant is proposing outdoor play areas that would occupy the bottom parking lot
area as well as about 850 square feet on the south side of the building. The site has a
pretty significant slope looking from right to left. The building on the far right hand side is
a medical office building that currently has a dentist and Charlottesville Family Medicine.
The current tenants in the building are Farmers Insurance and Medi Home Care (a
company that provides medical equipment and other services for the elderly). The
gravel area adjacent to the existing parking area is proposed to be paved to meet the
standards for a parking area in our development areas.
The areas mentioned earlier that encompass the outdoor play areas for the dogs is
shown in the applicant’s Concept Plan. There are three areas that will allow outdoor
play areas for the dogs arriving for daycare. The first area for the small dogs would be
located on the south side of the building and be approximately 855 square feet. The
second and third areas for the middle and large dogs will be next to each other and
occupy the entire lower parking area. All of these areas would be screened with 6 foot
tall solid white vinyl fencing.
*The applicant could speak more to this factor, but the core of this business (the training
and supervision) is supportive of the SPCA and Animal Control unit, which has four
police officers. This year’s County budget allocation to the SPCA was over $500,000.
• Favorable Factors:
▫ The proposed use provides services that support the community.
▫ No detrimental impacts to adjoining properties are anticipated.
▫ The proposed use is compatible with other industrial users in the district.
▫ The site could revert back to an industrial user in the future.
• Unfavorable Factors:
▫ Loss of space that could otherwise be available for industrial uses.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval of SP-2013-00009 subject to the conditions in staff’s
presentation. The conditions are the same as the ones in the staff report. However, the
conditions have been reworded with the help of the County Attorney’s Office.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Dotson noted the staff report on page 4 talks about additional spec ial use permit
criteria. Section 26.3 also requires the following factors be considered. He just wanted
to make sure the literal wording in the ordinance is being considered rather than
required.
Mr. Kamptner replied they have shifted away from the mandatory findings.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
3
Mr. Dotson pointed out that “be considered” is accurate.
Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Kamptner if it has come up before on a state level about
appropriate disposal of dog waste so that it does not go into the storm water system.
He noted there would be liquid waste that potentially will go into storm water.
Mr. Smith pointed out it goes into the sanitary sewer.
Mr. Randolph removed the question. He noted that he was talking about outside and
not inside.
Mr. Morris asked does it go into the sanitary sewer in that it is being hosed off.
Mr. Newberry pointed out the applicant can answer that question. However, the County
Engineer told him there have been some studies that look at the impact of waste like
this going into a storm water basin. His opinion was that liquid waste would not impact
the ability of the storm water basin to function. It is really only if the solid waste was not
bagged and picked up that they would begin to impact the area.
Mr. Randolph noted the fecal coli form level would be so low and diluted.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for the applicant and public comment. He invited
the applicant to come forward and address the Planning Commission.
Karen Quillen and Sean Julian, co-owners of All Things Pawssible, represented the
application.
Ms. Quillen said basically they have been part of the community for about 11 ½ years.
They provide a service that is extremely imp ortant to the community in terms of
education and safety, training of dogs, and places for dogs to go where they are safe to
play. They don’t have a lot of those places any longer. They p rovide educational
programs outside of what they do on a day to day basis; are a large part of the
community; teach classes at Martha Jefferson Hospital; and have worked for the SPCA
for many years volunteering and working in other capacities. They hope at some point
the community will really recognize the impact they have and hope the Commission will
see that as well.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Dotson asked if they would be the sole occupant of the two-story structure.
Ms. Quillen replied yes, they will.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Pam Holden said that her four-legged child, Emma, has been a regular day care goer at
All Things Pawssible for the past eight years. She cannot say enough good things about
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
4
All Things Pawssible. They are a wonderful organization and she just wanted to
comment on that.
Melinda Bowman, a City of Charlottesville homeowner, said they have been taking their
dog to Karen, Sean and All Things Pawssible for almost ten years. She just wanted to
speak in support of anything Karen wants to do to expand her business. She asked the
Commission to support the expansion request.
K. B. Burdock, an employee at All Things Pawssible speaking on behalf of the
employees, said she was incredibly blessed to be a member of All Things Pawssible.
She recognizes what they offer for the community more than anything else. The
education that our clients receive is incredible knowledge. Especially in a town like
Charlottesville, which is so dog oriented, it is incredibly important to have the education
come through to make sure that our dogs are happy and safe in the community. As an
employee, she would like to say that she found her place in the world here. She knows
this company is worth a million dollars and thinks they deserve to look like a million
dollars. That is what this is about. It gives them the ability to take everything that they
have learned in the last ten years of having this doggie daycare and turning it into
exactly what it needs to be to make the dogs safer, to make them look better , and to
have a really nice place to drop your dog off and be able to say my guy is safe for the
day.
Mr. Morris invited further public comment. There being none, the public hearing was
closed and the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Dotson said he was speaking essentially in favor of approval. However, he had
some comments about the Commission’s considerations when they have commercial
uses in industrial districts. He was guessing that the conditions about the ground floor
and the limited square footage and so forth probably were not met by the previous
occupants either from what he thinks was described. So by approving this they were
not moving backwards in any way and perhaps they were moving forward. The other
thing is his personal feelings about this kind of use and is it really commercial or is it
really industrial. It is sort of a hybrid because potentially there is noise, which he
associates that with industrial not retail or service commercial. Potentially there is a
waste issue, which he associates with industry. Potentially there is outside activity,
which does not associate with retail and service. So it is not really running contrary to
their thinking here because he thinks it really is an industrial use and intends to support
the request.
Mr. Randolph agreed with Mr. Dotson’s summary and thinks it is a good use for the
facility. He congratulates the owners for their ability to move into an expanded facility
and delighted they are moving into the County.
Mr. Morris invited other comments or a motion.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of
SP-2013-00009, All Things Pawssible, with the conditions as modified and included in
staff’s presentation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
5
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
“All Things Pawssible Conceptual Plan” dated March 18, 2013, and revised May
28, 2013, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development
and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development
essential to the design, as shown on the plan:
Location of outdoor play areas
Height, type and material for fencing around outdoor play areas
Location of approved parking areas
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The total number of dogs admitted for daycare each day shall not exceed 70
dogs.
3. The total number of dogs kept for boarding shall not exceed 30 dogs.
4. The total number of guests invited for events shall not exceed 75 people.
5. Dogs located in outdoor play areas shall be supervised by the permittee’s staff.
6. Off-site parking shall be provided for any event open to the public or allowed by
Condition 4 for which more than 12 guests are invited. Prior to the first event or in
conjunction with approval of a site plan for the site, whichever occurs first, the
permittee shall obtain approval of an instrument for shared parking as provided
under Albemarle County Code §§ 18-4.12.8(e) and 18-4.12.10 for up to 63
invited guests.
7. The use shall commence on or before July 3, 2018 or permit shall expire and be
of no effect.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that a recommendation for approval of SP-2013-00009, All Things
Pawssible would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to a date to be determined.
New Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business.
Mr. Lafferty noted the All Things Pawssible staff report mentioned there is a
shared parking agreement. He asked if staff has a way of tracking those
agreements. Mr. Benish noted the zoning department keeps track of those
agreements.
Question about enforcement of shared parking agreements. Staff noted the
zoning department keeps track of those agreements.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
June 14, 2013
Stephen Waller
536 Pantops Center
Charlottesville, VA. 22911
RE: SP201300011 - Brochu /Verizon Wireless
TAX MAP PARCEL: 127000000040A0
Dear Mr. Waller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 4, 2013, by a vote of 6:0
recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is subject to the following condition:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Boiling
Siding (Brochu Property) 3706 Irish Road, Esmont, VA22937” prepared by Justin Y. Yoon
latest revision date 5/15/13 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director
of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual
Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual
Plan.:
a. Height
b. Distance above reference tree
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may
be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ord inance.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on July 10, 2013.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do no t
hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Brent Nelson
Planner
Planning Division
cc: Brochu, Judith G
P.O. Box 1
Esmont, VA. 22937
View staff report with attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 201300011 Brochu Property- Verizon
Tier III PWSF
Staff: Brent Nelson, Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
June 4, 2013
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
July 10, 2013
Owners: Judith G. Brochu Applicant: Stephen Waller, GDN Sites; Lori
H. Schweller, LeClairRyan
Acreage: 21.10 acres
(Lease Area: 2,500 square feet)
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
facilities in the RA Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 127 Parcel 40A
Location: 3706 Irish Road
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers/Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: A ninety-five (95) foot Verizon treetop
monopole and associated ground equipment Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural
Area 4.
Character of Property: A moderately small, rural
property on the north side of Route 6 that is largely
wooded and with one single-family home.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas-
single family residential
Factors Favorable:
1. The monopole is located so that only the top
section of the monopole containing the
antennas is expected to be visible and only
through trees.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has
advised that there would be minimal visibility
from Route 6, the Entrance Corridor.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposal is located within the
Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District
and within the Route 6 Entrance Corridor;
however, the impact to these
resources is mitigated by the limited
visibility of the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of SP 201300011 with conditions
2
STAFF CONTACT: Brent Nelson, Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: June 4, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: July 10, 2013
AGENDA TITLE: SP201300011: Brochu Property- Verizon Tier III
PROPERTY OWNER: Judith G. Brochu
APPLICANT: Verizon
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility (Attachment A).
The facility will contain a steel monopole that would be approximately 95 feet tall (10 feet
AMSL above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet), with associated ground equipment
contained within a 2,500 square foot lease area. The property is 21.1 acres, described as Tax
Map 127, Parcel 40A, located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and zoned RA, Rural
Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor (Attachment B). The property is also located within the
Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 4.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The proposed facility is to be located on a 21.11 acre parcel located on the north side of Route 6,
just east of the intersection with Route 717. The facility is to be situated approximately 567 ft.
north of Route 6 in a wooded section of the parcel. There is an existing PWSF approximately
900 feet to the northeast on the adjoining parcel. The general character of the area is rural. The
site is within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, a National Register district.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SUB199400115: Family division, approved
SP200800017: Request to construct an 92 ft. Tier III PWSF, withdrawn
DISCUSSION:
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the planning commission and board of
supervisors shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting upon an
application for a special use permit:
No substantial detriment. The proposed use will not be a substantial detriment to
adjacent lots.
The property is located in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. The Architectural
Review Board staff person determined that the proposed location is expected to sufficiently
minimize the visibility of the monopole from the Route 6 Entrance Corridor and historic sites
in the vicinity (Attachment C). It is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial
detriment to the adjacent properties. The facility is located in a wooded area with ample
3
vegetation to screen the site (Attachment D). The monopole would only be visible through
wooded areas where the trees are expected to significantly minimize its visibility
Character of district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed by the
proposed special use.
It is staff’s opinion that the character of the zoning district will not change with this use.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this chapter,…
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in
Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the
Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is consistent with
both sections.
…with the uses permitted by right in the district,…
No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the RA, Rural Area district are
anticipated. The proposed personal wireless service facility will not restrict any nearby by-
right uses within the Rural Areas district. Staff has not received any negative comments from
citizens.
…with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable, and with the public health,
safety and general welfare. The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community
is protected through the special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by
special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. In this case, the proposed facility
will give Verizon the ability to offer another choice of personal wireless service
communication by providing a full range of voice and data services in addition to the required
E911 call services. This can be seen as contributing to the public health, safety and welfare on
a regional level. Compliance with Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance is discussed in the
following section of this report.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The supplementary regulations and design standards have been
developed to provide consistency with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and wireless Policy.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e)
are addressed as follows.
Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III . Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of a
special use permit by the board of supervisors, initiated upon an application satisfying the
requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 33.4, and it shall be installed and operated in
compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the following:
1. The facility shall comply with applicable requirements subsections 5.1.40(b), the
requirements of subsections 5.1.40(c)(2) through (8) and the requirements of subsections
5.1.40 (d)(2),(3) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during special use permit
review.
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit.
4
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 33.4 uniform
procedures for owner-initiated zoning map amendments and special use permits have been met.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The County's specific design
criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and 5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as
follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics]
Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as
otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations
in this chapter.
The proposed wireless facility will meet required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other
area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. The proposed 95 foot tall monopole
is located approximately 169 feet from the nearest parcel line. Attached site drawings, antennae
and equipment specifications have been provided to demonstrate that personal wireless service
facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of
the zoning ordinance have been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): General design. The facility shall be designed, installed and maintained
as follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be
permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor
luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; provided that these
restrictions shall not apply to any outdoor lighting required by federal law; (iii) any equipment
shelter not located within the existing structure or an existing building shall be screened from all
lot lines either by terrain, existing structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation
approved by the agent; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the
height of the existing structure or the existing building; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall
not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and
tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the facility, the existing structure or the existing
building; and (vi) within thirty (30) after completion of the installation of the facility, the
applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that the height of all components of
the facility complies with this regulation.
The proposed monopole does not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted with
any whip antennas. The proposed grounding rod complies with the size requirements. Outdoor
light fixtures will be shielded. All proposed lighting is for temporary maintenance and security
use only. All associated ground equipment will be shielded from all lot lines by existing
vegetation and terrain.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Antennas and associated equipment. Antennas and associated
equipment that are not entirely within a proposed facility, an existing facility, an existing
structure, or an existing building shall be subject ot the following: (i) the total number of arrays
of antennas shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed under the pending application
shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one
hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the facility, structure
or building beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any
point on the face of an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the facility, structure
or building; and (iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the
existing facility, structure or building. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and
5
dishes, regardless of their use, shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays.
The proposed antennae configuration will consist of two arrays with three panel antennas. The
antennas on one array will measure 94.6” x 11.2” x 4.5” while those on the other array will
measure 47.4” x 16.8” x 3.5”. Each antenna shall not exceed 1,152 square inches. These
antennas will be installed using “pipe-mounts” that will allow for any required amount of down-
tilting without exceeding the County’s requirements for flush-mounts (12- inches maximum
between the face of the monopole and the face of the antennae). All antennae will be painted to
match the color of the tower.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Tree conservation plan. Before the building official issuance of a
building permit for the facility, the applicant shall submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a
certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for review and approval to enssure
that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection
methods and procedures, identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the
installation, operation and maintenance of the facility, and shall identify all dead and dying trees
that are recommended to be removed. In approving the plan, the agent may identify additional
trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan.
The installation of the proposed personal wireless service facility will require the removal of
some trees and the installation of an equipment shelter on concrete piers. The removal of the
trees and installation of the steel platform does not affect the visibility or screening of the tower
and associated equipment. Prior to the submittal of a building permit, the applicant will provide a
tree conservation plan, prepared by a certified arborist, verifying that the proposed grading and
installation of the equipment shelter will not adversely impact the survival of trees designated to
remain.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5) Tree conservation plan; compliance; amendment. The installation,
operation and maintenance of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the tree
conservation plan. The applicant shall not remove existing trees within the lease area or within
one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility
except for those trees identified on the plan to be removed for the installation, operation, and
maintenance of the facility and dead and dying trees. Before the applicant removes any tree not
designated for removal on the approved plan, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of
an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the proposed tree removal will
not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any location off of the parcel. The agent may
impose reasonable conditions to ensure that the purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
In order to ensure that there is no significant impact to any of the trees that are to remain, the
conservation plan will be completed prior to the submittal of a building permit. Operation and
maintenance of the facility will be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): Discontinuance of use; notice thereof; removal; surety. Within thirty
(30) days after a facility’s use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued, the owner
of the facility shall notify the zoning administrator in writing that the facility’s use has
discontinued. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90)
days after the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the agent
determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as
required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a
certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and
6
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be
to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be
required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) whether there is a change in technology that
makes it likely that the monopole or tower will be unnecessary in the near future; (ii) the
permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or conditions; (iii) the permittee fails to
timely remove another monopole or tower within the county; and (iv) whenever otherwise
deemed necessary by the agent.
Should use of the tower site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future,
Verizon and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): Creation of slopes steeper than 2:1. No slopes associated with the
installation of the facility and its accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless
retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer
are employed.
No slopes associated with the installation of the facility are steeper than 2:1.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): Ground equipment shelter; fencing. Any ground equipment shelter not
located within an existing building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon
finding that the fence: (i) would protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of
vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or
wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and (iii) would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
The proposal includes a 50’x 50’ lease area that will be fenced with a 6 ft. tall wooden privacy
fence and gate. Staff has found that this fence will not be detrimental to the character of the area,
nor the public health, safety or general welfare and would protect the facility from wildlife.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): Screening and siting to minimize visibility. The site shall provide adequate
opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent
parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. The facility also shall be sited
to minimize its visibility from any state scenic river, national park or national forest, regardless
of whether the site is adjacent to the river, park or forest. If the facility would be located on
lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a
conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible
from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.
The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 95 feet
above ground level (AGL) or 769 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the
reference tree is approximately 759 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located within
25’of the proposed monopole.
A balloon test was conducted on April 25, 2013 (Attachment E). During the site visit, staff
observed a test balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole.
Routes 6, 722, 717 and 715 were traveled to determine the extent of visibility of the proposal.
The balloon was visible from Route 6, but only in the immediate vicinity of the property and
only through trees. The balloon was also visible from one location along Route 722 but only
through trees that minimized its visibility. There were no sustained views of the balloon above
the trees. It is Staff’s opinion that at the ten foot height, the low level of visibility is not expected
7
to have a negative impact on the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, the Route 6
Entrance Corridor or nearby historic properties.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): Open space resources. The facility shall not adversely impact resources
identified in the county’s open space plan.
The County’s wireless service facilities policy encourages facilities with limited visibility,
facilities with adequate wooded backdrop, and facilities that do not adversely impact Avoidance
Areas (including Entrance Corridors and historic resources). Staff’s analysis of this request
addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic resources. The proposed lease
area is located within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District in the Open Space Plan
(Attachment F). However, Architectural Review Board staff found that the facilities’ limited
visibility is not expected to have any adverse scenic impact.
The Architectural Review Board staff has expressed no objection to the proposed site. .
Therefore, staff feels the visibility of the monopole will not adversely impact the resources of the
entrance corridor or those listed as avoidance areas.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Color of monopole, antennas and equipment. Each monopole shall be a
dark brown natural or painted wood color that blends into the surrounding trees. The antennas,
supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that
closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment shelter, and
the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the monopole, provided that
the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not closely match the color of the monopole if
they are enclosed within a ground equipment shelter or within or behind an approved structure,
façade or fencing that: (i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent
with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment, ground equipment shelter,
and the concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or private
street.
The applicant is proposing to install a steel monopole. The proposed color for the tower and
associated ground equipment is Sherwin Williams Java Brown #6090 to match existing
surroundings. There will also be an equipment shelter with a dark aggregate stone exterior.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
The facility would comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section
33.8).
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that
the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for
8
radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting
structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna
additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of
personal wireless services.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The monopole is located so that only the top section of the monopole containing the
antennas is expected to be visible and only through trees.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has advised that there would be minimal visibility
from Route 6, the Entrance Corridor.
3. There is limited visibility of the tower from nearby historic sites/district and conservation
easement properties and nearby public roads and properties.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The proposal is within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District and located
within the Route 6 Entrance Corridor; however, the impact to these resources is
mitigated by the limited visibility of the site.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is
required to provide the applicant with a statement regarding the basis for denial and all items that
will have to be addressed to satisfy each requirement.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this facility at ten (10) feet above the
tallest tree with the conditions outlined below.
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Boiling
Siding (Brochu Property) 3706 Irish Road, Esmont, VA22937” prepared by Justin Y.
Yoon latest revision date 5/15/13 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within
the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual
Plan.:
a. Height
b. Distance above reference tree
9
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Architectural Review Board Staff Comments
D. Site Photos
E. Balloon Test
F. Open Space & Critical Resource Map
Motion: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201300011) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 201300011 Brochu Property Verizon Tier III
PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201300011 Brochu Property Verizon Tier III
PWSF. (Planning Commission needs to give reasons for denial)
Return to PC actions letter
REV. NO.DESCRIPTION DATEBY
APPROVAL
BROCHU PROPERTY
CONSULTING TEAM PROJECT SUMMARY
11
REV. NO.DESCRIPTION DATEBY
G-1
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
SITE
PROJECT
SITE
PROJECT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
INSTALLATION OF MONOPOLE, COMPOUND AND OPERATION
OF ANTENNAS AND BASE STATION EQUIPMENT IN A RAW-LAND
LEASE AREA
BOILING SIDING
RAWLAND
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)SURVEY NOTESBOILING SIDINGRAWLANDC-1 LEGENDABBREVIATIONS LEASE NOTES CONSTRUCTION NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)BOILING SIDINGRAWLANDC-1ATREE INVENTORY LEASE NOTES CONSTRUCTION NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)BOILING SIDINGRAWLANDC-1B NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)BOILING SIDINGRAWLANDC-2 CONSTRUCTION NOTESNOTES LEASE NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)BOILING SIDINGRAWLANDC-2A CONSTRUCTION NOTESGRADING NOTESE & S CONTROL LEGEND
NOTESBOILING SIDINGRAWLANDC-3ENLARGED VIEWENLARGED VIEWANTENNA NOTES
C-4CONSTRUCTION NOTESGENERAL NOTESBOILING SIDINGRAWLAND
PLANTING SCHEDULEBOILING SIDINGRAWLANDL-1L-1GRAPHIC SCALE(S)NOTES CONSTRUCTION NOTES
L-2BOILING SIDINGRAWLAND
BOILING SIDING
RAWLAND
NOTES
MIRRORED SHELTER
A-1
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
SP201300011_Verizon-Brochu_Vicinity Map
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources May 22, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
851 ft
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brent Nelson
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: ARB-2013-43 and SP-2013-11: Brochu (Verizon) Boiling Siding Tier 3
DATE: April 25, 2013
A balloon test was conducted on April 25, 2013 for the above referenced application. Routes 6, 722, 717
and 715 in the vicinity of the site were traveled to determine visibility. The balloon was visible from the
Route 6 Entrance Corridor, but only in the immediate vicinity of the property, and when the balloon was
visible, it was seen through a wooded area where the trees significantly minimized visibility. There were
no sustained views of the balloon above the trees, as viewed from the EC. The narrowness and winding
character of the road, and the wooded areas lining the road, contributed to minimizing the visibility of the
balloon from the EC. Given the location of the ground equipment and the surrounding wooded area, the
equipment is not expected to be seen from the EC. Overall, the visibility of the balloon was minimal and
the proposed facility is not expected to have a negative impact on the EC.
The balloon was also visible from Rt. 722 in the vicinity of the driveway at 7607 Old Green Mountain
Road. From this location the balloon was also seen through wooded area, with the trees minimizing
visibility.
Regarding the ground equipment: The proposed ground equipment is not expected to be visible from the
Entrance Corridor.
Regarding visibility of the monopole: Given the extremely limited degree of visibility displayed at the
balloon test, the proposed location of the facility is expected to sufficiently minimize the visibility of the
monopole from the Route 6 EC such that no negative impact on the Entrance Corridor is anticipated.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 4, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, June
4, 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, Richard Randolph, Don Franco,
Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Absent was Thomas
Loach. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia
was absent.
Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning; J. T. Newberry, Senior
Planner; Brent Nelson, Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk
to Planning Commission; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner,
Deputy County Attorney.
Public Hearing Items
a. SP-2013-00011-Verizon Wireless/Boiling Siding/Brochu Property - Tier III
Personal Wireless Service Facility
PROPOSED: Request for installation of a 95’ tall monopole structure & associated
ground equipment on 21.1 acres. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal,
and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots), and
Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or
cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist
access.
SECTION: Chapter 18 Section 10.2.2.48 of the Albemarle County Code, which
allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 – preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density
(0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
LOCATION: Tax Map 127, Parcel 40A: At the intersection of Irish Road [State Route
6] and Old Green Mountain Road [State Route 722]
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Brent Nelson)
Brent Nelson presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
The applicant, Verizon, is proposing to install a 95 foot tall Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Treetop Facility, along with associated ground equipment at 3706 Irish Road.
The top of the proposed monopole will be 10 feet above the 85 foot tall reference tree,
identified as a 22” caliper Poplar.
The proposed facility is to be located on a 21.10 acre parcel located on the northeast
side of Route 6, Irish Road, just east of the intersection with Secretary Sands Road. The
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
2
facility is to be situated approximately 567 feet north of Route 6 in a heavily wooded
section of the parcel. The general character of the parcel is rural consisting of heavily
wooded areas and a single family home. Because the proposed facility is located in an
avoidance area, the Southern Albemarle Historic District, a special use permit is
required.
The first site plan drawing shows the location of the facility on the parcel, the existing
access drive used to reach it, and the existing single family residence. The next site
plan drawing shows the location of the proposed monopole, the reference tree, the
entrance drive, and the proposed equipment shelter.
A balloon test was conducted on April 25, 2013. The balloon was floated at the
approximate height of the proposed facility. Staff traveled nearby roads and proper ties
to determine the visual impact. In a photo taken from Route 6 directly in front of the
parcel the visibility of the balloon is minimal due to the significant number of trees and
vegetation. In another photo taken from Route 6 just east of the site th ere were no
sustained views of the balloon above the trees. A photo taken from 7607 Old Green
Mountain Road, just south of Route 6 and the parcel under review, the balloon once
again is only visible through trees.
Staff identified the following favorable and unfavorable factors to this proposal:
Factors Favorable:
1. The monopole is located so that only the top section of the monopole containing
the antennas is expected to be visible and only through trees.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has advised that there would be minimal
visibility from Route 6, the Entrance Corridor.
3. There is limited visibility of the tower from nearby historic sites/district and
conservation easement properties and nearby public roads and properties.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposal is within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District and
located within the Route 6 Entrance Corridor; however, the impact to these
resources is mitigated by the limited visibility of the site.
Staff did not identify any factors that would prevent them from recommending approval.
Staff recommends approval of this facility at ten (10) feet above the tallest tree with the
conditions outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. There being none, he opened the publi c hearing
for the applicant and public comment. He invited the applicant to come forward and
address the Planning Commission.
Laurie Schweller, attorney with LeClair Ryan and representative for Verizon Wireless,
presented a PowerPoint presentation. Others present were Stuart Squire, zoning
consultant with GDN Sites, and Ms. Judy Brochu, property owner. She thought Mr.
Nelson covered all of the important points about this application. However, she wanted
to add to those points some comments that might b e helpful to the Commission as they
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
3
move forward to phase two of the zoning ordinance amendment. On May 8 the Board
approved some excellent amendments to the personal wireless service facilities
ordinance. They will be moving on to phase two that will address more of the design
and sighting issues, which they can improve on. One thing she would like to touch on,
which they have often talked about in these meetings , is that this is one of the sites that
would be a Tier II except for the fact that it is in an avoidance area, The Southern
Albemarle Historic District. The site meets all of the criteria in the design, antenna size,
and height above the reference tree as a Tier II facility. They are hoping in the phase
two portion of the amendments they can scale back some of the avoidance areas, such
as historical districts. She thinks that is something the Board has expressed some
interest in doing. She also thinks the Commission has as well.
Ms. Schweller pointed out that avoidance areas include ridge areas where poles would
be sky lit, agricultural forestall districts, historic districts, any location where you have
the site and three others within a 200 foot radius, and within 200 feet of a Scenic
Highway or By Way. To make it perfectly clear by defin ition a Tier II site cannot be an
avoidance area. Therefore, that bumps it up to a Tier III. So they are talking about a
large number of areas in the County including agricultural, forestall, historic districts,
Virginia By Ways and Scenic Highways, etc. It is a huge part of the County. She just
wanted to make that point as they move forward to the next portion of the ordinance.
However, this site as the photograph showed was very minimally visible. They strained
to see the balloon from most locations. She pointed out that Valerie Long noted that in
the slide right before the motion it referred to the Orrock property instead of the Brochu
property, which should be corrected. She would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the adjacent property owners were notified about the balloon test.
Ms. Schweller replied she did not notify adjacent property owners about the balloon test
for this site.
Mr. Smith noted that he was offended that he was not invited to the balloon test.
Ms. Schweller pointed out she normally invites the Planning Commission for every
balloon test.
Mr. Morris noted that normally the Commissioners receive an email about balloon tests.
Ms. Schweller apologized if he did not get notified, but that next time she would give him
a call.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed
and the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Dotson seconded to recommend approval of SP-
2013-00011 Brochu Property Verizon Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the
staff report, as amended.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
4
The Planning Commission recommends approval of this facility at ten (10) feet above
the tallest tree with the conditions outlined below.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
“Boiling Siding (Brochu Property) 3706 Irish Road, Esmont, VA22937” prepared
by Justin Y. Yoon latest revision date 5/15/13 (hereaf ter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in
general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan.:
a. Height
b. Distance above reference tree
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may
be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2013-00011 Brochu Property Verizon Tier III PWSF would go
to the Board of Supervisors on July 10, 2013 with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
ZMA 201300001
BOS July 10, 2013
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201300001, The Lofts at Meadowcreek
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to rezone approximately 2.80 acres
from R-4 residential zoning district to NMD-
Neighborhood Model District zoning district to
allow a proposed 65 maximum dwelling unit
apartment building.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
July 10, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On June 4, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for The Lofts at Meadowcreek rezoning
request. The Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of ZMA201300001 provided the applicant
address the factors unfavorable identified by staff, including revisions to the proffers, application plan and code
of development. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The proffers need to be substantively and technically revised.
2. Fire/Rescue’s concern regarding fire safety of the site needs to be addressed.
3. The Application Plan and the Code of Development needs to be technically and substantively
revised.
4. VDOT issue regarding an internal access road to detention facility needs to be addressed.
5. No cash proffers provided.
The Commission also recommended that the cash proffers be provided, but instead of the cash proffer amount
being based on the total number of units proposed (minus the number of affordable units provided), the total
amount of the cash proffers should be calculated based on the number of new units above the eleven (11) by right
units permitted by the current zoning.
A special exception for a parking waiver was requested by the applicant. At the time of the Commission’s
action, the waiver was still under review by the Zoning Division and additional information was needed from
the applicant; therefore, no recommendation was made by the Commission on this request.
Staff has provided a status on the Commission’s recommendations below.
DISCUSSION:
In response to the Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant has provided the following:
1. The proffers have been revised and addressed all outstanding technical issues .
2. The application plan now includes a note describing an automatic sprinkler system installed in the
building. However, Fire/Rescue staff continues to be concerned with the lack of access for emergency
vehicles to get around the entire building, specifically to be able to access the eastern side (back) of the
building. The provision of sprinklers alone does not adequate ly address this issue. Staff suggests the
installation of a fire escape at the rear of the building and/or a note be added to the plan describing that the
plan will address the fire/rescue concerns at the site plan stage as ways to address this issue. Ideally fire
apparatus should be able to access the rear of the site and circulate around the building from a road or
ZMA 201300001
BOS July 10, 2013
Executive Summary Page 2
paved area. This site is small in size, with proposed retaining walls, and stormwater facilities at the rear and
east end of the site, making adequate access around the entire building more difficult to acheive without
further modifications or redesign of the site. It would be preferable to resolve this issue during the rezoning
stage so the approved application plan can reflect the improvments and modifications that are needed to
achieve adequate emergency vehicle access to the building. This will avoid potential inconsistencies with
the application plan during the site plan review process.
3. With the exception of the Fire/Rescue issue described above , the Application Plan and the Code of
Development have been adequately revised. (See Attachment I for revised Application Plan and Code of
Development)
4. VDOT has no objections to this rezoning request as long as the following comments are addressed at the
site plan stage: 1) The right turn lane measurement needs to begin radius return for the entrance and 2)
The storage and taper lengths determination needs to be provid ed for review.
5. The applicant has not provided for any cash proffers under the cash proffer policy for public facilities.
The applicant has added Proffer 4, a cash proffer in the amount of $20,000 , specifically for sidewalk
improvements. The proffered funds could be used toward constructing a sidewalk or path from the northern
boundary of site and across Tax Map Parcel 061A0 -00-00-03900, providing for continuous sidewalk from
the Lofts property to Pen Park Lane and Pen Park. It is unlikely that that th is amount will fully fund the cost
of construction for this section of sidewalk. The proffers do not reflect the Planning Commission’s
recommendation of a reduction to reflect the eleven (11) by right units and the three (3) additional
affordable units that are being proffered. (See Attachment II for revised proffers)
The applicant has adequately addressed the parking waiver issues and staff can recommend approval of
the parking waiver request.
The applicant is proposing to use a mixed –income financing product from VHDA which requires that 20% of
the units be affordable. If this rezoning request is approved by the Board, a resolution regarding the
financing will need to be approved by the Board. This will be provided to the Board at a later date (to be
determined).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The cash proffers as recommended by the Planning Commission have not been addressed. The Fire/Rescue
concerns regarding fire safety of the site still remain a concern for staff. All other outstanding issues from the
Planning Commission recommendations have been addressed.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment I: Code of Development, dated June 17, 2013, inclusive of Application Plan, dated January 22,
2013, revised May 13, 2013 (Sheet 4 of 5 revised June 10, 2013)
Attachment II: Proffers, dated July 2, 2013
View PC actions letter and attachments
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
June 14, 2013
Mr. William Park
1821 Avon Street, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
RE: ZMA201300001 – The Lofts at Meadowcreek
TAX MAP PARCEL: 061A0000001500 & 061A0000001700
Dear Mr. Park:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 4, 2013, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
Recommend approval of ZMA-2013-00001 with revised proffers as recommended by staff and
amended to reflect a reduction in the cash proffer to refl ect the eleven (11) by right units and the
three (3) additional affordable units that are being proffered .
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The proffers need to be substantively and technically revised.
2. Fire/Rescue’s concern regarding fire safety of the site needs to be addressed.
3. The Application Plan and the Code of Development needs to be technically and
substantively revised.
4. VDOT issue regarding an internal access road to detention facility needs to be
addressed.
5. No cash proffers provided.
In addition, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the following special
exceptions:
For waiver of Section 20A.8(a) and (b) of the Zoning Ordinance, Neighborhood Model District
that requires a mixture of dwelling unit types and a mixture of uses.
For waiver to allow disturbance of critical slopes based on the information provided in the staff
report.
For a parking waiver, if staff concludes they can recommend approval that can be taken up with
the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on a date TBD.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, pleas e do not
hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc Dickens, Mary J
605 Rio Road - East
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to exec summary
1 The Lofts at Meadowcreek
PC Public Hearing 6/04/2013
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 201300001 The Lofts at
Meadowcreek
Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
June 4, 2013
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To Be
Determined
Owners: Mary J. Dickens Applicant: Bluestone Land, L.L.C. c/o Pinnacle
Construction & Development Corp. Contact:
William Park
Acreage: Approximately 2.80 acres
Rezone from: R-4 residential to NMD
neighborhood model district with proffers and
waivers.
TMP: Tax Map Parcel(s) 061A0-00-00-01500
and 061A0-00-00-01700 (See Attachments A
and B)
Location: 605 Rio Road East
By-right use: The R-4 district allows residential
uses at a density of (4 units/acre).
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Rezone approximately 2.80 acres
from R-4-Residential zoning district to NMD-
Neighborhood Model District zoning district.
Proposed 65 maximum dwelling units for a
density of 23 units/acre. (See Attachment C)
Requested # of Dwelling Units: – 65
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 2 Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Density
Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/acre),
supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office, and service uses.
Character of Property: The property consists
of one existing house. The rest of the property is
wooded and undeveloped.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Adjacent
property to the north is the Charlottesville
Catholic School. Single family residential houses
are located to the south. The Catholic Diocese
of Richmond owns a vacant parcel to the east
and Treesdale Park and the Stonewater
subdivision are located to the west.
Factors Favorable:
1. The rezoning request would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use is consistent with the uses
permitted under the existing NMD zoning
district.
3. This rezoning request would provide
additional residential opportunities for
residents in this portion of the County.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proffers need to be substantively
and technically revised.
2. Fire/Rescue’s concern regarding fire
safety of the site needs to be addressed.
3. The Application Plan and Code of
Development need to be substantively
and technically revised.
4. VDOT issue regarding an internal access
road to detention facility needs to be
2 The Lofts at Meadowcreek
PC Public Hearing 6/04/2013
addressed.
5. No cash proffers provided.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of rezoning ZMA201300001, The Lofts at
Meadowcreek with waivers and revised proffers, provided changes are made to the application
plan, code of development, and proffers to address the unfavorable factors noted above.
3 The Lofts at Meadowcreek
PC Public Hearing 6/04/2013
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: June 4, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
ZMA 201300001 The Lofts at Meadowcreek
With waiver requests of Section 20A.8(a) and Section 20A.8(b) of Zoning Ordinance for Mixture of
Uses, including Mixture of Houses and parking waiver request.
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA2013000001 The Lofts At Meadowcreek
PROPOSAL: Rezone approximately 2.80 acres from R-4-Residential zoning district which allows
residential uses at a density of 4 units per acre to NMD-Neighborhood Model District zoning district
which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses.
Proposed 65 maximum dwelling units for a density of 23 units/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting
uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses – Places 29 Master
Plan
LOCATION: 605 Rio Road East in Neighborhood 2
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061A0000001500 and 061A0000001700
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
The proposed rezoning will require the disturbance of critical slopes, which may be approved by special
exception under County Code § 18-31.8(a)(1).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
This area is developed with a variety of housing types, including single family residential units and
multifamily housing. The Charlottesville Catholic School and the Charlottesville Waldorf School are
located nearby along with Pen Park and the Meadowcreek Golf Course. Although the area is somewhat
wooded with many mature trees, the environmental character of the area is beginning to change as the
area becomes developed with additional residential units.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to rezone two contiguous parcels from R-4 zoning district to Neighborhood
Model District (NMD). A single family house is currently located on this property, but will be demolished
for an in-fill redevelopment that will consist of a 65-unit multi-family residential urban loft style building.
The property is small in size and consists of some steep topography, making it challenging to develop
in the complete form intended for a neighborhood model district. However, the property is located in the
Development Areas and is within close proximity to a variety of existing and proposed uses.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The Places 29 Master Plan designates the subject property for Urban Density, which allows 6.01 – 34
units/acre. The applicant wishes to develop the property at density in keeping with the Urban Density
designation. The Neighborhood Model District is currently the only District that permits a density
exceeding 20 units per acre on this size property. The applicant feels a planned development district
would also be more in keeping with the land use plan designation of Urban Density. The applicant
constructed and currently manages the Treesdale multifamily development located across the street
4 The Lofts at Meadowcreek
PC Public Hearing 6/04/2013
from the subject property. Treesdale was rezoned in 2007 from an R-4 zoning district to PRD zoning
district, which allows up to 34 residential units per acre. The applicant believes it would be appropriate
to purchase and request a similar rezoning for this property. The Lofts rezoning to NMD zoning district
would allow up to 34 residential units per acre. The applicant feels this proposal is consistent with the
Places 29 Master Plan, and market demands. Even though this was not formally planned, the applicant
envisions this rezoning request as a second phase of the Treesdale development, extending the range
of affordable housing options.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
There is no planning and zoning history on this property. The house was built in 1958 and owned since
then by the current owner’s deceased husband.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use Plan: The purpose/intent of the Urban Density designation is to allow residential (6.01-34
units/acre); and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office, and service
uses.
The County’s Open Space Plan shows some critical slopes located in the vicinity of the subject
property. These critical slopes are associated with a stream in this area that flows to the Rivanna River.
Only a very small area at the very upper portion of this stream valley is located on this site and these
slopes are not being impacted.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The proposed 65 units
on 2.80 acres maintain a density of approximately 23 dwelling units per acre. Non residential uses are
not proposed or expected at this location but a large public park and two private schools are located
nearby. A neighborhood service center is designated, but not developed, in the Places 29 Master Plan,
approximately 2000 feet north of this site. This rezoning request is proposed to develop at a density
and in a form that is in keeping with the Neighborhood Model and adjacent developments.
The Neighborhood Model: Staff’s analysis below indicates how well the proposed development
meets the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model:
Pedestrian Orientation Proposed sidewalks are shown along the frontage of this site
adjacent to Rio Road East. Sidewalks also connect the
residential building to the parking areas and there is a trail on
the property that connects the building to an access road on
the property. This principle is addressed.
Neighborhood Friendly
Streets and Paths
The entrance onto the site is a driveway leading to parking
under the subject building and to a few parking spaces that
are at grade on the property. Sidewalks and pathways are
provided on the site along with street trees. This principle is
addressed.
Interconnected Streets and
Transportation Networks
Due to the sites location, interconnected streets will be
difficult to provide. This property is located on a major road
that is proposed for future transit. The application plan shows
an area fronting on Rio Road, north of the proposed site
entrance that has been reserved for a transit stop. A proffer
addressing the transit reservation area is also provided. This
principle is addressed.
Relegated Parking Majority of the proposed parking is shown to be located under
5 The Lofts at Meadowcreek
PC Public Hearing 6/04/2013
the building. There are a few at grade parking spaces located
at the front of the building, near the eastern side of the
building. Because a majority of the parking is hidden within
the building footprint, staff finds the few parking spaces
shown near the front of the building acceptable. This principle
is partially addressed.
Parks and Open Space The plan shows the breakdown of the open/green space at
the required 20%. However, the open space provides for
limited recreational opportunities for this dense of a
development. Due to its size and location staff opinion is that
recreational opportunities would be better provided to the
Lofts residents if better access was provided to nearby Pen
Park, Charlottesville Catholic School and the Waldorf School
and Parkway trail. This could be better achieved with
additional sidewalk connections to these areas. Staff believes
this is an opportunity to provide funding for a sidewalk. This
principle is addressed, but meets the minimal requirements of
the Neighborhood Model District.
Neighborhood Centers This site is small in size. As previously described, the open
space is minimal and a neighborhood center is not provided
on the site. The applicant is also the owner of Treesdale and
has stated that meeting space across the street at the
Treesdale site is available when residents of The Lofts need
meeting space. While staff understands this possibility, this
principle is not met. Again, provision of pedestrian access to
nearby public and institutional facilities and Center would
address this principle.
Buildings and Spaces of
Human Scale
The building is designed to fit into the grade of this site.
Parking is at grade or partially below grade under the
building. This principle is met.
Mixture of Uses No mixture of uses is provided on the site. A waiver request
has been submitted. A mixture of uses could be addressed if
nearby non-residential were more accessible to this site.
Mixture of Housing Types
and Affordability
No mix of housing is proposed. A waiver request has been
submitted regarding the mixture of housing types. Proffers
addressing affordable housing have been provided. There is
presently a mix of housing within the immediate area around
this site. The loft style proposed with this development adds a
different unit type to the area. Applicant will provide a Letter
of Intent/Commitment Letter from VHDA prior to Board of
Supervisor’s meeting. This principle is addressed.
Redevelopment This is the redevelopment of an existing single family house
on a small property. This redevelopment is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. This principle is met.
Site Planning that Respects
Terrain
This is a large building placed on a small site, the building is
located to fit into the grade of the site. The critical slopes
impacted are small and are not considered significant. See
critical slopes waiver section later in this report. This principle
is addressed.
Clear Boundaries with the This principle is not applicable.
6 The Lofts at Meadowcreek
PC Public Hearing 6/04/2013
Rural Areas
Economic Vitality Action Plan
The primary goal of the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan is to:
Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local residents.
This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local residents and
existing local businesses.
The proposed Lofts at Meadowcreek rezoning (residential use) would support the Plan by providing
additional employment and residences for the local community.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district
Neighborhood Model Districts are intended to provide for compact, mixed-use development with an
urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within
close proximity to each other. This infill redevelopment project incorporates certain elements that are
consistent with the intent of the NMD district such as the compact nature, density, and urban scale of
the residential use. It does not provide for a mix of uses or a mix of housing types. T he proximity of this
development to institutional and recreational uses will provide appropriate services and activities on a
neighborhood, community and regional scale. This site is currently not well connected to these areas
due to a lack of sidewalks in the area. Staff’s opinion is that the loft unit type will add to the mix of unit
types in this immediate area and is consistent with the intent of the District. The proposed proffer
amendments do not violate the intent of the Neighborhood Model District.
Staff believes the proposal is consistent in terms of unit type and would be consistent with the intent of
the district if the site was better connected to existing and future nearby non-residential areas.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Streets:
The applicant has proffered at his expense to plan, design, bond and construct travel lane
improvements that will be dedicated for public use on his land that fronts on Rio Road. See additional
discussion regarding the proffers in the proffer section of this report. (See Attachment D for proffers)
VDOT has provided comments that are mostly technical in nature with the exception of the need to
resolve the access road to the detention facility, which VDOT prefers to be internal to the site. It is
possible to make the access road entrance private meeting VDOT standards. This commitment should
be provided on the application plan and/or code of development. In general VDOT has no objections to
the rezoning with the improvements proposed by the applicant of this property provided the VDOT
comments are addressed. (See Attachment E for VDOT comments)
Schools:
Students living in this area would attend Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, Burley Middle School, and
Albemarle High School.
Fire and Rescue:
The Seminole Fire Station located on Berkmar Drive near Fashion Square Mall is the nearest station to
the subject property and provides fire and rescue services to the area. Fire/Rescue staff have
expressed concern with regard to the current application plan, specifically the building, parking and
7 The Lofts at Meadowcreek
PC Public Hearing 6/04/2013
access to the building because there is not enough space within the site, as designed, for fire
equipment to provide adequate fire/rescue services in case of a fire. Staff cannot recommend approval
of this proposal until the fire/rescue issues are addressed. One way to resolve the concerns expressed
by Fire/Rescue would be to sprinkler the building. The applicant has verbally explained that he plans to
do this. Given the importance of this issue, revisions to the application plan and/or proffers by the
applicant that satisfactorily addresses this issue need to be provided.
Utilities:
The site is serviced by public water and sewer. No immediate or significant service capacity issues
have been identified by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA). (See Attachment F)
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) comments are attached (See Attachment G)
It is assumed that the potential impacts noted above from the development could be addressed through
the proffer of cash proffers under the cash proffer policy. No cash proffers are being offered by the
applicant.
Anticipated impact on environmental, cultural and historic resources
The Open Space Plan identifies critical slopes associated with a stream in this area that flows to the
Rivanna River. Only the very small area at the very upper reach of this stream valley is located on this
site. These slopes are not being impacted. The small area of impacted critical slopes is not significant.
It is anticipated that some disturbance will occur because this site is small and the building and parking
areas are proposed in the vicinity of the critical slopes. A critical slopes waiver request has been
submitted, and staff can support this waiver.
There is no anticipated impact on cultural or historic resources.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
This project is expected to be in keeping with the residential character of this area. The size and scale
of the building is similar to the two buildings along the street front in the Treesdale development. With
appropriate revisions to the proposed proffers, staff believes possible impacts on nearby and
surrounding properties related to street improvements, transit, and amenity issues can be mitigated.
Public need and justification for the change
The proposed rezoning will provide additional employment and residential opportunities for the local
community.
PROFFERS
The applicant has provided proffers which are summarized below.
Proffer 1: The applicant has made a commitment to plan, design, bond and construct travel lane
improvements to Rio Road, including necessary dedication of land for these improvements.
Proffer 2: The applicant has made a commitment to reserve an area for a bus pull-off from Rio Road as
shown on the application plan. In addition, this proffer describes that when a fixed-route bus service
(CAT) is extended to serve this section of Rio Road the applicant will construct the bus stop, and a
shelter. The City is proposing to provide bus service along Rio Road within the next year or two. The
County has budgeted for its share of the cost for this service for FY 13-14.
8 The Lofts at Meadowcreek
PC Public Hearing 6/04/2013
Proffer 3: The applicant has also made a commitment to provide 20% of the total residential dwelling
units within the Project in the form of for-lease affordable dwelling units. In this scenario units are
affordable to households with incomes less than 80% of the area median family income.
Proffer 4: In the last proffer the applicant commits to providing workforce housing equal to twenty
percent (20%) of the total residential dwelling units within the Project in the form of for-lease “Workforce
Dwelling Units”. In this scenario workforce housing refers to affordable units created for households
with incomes less than 120% of the area median family income. The County does not have anything in
its policy that defines workforce housing. (See Attachment D)
The County has a cash proffer policy that addresses impacts to the County’s capital improvements
pertaining to roads, public safety, libraries, schools and parks that would be impacted by the rezoning.
The maximum per unit cash proffer amount is $14,497.77 for this multifamily development. The
applicant has not provided any cash proffers. Staff understands from discussion with the applicant that
the applicant believes he is addressing impacts from this development by providing the Rio Road
improvements proffer and the transit reservation area proffer. The proffers for the Rio Road
improvements are required for this new development, and as per the cash proffer policy, should not be
a credit against the recommended cash proffer amount.
The applicant also believes that he should be given credit for providing 100% affordable units at the
Treesdale development. While staff understands that the ownership and management of Treesdale and
the Lofts are affiliated with each other, staff does not see the relationship between The Lofts receiving
credit from the Treesdale development since at the time of the approval for the Treesdale rezoning The
Lofts was not a phase of Treesdale. (See Attachment J)
The remaining outstanding issues with the proffers are:
As previously mentioned in this report the substantive issue regarding the proffers is the lack of
commitment to the cash proffer policy and how impacts to the County’s capital improvements pertaining
to roads, public safety, libraries, schools and parks that would be impacted by the rezoning will be
addressed.
In addition and as noted earlier in the report, fire/rescue staff has concerns with the ability to access the
site and building. This can be addressed within the proffers, application plan and/or the code of
development.
The draft proffers are in need of the following technical revisions:
1. Proffer 1 needs more detail. For example, does this refer to both travel lanes or one side
of traffic? When is this going to happen? What is the trigger?
2. Proffer 2 language needs to be consistent. For example, if this is referring to bus pull-off
then refer to bus pull-off in the entire paragraph instead of lane located within the
Property. The language shown on the plan should be similar to the language in the
proffer, so there is no misinterpretation of what is being referred to or requested. Also
the plan should reference the related proffer so that someone reviewing the plan knows
there is a specific proffer related to this area on the plan.
3. Is this location adequate for JAUNT? They typically prefer to drop off and pick up at the
building door.
4. Proffer 3 the sentence at the top of page 2 seems to be referring to for sale units and it
does not appear that there are any for sale units in this development. Please clarify.
5. Why are the affordable units in this development specifically designated? Generally for
rental property, the requirement would be to maintain the minimum number of units as
9 The Lofts at Meadowcreek
PC Public Hearing 6/04/2013
affordable but those units could float within the development. If other funding sources
require that the units be specifically designated, staff can work with that.
6. The last sentence of 3. describes affordability for for-sale units. Since earlier in that
section it states that the units will be for lease, this could be deleted from the proffers.
7. Under 3.A. the first sentence would read better as …maximum net rent provided by the
County Office of Housing based on fair market rents published by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
8. Under 3.C., the County probably does not need a copy of the rent or lease agreement.
Rather as each affordable unit is leased, The County should be provided a unit number,
last name of tenant, lease date, and lease amount. The last sentence provides the
option to request leases if we feel like we need them.
9. Section 4. should be deleted from the proffers since there is nothing in our policy
defining “workforce housing”. As proposed, the requirement for units serving
households up to 120% of the area median income is a commitment to one of the
funding sources. That source would be better equipped to monitor this condition.
The application plan and the code of development are also in need of substantive and technical
revisions. (See Attachment C for code of development and application plan) See Attachment H for the
staff comment letter, dated May 1, 2013, inclusive of all the needed substantive and technical fixes.
To be fully consistent with the Neighborhood Model principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the NMD
zoning district a neighborhood center and viable/usable open space amenities should be provided. No
neighborhood center has been provided and the open space area has only minimally been met. The
neighborhood center features and better open space area could be available to Loft residents if
improvement to area sidewalk could provide access to existing and future parks, schools and centers.
The substantive outstanding issue regarding the number of parking spaces provided and required
needs to be addressed on the application plan and/or the code of development.
If the proffers are adequately revised to address both the substantive and technical revisions, and the
application plan and code of development are technically revised then staff could support the rezoning
request.
Waivers
• Sections 20A.8(a) and (b) of the Zoning Ordinance call for Neighborhood Model Districts to have a
mixture of dwelling unit types and a mixture of uses. Due to the small size of this site, the applicant
does not propose a mixture of housing types or a mixture of uses. This proposal of loft style units adds
a different unit type to the area. The surrounding area has a mixture of uses and a variety of housing
types already present within a quarter mile of the proposed development. The waiver for housing type
is appropriate. The waiver for mixture of uses could be supported with some commitment being made
to interconnect sidewalks to nearby existing sidewalks and future centers, parks and schools. The
district is also an infill redevelopment project. In this case, staff feels that a waiver of Section 20A.8 (a)
and (b) are appropriate given the size, configuration, and topography of this site.
• The applicant is also requesting a parking waiver. However, the number of parking spaces required
and provided needs to be clear. Also there are discrepancies in the delineation of parking spaces
provided in the garage and on the surface. This could be a substantive issue if it requires changes to
the application plan. This outstanding issue needs to be clarified and addressed.
(See Attachment I)
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DISTURB CRITICAL SLOPES
(See Attachment K)
10 The Lofts at Meadowcreek
PC Public Hearing 6/04/2013
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The rezoning request would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use is consistent with the uses permitted under the existing NMD zoning
district.
3. This rezoning request would provide additional residential opportunities for
residents in this portion of the County.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The proffers need to be substantively and technically revised.
2. Fire/Rescue’s concern regarding fire safety of the site needs to be addressed.
3. The Application Plan and the Code of Development needs to be technically and
substantively revised.
4. VDOT issue regarding an internal access road to detention facility needs to be
addressed.
5. No cash proffers provided.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff can recommend approval of this rezoning ZMA201300001, The Lofts at MeadowCreek
with waivers and revised proffers, provided changes are made in the application plan, code of
development, and proffers to address the unfavorable factors noted above.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A – Tax Map
ATTACHMENT B – Vicinity Map
ATTACHMENT C – Code of Development, dated April 8, 2013 and Application Plan, dated 01/22/13,
and revised 04/08/13
ATTACHMENT D – Proffers, dated April 2013
ATTACHMENT E – Letter from Troy Austin-VDOT, dated May 17, 2013
ATTACHMENT F – Electronic Mail from Victoria Fort-RWSA, dated April 24, 2013
ATTACHMENT G – Electronic Mail from Alex Morrison-ACSA, dated March 21, 2013
ATTACHMENT H – Letter from Claudette Grant, dated May 1, 2013
ATTACHMENT I – Waiver Request Letter for Housing Types and Uses, dated March 28, 2013 and
Parking waiver request, dated March 31, 2013
ATTACHMENT J – Letter from William Park, dated April 16, 2013
ATTACHMENT K – Special Exception to Disturb Critical Slopes Analysis and Waiver Request for
Critical Slopes, dated March 8, 2013
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. If the ZMA is recommended for approval: Move to recommend approval of ZMA201300001 with
waivers and revised proffers as recommended by staff.
B. If the ZMA is recommended for denial: Move to recommend denial of ZMA20130001 with the
reasons for denial.
Return to PC actions letter
RIO RD EPENPARKLN
TOWNELN
Prepared by Albemarle CountyDivision of Information ServicesMap created by Elise Hackett, May 2013.
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, 2012 0 100 20050Feet
ZMA 2013-001The Lofts at Meadowcreek
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcels of Interest
10' Contour
Buildings
Driveways
61A-15
±61A-17
RI
O
R
D
E DUNLORADRPENPARK
LN
}ÿ20
Prepared by Albemarle CountyDivision of Information ServicesMap created by Elise Hackett, May 2013.
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, 2012 0 1,000 2,000500Feet
ZMA 2013-001The Lofts at Meadowcreek
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcels of Interest
61A-15
±
61A-17
City ofCharlottesville
1
Original Proffers ___X____
Amendment _________
PROFFER STATEMENT
ZMA No. 2013-00001, Lofts at Meadowcreek
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 061A0-00-00-01500 and 061A0-00-00-01700
Owner(s) of Record: MARY J. DICKENS
Date of Proffer Signature: APRIL ___, 2013
2.8 +/- acres to be rezoned from RESIDENTIAL - R-4 to NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL DISTRICT (NMD)
MARY J. DICKENS is the owner (the “Owner”) of Tax Map and Parcel Number 061A0-00-00-01500 and
061A0-00-00-01700 (the “Property”) which is the subject of rezoning application ZMA No. 2013-00001, a
project known as “LOFTS AT MEADOWCREEK” (the “Project”). The term “Owner” as referenced herein
shall include within its meaning the owner of record and successors in interest. The “Application Plan” refers to
Exhibit A to the Code of Development last revised April 8, 2013
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the
conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning district identified
above. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and the Owner acknowledges that the
conditions are reasonable.
1. Rio Road Improvements. At its expense, the Owner shall plan, design, bond and construct travel lane
improvements to be dedicated for public use on its land fronting Rio Road (State Route 631) in general
accord with the Application Plan.
2. Transit Reservation Area. The Owner shall reserve an area for a bus pull-off from Rio Road within the
northwest portion of the Property within the common open space in general accord with the Application
Plan. Should fixed-route bus service associated with the Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) ever be
extended to serve the section of Rio Road adjacent to the site, upon demand of the County, the Owner,
at its own expense, shall construct the bus stop to accommodate a bus pulling off Rio Road and picking
up riders in a dedicated lane located within the Property. In conjunction with the bus pull-off area, the
Owner shall also construct a small transit shelter to complete the bus stop. The specific design standards
of the bus pull-off and the shelter shall be determined by VDOT, CAT, and the Director of Community
Development within sixty days of the County's formal request for the transit stop. In the absence of any
fixed-route service, the Project shall be designed to accommodate the CAT On-demand Link or JAUNT
service within the community as a means of providing public access to residents per the existing
programs.
3. Affordable Housing. The Owner shall provide affordable housing equal to twenty percent (20%) of the
total residential dwelling units within the Project in the form of for-lease affordable dwelling units (the
“Affordable Units” or “Affordable Dwelling Units”). Each site plan for land within the Property shall
designate the units that will, subject to the terms and conditions of this proffer, incorporate Affordable
Units as described herein, and the aggregate number of such units designated for Affordable Units
within each site plan shall constitute a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the units in such site plan.
The Owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to any subsequent
purchaser of the Property. The current Owner or subsequent Owner shall create units affordable to
households with incomes less than 80% of the area median family income (the “Affordable Unit
2
Qualifying Income”), such that housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and
homeowner's insurance (PITI) do not exceed 30% of the Affordable Unit Qualifying Income.
A. Rental Rates for Affordable Units The initial net rent for each for-rent Affordable Unit when the
Unit(s) is available for occupancy shall not exceed the then-current and applicable maximum net
rent as published by the County Housing Office. In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly net
rent for each for-rent affordable unit may be increased up to three percent (3%). For purposes of this
proffer statement, the term “net rent” means that the rent does not include tenant-paid utilities. The
requirement that the rents for such for-rent Affordable Units may not exceed the maximum rents
established in this paragraph 3A shall apply for a period of ten (10) years following the date the
certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each for-rent Affordable Unit, or until the units
are sold as affordable units as defined by the County’s Affordable Housing Policy, whichever
comes first (the “Affordable Term”).
B. Conveyance of Interest – All instruments conveying any interest in the for-rent affordable units
during the Affordable Term shall contain language reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of
this paragraph 3. In addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any for-rent affordable unit,
or any part thereof, during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full disclosure of the
restrictions and controls established by this paragraph 3. At least thirty (30) days prior to the
conveyance of any interest in any for-rent affordable unit during the Affordable Term, the then-
current owner shall notify the County in writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address
and telephone number of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of this paragraph 3
have been satisfied.
C. Reporting of Rental Rates – During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30) days of each rental or
lease term for each for-rent affordable unit, the then-current owner shall provide to the Albemarle
County Housing Office a copy of the rental or lease agreement for each such unit rented that shows
the rental rate for such unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement. In addition, during the
Affordable Term, the then-current owner shall provide to the County, if requested, any reports,
copies of rental or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to rental rates as the County may
reasonably require.
4. “Workforce” Housing: The Owner shall provide “Workforce Housing” housing equal to twenty percent
(20%) of the total residential dwelling units within the Project in the form of for-lease “Workforce
Dwelling Units” (the “Workforce Units” or “Workforce Dwelling Units”). Each site plan for land
within the Property shall designate the units that will, subject to the terms and conditions of this proffer,
incorporate Workforce Units as described herein. The Owner shall convey the responsibility of
constructing the Workforce Units to any subsequent purchaser of the Property. The current Owner or
subsequent Owner shall create units affordable to households with incomes less than 120% of the area
median family income (the “Workforce Unit Qualifying Income”), such that housing costs consisting of
principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowner's insurance (PITI) do not exceed 30% of the
Workforce Unit Qualifying Income.
A. Rental Rates Workforce Units The initial net rent for each for-rent Workforce Unit when the
Unit(s) is available for occupancy shall not exceed the then-current and applicable maximum net
rent as published by the County Housing Office. In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly net
rent for each for-rent Workforce Unit may be increased up to three percent (3%). For purposes of
this proffer statement, the term “net rent” means that the rent does not include tenant-paid utilities.
The requirement that the rents for such for-rent Workforce Units may not exceed the maximum
rents established in this paragraph 4A shall apply for a period of ten (10) years following the date
the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each for-rent Workforce Unit, or until the
units are sold as low or moderate cost units qualifying as such under the County’s Affordable
Housing Policy (the “Workforce Unit Term”)
3
B. Conveyance of Interest – All instruments conveying any interest in the for-rent Workforce Units
during the Workforce Units Term shall contain language reciting that such unit is subject to the
terms of this paragraph 4. In addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any for-rent
Workforce Unit, or any part thereof, during the Workforce Unit Term shall contain a complete and
full disclosure of the restrictions and controls established by this paragraph 4. At least thirty (30)
days prior to the conveyance of any interest in any for-rent Workforce Unit during the Workforce
Unit Term, the then-current owner shall notify the County in writing of the conveyance and provide
the name, address and telephone number of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of
this paragraph 4 have been satisfied.
C. Reporting of Rental Rates – During the Workforce Unit Term, within thirty (30) days of each rental
or lease term for each for-rent Workforce Unit, the then-current owner shall provide to the
Albemarle County Housing Office a copy of the rental or lease agreement for each such unit rented
that shows the rental rate for such unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement. In addition,
during the Workforce Unit Term, the then-current owner shall provide to the County, if requested,
any reports, copies of rental or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to rental rates as the
County may reasonably require.
OWNER
________________________________________________
MARY J. DICKENS
21039460_2.doc
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 4, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, June
4, 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, Richard Randolph, Don Franco,
Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Absent was Thomas
Loach. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia
was absent.
Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning; J. T. Newberry, Senior
Planner; Brent Nelson, Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk
to Planning Commission; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner,
Deputy County Attorney.
c. ZMA-2013-000001 The Lofts At Meadowcreek
PROPOSAL: Rezone approximately 2.80 acres from R-4-Residential zoning district
which allows residential uses at a density of 4 units per acre to NMD -Neighborhood
Model District zoning district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed with
commercial, service and industrial uses.
Proposed 65 maximum dwelling units for a density of 23units/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/
acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses – Places 29 Corridor
LOCATION: 605 Rio Road East in Neighborhood 2
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061A0000001500 and 061A0000001700
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant noted before getting into the details of this request she wanted to explain that
the applicant did provide a resubmittal response to the staff comments on May 13.
Because of the timing staff could not review and comment on the resubmittal prior to
getting the staff report complete. So the applicant was made aware of this prior to the
resubmittal. It is possible the applicant may tell the Commission that he has agre ed to
address some of the outstanding concerns. So there are things that the applicant may
be able to explain further. She presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized
the staff report.
Ms. Grant described the request as summarized above. The pro perty at 605 Rio Road
East currently has an existing house that will be demolished for the proposed
development. The purpose of the request is to rezone 2.8 acres from R -4 Residential
zoning district to NMD-Neighborhood Model District. The application plan proposes 65
units as a multi-family residential urban loft style building. The majority of the parking is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
2
proposed to be under the building. There is a small amount of at grade parking located
on the site.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The rezoning request would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use is consistent with the uses permitted under the existing NMD zoning
district.
3. This rezoning request would provide additional residential opportunities for
residents in this portion of the County.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The proffers need to be substantively and technically revised. The lack of
commitment to the County cash proffer policy and how it impacts from the proposal
will address roads, public safety, libraries, schools, and parks.
2. Fire/Rescue’s concern regarding fire safety of the site needs to be addressed. As
detailed in the staff report staff is concerned with the ability to access the site and
building during a fire. The site needs to be fire safety ready. As designed, it is not.
Fire Rescue staff has indicated that the sprinkler in the building is one way to
resolve the issue.
3. The Application Plan and the Code of Development needs to be technically and
substantively revised. The needed technical revisions for proffers, Application
Plan, and the Code of Development are detailed in the staff report and the
appropriate attachment.
4. VDOT issue regarding an internal access road to detention facility needs to be
addressed.
5. No cash proffers provided.
As described in the staff report to be fully consistent with the Neighborhood Model
principles access to viable useable open space amenities could be provided with
improvements to area sidewalks that could provide access to existing and future parks,
schools, and centers. The applicant also needs to clarify the number of parking spaces
provided with the parking waiver request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff can recommend approval of this rezoning ZMA-2013-00001, The Lofts at
MeadowCreek with waivers and revised proffers, provided changes are made in the
application plan, code of development, and proffers to address the unfavorable factors
noted above.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the unfavorable part she just went over includes the resubmittal.
Ms. Grant replied no, it does not include the resubmittal.
Mr. Lafferty noted they don’t know what the proposal really is.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
3
Ms. Grant agreed that they do not know. Basically, she did send out the resubmittal to
staff. However, staff did not have time to review it. Therefore, she did not receive any
comments from staff and did not have any answers in reference to the resubmittal.
Mr. Lafferty asked if they should judge this with what is before the Commission, and Ms.
Grant replied yes.
Mr. Randolph asked in what has been resubmitted is there anything addressing the safe
crossing of Rio Road for pedestrians crossing between the two facilities, such as
lighting that would slow the traffic down.
Ms. Grant replied that is not included.
Mr. Dotson pointed out under the heading of Parks, Open Space and Neighborhood
Centers there is mention of the possibility of providing better access via sidewalks. He
was having trouble understanding what that would be like. Perhaps that is something
the applicant will address, but he was just trying to understand it.
Ms. Grant replied that staff is referring to the area on the north side of the road that
goes down to Penn Park Road.
Mr. Dotson asked if there is a sidewalk there now or would the sidewalk need to be
extended.
Mr. Benish pointed out between the Treesdale Development on the west side of the
road to the intersection with Penn Park Road the county has a capital project for a
sidewalk. That sidewalk would connect to that intersection and then connect to the
sidewalks being constructed as part of the Dunlora Forest D evelopment, which is
putting sidewalk along a portion of Penn Park Road and Rio Road. But on the east
side, the side where this development is, there are not sufficient funds to do that project
from this site to Penn Park Road. There is a condition that was part of the Catholic
School, which said at a certain point in time they would provide a pathway along their
frontage. But, that is contingent on the County doing a public project that those
sidewalks would connect to. There is a public project that is constructing some
sidewalks. There are existing sidewalks in front of Treesdale that head south to
Stonehenge, which was done as part of the Treesdale Development. Therefore, it is a
road that has some sidewalks, but it does not connect completely to Penn Park or to the
Waldorf School at this point in time.
Mr. Dotson asked if staff is saying that it would be possible for the proposed
development to provide some additional sidewalks off site.
Mr. Benish replied that one of the ways this development can be served by those
centers in lieu of providing them here is to have good access to that area. Staff does
not feel that there is complete access as yet. So the applicant could potentially address
that deficiency through contributing in some way to completing that system.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
4
Mr. Dotson thanked Mr. Benish for his explanation.
Mr. Smith asked if there is a sidewalk on either side of the Catholic School property if
they are mandated to provide a sidewalk.
Mr. Benish replied that with this site development they will provide for on-site sidewalks
along their frontage. The way he believed the condition read for the Catholic School was
they would provide a connection to Penn Park Road. They have bonded for that
improvement and that bond can be used to construct their section across their frontage.
However, there is still a missing gap that gets them to the intersection in a cross walk to
sidewalks that would get you in towards Penn Park or to the Waldorf School as Mr.
Randolph said crossing the road to the existing sidewalk and the future public project.
There are still some gaps in the system.
Mr. Smith said the school does not go all the way to Penn Park.
Mr. Benish agreed that it does not because there is one more intervening lot.
Mr. Lafferty said he was curious why this is not considered an Entrance Corridor.
Mr. Benish replied that was a good question. He was not sure he had the complete
background for that. He explained that Rio Road was added to the point that the John
Warner Parkway was to be constructed and tied in. It was done before John Warner
Parkway was built. Now that John Warner Parkway is built it is a possibility that it could
be considered as an Entrance Corridor. But, what was looked at is that they know Rio
Road provides for an interconnection to an historic site, which is what the State Code is
based on, which road that is chosen to make that linkage the option was not there at the
time that Rio Road was established as an Entrance Corridor. So when the Board acted
on it they stopped that designated at the railroad track.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out VDOT had designated Rio Road an arterial road only up to
the railroad tracks whenever they made that last review.
Mr. Morris said that is from Route 29 to the railroad tracks.
Mr. Kamptner agreed it was Rio Road east from Route 29 to the railroad tracks. So that
is why the Entrance Corridor stops at that point.
Mr. Benish noted they are currently going through a functional classification update.
He pointed out, as Mr. Lafferty knows from the MPO, that the John W arner Parkway is
being designated as the arterial roadway.
Mr. Lafferty noted he just thinks about Route 240 in Crozet with Route 250. Route 240
is an Entrance Corridor. He pointed out this goes directly into the historic area on Rio
Road. It is not important to this, but he was curious.
Mr. Randolph congratulated Ms. Grant on the Neighborhood Model in spelling out here
each of the attributes in how this project conforms or does not conform. It is a really
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
5
useful topology. He found it very helpful in looking at this proposal to have that as a
reference. He thinks it is a great standard and he hopes that a nytime in the future
where they have an application involving the Neighborhood Model that similarly it will be
included. It is excellent to have that.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for the applicant an d public comment. He invited
the applicant to come forward and address the Planning Commission.
Valerie Long, attorney representing the applicant, introduced William Park, the
President of Pinnacle Construction & Development, who will provide an introduction to
the project. In response to Mr. Lafferty’s question about submittal of the additional
information she noted the vast majority or maybe even all of the changes that were
submitted subsequent to what the Commissioners have in their packet were really
technical in nature, fairly minor and small. Therefore, they went ahead and submitted
those changes so staff could be reviewing them in the meantime. However, there was
an issue of whether they had to hold off on the Planning Commission meeting. They
really wanted to come and get the Commission’s thoughts on some of the bigger issues.
The changes are all very technical minor revisions to the proffers and the code of
development. What they see with the proposal and what they will show them tonight in
their presentation is there are no significant substantive changes and certainly not in the
number of units, design of the building, the layout, footprint, or anything like that. It is all
just technical housekeeping language to the proffers and the code. They do have a
presentation of some slides and maps that might help answer some of the questions
about sidewalks and things like that. Mr. Park will introduce himself and walk through
the project.
William Park, President of Pinnacle Construction & Development Corporation, said his
office was at 1821 Avon Street Extended. They have been working on the project since
December or January and it has gone through a number of reiterations. Certainly their
comments were very helpful and why they wanted to get in front of the Commission
tonight. They are very proud to talk about the project. He pointed out they were the
developers, owners, contractors and the property managers on the Treesdale project,
which is across the street. They started working with AHIP three or four years ago on
that project to get it off the ground. Subsequent to that they got the project through, got
it built, and now are very fortunate it has been a very successful project. The Treesdale
project has grown and moved on to the next level. As they look at what they are doing
here it is very much the same thing. When they are working on these projects many
times if they could get all of the land they wanted at one time and serve all the needs at
one time it would certainly be a whole lot easier for them. But, unfortunately it does not
always work out that way.
Mr. Park pointed out that they look at the first phase of the project as Treesdale. That
project is fairly unique in that the income levels they were able to do were 40 and 50
percent of the Area Median Income. As they know the County’s Affordable Housing
Policy is at 80 percent of the Area Median Income. For this area to be inside that urban
ring it was not an easy thing to do with the expensive land and infrastructure costs. But,
certainly the Board of Supervisors supported it. They were able to solicit some low
income financing to work with. Another thing when they look at the affordability in the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
6
first phase was they have a deed restriction that it stays affordable for 5 0 years.
Therefore, they have an extended use agreement where it stays affordable. Subsequent
to that they started looking at how the project has been successful and leased out.
They looked at maybe it is time for a phase two.
Mr. Park noted in looking at it they felt like the product mix should not be the same in
phase two. However, the tough nut to crack is that 80 to 100 percent because there are
no programs available with the financing that help get down to the lower level if you can
make it work. Of course, most of the apartments that are going up now are ultra luxury
apartments because of the rents that they can charge. So what they are looking to do
in the second phase is expand on our first phase. Now they are taking 20 percent of
their units to have them at 80 percent of the Area Median Income. Then they will have
another 20 percent limited to 120 percent of the Area Median Income. The balance or
the remaining 60 percent will be unrestricted. So at the end of the day what they see as
a truly mixed income product would be ranging all the way from the low 40 percent
range all the way up to unrestricted. If they look at many of the projects that were
financed in the past, and he looks back 40 or 50 years ago with public housing, m any
times where they did not work it was this concentration of poverty. People needed
housing, but the concentration did not work. He thinks that the model that makes a lot of
sense today is what they are proposing here. It is no reason everybody can’t live
together and have safe decent affordable housing.
Mr. Park said they went across the street and worked with Ms. Dickens, who is 82 years
old and has moved to Branchlands. She came to them and said early on she was
opposed to Treesdale. Due to the quality of their construction, management and
maintenance of the site Ms. Dickens later suggested they do something across the
street. Therefore they started looking at the property since in the comprehensive plan it
was set to go from R-4 to maybe 32 units per acre. They settled in to somewhere
around 23 to 24 units per acre. They have designed a structure that is totally different
from the one across the street. What they are trying to target here are more the
younger urban professionals because many times when they com e here it is difficult to
afford the high end apartments. Also, they will have e mpty nesters or active retirees,
which in doing that will have 65 units with a combination of 40 one-bedroom units and
24 two-bedroom units. What is particularly unique about this project is they designed it
so every unit in the building is going to be a Loft style unit. In the front of the building in
the living area they are going to have 18 foot ceilings. When they get in the back they
are going to have that loft feeling just like you would in an urban downtown setting.
Many times they see old warehouses converted into this type of use. They think they
have something that really not only hits a niche market from an income standpoint, but
also from a design standpoint based on the number of bedrooms. In the design they
are targeting they feel like, and he could never say that they will never have any
children, but at the same time just purely from the design of the project they will see it is
a project that it is really not family conducive.
Mr. Parks said in the area where it is located they did one-half million dollars worth of
road improvements when they put Treesdale in. They have worked with VDOT very
closely on their design so far and are showing about $300,000 impr ovements in there
on the other side of the road. Those improvements are triggered by our development.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
7
They held a neighborhood meeting with the neighbors at Ms. Dickens house about two
weeks ago. The neighbors were all very complimentary about our current and proposed
project since they understood that the property was in the growth area. At the same
time they said the traffic improvements that had been done have really helped
tremendously not only with the widening of the road, but with some of the vertical site
lines knocking down the banks. It is much easier and safer to pass through there. They
feel they have a project now that is really catering to an income range. It is also
catering to a group that he thinks the County wants to target as someone th at is going
to live and be in this area. They are the same p eople that come and populate the new
jobs in the area. Hopefully, those people will then stay, raise families and be part of the
community. However, they have to get them here first and then keep them here. With
that being said, Ms. Long put together a PowerPoint presentation. They have a color
rendering of the site plan that they could answer questions with. They heard some
questions about sidewalks and connectivity. They would be glad to do that. At the
same time they would like to show the renderings of the building they are proposing and
so forth.
Ms. Valerie Long presented a PowerPoint presentation to hit some of the high points of
the proposal. She presented a color rendering of the site plan, which would make it
easier for everyone to follow. She pointed out the entrance to the parking under the
building. There are a few parking spaces in another area. The storm water
management facility is in pads behind an open space. The apartme nt with the loft
above is a very unique housing product in the county, but particularly in this area. She
presented renderings of the proposal. Despite that the project is not within the
Architectural Review Board’s jurisdiction. She thought the renderings demonstrated the
high quality of design that is proposed for this area. She pointed out how the site
functions, particularly noting the entrance to the parking garage , and the sidewalk
shown across the frontage with the extensive landscaping.
Ms. Long noted the main issue is the cash proffers in the project. She found it
interesting to note the increase in the proffers from between 2011 and 2012. Just alone
with the multi-family last year the price was just shy of $14,000. It has already jumped
$500 per unit in a year. When cash proffers were first enacted in 2007 they were just
about $12,000. They were voluntarily proffering that 20 percent of the units on site will
be affordable even though the County standard is 15 percent. With the current rate at
roughly $14,500 they can see with the remaining market rate units that the cash proffer
costs for a project like this is in excess of $750,000. In the cash proffer policy there are
several provisions that grant flexibility to the Board ultimately in a pproving and
accepting cash proffers. One is that they can provide credits for the pre-existing lot
yield. Mr. Randolph mentioned this earlier in his comments from his conference
essentially about the by-right density. Another category where they allow themselves
flexibility is for unique circumstances. If a project has unique circumstances that
mitigates its impact on public facilities and creates a reduction in capital facility needs it
allows flexibility.
Ms. Long said again, Mr. Park mentioned Treesdale and all 88 of those units were
affordable units. They had enhanced affordability because they were not just the bare
minimum that the County requires of being affordable to those making 80 percent of the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
8
area median income. A large number of them were affordable to those making 50
percent of the area median income and some even as low as 40 percent. She was not
aware of any other projects in the community that achieve such a standard of
affordability. The remaining 85 percent of those units 75 we re also affordable. They
only had to build 13 affordable units. In the current project, The Lofts at MeadowCreek,
13 of the units will be affordable to those making 80 percent of the area median income.
That is 20 percent. An additional 20 percent will b e affordable for what they call
“workforce units”. They had that in the proffers. This is one of the changes they made.
It is the one when she said most of them are technical. They did take this out at the
request of the Housing Director. However, they prefer to keep it in. They were
proffering that in addition to 20 percent being affordable per the County standard, that
they would take it even a step further and try to target that challenging demographic of
those making up to 120 percent. Those are the ones that kind of get squeezed out in
the middle. It is our firefighters, first responders, teachers and so forth. It is particularly
young teachers when they are just starting out. They don’t have children yet, but are
trying to get started and don’t make enough money to purchase or rent a market rate
unit. But, they make too much money to qualify for some of our affordable programs.
Ms. Long noted looking back at the by-right lot yield the current R-4 zoning would permit
11 units by right. Strict enforcement of the County’s proffer policy would not give the
applicant any credit for the fact that those 11 units could be built under a conventional
development system without the other things that they can ask for and obtain as part of
a rezoning process. They are asking for flexibility to be given credit because the
County’s proffer policy permits it. They can give the by-right lot yield credit if there is a
determination that the design and development standards have been upgraded. They
contend that because of the affordable housing that is provided it would qualify for that
upgrade. They talked about how this is phase 2 of Treesdale and the benefits of having
them jointly managed and have some shared amenities. Going back to the beginning to
the aerial map, Ms. Long pointed out this property is designated in the comp plan for
high density residential development. Regarding the sidewalks she thinks the issue is
that there is not a sidewalk here, but the Catholic School is eventually required to install
that. However, the county needs to build a segment in the area in order to provide a
connection to Penn Park. If she understood Mr. Benish’s comments correctly, on one
side of the road there is eventually going to be a sidewalk in that location.
Mr. Benish said that they hope so because they are obtaining funding to try to do that.
Ms. Long clarified that the current project does construct a sidewalk across the entire
frontage. She offered to answer any questions and discuss the sidewalk issue.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Lafferty said as he understands it there are 20 percent affordable and 20 percent of
what they call “workforce” housing. In proffer 4 he had a problem trying to understand
this. It says that “workforce” housing refers to affordable units created for households
with income less than 120 percent of the area median income.
Ms. Long replied that it was incomes up to that amount.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
9
Mr. Lafferty pointed out this says less than the area median income. He was not sure
how they get 120 percent less than unless they are paying to work.
Ms. Long noted it was the area median income.
Mr. Lafferty suggested it was 120 percent of the area median income and not less than.
Ms. Long agreed that was correct.
Mr. Lafferty noted that it was confusing the way it was written.
Ms. Long said they have taken that out of the latest version of the proffers as she
mentioned at the staff’s request because the County does not officially recognize
“workforce housing” unfortunately.
Mr. Lafferty said it was a good thing and a step in the right direction. However, it was
confusing the way it was written.
Ms. Long said if the Commission and Board are willing to accept that proffer in concept
they will certainly work with staff and the County Attorney’s Office to ensure the wording
is correct and clear for everyone.
Mr. Lafferty asked what would be the difference in the payments between somebody
who is doing the affordable housing and somebody who qualifies as “workforce
housing.”
Ms. Long referred the question to Mr. Park since that is the area of his expertise.
Mr. Park replied that he would start by looking back at Treesdale. At 40 percent they
have a one bedroom that right now is $590; at 60 percent it is $765; at 80 percent it is
$840; at 120 percent it is $1,050; and then the unrestricted is at $1,175. So it is a
graduated scale.
Mr. Randolph said there are a lot of laudable goals they have here. But, he wants a
little clarification. He said 20 percent of 65 indicate 13 units that would be affordable.
He asked how many of those are one bedroom versus how many is proposed as two
bedrooms.
Mr. Park replied it would be on a pro rata basis and would be somewhere around 40 to
60. They want to have the flexibility to either move it between one or two bedrooms.
They would not want to say it is a certain amount of bedrooms and then not be able to
lease a certain unit and they have people standing in line. That is a good question. The
way they are proposing to do it is to allow some flexibility. At all times they need to
have 20 percent of the units at that 80 percent level or the 120. However, they want to
have the flexibility in order to make sure it stays leased and they are housing the people
that are waiting in line.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
10
Mr. Randolph said the Randolph Development Associates goes ahead in Crozet and
buys a piece of property and puts up affordable housing units and a period of time takes
place and they are interested in building similar affordable housing in th e Village of
Rivanna so they are separated at a distance. He asked what seems to be a reasonable
period of time for the developers to be able to take credit for having built affordable units
in two locations at two different times. He asked what seems to be reasonable at the
present time because he did not think the county has a policy about it. So he is just
asking should those two projects be built subsequent to one another within a year.
Would it be reasonable to wait five years for us as developers and argue that they
should be able to take credit because they built affordable units elsewhere and leverage
off of that affordability in the new units that are constructed.
Mr. Park replied the way they approach it as a developer/contractor is the market tells
them what to do and when to do it. For example, in this case they see it from the
demand that they have for Treesdale. That is one of the good things about having your
own management company. Besides looking after your own asset they get real time
feedback by the people that are coming in. So everybody has to fill out a guest card.
On that guest card they get information. For example, people come into Treesdale and
they look at it and say that this is really nice and they want to live in there. The first
thing they do is ask for an estimate of their income. They reply that it is X, and they say
they are sorry but they are over the income to live here. What happens is they have
been gathering that data over time and then they get the data and all of a sudden our
property management group talks to him and says they are missing these people in this
range. If they could build something that targets this range they feel like they could fill it
up right away. They hired market analysts for the bank. But they use their on the
ground reconnaissance to help determine that. He knows he has not answered the
question directly, but it is kind of hard to do because every project is a little different.
What happens when they do that first phase is they f ind that the second phase might
not be targeting different income individuals, but building a different unit. Maybe now
they need more three bedrooms than they had before or more one bedroom units. It is
not only the income but the product mix, too, that they find out about.
Mr. Randolph said in essence what he is saying is he does not really feel that the
county should necessarily have a policy because it is market driven and left to the
developer to determine. That leads to another question in turn , which is what
percentage of Treesdale is presently occupied.
Mr. Park replied that they stay at 95 percent because staying at 100 percent is tough
because they have turnover. They look at 95 percent being 100 percent.
Mr. Randolph asked if he was very satisfied and his expectation was somewhere
between 95 and 98 percent and they have hit it consistently.
Mr. Park replied absolutely in they have been very pleased with it.
Mr. Morris said he had mentioned in Treesdale he has 50 years that it is going to
remain. He asked if that is going to apply with the new area also.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
11
Mr. Park replied no. They are sticking with the five years that is the county policy. They
thought by doing more than 15 percent or the 20 percent and then having another 20 at
120 percent that they were filling that niche and going above and beyond what the
County’s policy is.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none,
the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commis sion for
discussion and action.
Mr. Randolph noted there are a lot of laudable aspects about this proposal, but he is still
really concerned about crossing Rio Road. They don’t have a proffer to provide safe
access of pedestrians. Since there will not be a center here consistent with the
Neighborhood Model and it will be incorporated within Treesdale across the street he
thinks it is absolutely essential that there be a better cross flow between the two
facilities.
Mr. Morris said he believed the distance from the stop light at Penn Park is not sufficient
to warrant a light. Therefore, some other way is going to be needed.
Mr. Randolph suggested some kind of a crossing light where pedestrians can safely get
across Rio Road. It could be similar to wh at the University has provided with cross
walks where there is no traffic light to safety cross Emmett Street and around the
University. He thinks something similar to that would be appropriate here on Rio Road.
Mr. Morris said that was a good point. They have that problem on Pantops.
Mr. Smith assumed they could request that, but it is mandated by the Highway
Department.
Mr. Benish replied it would be subject to VDOT standards. Unlike the City and the
University their standards for mid-block cross walks are pretty rigorous. So it may not
be possible. Our thinking is as they complete the sidewalk system they may have to do
what is ultimately a big U turn, but you can travel north to the cross walk at the
intersection of Penn Park Road, cross to Waldorf, or walk back down to Treesdale.
They can pursue with VDOT the possibility of a mid-block crossing, but they have not
had a lot of success in investigating those locations except for essentially on subdivision
streets, which Rio Road would not be.
Mr. Randolph suggested using white hash marks with a provision that pedestrians could
press a light that would alert people that somebody is crossing over. However,
realistically many people are not going to walk all the way down to Penn Park to cross
and then come back. They are going to cross the street.
Mr. Franco asked does that reality change VDOT’s policies.
Mr. Randolph replied probably not.
Mr. Kamptner asked if Penn Park Lane and Rio Road eventually were set to be
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
12
signalized once Stonewater was completed and the access from Stonehenge exits
through there.
Mr. Benish replied it was in the area to the south where Stonehenge is He wanted to
clarify, too, that the Treesdale development did not provide cash proffers either. They
provided end kind of improvements, which included one-third share of a signal at the
entrance at Stonehenge and interconnectivity through the adjacent property to the south
to create a parallel road and access to it. Therefore, there would be another similar
type of block crossing at some point in time. The Lochlyn Hills development would
access through that road on Penn Park Lane to the south. Neither one obviously would
be right at Treesdale. However, along this roadway they would have two intersections
ultimately that would have crossing opportunities and be signalized.
Mr. Franco said he liked the project since there is a lot to it. However, he was still not
sure what they are looking at because of the resubmittal. He thinks some of the points
that have been raised especially about the cash proffers are the same discussions that
are taking place at the county now. He thinks it makes sense to begin to look at giving
a credit for the existing units. He liked the idea of giving credit for going above the 15
percent on the affordability, which was something that should be encouraged. If it takes
the county participating in that by eliminating the cash proffer on those additional units,
he thinks that is good. Again, he was talking about those defined as affordable for the
80 percent affordability there. So potentially the extra units he calculated are 3
additional units, which is what 5 percent represents. He supported providing some relief
for the 14 units, which was in the range of 3 plus the 11 by right units.
Mr. Franco commented when they start talking about some of the other improvements
that are needed it is important to remember not every one of the Neighborhood Model
principles are supposed to be addressed in a project. Part of what the cash proffers are
supposed to pay for is these off-site improvements. Again, if there was a proffer to do
sidewalks to connect the Catholic School path to Pen Park Road, then that would be
credited against the proffers. So whether the proffer is paid or whether that is put in is
kind of somewhat a moot point because he thinks that is part of the county’s
responsibility with collection of the proffers. However, he could see giving relief to the
cash proffer for those 14 units. If that connection is important, then designating that a
portion of the cash goes there is important. Right now when the cash proffers is paid it
goes into the pot and it could be used for anything. It could be used in Crozet or at this
site. If they are making a contribution he would like to see that money spent to improve
this area and this infrastructure. That money could also be used for the current CIP.
He did not know if it has been funded to extend the sidewalk along the other side of the
road. He did not believe if they were at $750,000 that reducing it by $200,000 was a
problem because that stills leaves one-half million dollars out there to fund these other
projects.
Mr. Lafferty said he was concerned about the Fire Department response.
Mr. Franco noted he had discussions with the developer before this meeting. He
thought it would be helpful for the applicant to come up and address the crossing of Rio
Road and the Fire Department response.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
13
Mr. Morris invited the applicant to come forward and address the Commission.
Mr. Parks said he would talk about the fire suppression system. Initially when the review
was being done they did not realize that they were putting a 13R sprinkler system in. It
is part of IBC and they are certainly doing that. The other question was about the
connectivity, which Mr. Randolph brought up initially. They had given some thought to a
crossing similar to the ones on Georgetown Road. They have two or three of those
crossings through there, which is a good idea. Just the initial feedback they received
was similar to what they were saying. It is just hard to get VDOT to allow doing that
across that road. Being intimately involved with T reesdale they know that there is
money set aside whenever that signalization occurs over at Penn Park Lane, which has
something to do with Stonewater and Lochlyn Hills on the other side if that gets started.
Their thought was that they would go to the south across the o rchid man’s house.
However, he thinks they have sold the property. They would add the sidewalk in that
area and then if the signalization occurred they have already installed sidewalk from the
property all the way down to Stonehenge. The thought was to connect there. They
don’t have an issue with putting sidewalk along there if that triggers the Catholic School
to do theirs. Then they would have the path all the way. They are going to put this in
front of our project if they are successful. If that triggered the bond for the Catholic
School certainly they could participate there. He thinks that is beneficial for our project
because then our people can get to Penn Park pretty easily. So they are okay with that.
Mr. Franco asked if they know if there is adequate right-of-way to do that.
Mr. Benish replied from staff’s preliminary review on the east side there is not adequate
right-of-way on those two lots, the orchid lot and the intervening lot between the
Catholic School and Penn Park Road. That can affect the cost, which is why they don’t
have an exact cost estimate. Drainage, because it is a rural cross section road and will
probably be an urban cross section, makes it hard to predict that cost right now. If this
were to be a cash proffer it would be towards improvements on this block, which could
be cross walks or connections at either end or to the publ ic project to complete its
funding.
Mr. Franco pointed out the Commission’s seems to be comfortable with moving this
forward to the Board allowing staff and the applicant to work together to resolve some of
the proffers and Code of Development issues.
Mr. Morris agreed and asked if any Commissioner disagreed.
Mr. Lafferty agreed as long as they can work out the proffers.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of
ZMA-2013-00001, The Lofts at MeadowCreek with waivers and revised proffers as
recommended by staff and to reflect a reduction in the cash proffer to reflect the eleven
(11) by right units and the three (3) additional affordable units that are being proffered.
Mr. Dotson asked if those would be excluded from the cash proffer.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
14
Mr. Franco agreed that those would be excluded from the cash proffer as well.
Mr. Randolph noted that would bring the total cash proffer amount down to
approximately one-half a million.
Mr. Franco agreed since that would be 52 units minus the 11 units, which are 41 units
minus 3 that were 38 units. Therefore, the proffer would be on the remaining 38 units.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion. There being none, he asked for a roll call.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that a recommendation for approval of ZMA -2013-00001, The Lofts at
MeadowCreek would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to a date to be
determined.
Mr. Kamptner noted they do need separate actions on the two waivers. Those are
special exceptions and need their own recommendations.
Mr. Morris said the Commission needs to take action on the waivers although that was
included the motion.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out he read the motion to mean that the Commission was
recommending approval assuming that those waivers were also approved. However,
they do need a separate action.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend a waiver of
Section 20A.8(a) and (b) of the Zoning Ordinance call for Neighborhood Model Districts
to have a mixture of dwelling unit types and a mixture of uses.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out another action was needed for Section 20.A.8 special
exception for a parking waiver. He asked if staff was able to make a recommend ation
on that one at this point.
Mr. Benish replied staff cannot make a recommendation because that is still awaiting
some outstanding information with zoning on that particular issue. The Commission
could probably recommend that waiver, but staff does not have comments from zoning
yet on that waiver.
Mr. Franco noted for the record that he would support anything that reduces parking. If
the applicant is willing to take the risk that there is not enough parking, he thinks it is a
good idea to have less parking on the site and would endorse it. He asked if a
recommendation is needed on the critical slopes disturbance.
Mr. Kamptner asked if staff had a recommendation on critical slopes at this point.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
15
Ms. Grant replied yes, staff recommends approval of the critical slope waiver. It is the
last attachment.
Mr. Randolph said he was comfortable with the request as long as the bus service is
going to comes out to the site. What they don’t want are people after buying a unit
discovering the bus service is not there. So the city and the county really have to step
up to make sure they are providing the service.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of the
special exception to disturb critical slopes based on the informat ion provided in the staff
report.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Kamptner said regarding the parking waiver if staff concludes that they can
recommend approval that can just be taken up with the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Morris said a recommendation for approval of ZMA-2013-00001, The Lofts at
MeadowCreek with the waivers would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors at a
date to be determined, as follows.
Recommend approval of ZMA-2013-00001 with revised proffers as recommended
by staff and amended to reflect a reduction in the cash proffer to reflect the eleven
(11) by right units and the three (3) additional affordable units that are being
proffered.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The proffers need to be substantively and technically revised.
2. Fire/Rescue’s concern regarding fire safety of the site needs to be addressed.
3. The Application Plan and the Code of Development needs to be technically and
substantively revised.
4. VDOT issue regarding an internal access road to detention facility needs to be
addressed.
5. No cash proffers provided.
Recommend approval of special exception for waiver of Section 20A.8(a) and (b) of
the Zoning Ordinance, Neighborhood Model District that requires a mixture of
dwelling unit types and a mixture of uses.
Recommend approval of special exception for waiver to allow disturbance of critical
slopes based on the information provided in the staff report.
Regarding special exception for a parking waiver, if staff c oncludes they can
recommend approval that can be taken up with the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Morris commented that it really looks like a great project.
Mr. Benish pointed out regarding the transit that the Board has set aside funding for it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 4, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for approval
16
The city is moving forward towards implementing it. The Director of CAD is actually
coming to the Board next week to discuss funding of that project.
Return to PC actions letter